[CQ-Contest] Low Power Change to ARRL Contests
ktfrog007 at aol.com
ktfrog007 at aol.com
Mon Dec 27 09:33:55 EST 2021
Now, why doesn't someone do the same with the NA Sprint? Low power makes even more sense there.
73,Ken, AB1J
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Horn <bhorn at hornucopia.com>
To: Jack Brindle <jackbrindle at me.com>
Cc: Bill Coleman <aa4lr at arrl.net>; Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com>; John Unger <w4au.john at gmail.com>; Ted Bryant <w4nz at comcast.net>; cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>; Dick Green WC1M <wc1m73 at gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, Dec 27, 2021 4:56 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Low Power Change to ARRL Contests
Well, time flies! Bob, K6ZZ, and I as the CW and SSB NAQP managers, respectively, published a discussion of several administrative issues regarding the NAQPs in NCJ in 1999. One of those issues was whether the maximum power should be reduced to 100W. At that time we stated that we didn't think that was necessary. However, subsequent feedback from regular NAQP participants made it clear that the consensus was to make the change to the lower power. As a result the year 2000 rules specified the maximum output power as 100W, without the aid of an external amplifier.
73 de Bruce, WA7BNM (bhorn at hornucopia.com)
----- Original Message -----
From: "cq-contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
To: "Bill Coleman" <aa4lr at arrl.net>
Cc: "Edward Sawyer" <EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com>, "John Unger" <w4au.john at gmail.com>, "Ted Bryant" <w4nz at comcast.net>, "cq-contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>, "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m73 at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2021 7:06:55 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Low Power Change to ARRL Contests
Actually, the rule change in NAQP was just a few years ago. The K1 , K2, K3, etc were definitely in existence, although the K4 was not.
The rule changes are easily researched. For Sweepstakes, look at the rules published in QST each year, at least until recently. For NAQP, the rules have been published in NCJ.
It just takes some time…
Also remember, until the late 1970s, regulations (and contest rules) specified input power to the final stage, which was usually tube-type. When the FCC changed to output power, so did the contest sponsors.
73,
Jack, W6FB
> On Dec 26, 2021, at 2:10 PM, Bill Coleman <aa4lr at arrl.net> wrote:
>
> If memory serves, when the rule change was made, the K1 didn’t exist. Heck, I don’t believe Elecraft existed yet.
>
> The whole spirit of the NAQP was to get people to turn off their amplifiers and run barefoot. When the organizers discovered there were at least a few people running amplifiers to get from 100 to 150W, they changed the rules.
>
> And, yeah, if you own an FT-whatever that can run 200w and you want to enter as anything other than a checklog in the NAQP, you should turn the juice down to 100W.
>
> In any case, that’s how I remember the discussion from 20+ years ago.
>
> It is kind of interesting, though, how we have arrived here. There have always been rigs with a variety of power outputs throughout the ages. I remember Swan 700cx and 500cx, which were about 700 and 500W PEP input, probably closer to 420 and 300 watts output. Prior to that there was the Johnson Invader 2000, which could do a full legal limit at the time. Other rigs topped out at 50 watts out, like many Novice rigs, or the TenTec Century series.
>
> How did we get to 100 watts, anyway? Is it just a nice round number?
>
> I guess I could go for Low-Power being 150W, if QRP were 15W. That would put everything into nice powers of 10 progression.
>
> Since 100W is typical, though, and 150W is the exception, that’s probably where we’ve landed.
>
> Lord knows why QRP is 5W.
>
>> On Dec 26, 2021, at 10:25 AM, Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com> wrote:
>>
>> If maximum output power allowed was 150W, does it matter if someone with a K1 is using an amp to get from 5w to 150W or someone using an FT2000 is using an amp to get from 100 to 150W? 150W is 150W. And it someone has an FT5000 and turns it down to 150W, does that make it better than someone using an amp to get up to 150W? Was there some unwritten rule that said if your FT1000 was a 200W rig you should ignore the 150W and turn it down actually to 100W? If so, I missed the memo.
>>
>> Its no longer 150W. But how someone gets there, is of no importance to the rest of the participants.
>>
>> Ed N1UR
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bill Coleman <aa4lr at arrl.net>
>> Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2021 9:49 AM
>> To: John Unger <w4au.john at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com>; W4NZ Ted Bryant <w4nz at comcast.net>; cq-contest at contesting.com; wc1m73 at gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Low Power Change to ARRL Contests
>>
>> The NAQP rules were changed a couple of decades ago from 150 to 100w, when it became apparent that a few participants were running an amplifier to make up the last 50 watts.
>>
>>> On Dec 24, 2021, at 4:05 PM, John Unger <w4au.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I seem to remember that not all that long ago, when LP was 150W, that
>>> the League made it illegal to use an amp in the LP contests to bring
>>> the output of a 100W rig up to 150W. But I can’t remember exactly when
>>> that ruling was made or how common the practice was, though…
>>>
>>> 73 - John, W4AU
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 09:59 Edward Sawyer
>>> <EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe it was - back in the 60s and 70s - however it changed to
>>>> 150W output power sometime by 1980 or so and has been that ever
>>>> since, by my remembrance.
>>>>
>>>> Ed N1UR
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: W4NZ Ted Bryant <w4nz at comcast.net>
>>>> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2021 10:26 AM
>>>> To: wc1m73 at gmail.com; Edward Sawyer
>>>> <EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com>;
>>>> cq-contest at contesting.com
>>>> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Low Power Change to ARRL Contests
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't the original rule for 150w based at that time on INPUT power,
>>>> plate voltage X plate current? With final amp efficiencies then,
>>>> that equated to about 100w output, today's rule.
>>>>
>>>> 73 es MX,
>>>> Ted W4NZ
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+w4nz=
>>>> comcast.net at contesting.com] On Behalf Of wc1m73 at gmail.com
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 1:20 PM
>>>> To: 'Edward Sawyer'; cq-contest at contesting.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Low Power Change to ARRL Contests
>>>>
>>>> 100W vs 150W for Low Power has been under discussion at ARRL for a
>>>> long time. I agree that it affects comparisons with previous scores,
>>>> records, etc., but I don't have a lot of concern about that. It
>>>> doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense from a contesting
>>>> perspective to make an exception for FD, but ARRL says FD isn't a contest.
>>>>
>>>> I think the idea is that the vast majority of modern transceivers max
>>>> out at 100W (or a little less), and it requires a more expensive rig
>>>> or an amp to achieve 150W. That means you have to spend considerably
>>>> more money to be competitive in the Low Power category. Also, some
>>>> amps may not perform properly (cleanly?) at such a low gain level. I
>>>> guess there could be a concern that there would be too much
>>>> temptation to goose the power a little higher to complete a tough contact. It seems like a sensible change to me.
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking the exception for FD is to reduce the level of
>>>> frustration when operating with low wire antennas from less than
>>>> ideal locations, and ARRL wants FD to be a happy, non-competitive
>>>> event. That said, I doubt many low power teams operating on emergency
>>>> power use amps because they require more gas for the generators.
>>>>
>>>> As for messing up comparisons with previous scores and records,
>>>> that's always possible when rules are modified. But if that
>>>> consideration prevents modification of contest rules, then we can
>>>> never improve contests. Similar things happen with DXCC, Honor Roll,
>>>> #1 Honor Roll, etc. You can't compare apples to apples when the list
>>>> of official entities keeps changing, which it must. And can we really
>>>> compare Tom Brady with Joe Montana or Otto Graham?
>>>> The numbers say yes, but the rules and game were totally different in
>>>> their respective eras.
>>>>
>>>> I take contest records with a grain of salt. It's even hard to
>>>> compare one's own performance from year to year because conditions
>>>> and participation are never the same. Rough comparisons may be
>>>> helpful to see if your performance is improving, but a more useful
>>>> way to do that is to compare your rank with the same set of
>>>> competitors over a period of many years and multiple sunspot cycles
>>>> if possible. I have spreadsheets for CQ WW CW and CQ WPX CW going
>>>> back over 20 years that compare my score, rank, QSOs and mults on
>>>> each band, etc., with the winner of the contest. The spreadsheet also
>>>> records the antennas I used and solar/geomagnetic activity for the contest weekend each year.
>>>>
>>>> 73, Dick WC1M
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 7:01 AM
>>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Low Power Change to ARRL Contests
>>>>
>>>> I saw today that this change was announced in the ARRL Contests
>>>> starting in Jan 1. The Low Power Category will be changed from 150W
>>>> output to 100W output. On a contest to contest basis, this has no significant impact.
>>>> However, on previous scores it does. For any of you who have ever
>>>> seriously competed using Low Power, 50W matters on 80 and 160M,
>>>> especially on SSB contests.
>>>>
>>>> I found it surprising that an exception was made for Field Day????
>>>> Really???
>>>> Why Field Day? Isn't everyone using primarily mobile HF rigs for
>>>> Field Day anyway and none put out more than 100W? And since "its not a contest" why
>>>> is making that exception so important. The never ending head scratching
>>>> over the ARRL and Field Day......
>>>>
>>>> This will make records harder to beat in this category going forward.
>>>>
>>>> Ed N1UR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
>> Web: http://boringhamradiopart.blogspot.com
>> Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
>> -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
> Web: http://boringhamradiopart.blogspot.com
> Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
> -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list