[CQ-Contest] HOGGING COEFFICIENT
Joe
nss at mwt.net
Sun Apr 9 18:55:50 EDT 2017
Logs yes, but not equipment, Like me, every QSO says if CW 7050 if SSB
7200 because old radio can not talk to computer.
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/9/2017 4:23 PM, Matt NQ6N wrote:
> Joe, I think something along those lines is a great idea and would add
> to the number of operating strategies (and station optimization
> strategies) that could be used tow in. Most logs include the exact
> frequency the QSO was made on, so it would be possible to verify S&P
> vs run.
>
> 73,
> Matt NQ6N
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Joe <nss at mwt.net
> <mailto:nss at mwt.net>> wrote:
>
> 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>
> <mailto: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>
> <http://www.lb3re.com>
> > post at lb3re.com <mailto:post at lb3re.com>
> <mailto:post at lb3re.com <mailto:post at lb3re.com>>
> > GSM +4748224421 <tel:%2B4748224421>// +4791999421
> <tel:%2B4791999421>
> >
> >
> >> Den 7. apr. 2017 kl. 17.20 skrev Ron Notarius W3WN
> <wn3vaw at verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net>
> <mailto: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
> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>>
> >>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>>
> >
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> <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
> <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
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list