[CQ-Contest] Log Analysis.

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

No, I think he's saying that simplifying the Multi-Single to mean SINGLE
transmitter -- which I read as no mult station(s), and no octopi or lockouts
time-slicing or other gimmicks to try and use two stations at once and
pretend to be one -- would create a simpler category to set rules for and
operate.

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rex Maner
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 10:01 PM
To: kd4d at comcast.net; cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log Analysis.

Mark
I think what your saying is  SO2R / or  Just SO , leave the Multi to those 
others to work out.

Quack  : >)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <kd4d at comcast.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log Analysis.


> Hi Trent:
>
> I disagree with this.  Eliminating the "multiplier" station, and having a
> 10-minute rule (along, of course, with a single transmitted signal) would
> create a simpler category that would permit some operators and a radio to
> have fun.  :-)
>
> 73,
>
> Mark, KD4D
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "VK4TI" <vk4ti at wia.org.au>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:03:33 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log Analysis.
>
>
> The most sensible suggestion seems to be -
>
> Do away with M/S as a category and have M2 or MM categories only..
>
> when the rules were formulted for the VK SHIRES contest M2 was the only
> multi operator category due to the anomalies caused by M/S.
>
> Perhaps the category (M/S) has been over taken by technology..
>
> Trent VK4TI
>
>
> brian coyne wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have been looking at some old CQWW CW logs for hints and tips, to
>> discover how some of the top guns operate.
>>
>> In some of them I came across apparantly  glaring anomolies which did not
>> accord with my understanding of the M/S rules.
>> However after following the thread on here 'Why The 10 min rule anyway'I
>> realised that I had it all wrong and it is a case of
>> 'if it isn't specifically excluded by the wording of the rules then it's
>> ok,' - anything goes.
>>
>> For a nation which has the highest number of lawyers in the world in it's
>> population, probably by numbers as well as per capita, I find it
>> bewildering that CQWW Committee cannot come up with a rule which would
>> govern their intent!
>>
>> Be that as it may I will come to the point of this post....
>>
>> Below is a log extract from a top M/S contender. It covers a period of 4
>> minutes and, ignoring the contact in the 32nd minute, records 20 qso's.
>> The run freq is 14099, there was one mlt on 21mhz, ignoring that one I
>> make that to be 10 frequency changes on 14mhz in that time period. Wow
>> that's some going, 5 q's per minute, 10 frq changes, plus a mlt....
>> but wait, see how the times jump around? does that mean merged logs, why
>> would there need to be merged logs same band, could it be two 
>> transmitters
>> same band? Well I never!
>>
>> IMO, and many others too, the M/S has become a joke, merge it with the
>> M/2, or change the rules to one transciever and one receiver connected up
>> at one time, the spotting station to have no mic or key available.
>> At least then the Station Inspector would know what he is looking for,
>> strikes me otherwise he has no chance of knowing what is going on, with
>> regard to this section of the rules anyway.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Brian 5B4AIZ  (C4Z).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> QSO: 14039 CW 200-11-25 1328
>> QSO: 14099 CW 200-11-25 1328
>> QSO: 14102 CW 200-11-25 1328
>> QSO: 14099 CW 200-11-25 1328
>> QSO: 14099 CW 200-11-25 1328
>> QSO: 14065 CW 200-11-25 1329
>> QSO: 14099 CW 200-11-25 1328
>> QSO: 14099 CW 200-11-25 1329
>> QSO: 14114 CW 200-11-25 1330
>> QSO: 14099 CW 200-11-25 1329
>> QSO: 14099 CW 200-11-25 1329
>> QSO: 14099 CW 200-11-25 1330
>> QSO: 21034 CW 200-11-25 1329
>> QSO: 14099 CW 200-11-25 1330
>> QSO: 14058 CW 200-11-25 1331
>> QSO: 14099 CW 200-11-25 1330
>> QSO: 14099 CW 200-11-25 1331
>> QSO: 14099 CW 2007-11-25 1331
>> QSO: 14028 CW 2007-11-25 1332
>> QSO: 14099 CW 2007-11-25 1331
>> QSO: 14099 CW 2007-11-25 1331
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: 
> http://n2.nabble.com/Log-Analysis-tp3494685p3496536.html
> Sent from the CQ Contesting (Nabble) mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.64/2319 - Release Date: 08/22/09 
06:06:00

____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYQ3424BRx176vCJesfrvP4S
Famh1GhXTwOkhk8JkM4gDpQOoWguOE/
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest