[UK-CONTEST] cqwwwpx
Rob Harrison
robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk
Mon May 30 10:30:18 PDT 2011
Bob,
Ok on the licence conditions, and if they do decide it was a breach then a hard lesson learned for the C4 team.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Henderson
To: Rob Harrison
Cc: UK Contest Reflector ; Callum McC
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] cqwwwpx
Bob,
You are quite possibly right in thinking these tactics weren't foreseen but that hardly matters. What does matter is whether the contest adjudicators consider the tactic within or without the rules.
I don't think licence conditions are being breached.
Bob, 5B4AGN
On 30 May 2011 16:14, Rob Harrison <robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Bob,
I'm sure when the rules were written they didn't envisage anyone coming up with a solution to circumvent them in the manner they intended them to be used.
Does this not contravene licencing conditons, whether or not it does the contest rules.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Henderson
To: Rob Harrison
Cc: UK Contest Reflector ; Callum McC
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] cqwwwpx
Both frequencies are being used at the same time but this is not currently against the rules.
Whether something appears semantic to you, me or anyone else matters little. What matters is the rules the sponsors lay down and how they choose to interpret them.
Bob, 5B4AGN
On 30 May 2011 14:40, Rob Harrison <robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Hi,
Well to me that's just semantics. Both frequencies are being used by the
same station all the time, you can't have half a QSO, you transmit, listen
and get a reply, then transmit again. Just because the other half of the
pair is on the opposite cycle doesn't mean both frequencies are not being
used at the same time by the same group.
It's a step to far in my opinion, as has been said if this becomes
widespread it'll eat up band space, but that's for the organisers to sort
out.
Software that can run a CW pile-up, where are we going? I will because I
can.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Henderson" <bob at 5b4agn.net>
To: "Rob Harrison" <robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>
Cc: "UK Contest Reflector" <uk-contest at contesting.com>; "Callum McC"
<callum at mccormick.uk.com>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] cqwwwpx
>
> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
More information about the UK-Contest
mailing list