[UK-CONTEST] cqwwwpx

Wed Jun 1 19:51:34 PDT 2011

Andrew

I am sure you are right but terrain which provides for the antennas to be
out of sight of each other will make the engineering less demanding.  At the
100W level it is perfectly possible to achieve two stations on the same band
with a common antenna.  This would require a diplexer with helical filters,
which for 20m would be rather large.  I wasn't there to witness it
personally but I am led to believe the team including 4O3A deployed such an
arrangement at the last WRTC.

I am told K3EST himself confirmed the use of interleaved transmissions on a
single band to be within the current CQWW rules. Of course, this requires
that only one signal be radiated at any one point in time.  The technique
has been in use at P33W for several years and has not resulted in DQ.  I
understand consideration is currently being given to whether a rules
modification ought to be made which will preclude continued use of the
technique.

I have not used it myself but I do have admiration for the dedication of
those who have met the technical challenges associated and have worked to
develop the skills needed to deploy the technique effectively.  I sit on the
fence over the question of whether use of the technique should be ruled out
in future.

Bob, 5B4AGN

On 1 June 2011 23:11, Andrew <ac6wi at comcast.net> wrote:

> This response if very US-centric, but it shows what can be done if you
> put your mind to it and engineer things properly!
>
> It doesn't really matter if antennas are in line of sight of each other
> or not.  All the big M/M stations in the US, running 1500W, have one run
> station and one (interlocked) mult station on the each band with the
> antennas in full view of each other.  I know at W3LPL, where I've been
> operating for the past four years, the mult radio can listen to within
> about 15kHz of the run radio either using a different stack of yagis or
> one of the Beverages.  All Franks transmit antennas are within 175m of
> each other and the longest diametric distance from the main antennas to
> the furthest tip of the longest Beverage is about 450m, well within the
> 500m allowable circle.
>
> Another example is the Field Day group I operate with.  W3AO, running
> 100W, can have up to four stations on the same band simultaneously (SSB,
> CW, DATA and the 'Get On The Air' station).  Last year we operated in
> the 24A category which means we had, theoretically, the capability of
> having 24 transmitters on the air simultaneously!  At any one time, we
> had *at least* 15 radios running.  US Field Day rules dictate that all
> antennas must to be within a 1000ft (~300m) circle.  Within that 1000ft
> circle, we manage to install 14x50ft(?) masts supporting a total of (I
> think) 24 antennas (yagis, dipoles, etc)!  This complete set of antenna
> are usually installed in about 6-7 hours, though a set-up crew of at
> least 30 people certainly helps there.  There is an interesting
> presentation of the W3AO effort at
> http://www.kkn.net/dayton2009/W3AO_2009.pdf if anyone wants to see a few
> pictures of the setup.
>
> If the rules allowed it, all the big US M/M stations would have no
> problem running interleaved stations less than 20kHz apart.  Personally,
> I wouldn't want this to happen, but the engineering in the stations
> would certainly allow it.
>
> Vy 73,
>
> Andrew AC6WI / GI0NWG
>
>
>
> On 30/05/11 11:31, Bob Henderson wrote:
> > Rule f) applies to all entrants.  It is possible to have four antennas on
> > the same band located within a 500m diameter circle with no two antennas
> in
> > line of sight to another.
> >
> > Terrain old man, terrain.
> >
> > Bob, 5B4AGN
> >
> > On 30 May 2011 15:07, Danny Higgins<danny.higgins at keme.co.uk>  wrote:
> >
> >> Tom, it depends on how big your QTH is:
> >>
> >> (f) All operation must take place from one operating site. Transmitters
> and
> >> receivers must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle or within
> the
> >> property limits of the station licensee, whichever is greater. All
> antennas
> >> must be physically connected by wires to the transmitters and receivers
> >> used
> >> by the entrant.
> >>
> >> One rule for the rich, and one for the rest of us!
> >>
> >> Danny, G3XVR
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> >> [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom GM4FDM
> >> Sent: 30 May 2011 16:01
> >> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
> >> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] cqwwwpx
> >>
> >> Isnt there a 500m rule for antennas?
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom
> >> GM4FDM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 30/05/2011 15:25, Bob Henderson wrote:
> >>> The idea is that both stations keep their respective frequencies busy
> by
> >>> interleaving their Qs such that this situation doesn't really arise.
>  In
> >> a
> >>> multi-op station there will typically be two operators on a band, each
> >> with
> >>> his own transceiver but both interlocked to prevent the 2 x signal
> >>> infringement.  I understand that two operators well practised in this
> >>> particular technique can reliably achieve 140% individual run rate.  So
> >> each
> >>> station is doing 70% rate of a top flight operator i.e hitting 100 -
> >>> 150Q/hr.  Essentially when one transmits the other receives and vice
> >> versa.
> >>> Both frequencies stay pretty busy. :-)
> >>>
> >>> This frequency busy but apparently unoccupied phenomena is mostly
> >> associated
> >>> with SO2R stations where a single operator is QRV on two frequencies.
> >>>
> >>> Incidentally, I am aware of four operators each with their own
> >> transceiver
> >>> and antennas having been deployed on a single band.  Two running
> >> interleaved
> >>> piles and two sweeping for mults.  Only one carrier transmitted at any
> >> one
> >>> time to keep inside the rules of course.
> >>>
> >>> Terrain is key to this kind of game, as each stations antennas should
> be
> >> out
> >>> of sight of the others on the same band.  Lots of dosh helps too.
> >>>
> >>> Bob, 5B4AGN
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 30 May 2011 13:22, Rob
> >> Harrison<robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> First off let me say I don't operate on HF. But I understand what is
> >> going
> >>>> on technically.
> >>>>
> >>>> However what happens when another station finds what he thinks is a
> >> clear
> >>>> freaquency only to be told the frequency is occupied by the said
> station
> >> who
> >>>> is actually on a different frequency, .i.e. how does the said station
> >> keep
> >>>> two active frequencies when only transmitting on one, and if he does,
> >>>> doesn't that infringe the rules?
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob G8HGN
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Henderson"<
> bob.5b4agn at gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>> To: "Callum McC"<callum at mccormick.uk.com>
> >>>> Cc: "UK Contest Reflector"<uk-contest at contesting.com>
> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 1:46 PM
> >>>>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] cqwwwpx
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Exactly Callum.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The sponsors are the arbiters and so far they've considered it to be
> >>>>> within
> >>>>> the rules.  BUT as G3SXW suggests; things may be about to change.  At
> >>>>> least
> >>>>> wrt CQWW.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bob, 5B4AGN
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 30 May 2011 12:24, Callum McC<callum at mccormick.uk.com>   wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    >>>   Whether it was within the spirit of the contest or not
> >>>>>> The rules of the game are to win, within the rules. That's the
> spirit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are either within the rules - or not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> C.
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>