[CQ-Contest] The 24-hour ARRL DX

[Mike Gilmer, N2MG]

If we create a 24hr category in a 48hr contest, surely some, who would 
have operated, say, 30 hours, would cut back to 24.  Others, who may 
not have operated much at all (say, 0-10 hours), just might push for 
the 24 hours.  

IMO, in the balance, it would serve to increase activity in the 
contest.  Anytime you can create more *serious* competitors, Contesting 
benefits.  Yeah, yeah, I realize that's tantamount to saying, "More 
categories is more better", but everyone has their own motivations.  To 
some it's simply the wrestling in the QRM with fellow contesters that 
gets them going; to the perennial winners, it's a shot at a record; to 
others a potential "win" is a motivator - give them a category they 
feel competitive in (it is a CONTEST, is it not?) and they'll operate 
with more enthusiasm.  That can't be all bad, can it?

I'm not happy about suggesting the ARRL or CQ be saddled with more 
work, but if a third party group can figure out how to orchestrate a 
CWC (contest within a contest), who would want to stop them?

Pete (N5ZR): Are you proposing to process the individuals' logs 
separately to extract the time on/off? I don't believe this data is 
calculated by ARRL anymore.  Also, must it be a contiguous 24 hours 
or "any" 24 hours? If "any" what would be the minimum off-time allowed? 
(I suggest something like 2 hours minimum off-time and that listening 
time NOT count as operating time - I always thought that rule was 
silly.)

Bob (KQ2M): the eHam survey is not set up to work with multiple 
questions but I suppose that we could write a short article and 
solicit comments.  However, I suspect the only *real* proof would be to 
actually implement a 24hr contest and see the statistics.

Mike N2MG