The first point is that multiple radio use is not new. I was doing it in
the late 70's and early 80's as VK4VU. Maximum for me was three one to
run one to listen and one monitoring for openings on say ten metres. I
was by no means a pioneer, I got the idea from somewhere else.
The second point is that the single op all band class in major contests
is the premier class it is the formula one of ham radio contesting.(as
is mult multi). Simply put, "if you cannot stand the heat get out of the
kitchen". Somewhat more politely enter another class, there are plenty
or try to win in your zone, section region or just beat your own
previous score.
With a KL7 call you are, like me, locationally handicapped. So what?
hasn't stopped me having a lot of fun. I will now probably never win a
major competition. I don't want to go on dxpeditions to the equator, I'm
not the BEST operator in the world, and I'm over 50 ( I know I'm not as
sharp as I was 15 years ago) but VK5GN will still be there and mostly in
the single op all band category whenever I can afford the time.
The current arguement has the same flaw as the millions that have gone
before about new classes or its too hard to win or whatever.Those flaws
have been clearly demonstrated by the single wires tribander category in
WPX. It was won by top operators who located themselves near to the
equator in a continent near to at least one and preferable two other
continents with high populations.
Many of the contestpeditions winning the major contests in the past have
done so with just such antennas.
You cannot create a level playing field so that those of us locationally
disadvantaged or those of us who have a technical disadvantage or those
of us who talk slow or those of us who are too lazy to learn CW or or
or can win.
In my view it is not even desirable to do so. We are competitors, we
love competition, we love to strive to improve and get better at what we
do, we want to do something that the other guy doesn't or can't so that
we can beat them to the goal. We all know that it is simply not possible
for us all to win.....although I do wonder sometimes when I see these
arguements raging yet again that the pervasive mind stultifying
influence of global socialism hasn't taken over.........whoops sorry we
are not created equal in our lives. Our job is to make the most of what
we have and improve as much as we can.
That means in my case that I have been able to get good at amateur radio
phone contesting but not great.
Live with yourself.
Don't ask me to change.
Single op all band is open class. A big boys playground, all welcome,
join us and have fun, enjoy yourself but only the very best in the best
spot with the best skills will actually get their name in the THE BOX. I
don't want it any other way.
73
Martin VK5GN
-----Original Message-----
From: kl7p-q [mailto:kl7p-q@mindspring.com]
Sent: Friday, 8 January 1999 5:39
To: Bill Fisher - W4AN
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: [3830] New Technology Corrupts Competition
Bill Fisher - W4AN wrote:
>
> All major contests include verbage about single-ops
> only being able to have one transmitted signal at any given time.
In any given contest, lets agree that both 20 and 15 are open
simultaneously, if not those bands, two others.. ok..
because rtty contest exchanges are relatively short,
with todays software, a normal op can knock out 3 or 4 contacts
per min (if the participants and props are there).. so maintaining
a qso rate of 1 every 2 mins leaves a long time for calling cq with
lots of time in between.. but not enuf to physically change back and
for between bands... an average of 1 q every 2 mins would get me
abt 720 q's for a 24 hr contest...
now lets add that second radio.. maintaining the same q rate..
now i've suddenly doubled my score!! and NEVER transmitted
simultaneously on both radios!! dont think its possible.. ask
those who're doing it to be 100 percent honest with ya..
the "only being able to have one transmitted signal at any given time"
is no obstacle... Lock outs on most software prevent simultaneous
transmission.. but what it doesnt prevent is the exchange reception
on one transmitter, while you're transmitting an exchange on another.
It literally only takes a few seconds to go back and forth between
the two.... when adding the 3rd or 4th radio, one does not have to
"hear" whats received, he can quickly "read it" on the monitor!
clearly, if two were not significantly better than one, why on earth
would anyone go to the expense and effort to do it!!
One
> simple sentance takes care of controlling the category. The fact that
one
> guy might be using six transceivers doesn't really matter. He can
only
> transmit on one of them at any given time. He can only hear two of
them
> at any given time.
>
> There is no great change in software or computer science that has
allowed
> single operators to use multiple transmitters. Only software to
control
> the number of transmitted signals to one at any given time (Thanks
Dave &
> Tree).
>
> I have a problem with the suggestion that we should create new
categories
> for guys that are willing to do the extra WORK to improve their
scores.
> Self improvment is the name of this game. Spending more time pursuing
> self improvement will yeild more fun and more results.
>
To the contrary, I'd like to see the new cateory where these guys can
really shine.. why should they routinely put their scores in a category
where the majority wonders "did he use one or two or three or four"?
I have no problem for the amount of WORK they do. They're great! I'm
in awe of them.. but why should a two horse weight pulling race be in
the same category as a one horse weight pulling race.. ??
dont get me wrong.. I truly am respectful and literally in awe at
the things these guys can do.. but clearly they are not in the
same contesting class that the majority of participants are in..
73/cul/tom
> 73
> Bill, W4AN
>
> In support of the "Single-op, part-time, no-aluminum, no-amplifier,
> single radio (tube type), noisey QTH, 386SX Computer (NO DVP), cold
> basement shack" category.
>
>
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|