[UK-CONTEST] Feb 144 UKAC

Sat Feb 6 13:32:33 PST 2010

Hi David,

Thanks for the explanation.

Some of those aspects of operating are common to VHF too. When to call and 
when to S&P, which way do I beam, where's the best propagation, are there 
active stations in that direction, am I calling CQ on a frequency on or 
close to station "A" who is beaming away and I can't hear, which prevents me 
working station "B" who is beaming towards me, but can't hear me due to 
station "A". Not the best description, in words, but I think you get the 
idea.

The problem of "run" frequency doesn't usually crop up in UKAC, most 
stations can't hope to call CQ for the full 2.5 hours, or hold the frequency 
for that time, plus it's not as crowded.

73

Bob G8HGN

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David G3YYD" <g3yyd at btinternet.com>
To: <UK-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Feb 144 UKAC

OK several of you told me directly that I had it wrong on UKAC activity
decline sorry for that. I have been told that Jan 10 had more entrants
than ever.

The major intellectual challenge of CC is judging just what the
propagation will be doing over the 90 minutes. This is especially so for
the Data leg of CC as PSK is destroyed by multi path. In the Data leg of
CC what is the right ratio of time to devote to RTTY and to PSK as the
scoring system means that too much time on RTTY can lead to not having
enough on PSK (or vice versa) so net result can be more total QSOs but a
lower place in the results. I got it wrong in Jan so I was placed 2nd
not enough PSK time/QSOs. G3PDH was a better judge on that one.

Then there is the trade off which part of the band to run in. Some parts
are better for scoring (human behavioural aspects of contesting) but
have more QRM than others especially so on the CW leg. When to move from
run to S&P and vice versa. In the last SSB leg propagation for inter G
was very poor until 20 minutes before the end of the contest and that
was the time to run. However if you did not get a run frequency before
then you certainly would not get one after as the 100KHz available was
fully occupied and then some. I called that one correctly.

Then there is the whole subject of antennas....

David G3YYD

On 06/02/2010 19:52, Rob Harrison wrote:
> David and all,
>
> What makes 80m CC so intellectually challenging and attractive? I've
> no idea about HF operating so let's have the lowdown, so it could be
> considered for VHF and up.
>
> I don't think I was penalising anyone for running 400w or trying to
> improve their station, it was just to break the QRO/all other pattern,
> doesn't HF have lots of sections.
>
> As for UKAC being in decline I think not, as Paul has already said,
> but we could always do with more stations.
>
> 73
>
> Bob G8HGN
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David G3YYD" <g3yyd at btinternet.com>
> To: <UK-Contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 5:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Feb 144 UKAC
>
>
>
> Humm
>
> So if I spend £1M moving to a top class VHF QTH then that is OK. But if
> I spend £1000 on building a higher ERP station then that is not OK and
> should be penalised. A better QTH is worth a lot more points than going
> from a single Yagi to a 4 Yagi stack at a poor QTH.
>
> Extending Bob's argument we should have different categories for height
> above sea level as well as power and ERP levels.
>
> Extending it further why not have so many categories that everyone is a
> winner.... Not so difficult with so few entries.
>
> If CC on 80m is so popular and entries are growing year by year, it
> shows there are plenty of contesters wanting to take part in CC contests
> irrespective of their placing in the results.  Yet those same contesters
> have deserted UKAC which is in decline. Conclusion is that contesters
> find 80m CC a much more attractive contest to take part in than UKAC. No
> point in tinkering with the scoring system when the basic problem is it
> is not attractive to the majority of contesters. So surely the questions
> to ask is how can UKAC be made attractive to CC contesters? Fiddling
> with the scoring system will not achieve that. It needs a complete
> rethink with lateral thinking not just more of the same ideas. I do not
> see any real lateral thinking on how to make UKAC more attractive on
> this reflector.
>
> Incidentally on a personal not I do not operate UKAC but I do operate
> CC. Quite frankly I find UKAC boring with little in the way of
> intellectual challenge unlike CC.
>
> David G3YYD
>
> On 06/02/2010 17:02, Rob Harrison wrote:
>> You'll accumulate more pts if you run 400w, than if you run, 100 or
>> 10, so
>> the "best" man won't win. However if you use erp, and/or have more
>> seperate
>> sections, you may be best of that bunch.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Bob G8HGN
>>
>> Off to see the rugby now
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ray James"<gm4cxm at yahoo.co.uk>
>> To:<UK-Contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 4:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Feb 144 UKAC
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If we make the contacts the squares will come along at the same time so
>>> they don't need to be a multiplier to be important.
>>> The emphasis would purely be on working as many stations as possible
>>> and
>>> top down scores based on how many Km you could accumulate in 2.5 hours.
>>> No skewing effect from external sources, may the best man really win.
>>> Seemples :-)
>>>
>>> 73 Ray GM4CXM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Sat, 6/2/10, G3RIR<g3rir at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>   Ray,
>>>>
>>>> My point is that I like the challenge of searching for the
>>>> additional squares and surely that aspect of operating is worth
>>>> something? Maybe it should not be worth enough to skew the result in
>>>> favour of someone working 28000km over 35000km total but the
>>>> challenge of
>>>> the search for the multipliers has to be worth a little? Perhaps
>>>> excluding all adjacent squares as multipliers might be an option?
>>>> And of
>>>> course working GM on any VHF and Up band is a real challenge from my
>>>> modest site and always gives me a buzz.
>>>>
>>>> 73
>>>>
>>>> Neil, G3RIR
>>>>
>>>
>>>> M2 skews the results away from excellent performance to
>>>> favour those who can pick up the most squares.
>>>> A strange logic that competitors believe someone who worked
>>>> 28,000Km has outperformed someone who worked 35,000km.
>>>>
>>>> 73 Ray GM4CXM
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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