[CQ-Contest] Re: CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 23, Issue 86
Eddie
kc5ter at sbcglobal.net
Tue Nov 30 10:52:19 EST 2004
One thing to keep in mind and concider.....Amatuer Radio ......and
contesting are all just a hobby.......and when it becomes work then its no
longer a hobby.....
----- Original Message -----
From: <cq-contest-request at contesting.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 23, Issue 86
> Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
> cq-contest at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cq-contest-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cq-contest-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Here we go again (Bill Turner)
> 2. Re: Be careful (Bill Turner)
> 3. Re: Be careful (K0HB )
> 4. Re: Here we go again (wd0t)
> 5. RE: Chiming in -- SO2R (Dick Green WC1M)
> 6. Re: SS Funnies (K4RO Kirk Pickering)
> 7. Radiosports for the 21st Century (Joe Contester)
> 8. Anonymous/pseudonymous posts (Pete Smith)
> 9. Re: Radiosports for the 21st Century (asciibaron at comcast.net)
> 10. FW: [CQ-Contest] cqww cw spot analysis (jukka.klemola at Nokia.com)
> 11. Re: Radiosports for the 21st Century (Pat N8VW)
> 12. Re: Radiosports for the 21st Century (Pat N8VW)
> 13. Limited Antenna Height Category (Russell Hill)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:39:30 -0800
> From: Bill Turner <dezrat1242 at ispwest.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <hq1oq01ns6gqnm51prqm1c12qes5oko74b at 4ax.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:13:30 -00, K0HB wrote:
>
>>Diana Moon Glompers would love it. A true celebration of
>>vanilla-mediocrity.
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Much like WRTC. Vanilla-mediocrity at a fever pitch.
>
> --
> Bill W6WRT
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:46:34 -0800
> From: Bill Turner <dezrat1242 at ispwest.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Be careful
> To: "Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com>
> Cc: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <t72oq05e8avg4n321lmckc65eehqn7l3ov at 4ax.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:43:50 -0800, Leigh S. Jones wrote:
>
> <massive snip>
>
>>Finally, a level playing field!
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Already been done. They call it WRTC. The best of the best.
>
> --
> Bill W6WRT
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:47:24 -00
> From: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Be careful
> To: "Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com>, CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <410-220041123054724531 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>> This would be to create a category for those who are forced to
>> do all of their contesting from truly inadequate stations.
>
> Call the class SOU (Single Op Underserving)
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:16:07 -0600
> From: "wd0t" <tdravland at pie.midco.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Cc: WD0T <tdravland at pie.midco.net>, "Jim Z.-KD0S" <kd0s at sdhams.com>
> Message-ID: <005201c4d6a4$144ba960$93b9e618 at midco.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Help me out here. Who defines what is fair, and who defines what is a
> level
> playing field??
>
> As to the comment about listening while transmitting and SO2R, it is not
> hard to do, but hard to do effectively, yes. It takes practice,
> determination, persistance, and time... some of the things that are
> required
> to perform at a high level. Will you win because you do these things?
> Maybe,
> but probably not, because there are a LOT of other factors. Will you do
> well, and have fun.. yes, I believe so.
>
> Myself included, lets try to have more fun with what we are doing, because
> in 100 years, is anyone gonna remember what we did in radio contesting?
>
> God Bless.
>
> Todd, WD0T
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>> >
>> > I am glad to see the SO2R folks have "mind flexibility" and understand
>> > the word "competition". Flexing their minds, they will now understand
>> > why having the ability to listen while transmitting makes the
>> > competition "unfair" and why an SO1R category helps make it more fair.
>> >
>> > Likewise, they understand the competition is most fair and most
>> > exciting when the playing field is as level as possible, and will work
>> > to make it so.
>> >
>> > They will now understand why Indy cars do not race against stock cars,
>> > why heavyweights do not box middleweights and why 40-foot sailboats do
>> > not race against 20-footers. The Indy car guys do not point to the
>> > stock car guys and say "life is not fair, get used to it".
