Frank,
My eskip idea was brought up to your rule number #2, where after the first 100
QSOs you could only work rovers for 10% of the remaining QSOs. I was saying
that during a good Es opening a rover could work 100 fixed stations, and after
that, they would be severely limited as to how many unique rovers they could
work.
If the current setup is broke (and I personally don't think it is) wouldn't a
better solution be that a rover could only work a specific call something like
20 times. That would not punish a rover by having a large number of unique
rovers to work
73s John AA5JG
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, frank bechdoldt <k3uhf@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: frank bechdoldt <k3uhf@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: Rover rules and criticisms
> To: aa5jg@yahoo.com, vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 4:55 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
>
>
> So, you are saying that you will make more than
> 100 rover to rover contacts in e-skip or at
> the corner?
>
>
>
>
>
> After a day I think I could live with option 2 with
> the first 100 regardless of percentage.
> If you were a 10 band traditional and you ran into
> one other person that would give you 40 extra multipliers
> and 100 QSO’s automatically by working them line of sight
> near a corner. That’s a lot of
> inpact on a persons score. So the rule in effect limits the
> amount of luck that can happen in a contest.
>
>
>
>
>
> Now I know some will say e-skip is luck. You are
> right, but it is luck that can not be man made. Under this rule 2 rovers
> could meet
> at a corner and work the 160 contacts and set a goal to make
> 800 another 640 non rover contacts so that they can go
> beyond the 20 percent mark and log all 160 contacts.
>
>
>
>
>
> Also all contacts would go in the log and the ones
> over the allotted percentage would become a check log as not
> to ruin someone else’s score.
> Each operator would choose the most valuable 100
> contacts in terms of QSO points or multipliers.
>
>
>
>
>
> Now for the e-skip scenario.
> I believe I am safe when I say at least 95 percent of
> all rovers turn in logs. The
> best rover turn out was about 90 to 105. I forget the exact
> number and I remember this from older data in my head. The
> best turn out lately is around 900 logs and there is an
> assumption by the calls in the logs that there is about
> 5000-9000 participants total.
> That number may be high.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Therefore if the number was as low as the turned in
> log count then the basic odds of a rover to rover QSO on 6
> meters is one in 10. Or if there is truly 9000 participants
> it is closer to one in 100. I
> would venture to guess one in 40 by my experience. One would have to work
> every other
> rover on 6 meters to hit the 100 mark via e-skip.
>
>
>
>
>
> 1O percent rover to rover would certainly prune my
> log if a few guys went out. But I’m willing to do
> that. 50 percent would certainly
> give your suggested stations room to breath.
>
>
>
>
>
> The point of the contest is to work as many people as
> possible to generate activity. I
> question if people are really in the contest when two or
> more people are working each other in the middle of nowhere
> and never reaching out to the rest of the participants in
> the contest.
>
>
>
>
>
> That being said, it is a clean debate like this that
> allows each other to think and that what the ARRL needs to
> allow the next time around.
>
>
>
>
>
> John changed my mind set the number to 25
> percent.
>
>
>
>
> Frank,
> k3uhf
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:27:37 -0700
> > From: aa5jg@yahoo.com
> > Subject: RE: Rover rules and criticisms
> > To: k3uhf@hotmail.com; vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> >
> > Unfortunately, this hypothesized rule has the
> potential to hurt "non-grid circling" rovers and
> prohibit completely valid "non-grid circling
> QSOs." Let's say I live in an area with high rover
> activity, low fixed station activity (like I do) or both.
> With the first proposed rule, I could quickly be prohibited
> from making any unique rover to rover QSOs after the first
> few ones I make. In the second proposed rule, one good 6
> meter opening at the start of the contest could once again
> prohibit me from working other rovers, unless I go into the
> unlimited class, which might be unfair to me.
> >
> > Do we really want to sacrifice the many just for the
> couple?
