[CQ-Contest] prejudicial language

Mon Aug 20 00:49:13 EDT 2001

Hi All,

what I don't agree is that 160m is a CW band by nature, what I surely agree
is to have a band where I could work split during a contest like it happens
on 80m.
Yes, 160m is much harder than 20m, and SSB is much harder than CW but this
exactly the point why I like it there.
To be competitive one needs to be a very good operator, good hears and a
good knowledge of propagation and antennas.
I like challenge myself and I find out a much bigger thrill one hour at >100
QSO/hr of 160m intercontinental SSB than a whole night at low rate with CW
or hi rate but low distance qsos, the same way I feel a much bigger thrill
in working some W7 in SSB than with W6 in CW.
In my opinion 160m contests endorses who is able to work intercontinental
QSOs, cty and zones and since the openings are short in time, who is better
in having an higher rate in that period is really a good operator. Probably
an SSB event skyrockets this points althoug a whole two day period is a
slight nonsense.
What I fear is that year after year contesting is pulled in the direction to
decrease contesters need of technical backgrounds likewise if the knowdledge
of  the *media* (the band) and the *equipment* (setup) are not a requirement
in Ham Contesting.
If that is the goal (but how shall we keep our bands for free with ITU) then
all who erects towers and plays with wires (mostly to hear who's NOT well
equipped) and deals with other hard topics to learn and makes experiments is
wasting his time.
Then let's move to play contesting on internet (anyway not such a plain
field as someone believes) or better with some simulator where hears,
strategy and tactical are all what's needed.
Sorry, but who has 2 MHz available in 160m (300 KHz more than 10m) should
find out enough room to play, for everyone.
Region1  has only 40 KHz for CW and 60 KHz for SSB on 40m and NA traffic is
squeezed among a number of 500 KW AM stn 5 KHz spaced to each other (an AM
channel is 9-10 Khz, virtually there's no space).
Apart people who hates inconditionally SSB, is there someone that would
really ask to ban SSB contests there ?

73,
Mauri I4JMY

Of course CW is narrower mode and allows more chance to hear and to be
heard, but this is not the point otherwise the same concept could be applied
in any band.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji at akorn.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>; "Bill Tippett" <btippett at alum.mit.edu>;
"Maurizio Panicara" <i4jmy at iol.it>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] prejudicial language

> Hi Mario,
>
> I agree with Bill. SSB contests do not belong on 160 meters, at
> least not with the rules we have at present. They are simply far too
> disruptive to everyone, and it is the operators, contest organizers,
> and FCC/ARRL's fault.
>
> The band is wide enough, it just is not used with any common
> sense. The ARRL and FCC seem to think we don't need
> wide/narrow mode segments, and contest organizers and
> participants seem to think all non-contest agreements should be
> tossed out for the duration of the contest.
>
> It is much like a group of street racers taking over a busy road for a
> weekend several times a year!
>
> There are dozens of Europeans who could be readable and
> workable if not covered by a wall of stateside stations operating
> from 1800 to 1860 and higher with about 2kHz or less of separation
> between each. Virtually all of them have no hope of hearing even
> the stronger DX, and it is probably a limit everyone shares because
> of QRM rather than noise level or propagation.
>
> The usual result is everyone swears "the band was not open" when
> indeed it was open.
>
> While a few stations either unwisely turn the power limiting controls
> inside transceivers full-off (to get another 1.5 dB of power at the
> expense of ten times the IMD) or may not have the PA's
> tuned/driven properly or have other technical difficulties, but the
> largest problem is just the stacking of multiple stations one against
> each other in the lower 70kHz of the band.
>
> The best thing that could ever happen would be to eliminate SSB
> contests on 160, or somehow force the US stations to stay above
> 1850 and work DX split.
>
> I absolutely can not understand why people park in the area from
> 1800-1850 when they haven't a chance of working anyone in all that
> mess, or why the rules don't force USA stations up out of that area.
> 73, Tom W8JI
> W8JI at contesting.com

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

>From PY2NY - Vitor" <py2ny at arrl.net  Mon Aug 20 00:38:38 2001
From: PY2NY - Vitor" <py2ny at arrl.net (PY2NY - Vitor)
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 20:38:38 -0300
Subject: [CQ-Contest] High Claimed CQ WW CW 2000
Message-ID: <000901c12908$1cfe7580$4e14d2c8 at asbyte.com.br>

Hello
I need to know if "CQ Contest" published
CQWW CW 2000 High Claimed Scores
on July issue.
I need to know if I am on the list and what is
my position in the High Claimed Score.
Low power All Band Unassisted.
Thanks for help...
PY2NY - Vitor Luis Aidar dos Santos
Caixa Postal 204
Jaboticabal, SP - Brasil - 14870-970
Phone: (16) 97854218
E-mail: py2ny at geocities.com

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