CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ-Contest] not top-10 box competitions &comparisons

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ-Contest] not top-10 box competitions &comparisons
From: "Marijan Miletic" <s56a@bit.si>
Reply-to: s56a@bit.si
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:07:53 +0200
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
KR2Q: What exactlyl would be "important" for you non-top-ten types to view
in order 
to make a serious comparison?  I am looking for real input, not silly stuff.

Present PC technology enables easy digitalisation of S meter reading to be
included in real contest RST.
That way we would better support ITU wish to use many free HF frequencies
for propagation study.

Second simple scoring improvement would take into account QSO distance for
final scoring like on VHF.
That would level out AF/SA 2,99 QSO points unfair advantage while preserving
DX chase.

Just survived WAE SSB DX contest with only 20 m open. Plenty of splatters. 
If we would only use minimal power for QSO as ITU (and probably God)
wishes...

73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ-Contest] not top-10 box competitions &comparisons, Marijan Miletic <=