[VHFcontesting] "Rule" 1.10 revisited

[Zack Widup]

Yes, that's interesting.  The point is "how do you prove or disprove it?"

If I work 2 or 3 grids on any one band, I think I've demonstrated that 
capability. But if I work some people on, say 47 GHz, and they're all in 
the same 4-character grid, it COULD be that my equipment is not capable of 
more than 200 meters distance.  But how would anyone know? There's a 
higher probability of having equipment that doesn't meet that requirement 
above 24 GHz than on any band below that. Maybe I'd have to give the 
6-character grids of both stations in that case.

73, Zack W9SZ

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Bill Burgess wrote:

> As printed, what we see posted as Rule 1.10 is not really a rule, and not worthy of the paper or space it takes up.  As a proofreader, I read every word as printed, not as others choose to interpret it.
>
> Accordingly, "equipment SHOULD be capable of" is a suggestion, not a rule.  If it were a rule, it would have to read "equipment MUST be capable of".  As explained to me by another ARRL official whose email I am still searching for, "operators need not prove this in advance, they can operate in the contest regardless".  So in actual fact, one never needs to prove this as nobody will ever call on you to prove it.
>
> As all have noted, there is no defined distance established in the January - June - September contests.  This I understand is because the ARRL committe could find no acceptable way of measuring contest qso's by the exchange given.  To impose a 6 km distance would require a 6 digit grid reference from both parties and still have ambiguity in it.
>
> Due to the "no minimum distance", statement, even laser qso's of 3 inches to a foot are acceptable.  Not my idea of clean contesting, though totally legal.  From a safety standpoint, laser "micro-qso's" may prevent serious eye problems from misdirected laser beams.  But as lasers are not true RF, I think they should be dropped from contesting, to encourage more activity on lower bands to gain the points.  More would win points by doing so.
>
> In rereading the stated Rule 1.10, does anybody else read it as I interpret it?
>
> 73,
>
> Bill  Burgess   VE3CRU