[CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest changes SANITY CHECK!
n4zr at contesting.com
Wed Sep 1 15:39:06 EDT 1999
At 06:08 PM 8/31/1999 -0400, Jimmy Weierich wrote:
>I received the message that follows my comments from Bill Kennamer
>and post it here with his permission.
>IMHO, if accurate and thorough log checking is a good thing for
>contesting and a portion of the exchange makes that checking
>difficult, something IS broken.
>If the exchange can be changed without altering the essential nature
>of the contest and without invalidating comparisons to the existing
>records it seems to me that it should be done.
>Using ITU zone in the DX exchange would accomplish that. ITU zone
>would not significantly impact the length or complexity of the
>exchange and hence keep comparisons to previous records valid.
>And,most contest participants are already familiar with ITU zone from
>the IARU contest.
>The key to making any change to the exchange work will be getting the
>word out, world wide, sufficiently before the contest so that all
>participants are prepared for the change.
In my opinion, this would eliminate any challenge in the exchange, making
it essentially like CQWW but without the geographic diversity. I don't see
why a test like Tree's "instability quotient" couldn't be used to give a
pretty good idea of whether the problems are US operator error or DX
station mind-changing, or ...
By the way, aren't there still some countries that have different power
limits for different bands? I seem to recall that being an issue with JA's.
73, Pete N4ZR
Sometimes a tower is just a tower
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest