[UK-CONTEST] Death to the cluster!

[Dave Sergeant]

On 10 Dec 2009 at 21:19, David Cree wrote:

> One further point - it amazes me that most entrants still claim to be
> "unassisted". Perhaps the Adjudicators should put out false "spots" and
> note the call-signs of those stations that appear blindly (or should
> that be deafly) calling on the frequency - they can't all be
> multi-multis.

I cannot comment on the effect of the cluster on VHF contests....

But as Dave says, looking at the claimed scores for CQWW CW at 
http://cqww.com/logs-received_cw.htm it does seem that the vast 
majority enter the 'non-assisted' category. It is maybe a bit 
surprising therefore that there are so many spots during this contest 
if most entrants are not using the cluster (or maybe I am being cynical 
- and I have no idea myself as I was not of course watching it 
myself...)

(and as a aside, I appeared to be well ahead in ALL QRP NON-ASSISTED 
until I saw G4EDG had put an entry in with a claimed score three times 
my own...).

My general comments on the cluster remain the same, as a QRP operator 
it is counterproductive in current conditions, in either general 
operating or contesting. As soon as somebody is spotted the pileup is 
astronomic and it is pointless me trying to break it. I rely on 
catching the dx when it first comes on the band before any sign of a 
spot appears - though I also have a sneaky habit of managing to work 
stations just before they go QRT, maybe a sign that he decides the 
cluster generated pileup has run its day. I never bother connecting to 
the cluster myself, although I used to be an enthusiast in the old days 
of 2m/4m clusters, remember GB7DXI? The internet based system has a lot 
to be sorry for.

73 Dave G3YMC

http://www.davesergeant.com