KA6AMD wrote:
> My 2 cents on this is that there needs to be a little more differentiation
> for the higher frequencies. While six often has poor local propagation, it
> still has a much better possibility to open up for long distances. Here is
> my tweak to the scoring:
>
> 6M, 2M, & 432 1 point Easy to get on out of the box
> these days
> 222, 902 & 1296 2 points More of a challenge to get on &
> reward to increase activity
> 2304 - 10 GHz 3 points Still a technical challenge;
> propagation not limited by atmospheric absorbsion
> 24 GHz - 100 GHz 4 points Path loss a real challenge &
> equipment is really fussy
> 100 GHz + 5 points Here's where the real
> pioneers hang out
>
> The object is to get people to move to less popular bands and take on more
> of a technical and operating challenge. (Now I have to find time to put
> together that 10GHz transverter with a new baby arriving in June.)
>
> Erich
> KA6AMD
> DM15
As others have said, I fall into the "leave it alone" camp too... but
just to pick a nit...
Your stated "object" above is NOT the stated object of the June VHF contest.
The first line in the rules:
1. Object: To work as many amateur stations in as many different 2
degrees by 1 degree grid squares as possible using authorized
frequencies above 50 MHz. Foreign stations work W/VE amateurs only.
It says NOTHING about attempting to "reward" higher frequencies,
technical difficulty, or any of the other implied "goals" discussed in
the posts on the matter, thus far.
Those are side-effects of the multiplier system, probably intentional,
but the contest rules certainly don't make that clear, or attempt to
clarify that position in any way.
The scoring method you are talking about is a completely different beast.
Nate WY0X
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|