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

[Joe]

Plus it is a LOT easier for those few with the 200 watters to cut back 
down to 100 watts, than it is for the 100 watters to go to 200 watts.

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 10/10/2016 9:33 AM, Larry Gauthier (K8UT) 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
>
>
>