[UK-CONTEST] 2012 UKAC = Rule canges
Rob Harrison
robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk
Mon Jan 2 06:52:19 PST 2012
Hi Rob,
"Minimum power requirement is waived" well it would be as there would be no
other section you could enter save AX.
I think your scenario is a little far fetched (400w into a halo) you may get
the odd station doing that, but they'd soon realise it is very inefficient.
Everyone seems to be getting bogged down by detail in an ERP based system.
Power out you know, antenna gain could be generic, i.e. average gain for a
boom length. At present the arbitary exclusion or inclusion is due to the
number of antennas you happen to have. With ERP you enter the appropriate
section base on your station.
Why would you suddenly go out and get a 400w linear, I don't see you
reasoning. That may be the way to go on HF, where antennas are large and of
low gain generally, but a VHF it's not the best option.
Bob G8HGN
---- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Chipperfield" <robert at syxis.co.uk>
To: "UK Contest List" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 2012 UKAC = Rule canges
> Hi all,
>
> Just a quick note in the rules which seems to have been missed: for AO,
> "If a stacked or bayed antenna system is used, the minimum power
> requirement is waived".
>
> So if you're running 10w to a stacked pair of antennas, you're quite
> able to enter AO, not forced into AX.
>
> Regarding ERP-based rules, my concern there would be that it may
> encourage the use of poor antennas with lots of power - encouraging
> "alligators", if you like. I'd much rather have a band full of people
> running 50w to a 9-eles than 400w to halos!
>
> At least the current transmitter-power based rules in AL / AR do
> something to encourage people to improve their antenna systems, giving
> gain on both receive and transmit, rather than just adding transmit power.
>
> ERP-based sections would seem to invite less efficient use of the
> spectrum, via more power and less antenna gain, and potentially more
> poor signals on the band.
>
> 73 and happy new year all!
> Rob, M0VFC
>
> On 01/01/2012 17:01, Malcolm Bryan wrote:
>> Hi Bob
>> Yes I completely agree. People seem to forget that a bigger antenna gives
>> you gain on receive as well. Increasing your power does not. There are
>> also
>> plenty of reasons for running 50W rather than 100W especially if you are
>> portable.
>>
>> Notwithstanding the differences of height asl and surrounding scenery
>> which
>> will always remain outside the scope of any rules, you have the following
>> situation for a selection of stations.
>>
>> Tx gains quoted relative to 100W 10 ele (approx I agree)
>>
>> Pwr Ant tx gain rx gain sec
>> 10W 10 ele -10dB 0dB AL
>> 50W 10 ele -3dB 0dB AR
>> 100W 10 ele 0dB 0dB AR
>> 400W 10 ele +6dB 0dB AO
>>
>> 10W 20 ele -7dB +3dB AL
>> 50W 20 ele 0dB +3dB AR
>> 100W 20 ele +3dB +3dB AR
>> 400W 20 ele +9dB +3dB AO
>>
>> 10W 2x10 ele -7dB +3dB AX
>> 50W 2x10 ele 0dB +3dB AX
>> 100W 2x10 ele +3dB +3dB AX
>> 400W 2x10 ele +9dB +3dB AO
>>
>> If you started from scratch writing a set of rules you would never write
>> them to get stations into the sections above (I hope) so I suspect much
>> of
>> the problem is the continuing evolution of the rules.
>>
>> I dont understand why AO has the lower power limit, if it didnt things
>> wouldnt be so bad although it has always vexed me that one very long
>> antenna is allowed in AR but a stacked array with identical gain has to
>> go
>> into AO!
>>
>> 73
>> Malcolm
>> G8MCA /F1VNR
>>
>>
>> On 1 January 2012 16:21, Rob
>> Harrison<robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Malcolm,
>>>
>>> I see the reasoning and that's fine, so why doesn't multi-antenna/lower
>>> power situation get consideration. I'm in a minority but so is the other
>>> situation. one gets the ok, one doesn't.
>>>
>>> I've supported these contests continually, from their original beginings
>>> as the Cumulatives way back, and last year after the changes. But I'm
>>> finding it hard to find the will to continue that support for 2012.
>>>
>>> 73 Bob
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Malcolm Bryan"<
>>> malcolm.bryan at googlemail.com>
>>> To: "UK Contest List"<uk-contest at contesting.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 4:08 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 2012 UKAC = Rule canges
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Bob
>>>> My guess is there are very few with multiple fixed antennas but no
>>>> rotator.
>>>> Most likely I would think is a fixed horizontal beam (in the loft) and
>>>> a
>>>> vertical for FM.
>>>>
>>>> As it happens I run this sort of setup at the French QTH. I live in a
>>>> valley on a north facing slope. My only sensible VHF takeoff is NE so I
>>>> have a 4 ele in the loft beamed that way which allows me to work ON, PA
>>>> etc. I also have a 4 ele on 313 deg pointing at UK but with a ridge 50m
>>>> higher than me in the way. The 4 ele is wide enough to cover the UK
>>>> without
>>>> rotating.
>>>>
>>>> However, there is no need to use the NE antenna in UKACs as I get no
>>>> points
>>>> for working non UK stations !!!! I also have a omni directional
>>>> vertical
>>>> for working FM mobiles
>>>>
>>>> My guess is this is a relatively unusual set of circumstances and is
>>>> the
>>>> main reason I generally do UKACs from the portable location on top of
>>>> the
>>>> ridge. However, I support the changes if it gets other people on.
>>>>
>>>> 73
>>>> Malcolm
>>>> G8MCA / F1VNR
>>>>
>>>> On 1 January 2012 15:49, Rob Harrison<robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.**
>>>> co.uk<robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Bob doesn't prefer to run 50w into 2x15, it's my surrounding
>>>>> circumstances
>>>>> and it's my day to day set-up, unlike some I don't change my antennas
>>>>> every
>>>>> week to suit contests. I "chose " AX as I couldn't enter AR, a more
>>>>> appropriate section for my ERP.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least I've got some support from Tony and Malcolm, re
>>>>> multi-antennas
>>>>> and lower power. I think more debate is needed to sort this one out,
>>>>> and
>>>>> to
>>>>> come up with workable solutions to the objections to ERP that CC will
>>>>> run
>>>>> with.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the thinking behind multiple fixed antennas at a home
>>>>> location,
>>>>> is
>>>>> anyone actually doing this, or know anyone who is?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob G8HGN
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Ray James
>>>>> To: Tony Collett ; Rob Harrison ; uk-contests
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 3:14 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 2012 UKAC = Rule canges
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tony,
>>>>> Just checked Bob's set up and see it's 2x15el phased not two
>>>>> separate
>>>>> rotatable systems.
>>>>> Right, that continues to place him in the AO or AX section as he
>>>>> chose
>>>>> last year.
>>>>> Therefore it has nothing to do with my suggestion for the AR
>>>>> section.
>>>>> The fact Bob prefers to run with an antenna system apt for AO but a
>>>>> power
>>>>> level applicable to AR is his choice.
>>>>> Looking forward to lots of contacts with you in 2012 Tony.
>>>>>
>>>>> HNY.
>>>>> 73 Ray GM4CXM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>> From: Tony Collett<tony.nbs at btinternet.com>
>>>>> To: Rob
>>>>> Harrison<robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.**co.uk<robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>>;
>>>>> uk-contests<
>>>>> uk-contest at contesting.com>; Ray James<gm4cxm at yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, 1 January 2012, 14:32
>>>>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 2012 UKAC = Rule canges
>>>>>
>>>>> I see the minefield has been opened!
>>>>>
>>>>> The wording desperately needs clarifying, but to what?
