[VHFcontesting] VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 32, Issue 21
KG4RUL - Dennis Zabawa
kg4rul at comcast.net
Fri Aug 12 08:54:55 EDT 2005
----- Original Message -----
From: <vhfcontesting-request at contesting.com>
To: <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 23:12
Subject: VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 32, Issue 21
> Send VHFcontesting mailing list submissions to
> vhfcontesting at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vhfcontesting-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vhfcontesting-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of VHFcontesting digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: How to increase my score, or why should I try?
> (Bob Naumann - W5OV)
> 2. Grid Circling, Captive Rovers, and FM (Michael J. Clarson)
> 3. Re: How to increase my score, or why should I try? (Buck Calabro)
> 4. Re: How to increase my score, or why should I try?
> (Bob Naumann - W5OV)
> 5. Re: How to increase my score, or why should I try?
> (George Fremin III)
> 6. Re: How to increase my score, or why should I try? (Paul Kiesel)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:51:52 -0500
> From: "Bob Naumann - W5OV" <w5ov at w5ov.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] How to increase my score, or why should I
> try?
> To: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>, Buck Calabro
> <kc2hiz at gmail.com>, VHF Contesting <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <E1E3J5k-0005MC-Sh at www3.qth.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Well said Ken.
>
> This is not unlike what is going on in some of the HF DX contests.
>
> It's all cheating. It's extending your operation and including other
> operators to help your score that you are not counting as your
> operators.
>
> -W5OV
>
> > This has nothing to do with the ARRL Club Competition. If it did,
> > wouldn't the "mother ship", W2SZ/1, have listed an ARRL club on its
> > log submission? It never has. What about N6NB/R? Did that circle
> > rover station enter the club competition on behalf of any ARRL club?
> > No.
> >
> > In both cases, what we have is a single contest operation using more
> > than one callsign to make contacts with itself to artificially boost
> > its score so that one of its callsigns can be the recognized winner of
> > a category in the contest. This is unsportsmanlike, and many of us
> > think it should be considered cheating and that the rules should be
> > fixed to prevent it.
> >
> > --
> > Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> > kenharker at kenharker.com
> > http://www.kenharker.com/
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:20:30 -0400
> From: "Michael J. Clarson" <mclarson at rcc.com>
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Grid Circling, Captive Rovers, and FM
> To: <VHFcontesting at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <200508112026.j7BKPxi11177 at rcc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Just some thoughts -- I tried to stay out of the fray, but just couldn't:
>
> Grid Circling: Don't understand the problem with it, other than it skews
the
> score away from the more traditional rover. "Solutions" so far range from
> "you know it when you see it" and rover/non-rover QSO ratios etc. If its
> deemed a problem--and I am not sure it should be--why not consider a
simple
> to enforce rule-- rover to rover contacts are worth ZERO points. You still
> get the multiplier, but no contact points (like working domestic stations
in
> the WAZ contests--same idea). Just wait until someone sets up a station
near
> one of the poles (North or South) and the rovers can hit 180 grids in a
few
> minutes.
>
> Captive Rovers: Don't understand the problem with this either--its part of
> the effort one runs. One station happens to control both ends of the path.
> But not working anyone else is unsportsmanlike and just plain not nice.
Even
> if you "don't have the time", you should make some. Don't have to work
> everyone, but 15-20 mins at a site to work others doesn't seem
unreasonable.
> Don't see a rule about this one happening.
>
> FM: I don't think it's the mode so much, as it seems perfectly valid on
222
> and some microwave bands, but rather the channelized style of operating.
My
> own feeling is not to make any changes that result in fewer contacts being
> made in VHF/UHF contests.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:26:15 -0400
> From: Buck Calabro <kc2hiz at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] How to increase my score, or why should I
> try?
> To: VHF Contesting <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <e06e8ab005081115267cef101c at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> > > Doesn't general contest rule 8 specifically allow club competition?
> > > Isn't the point that one wants one's own club to win the contest?
> >
> > This has nothing to do with the ARRL Club Competition.
> -snip-
> > In both cases, what we have is a single contest
> > operation using more than one callsign to make
> > contacts with itself to artificially boost its score
> > so that one of its callsigns can be the recognized
> > winner of a category in the contest.
>
> Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. The club competition
> explicitly recognises that human beings like to help others. That we,
> as social folk like to help people we know. That altruism is a Good
> Thing.
>
> The CA rovers were not a single contest operation - they submitted
> individual logs. They are friends who activated an incredible number
> of grids, put 500+ calls into their logs and also worked each other as
> they drove. If anybody else put 500+ calls into the log they'd get a
> slap on the back.
>
> The two guys who made 100 less QSOs weren't robotic slaves faithfully
> executing the will of 'the master.' The same goes for the much
> maligned 'captive rovers.' They aren't mindless drones calling home
> to 'the mother ship' milling by the thousands, intent on making Mother
> the sole winner.
>
> No matter how many times they are portrayed this way, the simple fact
> is that they are all individuals, participating as individual
> stations. Like all contesters they are working the stations that are
> easiest for them to work. The undercurrent is that they planned their
> strategy before leaving, and that a planned excursion is
> unsportsmanlike, whereas random QSOs are the proper way to go about
> it.
>
> I never, ever made a random QSO above the 70cm band, and respectfully
> submit that physics (i.e. beamwidth) demands some amount of planning
> in order to make a successful QSO. Location (no trees in THAT
> direction), timing (they have to be awake) and pointing (narrow
> beamwidth) are crucial to making a microwave QSO.
>
> If someone can demonstrate how I can drive to a random hilltop, set my
> dishes up in random directions and elevations, call CQ on random
> frequencies at random times in a VHF contest with microwaves
> (microwaves = points) AND increase my score, then I'm all ears.
>
> Respectfully, KC2HIZ/r, Buck
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:12:20 -0500
> From: "Bob Naumann - W5OV" <W5OV at W5OV.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] How to increase my score, or why should I
> try?
> To: "'VHF Contesting'" <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20050812021224.6E5A2319311 at dayton.akorn.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Buck,
>
> I disagree with a couple of your statements.
>
> You said: "The CA rovers were not a single contest operation - they
> submitted individual logs" and "the simple fact is that they are all
> individuals, participating as individual stations".
>
> If those assertions were entirely true, there would be no controversy.
>
> While they did submit individual logs, your conclusion that they were
> individual stations based on that alone is not correct.
>
> The fact is that they were not acting as individual stations. Truly
> separate rovers would not have done what they did. They were in fact
acting
> in concert, in a deliberate, calculated, pre-planned way which I believe
> does not fit any existing category.
>
> Should there be a category like this? Sure - why not? I suggest that it
be
> called "Rover Team" or similar with new rules defining *what is allowed*
in
> that category.
>
> I liken this to someone operating high power in a contest that only has
> entry categories for low power or QRP. Sure they can operate, and their
> QSOs are good, but they are not competing with the people who are
operating
> within the limits of the defined categories. This just happened last
> weekend in the NAQP CW Contest. Their entry should be classified as a
check
> log, since their operation does not align with any current entry category.
> Clearly, the same applies in this case.
>
> For this and all other contests, I also think that the rules need to be
> written from the perspective of what is permitted so that it is clear that
> if it ain't in the rules, it ain't allowed. The loophole perspective that
> anything that isn't specifically outlawed is OK, strikes me as
> unsportsmanlike and should not be encouraged.
>
> You also said: "I never, ever made a random QSO above the 70cm band, and
> respectfully submit that physics (i.e. beamwidth) demands some amount of
> planning in order to make a successful QSO."
>
> I disagree that you need to plan in advance. I'm not saying you can't
make
> a sked, or *publicly* publish your operating / travel plans.
>
> You further said: If someone can demonstrate how I can drive to a random
> hilltop, set my dishes up in random directions and elevations, call CQ on
> random frequencies at random times in a VHF contest with microwaves
> (microwaves = points) AND increase my score, then I'm all ears.
>
> Well, listen here. If you do what you said, you are clearly not thinking
> about how to deal with this conundrum.
>
> Answer: It's a VHF contest - use the tools you are allowed to use! Common
> practice used to be establishing communication on lower bands (like 6m,
2m,
> 432 etc.), then turning your antennas to point at the station you want to
> work, and QSYing up to the higher bands form there. You can pass along
all
> the data you might need to the other station on the air during the
contest.
> Imagine that - using radio during the contest!
>
> 73,
> Bob W5OV
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Buck Calabro [mailto:kc2hiz at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 5:26 PM
> To: VHF Contesting
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] How to increase my score, or why should I
try?
>
> > > Doesn't general contest rule 8 specifically allow club competition?
> > > Isn't the point that one wants one's own club to win the contest?
> >
> > This has nothing to do with the ARRL Club Competition.
> -snip-
> > In both cases, what we have is a single contest operation using more
> > than one callsign to make contacts with itself to artificially boost
> > its score so that one of its callsigns can be the recognized winner of
> > a category in the contest.
>
> Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. The club competition
> explicitly recognises that human beings like to help others. That we, as
> social folk like to help people we know. That altruism is a Good Thing.
>
> The CA rovers were not a single contest operation - they submitted
> individual logs. They are friends who activated an incredible number of
> grids, put 500+ calls into their logs and also worked each other as they
> drove. If anybody else put 500+ calls into the log they'd get a slap on
the
> back.
>
> The two guys who made 100 less QSOs weren't robotic slaves faithfully
> executing the will of 'the master.' The same goes for the much maligned
> 'captive rovers.' They aren't mindless drones calling home to 'the mother
> ship' milling by the thousands, intent on making Mother the sole winner.
>
> No matter how many times they are portrayed this way, the simple fact is
> that they are all individuals, participating as individual stations. Like
> all contesters they are working the stations that are easiest for them to
> work. The undercurrent is that they planned their strategy before
leaving,
> and that a planned excursion is unsportsmanlike, whereas random QSOs are
the
> proper way to go about it.
>
> I never, ever made a random QSO above the 70cm band, and respectfully
submit
> that physics (i.e. beamwidth) demands some amount of planning in order to
> make a successful QSO. Location (no trees in THAT direction), timing
(they
> have to be awake) and pointing (narrow
> beamwidth) are crucial to making a microwave QSO.
>
> If someone can demonstrate how I can drive to a random hilltop, set my
> dishes up in random directions and elevations, call CQ on random
frequencies
> at random times in a VHF contest with microwaves (microwaves = points) AND
> increase my score, then I'm all ears.
>
> Respectfully, KC2HIZ/r, Buck
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:37:19 -0700
> From: George Fremin III <geoiii at kkn.net>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] How to increase my score, or why should I
> try?
> To: Buck Calabro <kc2hiz at gmail.com>
> Cc: VHF Contesting <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20050812023719.GA38649 at kkn.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 06:26:15PM -0400, Buck Calabro wrote:
> >
> > I never, ever made a random QSO above the 70cm band, and respectfully
> > submit that physics (i.e. beamwidth) demands some amount of planning
> > in order to make a successful QSO. Location (no trees in THAT
> > direction), timing (they have to be awake) and pointing (narrow
> > beamwidth) are crucial to making a microwave QSO.
>
> Really?
>
> I work rovers in Texas all the time with no more planning
> that working them on one band (whatever band hear them on first)
> and then QSYing to every band the two of us have.
>
> This is the same way I work fixed stations.
>
> > If someone can demonstrate how I can drive to a random hilltop, set my
> > dishes up in random directions and elevations, call CQ on random
> > frequencies at random times in a VHF contest with microwaves
> > (microwaves = points) AND increase my score, then I'm all ears.
>
> Well - at least here in Texas almost all of the
> activity happens around or on the calling frequencies
> so if I were to put a radio or 1296.1 all weekend
> in a VHF contest I would work folks randomly.
> (this is my highest band)
>
> Would you care to share one of your rover logs with us - I would love
> to see what a rover log looks like from an area where there
> are lots of VHF stations. I bet you get to work a lot of guys
> on the bands above 70cm up where you are.
>
>
> Here is my 2005 June log:
> http://www.kkn.net/k5tr/logs/05junvhf.cbr
>
> In fact here is my june 2004 log:
> http://www.kkn.net/k5tr/logs/04junvhf.cbr
>
> And, for fun, if you want to see how amazing the rate was in 2003 on 6
> meters with back to back 200 hours here is my June 2003 log:
> http://www.kkn.net/k5tr/logs/03junvhf.cbr
>
> --
> George Fremin III - K5TR
> geoiii at kkn.net
> http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Paul Kiesel <k7cw at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] How to increase my score, or why should I
> try?
> To: 'VHF Contesting' <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20050812030831.32764.qmail at web52710.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Bob,
>
> I agree with Buck. Buck's assertions are true because
> N6NB/R and his friends were operating totally within
> the rules of the contest, yet there is still a
> controversy.
>
> The fact is that they were acting as individual
> stations. Fact is, all rovers do what they did.
> Namely, act in concert with all stations that they
> work in a deliberate, calculated way. Many rovers
> preplan their operations and announce their
> itineraries. Moreover, many make skeds with other
> stations and preplan their contacts (as do many fixed
> stations).
>
> I agree that there should be some consideration given
> to creating various rover categories. But my
> appreciation of this is that N6NB and his friends were
> not operating outside the scope or intent of the
> contest rules as written.
>
> I thinks it's kinda sad that Wayne had to come on and
> defend himself when he and his friends did nothing
> wrong. Wayne has contributed more to VHFing and ham
> radio in general than most VHFers realize because they
> haven't been around long enough to remember.
>
> Paul, K7CW
>
>
> --- Bob Naumann - W5OV <W5OV at W5OV.com> wrote:
>
> > Buck,
> >
> > I disagree with a couple of your statements.
> >
> > You said: "The CA rovers were not a single contest
> > operation - they
> > submitted individual logs" and "the simple fact is
> > that they are all
> > individuals, participating as individual stations".
> >
> >
> > If those assertions were entirely true, there would
> > be no controversy.
> >
> > While they did submit individual logs, your
> > conclusion that they were
> > individual stations based on that alone is not
> > correct.
> >
> > The fact is that they were not acting as individual
> > stations. Truly
> > separate rovers would not have done what they did.
> > They were in fact acting
> > in concert, in a deliberate, calculated, pre-planned
> > way which I believe
> > does not fit any existing category.
> >
> > Should there be a category like this? Sure - why
> > not? I suggest that it be
> > called "Rover Team" or similar with new rules
> > defining *what is allowed* in
> > that category.
> >
> > I liken this to someone operating high power in a
> > contest that only has
> > entry categories for low power or QRP. Sure they
> > can operate, and their
> > QSOs are good, but they are not competing with the
> > people who are operating
> > within the limits of the defined categories. This
> > just happened last
> > weekend in the NAQP CW Contest. Their entry should
> > be classified as a check
> > log, since their operation does not align with any
> > current entry category.
> > Clearly, the same applies in this case.
> >
> > For this and all other contests, I also think that
> > the rules need to be
> > written from the perspective of what is permitted so
> > that it is clear that
> > if it ain't in the rules, it ain't allowed. The
> > loophole perspective that
> > anything that isn't specifically outlawed is OK,
> > strikes me as
> > unsportsmanlike and should not be encouraged.
> >
> > You also said: "I never, ever made a random QSO
> > above the 70cm band, and
> > respectfully submit that physics (i.e. beamwidth)
> > demands some amount of
> > planning in order to make a successful QSO."
