[CQ-Contest] Split operation in CQ WW CW

[Albert Crespo]

Bob probably meant to get across the concept that one  should not listen up 
5 as expeditions do so. If the pileup is really  getting out of hand, then 
up 1 should be enough as long as those calling do not zero beat with each 
other. The problem is communicating where one is listening.  Just sending up 
is not enough because many times you can only hear the station you are 
calling and not the callers.
Let's not  introduce another bad practice  where you have to have the 
Internet to find out where someone  is listening in a contest!

-----Original Message----- 
From: Tõnno Vähk
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:17 AM
To: Jim Neiger ; CQ contest reflector
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Split operation in CQ WW CW

Split operation in CW contest is a very useful tool. Every DX being
covered by pile up should use split (of course in a sensible way). It
should be encouraged to full extent. Complaining about using too much
space is simply ridiculous considering that there is abundance of space on
the bands for CW.

Es5tv

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Neiger
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:44 AM
To: Chris Tran GM3WOJ; CQ contest reflector
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Split operation in CQ WW CW

I was told many years ago, "everyday try and find a smile, try and find
something to laugh about"

Thanks Bob K3EST for making my day........

Sure enough, in last year's WW CW results write-up, Bob pens : "It has
come
to our attention that some DX entrants are operating split on CW"    Huh?

Admittedly its been a few years since the K3EST led teams dominated the CQ
WW from multi-multi PJ1B and often I was on the losing (No. 2) team.  Now
I've finally figured it out why we could never beat PJ1B:  they must've
worked everybody zero beat with their transmitting frequency!!!   Oh my
gosh, how stupid could we be??

I'll close this with some lines from the Joni Mitchell hit song:

"But where are the clowns, send in the clowns Don't bother they're here

Isn't it rich?  Isn't it queer?
Losing my timing this late in my career
But where are the clowns?  There ought to be clowns Well maybe next
year............."

Vy 73,

Increasingly Amazed,
Jim Neiger  N6TJ


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Chris Tran GM3WOJ" <gm3woj at christran.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 4:40 AM
To: "CQ contest reflector" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Split operation in CQ WW CW

> Hello all
>
> In the CQ WW CW 2011 results, Bob K3EST says 'split operation in a
> major contest should not happen'.
>
> I absolutely agree if the big Single-ops or Multi-ops decide to go
> split just to increase their rates, but for the small contest
> DXpedition with limited antennas and power, it means that it becomes
> *impossible* to work stations on certain bands - the pile-up cannot
> hear you properly and just calls continuously.
>
>>From my experience of being a rare mult at GZ7V in 2010 and ZK2V last
>>year,
> I could not work anything on 80m or 40m, 20m was tough, and only 15m
> and 10m were really useable - once the pile-up builds on e.g. 40m your
> rate drops to zero after only a few minutes. I went 'up 1' on 10m for
> a while which made life easier for everyone. Split was not viable on 40m
or 20m.
>
> If split operation is not allowed, it should say so in the rules ?
>
> 73
> Chris
> GM3WOJ / ZL1CT
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest