Sounds good Kevin, count me in.
73
Dan
--
Amateur Radio Emergency Service, Clark County Indiana. EM78el
K9ZF /R no budget Rover ***QRP-l #1269 Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
<http://www.qsl.net/n9rla> List Administrator for: InHam+grid-loc+ham-books
Ask me how to join the Indiana Ham Mailing list!
kevin kaufhold wrote:
> OK then. I suggest that we form a yahoo user's group to work through the
> issues in an analytical manner, as we can only do so much thru the din of a
> reflector. It would amount to a working group for anyone interested (either
> pro or con) on the topic of distance scoring. Sort of a grass roots effort
> to provide more of a focus to the discussion. We could check back and forth
> thru the reflector to keep lines of communication up and hopefully develop a
> consensus, one way or the other. If a consensus does build up, VUAC could use
> whatever they feel appropriate in their own deliberations.
>
> Pse let me know if you are interested in participating in such a discussion
> group. If there is sufficient interest, I can set something up.
>
>
> Kevin
> W9GKA
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 2/14/09, Jim Worsham <wa4kxy@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>> From: Jim Worsham <wa4kxy@bellsouth.net>
>> Subject: RE: [VHFcontesting] A distance scoring contest
>> To: "'Ron Hooper'" <w4wa@alltel.net>, kkaufhold@yahoo.com
>> Cc: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>> Date: Saturday, February 14, 2009, 2:09 PM
>> As a member of the VUAC I have to say that Ron is 100% spot
>> on. If the VHF
>> contesting community wants distance scoring in a contest
>> then there needs to
>> be a consensus developed by that community as to which
>> contest it is and how
>> it would work. Several other members of the VUAC and I are
>> on this
>> reflector. We are all paying attention, taking notes and
>> waiting for that
>> consensus to emerge.
>>
>> 73
>> Jim, W4KXY
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Ron Hooper
>> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 11:09 AM
>> To: kkaufhold@yahoo.com
>> Cc: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] A distance scoring contest
>>
>> Hi Kevin
>>
>> Thanks for trying to get this group focused into a
>> direction that could
>> yield some results. I would like to include some basic
>> information.
>>
>> I think a lot of us old timers remember the reluctance of
>> the ARRL to make
>> rule changes based on some e-mails or letters without a
>> SUPPORTED
>> consensus. Prior to 2005/6, the ARRL CAC was the group to
>> contact and
>> hopefully would work toward a consensus to be presented to
>> the MSC which in
>> turn went to the BOD.
>>
>> Since then things have changed. The VHF community now has
>> its own advisory
>> committee called the VUAC. It is similar to the CAC but is
>> only concerned
>> with VHF & up contesting. This allows contesting issues
>> to be considered by
>> other VHF contesters and not by someone that has no idea
>> what is going on
>> first hand. The VUAC was created by the ARRL BOD and
>> answers to the Program
>> & Services Committee (PSC).
>>
>> The ARRL has placed a VUAC member in each of the ARRL
>> sections to solicit
>> input from the hams living in the division. The VUAC has a
>> chairperson to
>> gather the information from the other committee members and
>> submit it to the
>> PSC at different intervals during the year. These reports
>> can be found by
>> searching the ARRL site to see what issues are being
>> considered or acted on.
>>
>>
>> I know that my VUAC representative is on this list and
>> reads the threads
>> concerning the distance scoring and several other issues
>> that I am not
>> concerned with. There are probably several other VUAC
>> members on this list
>> and they can be be identified by going to
>> http://www.arrl.org/contests/vuac.html
>>
>> I assume you can also contact the ARRL in some way and they
>> will forward
>> your communication through to the proper person/s that
>> should get it.
>> Obviously, the more people that contact the ARRL the
>> quicker the distance
>> scoring rule change study can be impliment.
>>
>> I am in favor of distance scoring and would like to see the
>> issue studied by
>> the VUAC to determine if it could enhance the future VHF
>> and up contest.
>>
>> Ron W4WA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 9:47 AM, kevin kaufhold
>> <kkaufhold@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> For everyone's information, the ARRL did use
>>>
>> distance scoring in the
>> August
>>
>>> UHF for one year in 1982. I believe it was referred to
>>>
>> as RANGE. Look it
>> up
>>
>>> in the old QST's! When the VUCC started in 1983,
>>>
>> the UHF contest moved to
>>
>>> the 1 x 2 grid squares as the multiplier. Between 1978
>>>
>> when the UHF
>> started
>>
>>> and 1981, a 1 x 1 grid square was used. At the time,
>>>
>> various versions of
>>
>>> grid squares were considered to be an effort towards
>>>
>> distance scoring,
>>
>>> certainly an improvement over using states as a
>>>
>> multiplier.
>>
>>> As an experiment, using a 6 digit grid locator has a
>>>
>> lot of appeal,
>>
>>> especially if we start off in the August UHF. We have
>>>
>> very few Joe 706's
>>
>>> active in August, so the disruption to that contest
>>>
>> would be minimal, I
>>
>>> think. And, there was little problem when K9JK pushed
>>>
>> 6 digits for the
>>
>>> Spring Sprints. August has a lot of very experienced
>>>
>> microwave enthusiasts
>>
>>> who are quite used to 6 digits. And the UHF is small
>>>
>> enough (in terms of
>>
>>> logs) that it a distance scoring experiment would be
>>>
>> managable. We could
>>
>>> also put a max limit on a distance multiplier, to give
>>>
>> some consideration
>> to
>>
>>> EME without overly skewing the results.
>>>
>>> Distance scoring might also provide something of a
>>>
>> disincentive to pack
>>
>>> roving operations. To max points, they would have to
>>>
>> increase power levels
>>
>>> and run farther apart. I am sure they are capable of
>>>
>> doing that, but they
>>
>>> then would at least be encouraged to have
>>>
>> "real" contacts rather than
>> QSO's
>>
>>> literally within a few feet of each other.
>>>
>>> A parallel type of contest using both grids and
>>>
>> distance as a scoring
>>
>>> method would also be interesting to do for a few years
>>>
>> to see which one
>> the
>>
>>> VHF community really likes. That might lead to more
>>>
>> complexity however,
>> so
>>
>>> I do not know if a parallel track would be worthwhile.
>>>
>>> I know the League's resources are stretched.
>>>
>> Either logging programs would
>>
>>> have to be modified for 6 digits, or the League would
>>>
>> have to expand their
>>
>>> scoring techniques from the 10G to encompass distance
>>>
>> scoring in August
>> (or
>>
>>> other contest).
>>>
>>> If people are really serious about this (rather than
>>>
>> just chatting on the
>>
>>> reflector), then I suggest an informal committee or
>>>
>> delegation of some
>> sort
>>
>>> be developed off reflector to study this more
>>>
>> seriously. What say you?
>>
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>> W9GKA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>>>
>>>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|