> >
> > I disagree that you need to plan in advance. I'm
> > not saying you can't make
> > a sked, or *publicly* publish your operating /
> > travel plans.
> >
> > You further said: If someone can demonstrate how I
> > can drive to a random
> > hilltop, set my dishes up in random directions and
> > elevations, call CQ on
> > random frequencies at random times in a VHF contest
> > with microwaves
> > (microwaves = points) AND increase my score, then
> > I'm all ears.
> >
> > Well, listen here. If you do what you said, you are
> > clearly not thinking
> > about how to deal with this conundrum.
> >
> > Answer: It's a VHF contest - use the tools you are
> > allowed to use! Common
> > practice used to be establishing communication on
> > lower bands (like 6m, 2m,
> > 432 etc.), then turning your antennas to point at
> > the station you want to
> > work, and QSYing up to the higher bands form there.
> > You can pass along all
> > the data you might need to the other station on the
> > air during the contest.
> > Imagine that - using radio during the contest!
> >
> > 73,
> > Bob W5OV
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Buck Calabro [mailto:kc2hiz at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 5:26 PM
> > To: VHF Contesting
> > Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] How to increase my
> > score, or why should I try?
> >
> > > > Doesn't general contest rule 8 specifically
> > allow club competition?
> > > > Isn't the point that one wants one's own club to
> > win the contest?
> > >
> > > This has nothing to do with the ARRL Club
> > Competition.
> > -snip-
> > > In both cases, what we have is a single contest
> > operation using more
> > > than one callsign to make contacts with itself to
> > artificially boost
> > > its score so that one of its callsigns can be the
> > recognized winner of
> > > a category in the contest.
> >
> > Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been.
> > The club competition
> > explicitly recognises that human beings like to help
> > others. That we, as
> > social folk like to help people we know. That
> > altruism is a Good Thing.
> >
> > The CA rovers were not a single contest operation -
> > they submitted
> > individual logs. They are friends who activated an
> > incredible number of
> > grids, put 500+ calls into their logs and also
> > worked each other as they
> > drove. If anybody else put 500+ calls into the log
> > they'd get a slap on the
> > back.
> >
> > The two guys who made 100 less QSOs weren't robotic
> > slaves faithfully
> > executing the will of 'the master.' The same goes
> > for the much maligned
> > 'captive rovers.' They aren't mindless drones
> > calling home to 'the mother
> > ship' milling by the thousands, intent on making
> > Mother the sole winner.
> >
> > No matter how many times they are portrayed this
> > way, the simple fact is
> > that they are all individuals, participating as
> > individual stations. Like
> > all contesters they are working the stations that
> > are easiest for them to
> > work. The undercurrent is that they planned their
> > strategy before leaving,
> > and that a planned excursion is unsportsmanlike,
> > whereas random QSOs are the
> > proper way to go about it.
> >
> > I never, ever made a random QSO above the 70cm band,
> > and respectfully submit
> > that physics (i.e. beamwidth) demands some amount of
> > planning in order to
> > make a successful QSO. Location (no trees in THAT
> > direction), timing (they
> > have to be awake) and pointing (narrow
> > beamwidth) are crucial to making a microwave QSO.
> >
> > If someone can demonstrate how I can drive to a
> > random hilltop, set my
> > dishes up in random directions and elevations, call
> > CQ on random frequencies
> > at random times in a VHF contest with microwaves
> > (microwaves = points) AND
> > increase my score, then I'm all ears.
> >
> > Respectfully, KC2HIZ/r, Buck
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> >
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> >
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
> End of VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 32, Issue 21
> *********************************************
>
Hey folks, could you possibly edit out extraneous text when using the REPLY
function of you E-Mail program OR compose your message off-line and then
send a message directly to VHFcontesting at contesting.com and include your
off-line created message. I, for one and tired of scrolling through pages
of muck to get to the real information.
Dennis KG4RUL
P.S. In case you don't understand what I am talking about, please refer to
THIS message.
More information about the VHFcontesting
mailing list