[UK-CONTEST] New CQ WW Category

Sat Jun 13 19:03:40 PDT 2009

 From the preliminary anouncement, the Xtreme section is effectively a 
separate event which happens to run  alongside CQWW.  Nobody's asking 
you to enter.

73, Peter G3LET

Callum m0mcx wrote:

>>>>which shouldn't upset traditional entrants.
>>>>        
>>>>
>
>Wrong :)
>
>Callum McCormick
>http://www.m0mcx.co.uk/ 
>t: 07976 631881
>65 Glendon Way, B93 8SY
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Peter
>Sent: 13 June 2009 03:03
>To: UK Contest reflector
>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] New CQ WW Category
>
>Roger
>
>Your system just transfers you as the operator from a practical  radio 
>location to somewhere you'd prefer to live, never mind the connecting 
>technology, which doesn't provide any additional benefit.   No changes 
>to the rules for the existing sections have been indicated, so you 
>should be fireproof!
>
>Actually, having read again  more carefully the new rules for the Xtreme 
>section, it doesn't look too likely to attract the sort of entrant some 
>of us may have been thinking of, largely because the winner will be 
>decided at the whim of the CQ adjudicators, who generally speaking know 
>what they're about.  The need to pre-register and provide a full 
>description of the technologies to be used should dissuade the more 
>unscrupulous elements.  Anyway, the scoring system puts the Xtreme 
>section squarely outside the main event (at least for 2009!), so all in 
>all they seem to have made an interesting innovation, which shouldn't 
>upset traditional entrants.
>
>On the subject of innovation, I remember working KH6IJ's entirely 
>automated and unattended 14MHz station in 1959, which would have 
>involved a pretty keen set-up given the available technologies.  Even a 
>log was kept, because I have the card.  Of course, he just kept to a 
>single channel and responded to calls - just think what could be done 
>today using Skimmer!
>
>73, Peter G3LET
>
>Roger Parsons wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I have also been biting my tongue, and have to agree with Peter on the
>>    
>>
>reasons for the new category. 
>  
>
>>It is technically possible to set up multiple remote stations, and it can
>>    
>>
>only be a matter of time before some wealthy and unscrupulous group or
>individual sets them up on both coasts of Canada, the US or Russia. Perhaps
>it has already happened. It would only be an extension of multi-multis using
>different stations for each band. Both of these would give a huge advantage
>- and both are obviously cheating.
>  
>
>>I do not however see any correlation between the above and condemning all
>>    
>>
>remote operation. My remote station is 14km from home and I control it over
>a 900MHz link - that being an amateur band in Canada. I hope that most
>people would accept that as a legitimate amateur radio operation for
>contesting or DXing?
>  
>
>>My link uses TCP/IP protocol and there is no technical reason why the
>>    
>>
>station could not be controlled over a 14km wire, somebody else's radio, or
>even the evil internet. How does that fundamentally change things?
>  
>
>>Personally I have no problem with remote stations operated from within the
>>    
>>
>same country provided that all transmitters and receivers are at a single
>location, and provided that the appropriate locator is used. I do have a
>problem with multiple remote stations or with multiple receiving sites. I
>also do not like the idea of a station being controlled from a different
>country, although in this case my logic* defeats me...
>  
>
>>73 Roger
>>VE3ZI/G3RBP
>>
>>*I was once unfortunately marginally involved with Classical Logic. As I
>>    
>>
>imperfectly understand it, it involves normal logic modified by what the
>ancient Gods would have done...
>  
>
>>* * * * * 
>>
>>Peter wrote:
>>
>>"I've been biting my tongue on this one  although of course, as yet another
>>    
>>
>OF, my sympathies reside firmly with Paul and Brian.  But really, CQ have
>been stuck between a rock and a hard place for some time now.  There have
>been increasing complaints about "cheats" in recent years, involving dubious
>use of alternative technologies.  So what did they do?  Set  up a new "no
>holds barred" section for them.  Being a commercial organisation they need
>to be suitably PC and so rather than calling it the Cheats section, they
>just invented a different name for it.
>  
>
>>As long as "we" all recognise it for what it is, there must be benefits in
>>    
>>
>that these guys now have a section all to themselves and "we" no longer have
>to compete with them on a spurious level.  It would be rather nice though if
>Xtreme entrants were required to provide a distinguishing element in their
>exchange.  Then "we" could decide whether or not we actually wanted to work
>them . . .  How about it, Roger?
>  
>
>>73
>>Peter G3LET"
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>>_______________________________________________
>>UK-Contest mailing list
>>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>> 
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
>>Version: 8.5.364 / Virus Database: 270.12.65/2171 - Release Date: 06/12/09
>>    
>>
>05:55:00
>  
>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
>Version: 8.5.364 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/13/09 05:53:00
>
>  
>