[CQ-Contest] HOGGING COEFFICIENT

Sat Apr 8 11:47:54 EDT 2017

Matt, let's take this to an another level of absurdity.

How is the new single operator 2BSIQ any less onerous? OK, I'm 
transmitting on only one band at a time, but the pileups that my dueling 
CQ's have generated on each band most likely never stop, ergo, by my 
direct actions, I'm 'hogging' twice the bandwidth. And the rarer my 
multiplier, most probably, the bigger my pileups and I've maximized my 
HOGGING COEFFICIENT (HC).

One could say that multi-multi's W3LPL, K3LR et al have taken their HC 
to the penultimate level by sometimes (incessantly) CQing on six 
frequencies simultaneously.  Should we eliminate multi-multi's or state 
that they can never CQ on more than 3 bands at a any given moment?  Just 
think how this will help all the East Coasters who can't find a clear 
run frequency to Europe!!

Or to the maxima HC absurdity: only select stations can ever CQ. Most of 
us will designated with an HC of Zero and forever be relegated to the 
ash heap of Search and Pounce.  Assisted and packet spots can take on a 
whole new level of appreciation and the designated CQers can award 
trophies to those who spotted them the most times thereby helping all of 
us by opening  up all of this newly found wide open frequency spectra.

Can't wait.

Vy 73

Jim Neiger   N6TJ

On 4/8/2017 5:48 AM, Matt NQ6N wrote:
> If the concern is bandwidth used, shouldn't split operation be banned 
> as well? How does same band dueling CQ use more bandwidth than 
> "listening on this frequency and 7050"?
>
> In both cases it is the activity triggered by the running station on 
> both frequencies that prevents those frequencies from being used by 
> someone else.
>
> Not arguing for banning either, just pointing out that if bandwidth is 
> the concern they are essentially identical examples of "hogging" a 
> scarce resource.
>
> 73,
> Matt NQ6N
>
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 7:39 AM Jim Neiger <n6tj at sbcglobal.net 
> <mailto:n6tj at sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>
>     i agree. Like a few more signals on any band are suddenly going to
>     overwhelm everyone?  Operators can, and will, adjust.
>
>     I remember the 2002 ARRL 10 Meters contest from ZD8.   The band was
>     loaded, every kc up to 29.2.  To paraphrase Neil Diamond's song:
>     Beautiful Noise...................
>
>     As far as I'm concerned, wall to wall signals from one end of our
>     spectra to the other is music.  Especially the next five years of
>     solar
>     doldrums, we can only dream..............
>
>     Vy 73
>
>     Jim Neiger  N6TJ
>
>
>     On 4/7/2017 10:16 AM, Stein-Roar Brobakken wrote:
>     > Hi guys
>     >
>     > Why not add the category SOMT single op multi transmitter? 👍
>     >
>     > So those having skills to run multiple vfo at once can do
>     practice their skills??
>     >
>     > People are just different and some manage to make it!!
>     >
>     > Best Regards,
>     > Stein-Roar Brobakken
>     > LB3RE K3RAG
>     > www.lb3re.com <http://www.lb3re.com>
>     > post at lb3re.com <mailto:post at lb3re.com>
>     > GSM +4748224421// +4791999421
>     >
>     >
>     >> Den 7. apr. 2017 kl. 17.20 skrev Ron Notarius W3WN
>     <wn3vaw at verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net>>:
>     >>
>     >> IMHO, let's not make too much out of this decision.
>     >>
>     >> As explained in the newsbite that made the announcement, the
>     practice of
>     >> "dueling CQ's" was never intended to be permitted. Only
>     recently has
>     >> technology and (to be fair) operator skill advanced to the
>     point where it
>     >> was possible.
>     >>
>     >> And now someone did it.  Correctly pointing out that within the
>     strict
>     >> letter of the contest rules in place, the practice was not actually
>     >> prohibited.
>     >>
>     >> I know many believe "if it is not strictly forbidden, it is
>     implicitly
>     >> allowed".  On something like this, it is unfortunate that
>     accepted practice
>     >> had to be explicitly mentioned.  Regardless, an unintended
>     consequence of
>     >> not spelling out this specific instance was that a loophole was
>     created and
>     >> exploited.
>     >>
>     >> If you want to give a tip of the hat to the PJ4G folks for
>     finding and
>     >> exploiting said loophole, well, they or someone on the team did
>     the work and
>     >> uncovered it.
>     >>
>     >> The important thing is... They did not break the rules, in fact
>     they
>     >> strictly adhered to the rules, as they were written at the time.
>     >>
>     >> Now that it's been exposed, the loophole has been closed and
>     the unintended
>     >> consequence should not happen again.  And that is how it should be.
>     >>
>     >> And that should be the end of that.
>     >>
>     >> 73, ron w3wn
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> ---
>     >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>     software.
>     >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> CQ-Contest mailing list
>     >> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>     >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > CQ-Contest mailing list
>     > CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>     > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     CQ-Contest mailing list
>     CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>     http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>