[CQ-Contest] Here we go again

[Cooper, Stewart]

>When I hear a SO2R calling CQ on two different bands at the same time

Name names. This is a claim which would be difficult to uphold.

>working stations at the same time

I can't see what is wrong with that either, provided transmissions do not overlap.

Stewart
GM0F

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of ak0a
Sent: 29 November 2004 17:28
To: Russell Hill; Joe Subich, K4IK; dezrat1242 at ispwest.com
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again


Tower heights and skill has nothing to do with comparison. When I hear a
SO2R calling CQ on two different bands at the same time and working stations
at the same time, there is something wrong with the SO2R. with a separate
category they can call each other until the cows come home

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill at earthlink.net>
To: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik at subich.com>; "'ak0a'" <ak0a at kc.rr.com>;
<dezrat1242 at ispwest.com>
Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again


> Joe, you echo my argument I circulated on Friday about tower height, and
> you have probably stated it better than I.  Thank you for supporting the
> viewpoint.  If we can get enough serious contesters to consider the idea,
> maybe we can get some admittedly arbitrary height limitation which will
> encourage the little pistols to improve their low antenna station, knowing
> they will not always be blown out by someone with 200' towers and
> multi-stacks in the "same category".  If we categorize on the basis of
> number of ops, number of transmitters, and power out, why do we not
> recognize that the capability to put up antennas of the "giant" variety
> are a major determinant of a station's ability to compete?
>
> I would like very much to see a discussion started.  I think this is the
> only way we can get increased participation on a large scale.
>
> 73, Rusty, na5tr
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik at subich.com>
> To: "'ak0a'" <ak0a at kc.rr.com>; <dezrat1242 at ispwest.com>
> Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:12 AM
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
>
>
>>
>>> From:  ak0a
>>>
>>> I agree with you Bill. the only people who are against this
>>> are the SO2R ops. Why? I cant figure out. What are they scared of?
>>
>> You are 100% dead wrong ... I do not do SO2R but have absolutely
>> no problem understanding that a better equipped station with a
>> more proficient operator might choose to have a second rig on one
>> band looking for mults, checking propagation, etc. while running on
>> a different band.  It has been that way for at least the nearly 30
>> years that I have been around the contest game and only for the
>> last few of those years has the chorus been "discriminate against
>> the elite stations!"
>>
>> If you are arguing for separate categories, then a separate category
>> for towers over 22 meters and multiple antennas per band should be
>> implemented long before a separate category for SO2R.
>>
>> In truth, competing against the big antenna stations is far more
>> frustrating to the bulk of the "vertical and wires or A3 on the roof"
>> stations than competing against someone with a trap vertical
>> connected to the second receiver input on his FT-1000D or a "Windom"
>> in a tree connected to an older [second] transceiver.  A station can
>> gain far more by improving antennas than can ever be gained by adding
>> SO2R.  Only when one has optimized the antenna system does SO2R add
>> significantly to the score.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>   ... Joe, K4IK
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

Scanned by IFB SafeMail http://www.ifb.net for spam/UCE and virus content.
IFB Spam-Score:* (1.2)


----------------------------------------------------------------
   
Offshore Design Ltd
   
www.odl.co.uk
   
This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information. You should not disclose its contents to any other person. Any
unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately.