[CQ-Contest] modest proposal ...up to 200w

[Mark Sihlanick]

I really wish arrl would drop the 150w limit in
favor of 100w. But of course that is self
serving. After so2r filters, stubs and a triplexer
I'm more like 85 watts leaving the shack.

Mark n2qt

On Oct 10, 2016 9:31 AM, "Larry Gauthier (K8UT)" <K8UT at charter.net> wrote:

> Charly,
>
> >With many modern transceivers now offering a top wattage of 200 watts...
>
> Looking at the category of transceivers that produce 200 watts, it is not
> the word "modern" that distinguishes them from other rigs, but the word
> "expensive." These are typically the upper-end of the manufacturers'
> product line and the manufacturers demand upper-end pricing. A huge segment
> of the contesting community - not just K3 owners - would be disadvantaged
> by your proposal.
>
> I personally think the current 100 watt distinction provides a reasonable
> distinction between QRP and the full legal limit, and see no compelling
> reason to change that.
>
> -larry (K8UT)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Harpole
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 3:56 AM
> To: CQ-Contest Reflector
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] modest proposal ...up to 200w
>
> With many modern transceivers now offering a top wattage of 200watts, how
> about aligning the category of medium power to 200watts??
>
> Ok, I guess K3 owners will become upset, but some feel that radio is so
> superior, shouldn't they have to take a little handicap?
>
> I told you my proposal is modest, but then I read Jonathan Swift.  73,
> Charly
>
>
>
> --
> Charly, HS0ZCW
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>