[CQ-Contest] Attn NAQP Admin Folks

[k6ll at juno.com]

On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 13:13:11 -0400 (EDT) Bill Fisher - W4AN
<w4an at contesting.com> writes:
>
>
>Can we please change the power limit for NAQP to 100 
>instead of 150 watts?  KZ2S and I drafted those rules 
>originally, and then I thought 150w made sense.  However, a very 
>good competitor mentioned to me before the contest that he 
>was going to use his amps to reach 150w output.  Geeezz... 
>that's not what was intended.  150w was intended to cover all radios 
>at 
>the time.  Ya, some might get 110w, some might get 90w, but the idea 
>was/is that this is a contest without amplifiers.
>
>I personally dont think there is much difference between 100 and 150, 
>but 
>let's take amplifiers out of the equation.


I agree totally with Bill's recommendation.

The current rule reads "Output power must be limited to 150 watts
for eligible entries." Now the most liberal interpretation of
this rule would be "150 watts into the antenna terminals." This
could easily be achieved with an amp, and there would be a
temptation to goose the power up even further on occasion
to make a difficult qso, such as a 10 meter backscatter mult.

Now take a station with a 100 watt transceiver, 0.7 dB of bandpass
filter loss, and 0.7 dB of feedline loss, and you've got 72 watts
into the antenna, more than 3 dB down from the guy with the amp.
3 dB is a big difference, especially in a low power contest where
nobody is REALLY loud. It also makes a big psychological difference
when you're busting your buns with 72 watts, and you think about
others running amps. 

I would like to see the wording changed to be similar to the
Internet Sprint rule. "Maximum power output: 100 watts at the
transmitter output connector."

Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
San Diego, CA
K6LL at juno.com





















_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


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


>From William N. Goodman, CPA" <goodmancpa at enter.net  Wed Aug  5 20:26:48 1998
From: William N. Goodman, CPA" <goodmancpa at enter.net (William N. Goodman, CPA)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:26:48 -0400
Subject: [CQ-Contest] What Yuri said
Message-ID: <001e01bdc0a6$feb7bb80$8e47aacc at default>


I have been reading the many ideas for revising the scoring of CQ contests,
now make a very simple proposal:

One point for all QSOs in your CQ zone and in your country;
Two points for all QSOs in a different CQ zone but in your country;
Two points for all QSOs in a different country but in your CQ zone;
Four points for all QSOs in a different country and in a different  CQ zone.

Now we give an incentive to all stations to log all QSOs.  But we keep this
a DX contest, with a mini sweepstakes benefit.  It takes care of the problem
of stations working nearby stations getting three points when far away
stations get zero points.  It equalizes stations through out the world.  It
should be easy to score, especially with logging programs such as CT, NA,
and TR.  The rare 160 QSO with zone three is worth the effort from my PA
location in  zone 5, because it is 2 points.  VE2 which is close to PA is
worth 2 points so I will continue to work them.  VE3 becomes 4 points since
it is a different country and zone.  Europeans will love this since they get
2 points working their neighbors, but they get 4 points for working across
their continent into other zones.  The Frankford Radio Club may have a
chance of winning the contest
for the world, not just for North America.  Go FRC!  73, Bill, K3ANS >>
-----Original Message-----
From: Hill, Russell C. <margoh at compuserve.com>
To: (unknown) <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 9:50 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] What Yuri said


>
>IMHO, what Yuri said is right on.  If its a DX test, then DX counting 3
>times as much as "local" contacts will of itself create the motivation to
>concentrate on DX, without discouraging the "locals" who just want to "stop
>by and give out a few points".  And it takes just as much of the alloted
>operating time to tell the guy he doesn't count for anything in this test
>as it does to simply work him.  Allowing 1 point for local contacts will, I
>believe, not hurt the DX nature of any of these tests.
>
>Thanks, Yuri.
>
>73,
>Rusty
>NA5TR
>
>
>--
>CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
>Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>
>



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