>> >
>> > If their minds really are flexible, they will understand that all
>> > sports, other than amateur radio, make a serious attempt to level the
>> > playing field as much as possible.
>> >
>> > And for what seems like the zillionth time, NOBODY WANTS TO BAN SO2R.
>> > They just want SO1R in its own category. There is at least one
>> > contest which already does this: The Mexican RTTY contest, held the
>> > second weekend of February. Perhaps other contest sponsors will take
>> > note?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Bill W6WRT
>> >
>> > --
>> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> > Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:47:29 -0500
> From: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m at msn.com>
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <BAY3-DAV32996DE6FE8EDEA0DEC99F8DBE0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I really enjoyed this and the post from KR6X.
>
> I suggest that anyone who thinks SO2R should be a separate class try an
> all-out serious SO2R effort in the next contest. Borrow a station if you
> have to. You will find that it's incredibly difficult -- a whole new level
> of skill is required. My scores dropped the first season I tried SO2R, and
> it took a couple more seasons before I even began to get the hang of it. I
> still have a long way to go, and I think I'm going on four full years of
> SO2R. Also, I suggest you ask yourself if SO2R is such a big advantage,
> why
> W1WEF consistently makes the top ten as SO1R (and just a stack of
> tribanders.)
>
> My thesis is that the three most important things for a winning score are,
> in this order -- skill, skill, and skill. Yeah, bigger antennas help a
> lot.
> Hardline helps. Two rigs help. An understanding XYL helps (can we have a
> separate category for people whose spouses don't like towers or contest
> weekends?) But you will never win unless you develop your skills to the
> highest level. I've seen incredible scores for partial efforts posted by
> some of the nation's best contesters -- I can think of one case where the
> score made the top ten with only about 30 hours put in. You want a
> separate
> category? How about "Northeast QTH"? How about "Towers over 150'"? How
> about
> "Three stacks or greater"? How about "Much better op than me"?
>
> C'mon! This game is about doing what it takes to improve your score,
> whether
> that means developing your skills (the best way), putting in more hours
> (the
> second best way), building better antennas (the third best way), or
> optimizing your radios (a distant fourth.) If you do the first two items,
> you won't need a so-called level playing field. Stop grousing and get with
> it!
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Art Boyars [mailto:art.boyars at verizon.net]
>> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:57 PM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R
>>
>>
>> Having just finished my now-standard last-22-hours of the CW
>> DX test at W3LPL, and seeing all the discussion going on here
>> on the CQ-Contest Reflector (not subscribed; I read it on the
>> Web), I feel like I have to get my opinions out there. I'm
>> starting with SO2R; more to follow.
>>
>> Myself, I think that 2R should not be a separate class, but I
>> can understand why others would disagree. (An aside -- I
>> wish we could keep the personal attacks off the Reflector; if
>> you must get personal (but why must you???), make it
>> private.) The only valid rationale that I've seen is that 2R
>> "doubles" the available listening time.
>>
>> However, there is a flaw in that thinking: you are assuming
>> that "two radios" means two transceivers. Before SSCW 2004 I
>> used separate TX and RX, without transceive. (In one
>> write-up, I joked that that was not what they meant by two
>> radios.) Many of you remember when that was all there was --
>> and when a computer would have cost more than all the radios
>> in a M/M station. Well, with separate TX and RX, all you
>> need for listentening on another band while calling CQ or
>> sending your report is a separate antenna, a CQ wheel (like
>> W4KFC) or tape loop, and a little switching. Just like SO2R,
>> but with only one receiver. Of course, you could set up a
>> spare receiver just for listening, and bandswitch the main
>> rig when you heard something good on the apare RX. Or you
>> could set up a whole second rig. And I'm sure many good op's
>> did. I have a vague memory of some people keeping one rig
>> permanently on 40M for SSCW, and bandswitching the other rig.
