I agree,
As an Oldtimer ( Got ticket in 1975 ) The only time the HF bands even
remotely sound like the bands did back then is during Contest weekends.
1975 was near the bottom of that solar cycle so conditions were similar.
Yet all the bands 80 thru 20 were crowded every day, You never ever had
a QSO without some interference from another station.
And 20 meters on Weekends,, if not a decent sized gun, forget CQing!
There just were no empty spots at all.
During the week 20 meters is like a local VHF repeater! signals sure but
they are sooo far apart and few, there just is no interference at all.
This Dualing in band CQing,,,, I'm still on the fence. In the case of a
contest that allows multi modes, like several State QSO Parties or the
IARU test, that might be cool. And a real test to the Op's brain
constantly switching modes!
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/7/2017 11:00 PM, Jim Neiger 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
|