Vs: [CCF] Vl: [CQ-Contest] N2RM packetless M/2 details
Ari Korhonen
ari.korhonen@kolumbus.fi
Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:44:57 +0200
Se on myönnettävä, että klusterit ovat tulleet jäädäkseen ja se on ihan OK. Mutta siinä sitä sitten onkin ihmettelemistä, että jotkut käyttävät klusteria ja silti laittavat lokinsa usassisted-luokkaan! Taitaa vain kertoa siitä, että unasissted-luokka ei ole saanut vielä kovin suurta arvostusta...
Ari, OH1EH
>Omapa on asiansa, jos haluavat omalta osaltaan kääntää kehitystä vuosikymmeniä taakse päin.
>
>-Jari, OH3BU
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ext Ari Korhonen [mailto:ari.korhonen@kolumbus.fi]
>> Sent: 21 February 2002 15:12
>> To: CCF
>> Subject: [CCF] Vl: [CQ-Contest] N2RM packetless M/2 details
>>
>>
>> N2RM:n pojat pani klusterin kiinni kisan ajaksi!
>>
>> Ari, OH1EH
>> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
>> Lähettäjä: James Neiger <n6tj@sbcglobal.net>
>> Vastaanottaja: John Golomb <kz2s@hiway1.exit109.com>;
>> cq-contest@contesting.com <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> Päivä: 20. helmikuuta 2002 23:55
>> Aihe: Re: [CQ-Contest] N2RM packetless M/2 details
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Congratulations, John, to you and the N2RM crew for showing
>> the way. Let's
>> >hope it sticks...............
>> >
>> >Vy 73
>> >
>> >Jim Neiger
>> >N6TJ
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "John Golomb" <kz2s@hiway1.exit109.com>
>> >To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> >Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 9:15 AM
>> >Subject: [CQ-Contest] N2RM packetless M/2 details
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Why did we do it?
>> >> -----------------
>> >>
>> >> I've wanted to do this for quite some time now.
>> >>
>> >> There has been quite a bit of discussion the past few
>> years about how
>> >> multioperator contesting has been somewhat tarnished by
>> the introduction
>> >> and evolution of the extensive packet/internet spotting
>> system. The
>> >> thrill of hunting down your own multipliers has been
>> replaced by how many
>> >> clusters you can connect or telnet to over the weekend. I
>> can remember a
>> >> discussion that K3EST, N2AA, K3LR and myself had about 4-5
>> years ago after
>> >> a MM effort at K3LR about how cool it would be if all the
>> MMs agreed to
>> >> turn off packet for the weekend. There was some follow up
>> discussion, but
>> >> things kind of fizzled out.
>> >>
>> >> Then in November 2001, W4AN made the following post to CQ-Contest:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> From: Bill Fisher W4AN <w4an@contesting.com>
>> >> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:24:59 -0500 (EST)
>> >>
>> >> I've already got my sites set on ARRL CW. A few of us
>> bound for OH in
>> >> July are considering competing in the M/S category and not using
>> >> packet. K1DG ran the idea by me this week and the thought
>> of doing a
>> >> multi-op without packet got me all excited about the contest!
>> >>
>> >> So, I'm wondering if it would not be fun for all of the
>> top multi-op
>> >> stations to turn off the cluster for just one weekend?
>> After its over,
>> >> lets see if you don't all have more fun. I know I will.
>> >>
>> >> 73
>> >>
>> >> Bill Fisher, W4AN
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>
>> >> Renewed interest in multi-oping without packet! N2NT and
>> I quickly agreed
>> >> that our M/2 operation from N2RM for ARRL CW would be
>> packetless. We also
>> >> had several of the other serious M/2's to agree to do the
>> same. About two
>> >> weeks before the contest, I found out that our competition
>> had changed
>> >> their mind, mostly due to some staffing issues - not
>> enough operators. I
>> >> still really wanted to operate without packet. I polled
>> the rest of our
>> >> crew and we all agreed that we would still carry through
>> with no packet
>> >> and see what happened. I was much more psyched about operating the
>> >> contest knowing that we would have to work extra hard to keep our
>> >> multiplier total up. Our crew hopes that some other
>> multiops may take
>> >> interest in operating this way after our effort.
>> >>
>> >> Some private correspondence I received from Greg, K8GL
>> probably best
>> >> expresses why things are better without packet, "This gets
>> us back to
>> >> operating and spotting as a team. Good stuff! LONG OVER
>> DUE!" W4AN put
>> >> it somewhat less eloquently in his 3830 post "Packet stinks".
>> >>
>> >> What did we do?
>> >> ---------------
>> >>
>> >> There are some capabilities that we have at N2RM that were
>> very important
>> >> for our success this past weekend. Probably the most
>> important is a short
>> >> beverage that is several hundred feet away from the main
>> transmitting
>> >> antennas. We can effectively tune for mults on the same
>> band that we are
>> >> running on with this RX antenna.
>> >>
>> >> We set up four rigs for this effort, two "main" stations and two
>> >> "supplemental" stations. The first supplemental station could be
>> >> interlocked with either of the main stations and had
>> transmit antennas for
>> >> 40-10 meters. You could listen on either the transmit
>> antenna or on the
>> >> short beverage. The other supplemental rig was RX only
>> and used the short
>> >> beverage. We had four computers running CT and interfaced
>> them to a stand
>> >> alone 386 computer running cluster software. This allowed us to
>> >> "internally spot" from the supplemental stations and load
>> up the ANNOUNCE
>> >> window in CT. We could still "point and shoot" for mults.
>> There may be
>> >> an easier way to implement this capability, but I wasn't
>> smart enough to
>> >> figure it out before the contest.
>> >>
>> >> So we had some important new chairs in the contest. The
>> >> "spotting" chairs. We pretty much had the third chair
>> active for almost
>> >> the entire 48 hours. The fourth chair was active when we had the
>> >> operators available to staff them.
>> >>
>> >> Some observations and conclusions
>> >> ---------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> First of all, our entire crew agrees that the contest was
>> much more fun
>> >> without packet. It is immensely more satisfying to "build your
>> >> own" multiplier total during the contest. It was also
>> refreshing to have
>> >> to deal with so few packet pileups during the weekend.
>> Believe it or not,
>> >> I think the actual number of packet pileups we ended up in over the
>> >> weekend was probably in the single digits.
>> >>
>> >> This was the ARRL DX contest and is certainly not as
>> multiplier rich of a
>> >> contest as CQWW. The closest thing to M/2 in CQWW is probably
>> >> multi-single. If we operated this way in CQWW as
>> multi-single, I'm not so
>> >> sure we would be as successful in keeping up with the
>> >> "packetized" stations. We compared notes with K1AR on Saturday
>> >> morning. We were ahead in QSO's quite a bit, but way
>> behind in mults. We
>> >> figured that with the somewhat limited pool of mults in
>> ARRL DX, we would
>> >> be able to catch up by the end of the contest.
>> >>
>> >> The somewhat unique capabilities we have at N2RM for same
>> band receiving
>> >> were essential for our success. Would it be fair to other
>> stations that
>> >> didn't have this capability to compete against us in the
>> >> (hypothetical) packetless multioperator categories? I
>> don't know what the
>> >> answer is. Isn't this just part of building and improving your
>> >> station? If K1AR turned packet off this weekend, I doubt
>> they would have
>> >> kept up with us in mults. They don't have the same band receiving
>> >> capability we have. Look at W3LPL. Frank has built a
>> crew of several
>> >> people per band and can receive effectively while
>> transmitting. Shouldn't
>> >> he be rewarded for having this capability instead of
>> having it nullified
>> >> by packet?
>> >>
>> >> Would we do it again? Absolutely. Although I'm not sure
>> how practical it
>> >> would be to implement no packet at the Multi Multi level.
>> Seems like
>> >> there are enough problems staffing the major MMs without
>> having to fill
>> >> additional spotting chairs. I'd love to see additional
>> interest for MS
>> >> and M/2.
>> >>
>> >> Who else is interested in joining us operating and spotting as a
>> >> team? I'm telling you - multiop contesting is much more fun and
>> >> satisfying without packet. We'll be doing this again in
>> next year's ARRL
>> >> DX CW.
>> >>
>> >> If I may quote N2AA after the contest, "This is one of the
>> coolest things
>> >> I've done in my 40 years of contesting".
>> >>
>> >> 73,
>> >>
>> >> John N2NC
>> >>
>> >> For the 2002 N2RM ARRL CW team
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
>> >> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
>> >Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> CCF on WWW: http://www.qsl.net/ccf/
>> Submissions: ccf@contesting.com
>> Administrative requests: ccf-REQUEST@contesting.com
>> Problems: owner-ccf@contesting.com
>>
>>
>
>--
>CCF on WWW: http://www.qsl.net/ccf/
>Submissions: ccf@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: ccf-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-ccf@contesting.com
>
--
CCF on WWW: http://www.qsl.net/ccf/
Submissions: ccf@contesting.com
Administrative requests: ccf-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-ccf@contesting.com