[UK-CONTEST] HF NFD Rules

[G3RIR]

Bob et al,

I am sure that the common good was the only motivating factor for the rule 
but unfortunately they didn't consider the difference between radios with 
totally independent receivers like FT1000D  and those with common front ends 
like the FT1000MP.

Consider this scenario.

It is 2000utc and you are running on 20m. You know that you need all the 
points possible from 160m so you are wondering when it will open or beome 
active. With the FT1000D you can happily listen on 160m even using an 
antenna tuned to 20m and you will hear the stations as they come on on 160. 
You can then with swift SO2V action pick them off (assuming you have some 
automatic way of tuning your one antenna for tx eg with multiple switched 
atu's). Try using another radio such as FT1000MP with its common front end 
tuned to 20m and with an antenna tuned to 20m for your tx; you will hear 
nothing on the second receiver..

Hence my point that the FT1000D and their ilk are being given a substantial 
advantage over the FT1000MP and their ilk with this one box rule.

73

Neil, G3RIR


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Henderson" <bob at 5b4agn.net>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] HF NFD Rules


> Neil
>
> My recollection of the folklore surrounding this at the time of its
> adoption, is that it was argued that the Ft1KD was becoming the 
> transceiver
> of choice among DXers and contesters and that these were the folks most
> likely to make rigs available for FD use.  I believe an extension of the
> argument was that damage to the level of support given to FD would be a
> consequence, were use to be disallowed.
>
> As I say, probably nothing more than folklore.  And anyway, those who 
> argued
> for the proposal would surely have been motivated to do so solely in the
> interests of the common good. ;>)
>
> Bob, 5B4AGN
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "G3RIR" <g3rir at yahoo.com>
> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] HF NFD Rules
>
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Yes I agree the rule is clear but it is also clear that it gives users of
>> radios like FT1000D with their two independant receivers a big advantage
>> over users of  for example the FT1000MP where the two receiversrs are not
>> fully idependant and share the front end.
>>
>> I am not trying to use more than two receivers just trying to be on an
> equal
>> footing with the FT1000D users.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bob Henderson" <bob at 5b4agn.net>
>> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 10:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] HF NFD Rules
>>
>>
>> > Neil
>> >
>> > I'm not a member of the HFCC but the answer to your question seems to 
>> > be
>> > unequivocally addressed in the rules you've transcribed.  You can use
> One
>> > transmitter and One receiver OR One transceiver.  The use of two
>> > transceivers is therefore clearly outside the scope set by the rules.
>> >
>> > Bob, 5B4AGN
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "G3RIR" <g3rir at yahoo.com>
>> > To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:32 PM
>> > Subject: [UK-CONTEST] HF NFD Rules
>> >
>> >
>> >> Could some one please help me understand a particular rule for NFD.
>> >> Indeed
>> >> perhaps there is someone on the hfcc who could comment.
>> >>
>> >> The rules state
>> >>
>> >> b) and (c) Restricted and Low Power sections: One transmitter and one
>> >> receiver or one transceiver. Both receivers in a dual receive
> transceiver
>> >> may be used, if desired.
>> >>
>> >> This rule says if you use a separate transmitter and receiver then you
>> >> are
>> >> only able to use one receiver but if you use a transceiver which has
> two
>> >> receivers then you are allowed to use them both ie two receivers.
>> >>
>> >> Am I allowed to use two transceivers which each have two receivers but
>> >> disable the trasmitter in one and disable the second receivers in 
>> >> each.
> I
>> >> would then still only be using two receivers as I would if they were 
>> >> in
>> > the
>> >> same box but completely independant as in the FT100D
>> >>
>> >> Neil, G3RIR
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> UK-Contest mailing list
>> >> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > UK-Contest mailing list
>> > UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>