Of course we're all taking up spectrum. But had the RHR stations operated as
three separate non-distributed multis (including remote operators - that is not
the issue), 12 more QSOs would have been available for all of us without them
taking any more spectrum.
Did the three WW1X locations swap bands - i.e. did they get to take advantage
of propagation differences between Maine, New York, and Georgia?
73 - Jim K8MR
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Voelpel <dj7ww@t-online.de>
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2021 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] You gotta let me know, should M/M Distributed stay or
go.
The big difference will be travel time and travel expenses and no reason to
build a big M/M station you hear just a few times during the year.
Any station you worked six times is just taking up spectrum in your opinion,
bur there might be others who still want a qso with it.
73
Peter
-----Original Message-----
online.de@contesting.com] On Behalf Of K8MR via CQ-Contest
The M/M D offers interesting challenges, technical and organizational, to
which the various groups responded very well.
Does it make things better for the rest of us? I doubt it.
What we need are lots of stations to work. Once you're worked WW1X six times
(i.e. on six bands, as I did as NO8DX). they're just taking up spectrum. OK,
maybe they can serve a useful function as beacons CQing on a dead band. But
it's still better to have three or six or more callsigns active, giving the
rest of us more potential QSOs.
I think the useful function of providing top notch remote operation
availability, in particular to the youth crowd, is a fine contribution. But
that can be done with traditional single site multi-op efforts. I don't see
where the distributed feature adds much.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|