[ct-user] Tools for CQWW M2 category ?

alsopb alsopb@gloryroad.net
Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:58:43 +0000


Jiri,

Clearly, I must have gored your ox.  Sorry. 

What you say is simply not so. It is all a matter of definition. I see
no reason that M2 couldn't be defined as having either only 2 ops
and/or 2 signals on the bands at any one time. Period.  No other
restrictions.  Compare this to 9 signals and a million ops.  Clearly
different "classes".  Bands should have nothing to do with it.  It
should really be a matter only of the number of signals and/or
operators.

Perhaps no distinction is necessary at all. Either you are single or
multi. 
After all M2 exists only to try to "level" the playing field and
create more winners and fewer whiners.  

I'd like to point out that the use of packet in some contests puts a
single op in the multi class.  Doesn't see fair either.  Again, its a
matter of definition.

73 de Brian/K3KO

Jir( S(anda wrote:
> 
> I strongly disagree. No limitation would make for a couple of stations
> absolutely no diffrerence anong M2 and MM !!
> 
> 73 !
> 
> Jiri
> OK1RI
> 
> alsopb wrote:
> 
> >Bob,
> >
> >I disagree.
> >
> >8 band changes/hour is really only four- one to a band and one back.
> >It can easily be exceed by searching and pouncing spots across
> >multiple bands.  In fact, with an ACOM amp and/or any of today's
> >transcievers (for those not in high power categories), bands are
> >irrelevant.  One goes where the contacts are.
> >
> >Late in the contest, band hopping is perhaps the only way to maintain
> >a decent rate.
> >
> >It is a stupid limitation, in my opinion, which technology has made
> >passe.  The sponsors need to find something else to differentiate M2
> >from MM.  How about only two operators?
> >
> >73 de Brian/K3KO
> >
> >Bob Naumann - N5NJ wrote:
> >
> >>I'm not aware of any tools to do this - yet.
> >>
> >>The rule allows you 8 band changes per hour for each rig.  I would think
> >>that you'd really have to try hard to exceed that number.
> >>
> >>I reviewed the log manually for AA5NT's Multi-2 log.  It took a little while
> >>to go through, but I found that we didn't even come close to exceeding that
> >>number.
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "David L Sharred" <G3NKC@thersgb.net>
> >>To: "Ct-User@Contesting.Com" <ct-user@contesting.com>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 4:48 PM
> >>Subject: [ct-user] Tools for CQWW M2 category ?
> >>
> >>>BlankDid I hear that someone was going to develop a tool for CT, to check
> >>>teh band change times for Multi-2 ??
> >>>
> >>>Am in need of something now -about to submit logs
> >>>
> >>>73
> >>>Dave Sharred
> >>>G3NKC   (op from MD4K)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> >>>multipart/related
> >>>  multipart/alternative
> >>>    text/plain (text body -- kept)
> >>>    text/html
> >>>  application/octet-stream
> >>>---
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>CT-User mailing list
> >>>CT-User@contesting.com
> >>>CT-User-request@contesting.com Subject=unsubscribe to unsubscribe
> >>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ct-user
> >>>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>CT-User mailing list
> >>CT-User@contesting.com
> >>CT-User-request@contesting.com Subject=unsubscribe to unsubscribe
> >>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ct-user
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >CT-User mailing list
> >CT-User@contesting.com
> >CT-User-request@contesting.com Subject=unsubscribe to unsubscribe
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ct-user
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CT-User mailing list
> CT-User@contesting.com
> CT-User-request@contesting.com Subject=unsubscribe to unsubscribe
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ct-user