[CQ-Contest] HOGGING COEFFICIENT
Joe
nss at mwt.net
Sun Apr 9 11:59:19 EDT 2017
Ok lets take this one step further, and it could be interesting, but how
to police it?
QSO Points.
Points made by CQing, = 1 QSO Point
Points made by S&Ping, = 2 points
Thoughts?
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/8/2017 10:47 AM, Jim Neiger wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list