[CQ-Contest] Handicap For Dirty Rigs

[Charles Harpole]

I want my blockers, running backs, and even receivers to be as big as
humanly possible (and some are).   WIDE shoulders and beefy bodies.
But it could be that someday NFL will be flag football and CQ WW will be
just on EchoLink, hee hee.   Charly

(Running back in fey voice:  OOH, you big boy, you hit me sooo hard!)

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd at charter.net>
wrote:

> It is true that some rigs (depending on how they are operated) can produce
> signals that appear wider than normal.  Can you think of a way to express
> this in technical terms rather than using a K3 as a reference.  Contesting
> needs to have a dialog around what is the accepted standard for signal
> width
> or "cleanliness".
>
> What test equipment would some use to evaluate their own signal in the
> shack?
>
> What would be a good test standard for someone listening to capture the
> essence of the signal quality?
>
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> > Jim Brown
> > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 4:57 PM
> > To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Handicap For Dirty Rigs
> >
> > In my study of the TX Noise produced by current transceivers, I noted the
> > significant advantage enjoyed by users of dirty rigs by pushing other
> > stations away from their TX frequency, and making it difficult (or
> > impossible) for stations to S&P near them. Consider the lineup of
> > hundreds of NA stations in the 15 kHz 160M JA window, and comparable
> > conditions from east coast to EU. One FTDX5000D burns five K3 channels;
> > one ICOM 7800,7700, 7600, burns three. I run a K3 and a Ten Tec Titan,
> > which is quite clean. I've established a run frequency for JA only to run
> > off by a guy with a dirty power amp 700 Hz away.
> >
> > Competitors using these dirty rigs should pay the price competitively. I
> > propose a scoring penalty of 15% to the users of FTDX5000 and other Yaesu
> > rigs in that family (study ARRL data to understand why that's valid), and
> > 10% to users of IC7800, 7700, 7600. KE1B, who uses a 7600 to drive a
> > solid state amp, wipes out 10 kHz of whatever band he is on for me on CW,
> > more on SSB. I'm not a WRTC competitor, but K6XX is, and his dirty TX
> > hurts Bob worse than me. By contrast, Bob and I, with K3s and tube amps,
> > can work 500 Hz apart and barely know the other is there. And Bob is
> > three miles closer than KE1B.
> >
> > Is this fair? I contend that with the right to run high power comes the
> > responsibility to produce the CLEANEST signal consistent with the state
> > of the art. K3 has established the state of the art, and preliminary data
> > from the mfr suggest  that Flex 6000-series may be as good. Kenwood
> > TS590S is 10 dB worse, at a very modest price. I contend THAT is state of
> > the art, and that ICOM and Yaesu fail to meet it.
> >
> > Yes, I'm saying that users of these dirty rigs need to replace them with
> > cleaner ones. In 2008, I sold a pair of loaded FT1000MPs at significant
> > loss to be replaced by K3s. I did this because I could see from specs
> > that I needed to do that to coexist with my neighbors. Before that, I
> > owned a pair of TS850s and K2s. All sold.
> >
> > And remember -- this is ARRL's data, not mine. :)
> >
> >  From my days in the civil rights movement of the '60s and '70s -- "if
> > you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem!" I've dumped
> > my dirty rigs -- how about YOU?
> >
> > 73, Jim K9YC
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>



-- 
Charly, HS0ZCW