[TOEC] Fw: SAC CW SM5MX SOAB LP

[Mats Strandberg]

I agree!

Definitions are too vague in SAC rules of 2011 and I think the new SAC CC
together with the "Advisory Board" needs to clarify that better next year.

I think a tribander is an antenna with either traps or some other ways of
using one feeder to a combined Driven Element for 10-15-20 meters. OB16-3 is
indeed a monoband antenna on a common boom and should therefore not be
accepted as a Tribander according to at least my own understanding. In case
OB16-3 and other "monoband" antennas on a common boom is accepted, then the
initial idea is compromized a little too much.

I do not see why the rhombic antenna should be considered more
bi-directional than a high mounted dipole - just because the gain is higher
and the loob narrower on the rhombic. It is still a wire antenna. In the
same way, a delta loop or a single-element square-shaped loop is also
bi-directional.

So, the conclusion is:  Usage of a TB-Wires category needs quite clear
definitions.

Of course we will never reach levelled playing fields, but TB-Wires is a way
to make small pistols compete apart from the huge Big Guns...

73 de LRR


2011/9/20 Mikael Larsmark <mike at sm3wmv.com>

> Hello
>
> I think in the TS category, there should be a very clear definition of
> what is allowed.
>
> For example, my opinion is
> Single triband beam, that means no stacks but a FB33, KT34XA, OB16-3 etc.
> Single element, is according to me a single vertical or a dipole
>
> I don't have any problem with such a category. It still doesn't make it
> an leveled playing field, but it sure levels it out a bit with those
> guys not needing to compete against the monster stations.
>
> One could however discuss, why single monobanders should not be allowed
> if a OB16-3 is allowed, since its pretty much a bunch of monobanders on
> the same boom.
>
> Its tricky stuff...
>
> Mike, SM2WMV (SJ2W)
>
> On 2011-09-20 12:26, Rolf Salme, SM5MX wrote:
> > Mats,
> >
> >>> Imagine a huge one element Rhombic antenna compared to a G5RV @ 7
> meters height
> >
> > I'm sorry to tell you that you seem to have missed my point, to some
> extent.
> >
> > Yes, a hefty Rhombic is made of wires, for sure - but it is "A Beam", so
> it
> > ought to compete in a category different from the G5RV's, IMHO.
> >
> > My proposal was "Beam" vs. "No Beam", regardless of the beam material.
> > Maybe my words were somewhat fuzzy on that point.
> >
> > I know that the next challenge I am about to receive regarding this is
> "How to define
> > what makes an antenna a beam. Is a dipole a beam compared to an isotropic
> antenna?"
> > et cetera, et cetera. Sorry to make you disappointed, guys, but I will
> refrain from
> > getting involved in that qualified exercise in hairsplitting for paper
> tigers.
> >
> > Mats, the unfortunate fate of our hobby is that a 100 % level playing
> field is an
> > impossibility.
> >
> > 73,
> > Rolf
> > SM5MX
> >
> > ----- Forwarded Message -----
> > From: Mats Strandberg<sm6lrr at gmail.com>
> > To: "Rolf Salme, SM5MX"<sm5mx at yahoo.com>
> > Cc: "toec at contesting.com"<toec at contesting.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: [TOEC] SAC CW SM5MX SOAB LP
> >
> >
> > Hello Rolf,
> >
> > You have several valid points in your argumentation, but just to exclude
> the TB part and name a category Wires does not automatically create a more
> fair playground...
> >
> > The difference between wire antennas can be at least the same as between
> a wire antenna and a tribander.
> >
> > Imagine a huge one element Rhombic antenna compared to a G5RV @ 7 meters
> height...
> >
> > So my opinion is that TB&  Wires is a suitable category that will create
> an interesting "contest within the contest".
> >
> > 73 de RA/SM6LRR, Mats
> > _______________________________________________
> > TOEC mailing list
> > TOEC at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/toec
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOEC mailing list
> TOEC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/toec
>