>> And I don't think there was any consideration of making this
>> a separate class.
>>
>> So, then, the advantage of modern SO2R is in the increased
>> agility that you get with modern transceivers and computer
>> control (I remarked on that in my return to SS CW about four
>> years ago; you could look it up). You can still get part of
>> the advantage with just a second non-computered receiver
>> (wanna buy an old R-4B?), and I don't think we'd consider
>> THAT to be a separate class. From "spare RX" to modern SO2R
>> there is pretty much a continuum, and, IMHO, there is no
>> clear point at which the advantage merits a separate class.
>> Heck, it's just more hardware, and it's too hard to satisfy
>> everybody with distinctions there. And it's still one
>> operator, showing amazing skills that are way beyond me (can
>> anybody address the similarity with playing organ masterworks?).
>>
>> So, I'd like to know who is one-RX and who is 2-RX, but I'm
>> willing to have them all in the same class. But you may
>> disagree (civilly). And, if we have polite disagreement,
>> let's settle it with some polite vote-taking. Gee whiz, it
>> IS just a hobby.
>>
>> BTW, since the advantage of 2R is the increased listening
>> time, perhaps anything else that gives you extra operating
>> time should merit a separate class. Like, say, the OT's who
>> learned to send with their off-hand so they could send while
>> writing the info in the log. Or memory keyers, that let you
>> do the same thing. Or computer logging. Or electronic
>> keyers (didn't K5RC bring this one up a few years ago?). Or
>> straight keys -- let's make everybody send by pumping the
>> handle of a monster knife switch immersed in oil.
>>
>> Next on the docket -- "fixing" SS, and packet.
>>
>> 73, Art K3KU
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:33:01 -0600
> From: K4RO Kirk Pickering <k4ro at k4ro.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS Funnies
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <20041130073301.GA16403 at darkstar.k4ro.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I confess, I was the lid who pulled this stunt.
> At least it got a good laugh from the K4JNY crew.
> My face probably looked like a 3-500Z at 1kW RTTY.
> Thanks for giving us the QSO OM. It had been a tough
> frequency to hold on to, and I thought I heard another
> CQ instead of an answer to our CQ. Now crawling back
> under my CW rock...
>
> -Kirk K4RO
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 07:34:29PM -0500, Ted Bryant wrote:
>> Overheard near the end of the test:
>>
>> Station A: "cq ss"
>>
>> Station B: "K8---"
>>
>> Station A: "K8---, the frequency is in use, om"
>>
>> Station B: "yeah, I know, I'm calling YOU"
>>
>> -W4NZ
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:28:19 -0800 (PST)
> From: Joe Contester <radiosporting at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Radiosports for the 21st Century
> To: CQ-Contest MailList <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20041130122819.49652.qmail at web80907.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> --- wd0t <tdravland at pie.midco.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Help me out here. Who defines what is fair, and who
>> defines what is a level playing field??
>
> I was hoping that someone would ask this question. I
> believe that _we_ define it (many here seem to have
> already, haven't they?), then we compete to whatever
> that definition is. Submitting to a central authority
> is nothing more than the public recognician of our
> participation. "Categories" are nothing more than a
> way to segment the printed results when the medium is
> a page in a printed magazine.
>
> What if we weren't afraid to think entirely
> differently? Imagine a Radiosporting world where
> there is a combination of several of the ideas already
> floated here (tnx K0HB, W6WRT, K1TTT, K5TR, W2EV and
> others):
>
> 1. Identify all of the factors that come to play for
> scoring potential and design a client that captures
> them all. Stations would input their information in a
> "setup screen" prior to starting the event. Note:
> input is still being sought on this -> off list,
> please.
>
> 2. Create a cluster of Internet-based Telnet servers
> that the client-side software would send statistical
> information to (not QSO-specific -- simply stats)
> periodically.
>
> 3. Those servers would send back stats to the client.
> The client would present them on a Dashboard,
> according to two styles: (1) them vs. the entire
> playing field and (2) them vs. the competition as THEY
> have defined it. Example: Single-op, Single Band, 40,
> 50-200 watts, 0 dBd antenna, 40-60 feet high.
>
> 4. At the end of the event, the full-log is submitted
> automatically (be accurate, it's part of the
> skillset!) and the results are posted in score-order
> (no categorization) by default with the ability to
> resort the results in a way that is similar to the way
> that the ARRL does in it's online system.
>
> 5. DQ's occur publicly, with the reasons being
> announced openly. Replies to rules interpretation
> will be made publicly so that all participants will
> have the benefit of having the same knowledge.
>
> Bottom line: you want to appear higher in the list as
> it shows up by default? Address it by enhancing your
> skill, station, etc so that your score increases.
>
> Much of this is in discussion on this list. There is
> an active effort under way to make such discussion a
> reality. There are many aspects yet to consider.
> Keep the thread alive. There is much value in public
> discussion on this topic.
>
> "Welcome to the next level" :)
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radiosporting/
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:49:56 -0500
> From: Pete Smith <n4zr at contesting.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Anonymous/pseudonymous posts
> To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20041130074526.0cd5ce08 at mail.adelphia.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> These postings from Joe Contester raise this point; should it not be
> standard practice that people posting to cq-contest sign either their
> call-signs or their real names? It seems to me that signing your real
> call
> or name discourages irresponsible, malicious or deceptive posts, and
> conversely .....
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> The World HF Contest Station Database
> was updated 20 Oct 2004
> 2796 contest stations at
> www.pvrc.org/WCSD/WCSDsearch.htm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:25:14 +0000
> From: asciibaron at comcast.net
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Radiosports for the 21st Century
> To: CQ-Contest MailList <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID:
> <113020041325.7176.41AC74BA00007BFB00001C08220076219402019D0E0D07070C9C0E at comcast.net>
>
>
> Before the ARRL SS SSB, i evaluted my station and my skills and determined
> what my goal was going to be based on those factors. I was going to be
> competing against the previous year's top 5 in the MDC section in the SOLP
> unassisted category.
>
> I deteremined the number of QSO's and MULTS i needed to log to make it to
> one of the top 5 places in last year's contest. 200 QSO's and 70 MULTS
> for a total score of 28,000 would put me at number 5. That was my goal
> and I surpassed it with a total of 423 QSO's and 76 MULTS more than
> doubling my score goal.
>
> I don't have the skills needed to make a run for the top 5 SOLP unassisted
> yet - but by setting a realistic goal each year, I hope to make it there.
> Sure I can blame a poor score on living on the East Coast in the
> Mid-Atlantic region. I can blame having a 100w signal into a 35'
> tribander and wires for the low bands. I can blame a poor score on not
> having my Extra ticket and not being able to work down low on the bands.
> I can blame a low score on a number of things, but does that make me a
> better operator or person for that matter?
>
>
> I am beginning to set my goals for the coming ARRL 10m contest. I know I
> have a simple station - no stacks, no amp, no years of previous
> experience to help guide me. But I'm going to get on the air and work as
> many stations as I can. I know I can't compete against the more
> experienced stations in my category unless I build my skills, and
> ultimately isn't this what we must do in order to win or to be successful
> in other areas of life?
>
> I am the high school team up against the Yankees or if you prefer, the Red
> Sox. Either way, I'm going to the slaughter, but that's what it will take
> for me to become competitive in the future. I will do well simply
> because I am working to beat a personal goal. At some point that personal
> goal will take me to the leader board.
>
> I may not become a national or international contender (or I might) but
> that is not my goal - I am first and foremost competing against myself and
> then against my local peers. If I can place high in my section, than I
> know I am on the right track.
>
>
>
> -Steve Hanlon
> KB3KAQ
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:27:49 +0200
> From: <jukka.klemola at Nokia.com>
> Subject: FW: [CQ-Contest] cqww cw spot analysis
> To: <k1ttt at arrl.net>, <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID:
> <A50403BB26FFEF4DA9A91DD986DA39CD30BB81 at saebe051.nmp.nokia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of ext
>> David Robbins
>> K1TTT
> ...
>> Sure would be nice to get the ip address info back from DXSummit for
>> these spotters.
>> Spotter FromNode Dx Freq Comment
>> PY3GH DXSummit XQ4ZW 21064 ZONE 12
>> JH1FSF DXSummit XQ4ZW 28024.9
>> UA3FJK DXSummit XQ4ZW 21064 CE 12
>> PY6GT DXSummit XQ4ZW 21076 ZONE 12 !!
>> UA3FHJ DXSummit XQ4ZW 21064 CE 12
>> S51DI S50CLX XQ4ZW 28089.5
>> PY4FG DXSummit XQ4ZW 21082 Z 12
>> W3BGH DXSummit XQ4ZW 21082 Z 12
>> PY3RF DXSummit XQ4ZW 21064 ZONE 12
>> OH2GV DXSummit XQ4ZW 21064 ZONE 12
>> its interesting that most of the dxsummit spots had to be
>> sure you knew
>> ce was zone 12. Most contest spotters don't bother with a
>> comment like
>> that so having a whole group like that is odd. also, w3bgh
>> is not found
>> in latest buckmaster cd. also note that all the ones with
>> comments are
>> exact integer frequencies, most cw spots have some variance around the
>> real tx just due to how people tune them in.
>
> This case seems pretty nice as OH2GV does not exist.
>
>
> 73,
> Jukka OH6LI
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:36:45 -0500
> From: Pat N8VW <n8vw at linuxcolumbus.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Radiosports for the 21st Century
> To: CQ-Contest MailList <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20041130133645.GD21840 at linuxcolumbus.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:28:19AM -0800, Joe Contester wrote:
>
>> I was hoping that someone would ask this question. I
>> believe that _we_ define it (many here seem to have
>> already, haven't they?), then we compete to whatever
>> that definition is. Submitting to a central authority
>> is nothing more than the public recognician of our
>> participation. "Categories" are nothing more than a
>> way to segment the printed results when the medium is
>> a page in a printed magazine.
>>
>
> I think first we must define who. Who are you?
>
>> What if we weren't afraid to think entirely
>> differently? Imagine a Radiosporting world where
>> there is a combination of several of the ideas already
>> floated here (tnx K0HB, W6WRT, K1TTT, K5TR, W2EV and
>> others):
>>
>
> What if we weren't afraid to give our true name and call?
>
>> 1. Identify all of the factors that come to play for
>> scoring potential and design a client that captures
>> them all. Stations would input their information in a
>> "setup screen" prior to starting the event. Note:
>> input is still being sought on this -> off list,
>> please.
>>
> One factor. Trust. Who are you?
>
>> 2. Create a cluster of Internet-based Telnet servers
>> that the client-side software would send statistical
>> information to (not QSO-specific -- simply stats)
>> periodically.
>>
>
> Telnet? You are kidding right.
>
>
>> 4. At the end of the event, the full-log is submitted
>> automatically (be accurate, it's part of the
>> skillset!) and the results are posted in score-order
>> (no categorization) by default with the ability to
>> resort the results in a way that is similar to the way
>> that the ARRL does in it's online system.
>>
>
> I guess the people with no access to internet connections won't count, eh.
>
>
>> "Welcome to the next level" :)
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radiosporting/
>>
>
>
>
> So who is running this? We don't even know who you are, but I have my
> suspects.
>
>
> Pat N8VW
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:53:23 -0500
> From: Pat N8VW <n8vw at linuxcolumbus.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Radiosports for the 21st Century
> To: CQ-Contest MailList <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20041130135323.GF21840 at linuxcolumbus.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:36:45AM -0500, Pat N8VW wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:28:19AM -0800, Joe Contester wrote:
>>
>> > I was hoping that someone would ask this question. I
>> > believe that _we_ define it (many here seem to have
>> > already, haven't they?), then we compete to whatever
>> > that definition is. Submitting to a central authority
>> > is nothing more than the public recognician of our
>> > participation. "Categories" are nothing more than a
>> > way to segment the printed results when the medium is
>> > a page in a printed magazine.
>> >
>>
>> I think first we must define who. Who are you?
>>
>
> Did a bit of research and found matching ip addresses in the emails from
> Joe C. and Ev W2EV.
>
> It is trivial to find out from where the email orginates because yahoo
> adds the orginating IP to the headers.
>
> Pat N8VW
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:20:04 -0600
> From: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <00dc01c4d6f0$119b9300$28d0f218 at RCHill>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> I would like to suggest this thread consider something else--keeping the
> casual operator in the contest. I have read many comments about the
> necessity to have the casual operators in the contests-- they are involved
> in the majority of Qs-- we need them!
>
> As it is now, there is argument about using categories to "level the
> playing
> field" or not. My guess is the casual contester perceives this as
> self-serving B.S. He knows that the greatest hardware difference he faces
> is the ability to put up BIG antennas. He correctly perceives that no
> matter what category he chooses, there will be 100 or 200 foot tower
> stations competing in the same category. With fairly low antennas, you
> can
> give him all the SO2R, High Power, Multi-Ops, Computer usage, Extra Class
> privileges in the world, and he can never compete with the 200 foot tower
> guy, or even with the 70 foot tower guy. Why should he bother to try?
> Are
> there many super scores from a station with stacked monobanders limited to
> 50 feet in height? No? So guess what? The little pistol, on average,
> doesn't try, he gets on for a little while on Saturday to "give out a few
> contacts", etc.
>
> I believe that if we had a category which limited antenna height to 50
> feet
> or so, and we honored those who do well with that limitation, we might
> encourage the little pistol to improve his station and make a serious
> attempt to place well in the low antenna category. In the process we
> might
> just get more participation from the little pistols, and isn't this what
> we
> want?
>
> I don't believe the antenna height for the category should be any higher
> than 50 feet. In the past, I competed successfully on 10 M and
> occasionally
> on 15 M with a 60 foot tower, and had a lot of fun. At 60 feet stacked 10M
> is very plausible. I think we should establish a category height which
> allows discourages the use of stacks at HF, in order to give the vast
> majority of hams, the little pistols, an opportunity to compete with each
> other. And we definitely do not want a height (22M) which just happens to
> allow for 20M monobanders at a wave-length high. It would defeat the
> purpose.
>
> Those of us who want to compete with our towers at above 50 feet would not
> be hurt in the slightest by having an antenna category which allowed the
> little pistols the opportunity to compete with each other and gain
> recognition. We might come out way ahead, and even avoid the Sunday
> Doldrums, by giving this encouragement to the little pistols.
>
> No, I don't think we need more categories. Separate category for SO2R?
> Nope, that relates to operator proficiency. I can't do SO2R, and that is
> my
> problem. I do not want a separate category to protect me from the more
> proficient operator. He deserves to win.
>
> Incidentally, my pitch for a 50 foot category is not self serving. I have
> a
> 72 foot crankup which will support 15 M at 37 and 72 feet very nicely
> (when
> I get around to it), or when the sun spots get better, perhaps 10 M at 37,
> 54, and 72 feet. (I personally like Single Band.) More hardware makes
> more
> Qs makes more fun, and I have no intention to play in the sub 50'
> category.
> But I do strongly believe the contesting community would be better off
> with
> such a category.
>
> Thanks for the BW.
>
> 73, Rusty, na5tr
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 23, Issue 86
> ******************************************
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.803 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 11/30/2004
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list