[RTTY] contest change

[John GW4SKA]

Interesting thread but why has it taken so long to do what should have been 
done first; ask the contest management?

>Rather than debate this, I sent an email asking for confirmation that the 
>rule change would not >require taking 2 blocks of off time.
>Al
>AB2ZY

They are the ones who will bounce your log out if you guess (or debate) and 
come up with the wrong conclusion.
John GW4SKA




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Al Kozakiewicz" <akozak at hourglass.com>
To: <k0rc at citlink.net>
Cc: <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change


30 - (6 + 0) = 24

Here's the pseudo SQL ;^)

SELECT OPTIME=(MAX(QSO_TIME) - MIN(QSO_TIME)) FROM QSOs WHERE CALL='K0RC'
{build temporary table of off time blocks; left as an exercise for the 
student)
SET OFFTIME=(SELECT SUM(TOP 2 BLOCKLEN FROM OFFTIMES ORDER BY BLOCKLEN DESC)
IF OFFTIME <6 THEN
                Rule is broken
ELSE
                Rule is not broken
ENDIF

You're insisting on reading an interpretation into the rule (that everyone 
must take a minimum of two breaks with one lasting at least 30 minutes) that 
has no rational basis given the history and context.

Rather than debate this, I sent an email asking for confirmation that the 
rule change would not require taking 2 blocks of off time.

Al
AB2ZY

From: Robert Chudek - K0RC [mailto:k0rc at citlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 12:17 PM
To: Al Kozakiewicz
Cc: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change

Here's my log:

720 QSOs, 1 per minute for 12 hours
0 QSOs, not operating for 6 hours
720 QSOs, 1 per minute for 12 hours

My "first QSO" is at 0000z. My "last QSO" is 30 hours later.

Please write a formula that will satisfy this rule:

*2.2 Operating Time will be calculated using the elapsed
time between the first QSO and the last QSO logged
minus the longest two breaks during this elapsed time
where such breaks are a minimum of 30 minutes each.*

As written, the proposed rule must find two breaks during the 30-hour 
period. I only see one "longest break" in my log, which does not satisfy the 
stated rule. IF they will accept a SINGLE 6-hour break, the rule should 
state that as acceptable. As written, this new rule is worse than the 
original text.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
________________________________

On 7/6/2013 10:41 AM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:

Nowhere does it say that you must take two breaks.  Only that the off time 
will be calculated by summing the length of the longest two.  If you take 
one break of 6 hours, the rule is satisfied and there is no need to add in 
time from an additional break.



Here's a reductio ad absurdum:  Off times have a definition.  On times do 
not.  By your interpretation of the rule, it could be satisfied by taking a 
3 hour break; making one QSO; then taking another 3 hours break.



What possible rational purpose would this serve?



Al

AB2ZY





-----Original Message-----

From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chudek - 
K0RC

Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 1:23 AM

To: rtty at contesting.com<mailto:rtty at contesting.com>

Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change



This is still wrong. In your example 6+0=6 you are counting hours. The 
suggested new rule requires a count of two off times. There is only one off 
time in 6+0=6.



73 de Bob - KØRC in MN



------------------------------------------------------------------------



On 7/5/2013 11:50 PM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:

1+1=2

6+0=6

QED



Al

AB2ZY



-----Original Message-----

From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill

Turner

Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 12:01 AM

To: RTTY Reflector

Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change



ORIGINAL MESSAGE:          (may be snipped)



On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 20:42:43 -0400, Al wrote:



One of those longest 2 blocks could well be of zero length.

REPLY:



I thought we got rid of the New Math. One plus zero equals two?



73, Bill W6WRT

_______________________________________________

RTTY mailing list

RTTY at contesting.com<mailto:RTTY at contesting.com>

http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

_______________________________________________

RTTY mailing list

RTTY at contesting.com<mailto:RTTY at contesting.com>

http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty





_______________________________________________

RTTY mailing list

RTTY at contesting.com<mailto:RTTY at contesting.com>

http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty



_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6469 - Release Date: 07/06/13