CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Multi-op rule change in CQWW

To: <n2ic@arrl.net>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Multi-op rule change in CQWW
From: "Stan Stockton" <stan@aqity.com>
Reply-to: Stan Stockton <stan@aqity.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:53:49 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> But I can still have two run stations on the same band, as long as it 
> doesn't
> sound like alternating CQ's and I have a transmit interlock ?
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC

Looks to me like they are defining alternate CQs as "soliciting 
contacts"

>>interlocking two or more transmitters on a band with alternating CQs 
>>(soliciting contacts) is not allowed.

>Those who have the capabilities of creating such a station that allows
>alternate CQ's on the same band and the skills to use it efficiently
>should be allowed to do it. I wonder what is behind this rule again?
>We have seen past few days that the signal interlocking rule can be
>enforced is one wants to it as RDXC CC has done.

Juha OH6XX

I can see where it could become a bit messy if several multi-multi 
stations had 3-6 stations on the air, all soliciting contacts with 
alternate QRZs, interlocked transmissions of the exchange, etc. - all 
complying with only one signal at a time on the same band.  Couple that 
with a robot working stations found with packet and skimmer OR have the 
whole operation automated and we would then reach our final destination.

Stan, K5GO

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>