[CQ-Contest] RES: WPX M/S "one transmitter"

py5eg py5eg at iesa.com.br
Mon Mar 16 09:43:49 PDT 2009

Hi Doug:
Nice to see some friend with same opinion on this "one signal" or "one transmitter".
This is even worst on M/2 operation. Most of the M/2 are not using any interlock device. It is impossible to assure that there only two signals at a given time.
Oms PY5EG 

-----Mensagem original-----
De: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] Em nome de kr2q at optimum.net
Enviada em: segunda-feira, 16 de março de 2009 07:57
Para: cq-contest at contesting.com
Assunto: [CQ-Contest] WPX M/S "one transmitter"

Tonno raised an interesting point about "one transmitter" versus "one signal."

Personally, I think the "one transmitter" concept if ideal for M/S (and not "one signal").

The concept of "one signal," as described, includes multiple transmitters per band, which clearly must be interlocked to be comply with the letter and spirit of the rules.

I think having multiple transmitters per band will lead to situations where there are two signals on the band at once, but unless someone happens to be very lucky and discovers that by "accident," that entrant will be able (in theory) to violate the rules and never be caught.  Even QSOs "in the same minute" can be argued (later) that one QSO took place 00:00:00 and the other took place at 00:00:30.  Or more likely, that one took place every 10 seconds, in perfect synchronization.

In CQWW DX, the odds of finding new mults on the 2nd rig, other than the very beginning of the contest, is not so great, so 10 minutes affords one plenty of time to grab all of the available "new" mults.  In WPX, however, every 1:3 QSO's is a new mult for the entire contest (just a guess at the ratio).  In CQWW DX, nobody works "so many" new mults in the allowed 10 minute window.  But in WPX, I can easily imagine that one would work new mults at a very high rate by using (say) 5 rigs per band and each operator covering X kc of the same band.  Each op tunes "their" segment of the band (say 20kc on CW) and finds a new mult. When everybody is queued up with a new mult (no conflicts) and the 10 minutes "starts," they each take one turn working one new mult.:  Mult Op#1 works "his" new mult.  
The moment he is done, Mult Op#2 works "his" new mult., etc.  After each op completes "his" new Mult qso, he immediately starts to retune "his" segment of the band so as to find the next "new mult."  Or, each op is allowed to work 2 or 3 or even 4 new mults in a row before handing it off to the next op to work "his" segment.  There are lots of approaches.

I do not think that this is the original intention of the M/S rule.  It sure does sound like a lot of fun and a big challenge to coordinate the "team" (well, probably multiple teams: one per band), and would generate HUGE scores.  It is really more like a handicapped M/M.  
I guess Randy has to figure out if this is where he wants to go or not.

de Doug KR2Q
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

Esta mensagem pode conter informação confidencial e/ou privilegiada. Se você
não for o destinatário ou a pessoa autorizada a receber esta mensagem, não
deverá utilizar, copiar, alterar, divulgar a informação nela contida ou
tomar qualquer ação baseada nessas informações. Se você recebeu esta
mensagem por engano, por favor avise imediatamente o remetente, respondendo
o e-mail e em seguida apague-o.

This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
are not the addressee or the person authorized to receive this message, you
must not use, copy, disclose, change, take any action based on this message
or any information herein. If you have received this message by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list