>>>>> Bob's problem is exactly as per your last paragraph Ray - less than
>>>>> 100W
>>>>> but using 2 phased (stacked) aerials. Not enough power to be
>>>>> competetive
>>>>> in
>>>>> AO, can't enter AR even under the new rules so has to be AX.
>>>>>
>>>>> When coming back on 23 I had to bin my 4*23ele system in favour of a
>>>>> single 55ele so I could enter AR with my 25W, I'm sure others have
>>>>> done
>>>>> similar things with power and/or aerial changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The basic idea is a good one, just needs a bit more thought put to
>>>>> how
>>>>> best to implement it. Personally I think a maximum number of aerials
>>>>> allowed needs setting if you want average home stations to be able to
>>>>> compete against those living in large real estates or /P.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look forward to working you all in 2012
>>>>> 73
>>>>> Tony G4NBS
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Sun, 1/1/12, Ray James<gm4cxm at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Ray James<gm4cxm at yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 2012 UKAC = Rule canges
>>>>> To: "Rob
>>>>> Harrison"<robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.**co.uk<robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>>,
>>>>> "uk-contests"<
>>>>> uk-contest at contesting.com>
>>>>> Date: Sunday, 1 January, 2012, 14:14
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>> I thought what I wrote was pretty clear. Obviously not!
>>>>>
>>>>> "Restricted" and "Low Power" no more than 100w/no more than 10w and
>>>>> "Only one horizontal or vertically polarised fixed or rotatable
>>>>> antenna
>>>>> may be used at any one time".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Running less than 100w and more than 10w would put you in the AR
>>>>> section
>>>>> as long as you're only using one of your 2 single antenna rotatable
>>>>> systems
>>>>> at any given time.
>>>>> It would be unusual to be two horizontal rotatable single horizontal
>>>>> yagis so lets assume its a 12el horizontal and you also have an 8el
>>>>> vertically polarised antenna on another support.
>>>>> In your case I am suggesting switching between both rotary systems
>>>>> would
>>>>> permitted. Simple. Same for someone with a horizontal yagi and a
>>>>> colinear,
>>>>> simple and a typical VHF/UHF station arrangement.
>>>>> What is not typical and probably very rare indeed is someone with
>>>>> multiple fixed yagis as per the current wording. I'm suggesting
>>>>> simplifying
>>>>> it to a typical amateur antenna set up.
>>>>>
>>>>> The important point for AR is you are only using ONE antenna at any
>>>>> given
>>>>> time, otherwise you'd be in the AO section if for example you were
>>>>> splitting power to another antenna.
>>>>> 73 HNY Ray GM4CXM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________**__
>>>>> From: Rob
>>>>> Harrison<robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.**co.uk<robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>
>>>>> To: uk-contests<uk-contest at contesting.com>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, 1 January 2012, 12:03
>>>>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 2012 UKAC = Rule canges
>>>>>
>>>>> "Open" is very straightforward, over 100w up to 400w and no antenna
>>>>> restrictions.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Restricted" and "Low Power" no more than 100w/no more than 10w and
>>>>> "Only
>>>>> one horizontal or vertically polarised fixed or rotatable antenna may
>>>>> be
>>>>> used at any one time".
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok so where does that leave myself and a few others who have 2
>>>>> rotatable
>>>>> antennas by run less than 100W per band.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't do AO not enough TX power, can't do AR too many antennas,
>>>>> can't do
>>>>> AL too much power. So AX is forced on us.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can alter the rules to accomodate those with beams and
>>>>> verticals,
>>>>> surely a small tweak could accomodate us. Two beams and 50W is on a
>>>>> par
>>>>> with one beam and 100W I would think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not grasp the nettle and go for ERP sections? Don't say you
>>>>> can't
>>>>> police it, most people are honest and would put down what they are
>>>>> using,
>>>>> you can't police most of the rules anyway, as has been said many times
>>>>> on
>>>>> here, and by CC members.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73 Bob G8HGN
>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>> UK-Contest mailing list
>>>>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/uk-contest<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<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<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<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<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