[UK-CONTEST] cqwwwpx

[Chris G3SJJ]

I was thinking!  In AFS I could have a dipole on a pole fixed to the back of the house and one on the mast at the far end of my plot which. They would 
be about 1.5 wavelengths apart and oriented by 90 degs. K3 and Acom on one antenna with FT1kMP and SB220 on the other. Main run down at around 3520, 
2nd station around 3565. The only downside is that interleaving depends on slick callers on both QRGs.  Hmmm, must apply some thought to this!

Chris G3SJJ



On 30/05/2011 21:05, Stewart GM4AFF wrote:
>> One rule for the rich, and one for the rest of us!
> Sadly, that does seem to be the issue with this thread.
>
> Stewart
> GM4AFF
>
> (deliberately open to misinterpretation ;-)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Danny Higgins
> Sent: 30 May 2011 16:08
> To: 'Tom GM4FDM'; uk-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] cqwwwpx
>
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
>> http://www.netintelligence.com/email
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>