Sometimes the cheek in my tongue doesn't carry through this medium of
communications. Of course, this particular medium of communication
contains a lot of opinionated folks (and I'm including myself in that
category) who tend to shout at each other, rather than carrying on a
intellectual discourse on any particular topic.
But, I reiterate, if we had enough categories, each operator could have
an award for any particular contest. And, that statement has
considerable cheek in tongue.
73 de n8xx Hg
Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu> wrote:
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:30:23 -0500
>From: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Shall we argue how many Angels can dance on,
> the head of a pin?
>To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>
>
>On Nov 9, 2007, at 11:17 AM, Hank Greeb wrote:
>
>
>>A few contests (mainly QRP contests) have "simple wire antennas" category to
>>distinguish from beam antennae. I personally know that a 8 dBd beam @ 50
>>feet makes a QRP Field Day station competitive with the 100 watt category
>>stations, particularly since the QRP station gets a multiplier of 5 vs 2 for
>>the 100 Watt category. I placed 2nd in Field Day, Class 1B 1OP Battery twice
>>during the 80's with this antenna and a HW-9. Distant 2nd, but 2nd anyway.
>>
>>The same reasoning would hold for a station running full legal power - a full
>>size beam @ 110 feet would "outclass" a simple wire antenna @ 25 feet. It's
>>a matter of the number of categories one wishes to have in a contest. Maybe
>>we should have "dummy load antenna" category, wire antenna no higher than
>>10', wire antenna no higher than 30', wire antenna no higher than 50',
>>unlimited height wire antenna, and similar breakdowns for whether or not
>>you're looking at salt water, whether the soil in dry and sandy or wet and
>>clay, whether you have a beam antenna of any sort, maybe even what kind of
>>beam antenna you have. If we choose enough categories, perhaps we can have a
>>category winner for every entry.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You are correct Hank. Trying to level the playing field is just one of
> those things that once you start it, there is no end.
>
> I had though of introducing a "crappy antenna category" at one time.
> And how about the Operators? Should a handicap be given for bad operators or
> penalties for extremely proficient Operators? I still think that the Operator
> is the most important part of a high score.
>
> And just what *do* we do about those who are in a good location? Make
> 'em move?
>
> It's so much better to accept that there is a competition, and just as
> with athletes, some are better suited for the task at hand. My QTH is not too
> bad for contesting, but if I want to have a really good location, I move it
> to our mountaintop shack, with it's great antennas and top notch equipment.
>
> When I want to compete, I do these things I need to do to compete, not
> try to bring the better Ops and Stations down to my level.
>
> - 73 de Mike N3LI -
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|