[CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?...

[Peter Chamalian]

Back in the day when it was my privilege to serve on the CAC, we wrote the
rule to definitively kill the octopus and any sort of time sharing.  In
those days, using two rigs on one band was not in the cards (heck we had
enough trouble keeping the QRM down from adjacent bands).

The Acom device would fall under this new rule (based on the intent we wrote
back in the 1980's).  It's simple.  One rig, one band, 10 minutes (or
whatever the current rule is for band changing).  Period.

Actually, it was Gene, W3ZZ who came up with the initial concept of how to
kill the octopus.  Gene had operated with the Conn Wireless Assn and we did
use the octopus invented by W2ADE.  But we hated it and the rule we came up
with put a stake in its heart once and for all.

Now I'm speaking with no authority and current CAC members/KX9X may offer a
different opinion.  

Pete, W1RM

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerry Hull [mailto:gerry at yccc.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 1:20 PM
To: CQ-Contest
Subject: [CQ-Contest] ARRL FD Rule 4 Opinion?...

There was already a discussion about the new addition to rule 4:
"The use of switching systems that allow for lockouts in order to use
multiple transmitters (i.e., an "octopus") in an attempt to enter a
lower-number-of-transmitters class are prohibited (i.e. using 2 transmitters
that can transmit simultaneously, with two operators, and a lock-out system
and entering class 1A)."

However, it's not clear to me:

If I use something like an Acom commutator to feed two radios to a single
antenna, and only one radio can transmit at a time (no simultaneous
transmission), does this satisfy the rule?

FD Categories say nothing about the number of receivers...

73, Gerry W1VE
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest