[CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation

Wed Mar 15 23:27:18 EDT 2017

Sorry to not explain clearly.  So let me try again more explicitly this 
time.

Interleaving two QRG slots on the SAME band, even if it is allowed under the 
rules, is not something I am personally favoring given it's nearly 
impossible to find ONE clean QRG with the common practices with one guy per 
single frequency.

I just don't see the argument that operating split in a non-contesting 
time - where the bands are relatively uncrowded - is the same as the 
2-QRG/1-band thing.  Within contest events, guys generally don't do it even 
if it's not prohibited.

The exception to this is generally due to region 1 & 2 overlaps where bands 
are effectively widened by the use of large splits in DX contests to take 
advantage of a transmission privilege in one region that's prohibited in 
another.  I don't see the conflict in that case because this sort of region 
difference-driven split allows for some relief of the crowing by the 
practice where conventional (split 5-20 up like a dxpedition would use) sort 
of operation definitely would make for more crowding.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Rudy Bakalov
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 9:47 PM
To: Jeff AC0C
Cc: Radio K0HB ; Helmut Mueller ; cq-contest at contesting.com ; W0MU Mike 
Fatchett
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation

So convenience trumps principles? This is not surprising.

Split on 80 and 40, sometimes even on 20, is a common practice during SSB 
contests.

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate 
autocorrect.

> On Mar 15, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Jeff AC0C <keepwalking188 at ac0c.com> wrote:
>
> Sure you can.  Split is not generally used in contesting specifically 
> because of the dual spectrum use on one band.
>
> There is some of that done by way of exception - especially on 40m - where 
> the common international band allocations are tight to begin with as a way 
> to expand the effective band.  But otherwise split is definitely frowned 
> on. Too bad; there are sometimes where a really rare DX guy shows up in a 
> contest and his rate is near zero because of the massive pile up all on 
> one frequency...
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> www.ac0c.com
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:45 PM
> To: Radio K0HB
> Cc: Helmut Mueller ; cq-contest at contesting.com ; W0MU Mike Fatchett
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation
>
> The same argument can be made for working so split. Sounds like the two 
> use cases of using extra spectrum are treated differently. You can't pick 
> and chose and favor one vs the other.
>
> Rudy N2WQ
>
> Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or 
> inappropriate autocorrect.
>
>
>> On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Helmut, I don't think that this resistance to interleaved-CQ is
>> "anti-innovation" at all, but resistance to "excess occupancy".
>>
>> By any reasonable measure, running interleaved CQs on two QRG's in the 
>> same
>> band consumes two operating channels on that band. In the existing period
>> of limited propagation, many would consider such double-occupancy of a
>> finite resource to be selfish, not innovative.
>>
>> Suppose for a moment, that I could "innovate" a method of interleaving 10
>> CQs on a single band. Would you applaud my innovation, or would you curse
>> my hoggery?
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:07 Helmut Mueller <helmut at photo42.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Guys.
>>>
>>> These "new" techniques are just the evolution of contest, deal with it!
>>>
>>> There are different contests out there who have different rules and 
>>> smart
>>> people REALLY understand the rules and apply every effort that is 
>>> allowed
>>> by the rules! This is called contesting art or INOVATION!
>>>
>>> You want to make all contests the same? Keep whining!
>>>
>>> Centurys ago someone came up with stacked antennas: I bet there were
>>> people moaning about this.
>>> Centurys ago someone came up with computer logging and keying: I bet 
>>> there
>>> were people moaning about this.
>>> Centurys ago someone came up with SO2R: People were moaning about this.
>>> There are many more examples like this ... now we have SO2RUN or
>>> Interleave QSOs!
>>>
>>> I call this innovation! It is fantastic!
>>>
>>> This is from the PJ2T website:
>>>
>>> Dedicated to fun, international friendship, and advancement of the
>>> contesting art through superior operating technique and maximum 
>>> application
>>> of technology
>>>
>>> Could not say it any better!
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> Helmut DF7ZS
>>>
>>> df7zs.de
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] Im Auftrag 
>>> von
>>> W0MU Mike Fatchett
>>> Gesendet: Wednesday, 15 March, 2017 04:50 AM
>>> An: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>> Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs on Two or More
>>> Frequencies in the Same Band
>>>
>>> If you agree that the rules need to be changed,  you need to make your
>>> ARRL Division Directors aware of your feelings.  I believe there is a
>>> meeting coming up soon and I believe that this item can be taken up at 
>>> that
>>> time.
>>>
>>> Alternating CQ's on different bands is pretty common on RTTY.  I think
>>> that this practice should be allowed and monitored to make sure that
>>> stations are adhering to the one transmitted signal at a time for Single
>>> ops.
>>>
>>> I can only image the situation where we have a wall of stations at
>>> 14.150 going up and 14.347 going down for alternating cq's. Add in EU 
>>> and
>>> the Caribbean and we have a big mess.
>>>
>>> W0MU
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 3/14/2017 5:08 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
>>>> I strongly support Frank's proposal, but the prohibition should apply 
>>>> to
>>> Single Ops, too, as it does in CQ WW.
>>>>
>>>> I realize that multi-op stations are more likely to be equipped to do
>>> alternating CQs on the same band (A and B radios with two ops on each 
>>> band,
>>> multiple antennas per band with good isolation), but it certainly can be
>>> done in an SO2R station. If only one band is open enough to run, then 
>>> the
>>> impact on the spectrum is the same.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a compelling reason to allow Single Ops to do alternating CQs
>>> on the same band?
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I think a case could be made for banning alternating CQs
>>> altogether. I'd regret that because I've sometimes used it as a Single 
>>> Op
>>> to boost rate or fight boredom, but it definitely does use up more
>>> spectrum. If only two bands are open in a big contest, that spectrum is
>>> likely to be very limited. What if a rare mult running low power can't 
>>> find
>>> a place to CQ because the alternating CQers are taking up more than 
>>> their
>>> share of space? What about the impact on non-contesters?
>>>>
>>>> 73. Dick WC1M
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: donovanf at starpower.net [mailto:donovanf at starpower.net]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 2:01 PM
>>>> To: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs on Two or More
>>>> Frequencies in the Same Band
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I recommend that alternating CQs on two or more frequencies on the same
>>> band be prohibited immediately in all ARRL HF contests, exactly as it is
>>> now prohibited in all CQ WW DX Contests and for multi-operators in the 
>>> IARU
>>> HF Championship.
>>>>
>>>> The reason for my recommendation is that the recent success of the
>>>> PJ4G team in CQing on alternate frequencies on the same band (both on
>>>> 20 and 15 meters) in the recent ARRL SSB DX Contest will inevitably be
>>>> applied -- very soon -- by other multi-operator competitors in future
>>>> ARRL contests. Unfortunately this will be to the very considerable
>>>> detriment of other HF spectrum users
>>>> -- both contesters and non-contesters -- because of the very limited
>>> available spectrum on every HF band below 28 MHz.
>>>>
>>>> The obvious course of action is to simply apply existing IARU HF
>>> Championship rule 4.3.2.1 to all multi-operator categories in all ARRL 
>>> HF
>>> contests.
>>>>
>>>> 4.3.2.1. Alternating CQs on two or more frequencies on the same band is
>>> not permitted.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.arrl.org/iaru-hf-championship
>>>>
>>>> A CAC sub-committee is currently engaged in a Rules Consolidation
>>> Project to consolidate “The General Rules of all ARRL Contests”
>>>> “The General Rules for all ARRL contests Below 30 MHz” and individual
>>> contest rules into a single rule set for each of the ARRL HF Contests.
>>>>
>>>> In addition to the consolidation of the rules structure, the ARRL
>>> Programs and Services Committee (PSC) asked the team to develop any
>>> accompanying commentary they choose as to areas where the perceive that 
>>> the
>>> rules might benefit from revision and, where appropriate, to suggest
>>> revised language.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2016/J
>>>> uly/Doc_24_0716.pdf
>>>>
>>>> While the CAC's role is solely to respond to projects and issues
>>> assigned by the ARRL Programs and Services Committee; the CAC chairman 
>>> can
>>> recommend future CAC projects and issues to the PSC.
>>>>
>>>> 73
>>>> Frank
>>>> W3LPL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>> -- 
>> 73, de Hans, K0HB
>> --
>> "Just a boy and his radio"™
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 