[CQ-Contest] Antenna categories

[Richard Detweiler]

I think the idea of a category for antennas is a good.

In Dallas, we have a city ordinance that sets a limit of total antenna area. 
  This is weird to me but its part of the rules we play here.  (Which 
eliminates any new 'quad' antennas, but allows for a single hefty beam on a 
single tower).

Then on top of that the HOA's in the area virtually eliminate all exterior 
antennas.

For Skill, it took me 3 years to develop relationships with the HOA to get 
permissions to set up an small vertical (butternut HF9V with 160M).  Then I 
had to work with each neighbor in the immediate area to work through his or 
her RFI problems when I finally fired up the 1.5KW linear.  I think that 
personal skill and patients is as important as the contesting skills 
it-self.  So the process of setting up an external antenna in a restricted 
neighborhood gives me an 'edge' on the others who are limited in external 
antennas, Same as someone else talking about developing any other edge to 
get hard earned rewards...

It may be a good time to advocate various antenna categories, and discuss 
what would be the dividing lines...

We have QRP/LP/HP for power,

We have Single, multi and assisted in some.

Why not add the dimension of antenna,

What we are really talking about is skill and technical recognition for 
working within defined parameters that we have or set, If one doesn't like a 
category, they can use the unlimited one,  I've often signed on as HP when I 
only used Low Power.  That is always an option for those who don't want to 
compete in the other league.

Best 73's
Rich
K5SF





>From: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill at earthlink.net>
>To: <k-zero-hb at earthlink.net>,"Bill Turner" <dezrat1242 at ispwest.com>,"Leigh 
>S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com>
>CC: cq-contest at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:37:49 -0600
>
>Hans, I agree with you totally about the operator being the determining 
>factor.  That is why I oppose having an SO2R category.  It is wrong to 
>legislate against a hard-earned technique to benefit those who won't/can't 
>learn the technique.  That includes me:  I cannot do SO2R-- the guy who can 
>will beat me every time.  Good on 'im!!
>
>However I do not see how a 'limited category' recognizing the 'more modest, 
>traditional station'  could possibly "only set an upper limit which 
>ultimately would stifle the spirit of competition."  QRP and LowPower, 
>Single Op vs Multi, Single Band vs All Band, and for that matter CW Only, 
>SSBonly, or mixed,  none of these set an upper limit.  Why would a category 
>which allows a limited antenna station to compare his scores with similarly 
>equipped stations be any different?  Particularly if it makes contesting 
>more attractive to a larger segment of ham radio, it seems to me it could 
>only be good for our community.
>
>I would like to comment on the Tri Bander/Wire category.  There are some 
>truly garguantian tribanders out there.  Such an antenna on top of a 70 ft 
>tower with lots of wires could be a very effective station.  But the guy 
>with a 10M monobander on top of a 28 ft pushpole, such as I had years ago, 
>would not be able to play in the TB catagory.  I simply believe that a 
>category based on height, rather that a stipulated antenna configuration, 
>would allow more of the "modest, traditional" to feel enthusiastic about 
>joining in with us.  With a simple, easily understood height limitation, an 
>op could put up whatever antenna configuration he chose for the particular 
>contesting style interests him.
>
>Thanks, Hans.  I always enjoy your posts.  Sometimes I even agree.
>
>73, Rusty, na5tr
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb at earthlink.net>
>To: "Bill Turner" <dezrat1242 at ispwest.com>; "Leigh S. Jones" 
><kr6x at kr6x.com>
>Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 8:43 AM
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R
>
>
>>>[Original Message]
>>>From: Bill Turner <dezrat1242 at ispwest.com>
>>
>>>This new limited category could be defined so as to
>>>attract new people with a more modest,
>>>traditional station into contesting, knowing they
>>>had a chance to get their feet wet and still be
>>>competitive.
>>
>>Wouldn't make a bit of difference, Bill.
>>
>>I could turn my existing "limited" station over to any of several local
>>operators for CQWW (N0AT, K0SR are a couple who come to mind) while I
>>operated the super-station at W0AIH.  They'd still beat me hands down,
>>every time.
>>
>>WRTC is an interesting sideshow, designed to showcase the talents of a
>>narrow slice of our elite compatriots by attempting to construct
>>artificially 'equal' operating situations for them.  Your "limited"
>>category couldn't be an equalizer of that same sort; it could only set an
>>upper limit which ultimately would stifle the spirit of competition.
>>
>>73, de Hans, K0HB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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