Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Prohibiting\s+Interleaved\s+CQs\s+\-\s+killing\s+Inovation\s*$/: 28 ]

Total 28 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: "Helmut Mueller" <helmut@photo42.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 18:36:34 +0100
Hi Guys. These "new" techniques are just the evolution of contest, deal with it! There are different contests out there who have different rules and smart people REALLY understand the rules and apply
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00381.html (13,601 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:14:57 -0400
I disagree. Innovation is good up to where it spoils the experience for others. The bands are a shared resource. Taking up more space is spoiling the experience for others. Maybe I should increase my
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00386.html (16,707 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: S57AD <mirko.s57ad@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 20:40:03 +0100
Amen! It was even me who some 30 years ago moaned about computer logging & keyin, unles I begun to use it as well as soon as I bought my first 286XT PC machine :D 73 Mirko, S57AD -- Mirko S57AD _____
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00392.html (16,515 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: donovanf@starpower.net
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:35:21 -0400 (EDT)
Hello Helmut, For many years we (almost all of us, at least) have operated in accordance with The Amateur's Code published in ARRL Handbooks for at least ninety years. The problem with dual interleav
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00393.html (16,900 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:54:34 +0000
Helmut, I don't think that this resistance to interleaved-CQ is "anti-innovation" at all, but resistance to "excess occupancy". By any reasonable measure, running interleaved CQs on two QRG's in the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00394.html (16,939 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 20:45:05 -0400
The same argument can be made for working so split. Sounds like the two use cases of using extra spectrum are treated differently. You can't pick and chose and favor one vs the other. Rudy N2WQ Sent
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00403.html (18,983 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 00:52:18 +0000
I agree that SO-Split is equally hoggish if it consumes two QRG's in a single band segment. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- "Just a boy and his radio" _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00405.html (20,265 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:47:17 -0400
So convenience trumps principles? This is not surprising. Split on 80 and 40, sometimes even on 20, is a common practice during SSB contests. Rudy N2WQ Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00407.html (22,567 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188@ac0c.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:36:40 -0500
Sure you can. Split is not generally used in contesting specifically because of the dual spectrum use on one band. There is some of that done by way of exception - especially on 40m - where the commo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00408.html (21,064 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188@ac0c.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:27:18 -0500
Sorry to not explain clearly. So let me try again more explicitly this time. Interleaving two QRG slots on the SAME band, even if it is allowed under the rules, is not something I am personally favor
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00409.html (23,696 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:58:13 -0700
Operators should be DQed for working split during a contest. It consumes more than two frequencies, because the callers spread out, and others running on those frequencies get clobbered. I won't work
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00410.html (9,975 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:17:57 +0000
Working split in a crowded band is frowned upon. _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-cont
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00413.html (21,250 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:21:36 +0100
Advanced SO operating is skill based. I know many contesters who are not capable to run SO2R at all. They are not competitive any more. We are competing who has better skill. New improved SO operatin
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00414.html (25,432 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: "Peter Voelpel" <dj7ww@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:40:21 +0100
Primarly it is who has the best location and most advanced station. 73 Peter Advanced SO operating is skill based. I know many contesters who are not capable to run SO2R at all. They are not competit
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00415.html (10,084 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Helmut Mueller <helmut@photo42.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:47:40 +0100 (CET)
Thank you Ranko. I thought I am the only one thinking this way. Nobody complaint because they could not find a free space in ARRL, they complaint only after listening to the audio! 73 Helmut ________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00416.html (25,020 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: garyk9gs <garyk9gs@wi.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:34:59 -0500
I'm the most recent ARRL phone contest a ZD7 showed up on 20m in the afternoon.  He was not in the contest but if asked he would give a signal report and power.  He was also very loud, at least in W9
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00418.html (10,290 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:20:24 -0400
I would only apply that to 20 meters and up. Split on 40 and 80 meters is different. In fact, it may even ease congestion on 40 where everyone is not crammed into 7125-7200. Ria N2RJ ________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00420.html (11,121 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:08:29 -0600
No, You have not thought this through. What if every station attempted to do this tactic starting at the top of the band and at the bottom? The bands would quickly fill with big guns from top bottom.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00421.html (27,581 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: "Stephen Bloom" <sbloom@acsalaska.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 07:08:39 -0800
That is true of course, but we do seem to improve our scores at KL7RA when we sacrifice a goat. Don't see anything in the rules against that. 73 Steve KL7SB Primarly it is who has the best location a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00422.html (11,970 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:19:01 -0600
Sounds like we need to move these ultra competitive people into their own class. IE SO2R that has been tossed around for ages. So the best of the best can dictate what happens to the rest of us in th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00423.html (29,282 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu