K0YQ wrote:
> Wouldn't simply defining LP as 100W or less make infinitely more sense?
Is there a legacy rationale for 150W?
Hi John.
Several years ago I persuaded Jim, N3BB to raise the issue w/ the CAC
(ARRLContest Advisory Committee). They had already been considering the
change, and then voted unanimously to recommend 100w as the LP limit for
ARRL contests (the power applies to Sweepstakes, DX Contests, 160m plus RR
etc).
But the A in CAC is just that. .ARRL management rejected the idea, claiming
that 150w was good because it encouraged ops to upgrade their stations. I
suspect that the manufacturers didn't like the change. But who knows.
In about 2003 I derived an equation relating power to score for the ARRL CW
Sweeps: the difference between 150 and 100 watts is a significant 3% or
thereabouts.
No vested interest for me -- I have an FT-1000MP and for the most part
believe that ARRL does a first rate job of running the contests.
73 and best wishes for a Happy and Prosperous 2014 to all.
Bill N6ZFO
Director for NCCC Thursday Night Contesting. (100 watts!, see
ncccsprint.com)
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:26 AM, John Grimm <john_grimm1450@hotmail.com>wrote:
> Is there a reason that the LP limit in the Roundup is 150W or less?
> Wouldn't simply defining LP as 100W or less make infinitely more sense?
> Is there a legacy rationale for 150W?
>
> HNY to all.
>
> John / K0YQ
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|