If the concern is bandwidth used, shouldn't split operation be banned as
well? How does same band dueling CQ use more bandwidth than "listening on
this frequency and 7050"?
In both cases it is the activity triggered by the running station on both
frequencies that prevents those frequencies from being used by someone
else.
Not arguing for banning either, just pointing out that if bandwidth is the
concern they are essentially identical examples of "hogging" a scarce
resource.
73,
Matt NQ6N
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 7:39 AM Jim Neiger <n6tj@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> i agree. Like a few more signals on any band are suddenly going to
> overwhelm everyone? Operators can, and will, adjust.
>
> I remember the 2002 ARRL 10 Meters contest from ZD8. The band was
> loaded, every kc up to 29.2. To paraphrase Neil Diamond's song:
> Beautiful Noise...................
>
> As far as I'm concerned, wall to wall signals from one end of our
> spectra to the other is music. Especially the next five years of solar
> doldrums, we can only dream..............
>
> Vy 73
>
> Jim Neiger N6TJ
>
>
> On 4/7/2017 10:16 AM, Stein-Roar Brobakken wrote:
> > Hi guys
> >
> > Why not add the category SOMT single op multi transmitter? 👍
> >
> > So those having skills to run multiple vfo at once can do practice their
> skills??
> >
> > People are just different and some manage to make it!!
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Stein-Roar Brobakken
> > LB3RE K3RAG
> > www.lb3re.com
> > post@lb3re.com
> > GSM +4748224421// +4791999421
> >
> >
> >> Den 7. apr. 2017 kl. 17.20 skrev Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net
> >:
> >>
> >> IMHO, let's not make too much out of this decision.
> >>
> >> As explained in the newsbite that made the announcement, the practice of
> >> "dueling CQ's" was never intended to be permitted. Only recently has
> >> technology and (to be fair) operator skill advanced to the point where
> it
> >> was possible.
> >>
> >> And now someone did it. Correctly pointing out that within the strict
> >> letter of the contest rules in place, the practice was not actually
> >> prohibited.
> >>
> >> I know many believe "if it is not strictly forbidden, it is implicitly
> >> allowed". On something like this, it is unfortunate that accepted
> practice
> >> had to be explicitly mentioned. Regardless, an unintended consequence
> of
> >> not spelling out this specific instance was that a loophole was created
> and
> >> exploited.
> >>
> >> If you want to give a tip of the hat to the PJ4G folks for finding and
> >> exploiting said loophole, well, they or someone on the team did the
> work and
> >> uncovered it.
> >>
> >> The important thing is... They did not break the rules, in fact they
> >> strictly adhered to the rules, as they were written at the time.
> >>
> >> Now that it's been exposed, the loophole has been closed and the
> unintended
> >> consequence should not happen again. And that is how it should be.
> >>
> >> And that should be the end of that.
> >>
> >> 73, ron w3wn
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|