[CQ-Contest] Tossing meaningless categories [was: Log checkingquestions]

Russell Hill rustyhill at earthlink.net
Fri Dec 16 16:49:56 EST 2005

In Bill's suggested category 1. for strictly limited hardware setup, I would 
like to suggest that a limitation on tower/antenna height might be useful. 
It could be 50 or 60 or 70 feet, or maybe 15 or 18 or 20 M.  or whatever. 
But whatever it might be, it would give the Little Pistol a chance against 
other Little Pistols.

73, Rusty, na5tr

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Turner" <dezrat1242 at ispwest.com>
To: "Radiosporting Fan" <radiosporting at yahoo.com>; 
<cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Tossing meaningless categories [was: Log 

> At 03:17 AM 12/16/2005, Radiosporting Fan wrote:
>>There are similar (to spotting) issues raised whenever
>>we create artificial categories.  For instance, "Why
>>is 99-watts to a 4/4/4/4 considered Low Power, while
>>101-watts to a dipole is High Power?"
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Because the category is POWER, not Effective Radiated Power, but you
> point is well taken. I think it's long overdue to rethink contest
> categories overall.
> I've said this before but I'll say it again: I would like to see two
> basic categories in contesting.
> 1. A strictly limited hardware setup, much like the WRTC contest for
> those who prefer to focus on the traditional style of contesting. One
> radio, no packet or telnet, one antenna per band, etc.
> 2. An unlimited hardware category where anything is allowed.
> Within those there could be subdivisions for HP/LP/QRP and multi op.
> It is not possible to satisfy everyone but I think this would go a long 
> way.
> Comments?
> 73, Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list