[CQ-Contest] Re: CQ Contest Digest V3 #45

Doug Smith w9wi at bellsouth.net
Sat Feb 26 00:26:38 EST 2000

WRT Fred's comments..  I would argue that in some circumstances, I need
more clear spectrum to compete on an even level.  Because the desired
signals (at least of the weaker stations) are, in those circumstances,
considerably louder at his QTH than at mine.  I suppose that brings up
the age old "do we really want to equalize the East Coast and everyone
else?" question.  Providing a reasonable state-of-the-art hole (I would
suggest 200Hz on CW) for everyone eliminates the question.  If two W3s
want to try to run 50Hz apart, that's OK by me.  

I'm not going to claim that I need 2KHz worth of band (unlike some
non-contesters!) but I would like to think I deserve 200Hz.  I certainly
deserve more than zero, which is what a number of interlopers have been
willing to grant.

(Got an interesting demonstration of just how well "mental filters"
work.  I inadvertently worked the entire Saturday morning opening in the
ARRL DX in CW WIDE, 2.1KHz filter.  Didn't even *notice* until the
European opening went out, I pushed the "250Hz" button to see how steep
the skirts were, and nothing happened...)  

I recognize propagation shifts.  They're very frustrating, but they're
part of the game.  When a S9+ station appears out of nowhere, from an
area you've been working for hours, it's not a propagation shift.

Scott K9MA brings up an interesting suggestion, but I've my doubts it
would accomplish much.  Problem is, that when the rates for the big guns
drop to the point that a CQ TEST is more likely than not to go
unanswered, it's because the propagation has gone out.  If he then cedes
his frequency to a little guy, the little guy is unlikely to work much
either.  The little guys need the hole in the band at the peak of the

I suppose we could reimpose the quotas that existed in the ARRL DX back
in the ??'s.  (they were eliminated before my time)  One could then look
forward to an awful lot of ties<g>.  

Finally, I have to ask...  If it's OK to run a contester off their
occupied frequency, is it OK to run off a *non-contester*, someone in an
established QSO or net?  Are we sure we want to risk the establishment
of contest-free zones by condoning this?  
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
Domains that fail to act against spammers are subject to being

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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list