[CQ-Contest] inhale, spots, skimmer, etc: WHAT'S THE POINT?

Bob Naumann W5OV at W5OV.COM
Thu Oct 27 03:40:44 PDT 2011

Doug is onto something here, but he is still trying to define what
"assisted" means, when we MUST define what single op means first!

By specifically defining what a single operator is and does, one can compare
with that, and clearly see if one is a single operator or not.

As I have proposed before:

Single Operator (that is, one who is operating Without Assistance) must
*alone* perform both of the following activities:
#1 - locate (tune in) each signal AND
#2 - identify each callsign that will be entered into his log.

Both #1 and #2 requirements must be met in order to be considered single op.

The operator must #1 locate or tune in each signal (or set his radio to a
specific frequency by turning a dial, or initiate frequency selection by
computer control or whatever) AND
#2, he must identify (or copy) the callsign of that station he located by

Devices that automatically do either or both of these two functions, like
skimmer, would not be part of what a single op can use
- as it (skimmer), rather than the operator, would be locating and
identifying the callsigns that would end up in the log.

Again, if there is another operator involved in performing either of these
two activities, then your entry category would be multi-operator of some
sort and definitely not Assisted. In other words, one cannot get assistance
in this context from another person

So, if you're not single op by the above definition, you might be assisted
or you might be multi-op. Those definitions must be thought out next.

Measuring power etc. will follow too!


Bob W5OV

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of kr2q at optimum.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 11:52 AM
To: CQ-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] inhale, spots, skimmer, etc: WHAT'S THE POINT?


I think many (most?) folks are missing the point here (as I see it), so I'll
spell it out.

The RULES could be better crafted.  So far, we have a bunch of mostly
debating about what the Rules may or may not mean, what the Rules may or
many not intend, and what the Rules may or may not actually define as
currently written.Some guys say that KR2Q fails to understand things and is
just nuts for readingthe ARRL rule that way.  Then, WC1M from the ARRL CAC
comes out and AGREES with KR2Q on that interpretation of the ARRL Rule, as
currently written.  So who is nuts?

BIG POINT: ...What are the non-English speakers supposed to do?  
The point (for me) is NOT to debate what exists now, which is clearly NOT
crystal clear.

Sponsors should not have rules that are "subject to individual
interpretation," which is CLEARLY what
we have now, at least with respect to Assisted.  If native English speakers
(including Americans) can'tfigure it out, what about the rest of the
world?BIG POINT: It is not just "assisted" or "skimmer."  Recently, a video
was posted of a contestoperation.  It clearly showed one of the ops driving
TWO amps on the same QRG and bothamps, with a nice, big LED display, were
being driven off the end.  Well, certainly THAT mustbe a violation, right? 
I mean, both amps are putting out over 1500 watts, right?  NO!  In
exchangedcorrespondence, the "entrants" claim that their interpretation of
"1500 watts output" is as measuredAT THE ANTENNA.  They further cite
multiple reference sources across various industries that define it that
way.  They claim long and lossy feedlines and declare that "at the antennas"
(combined) itis actually more like 1000 watts "output."  I can tell you that
not one "American*" thought that "output power" meant "at the antenna." 
Uponfurther questioning of our contest buddies "over seas" (not these same
guys), other say, "Yeah,of course...at the antenna!"   And some say, "No, at
the rig."  So just where is the output to bemeasured?  CQWWDX, WPX, ARRL DX,
etc...NOBODY defines it.  Gosh, I'd sure liketo measure my output "at the
antenna."  That would be a game changer for me!So there is no such as thing
as "obvious" or "it clearly means."  This is NOT making contestinginto a
"legal document."  Rather, it is something that is simply required so that
we are all playingthe same game; so that we are all engaging in FAIR PLAY.de
Doug KR2Q* those that reviewed this video and shared their thoughts with me.
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list