[CQ-Contest] Rules (Was Benefits of multi-one)

[Pete Smith]

At 08:21 AM 11/13/97 -0500, W4AN wrote:
>
>> I think the WRTC concept was the right idea.  Allow only one radio that
can 
>> transmit.  Allow a second receiver.  If the first radio breaks, then you 
>> can use the second to transmit.
>
>I think so too for an onsight competition.  How would you police only one 
>TXing during the contest?  Rules should be written so that they can at 
>least in theory be enforced.  Writing a rule that can never be enforced 
>is not a good idea.  

OK, then so much for QRP and LP classes, right?  For that matter, how do I
know that you're running only 1500 out?  Or not monitoring the packet
cluster covertly?

We already have lots of MAJOR rules where we rely on trust.  I don't think
there's anything wrong, in principle, with another one.
73,

Pete N4ZR

In Wild Wonderful, fairly rare WEST Virginia


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

>From Zack Lau <zlau at arrl.org>  Fri Nov 14 21:54:15 1997
From: Zack Lau <zlau at arrl.org> (Zack Lau)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:54:15 -0500
Subject: [CQ-Contest] radio bookstore phone#
References: <64if5s$pic at mgate.arrl.org>
Message-ID: <346CC887.1662 at arrl.org>

Phone: 603-899-6959
800-457-7373 (10am-6pm EST)
Fax: 603-899-6826
Email: nx1g at top.monad.net
Web Site: http://www.radiobooks.com/

The ARRL Handbook now has a Windows database for looking
this stuff up.--Zack W1VT


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com