> >
> > 73s John AA5JG
> >
> > --- On Thu, 9/17/09, frank bechdoldt
> <k3uhf@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: frank bechdoldt <k3uhf@hotmail.com>
> > > Subject: RE: Rover rules and criticisms
> > > To: aa5jg@yahoo.com, compmtn@instawave.net,
> vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> > > Date: Thursday, September 17, 2009, 5:12 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John asked about the rule idea,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Rule
> > > idea:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A simple
> > > fix as recommended in 2004 and aired out
> here quite a
> > > few times well before the last 2 sets
> of at
> > > least partially ineffective changes would read
> something
> > > like this:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Rule
> > > 3.3.8
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For
> > > traditional and limited rovers no more than X
> percentage of
> > > the total contacts can be rover to rover
> contacts. (My opinion would set x at 10-20
> > > percent.) Unlimited Rovers are not bound by this
> percentage
> > > rule.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Or a
> > > compromise for really remote people:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Rule
> > > 3.3.8
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > With
> > > exception of the up to the first 100 QSO’s
> traditional and
> > > limited rovers no more than X percentage of the
> total
> > > contacts can be rover to rover contacts.
> (My opinion would set x at 10-20
> > > percent). Unlimited Rovers are not bound by this
> percentage
> > > rule.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > with this
> > > some of the other rules may not be needed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe
> > > the VUAC said no more than 50 or 30 percent rover
> to rover
> > > QSOs but that got shot down at the PSC. This
> would of curbed
> > > it quite a bit.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The
> > > problem is that the PSC may be more influenced by
> people who
> > > are outside the bounds of the VUAC. A VUAC that
> was suppose
> > > to represent this community.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I really
> > > wasn’t complaining. Someone asked why activity
> for rovers
> > > seemed to drop in some places. I’m stating why
> I will send
> > > in a blank log and why I did not turn my radio on
> at
> > > all. I want to play when there are
> truly 3
> > > separate categories with team convoy roving
> contained in the
> > > unlimited category, the category the ARRL clearly
> said in
> > > QST that they created for this type of roving.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The
> > > 100’s independent contacts some of us put out
> in various
> > > ARRL contests may be gone due to some of the
> recent changes
> > > and lack of correcting the core issues.
> > > Others came and roved before me and gave it up
> > > because of these issues. At
> > > least I am saying why I am not participating
> rather than
> > > quietly going away. The only change you get about
> by quietly
> > > going away in something you care about is a new
> > > hobby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now
> > > everyone will start shouting and once again a
> meaningful
> > > suggestion will be lost in the cannon fodder. And
> no I was
> > > not the originator of this suggestion, you can
> find it in
> > > tjh old posts several times. I think its
> the best
> > > sugestion.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:33:20 -0700
> > > > From: aa5jg@yahoo.com
> > > > Subject: Rover rules and criticisms
> > > > To: compmtn@instawave.net;
> > > vhfcontesting@contesting.com; k3uhf@hotmail.com
> > > >
> > > > Since I have heard nothing but criticism
> about the
> > > current rover rules on this reflector over the
> past 2 years
> > > or so, I am interested as to how the rover rules
> should
> > > read? Would any of the critics care to elaborate
> on exactly
> > > how the rover rules should be written?
> > > >
> > > > 73s John AA5JG
> > > >
> > > > --- On Wed, 9/16/09, frank bechdoldt
> > > <k3uhf@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: frank bechdoldt
> <k3uhf@hotmail.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [PNWVHFS]
> Re:
> > > Reasonable Tropo
> > > > > To: compmtn@instawave.net,
> > > vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> > > > > Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009,
> 9:03 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > While the rover rules affect me
> dirrectly,
> > > I'm curious what
> > > > > the log counts will do with the EME
> > > changes. I'm
> > > > > sending in a blank log in protest of
> the rover
> > > > > situation. If I dont speak up for
> 2 years
> > > they will
> > > > > think its fine.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Which brings me to the point that
> someone should
> > > replace
> > > > > jim on the VUAC if if has not happened
> yet.
> > > oterwise we have
> > > > > no one to write to on the VUAC.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also in my complaint, the VUAC tried
> anf the ARRL
> > > PSC
> > > > > ignored thier recomendations.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are not competitive in nature,
> roving is
> > > fun.
> > > > > I hope someone post a 70k score in the
> northwest
> > > without
> > > > > using a team effort to motivate me to
> go back at
> > > it again.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 73s
> > > > >
> > > > > Frank
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: compmtn@instawave.net
> > > > > > To: eaglepoint.or@juno.com;
> > > > > k3uhf@hotmail.com
> > > > > > CC: ve7dxg@rac.ca;
> pnwvhfs@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: [PNWVHFS] Re: Reasonable
> Tropo
> > > > > > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:42:38
> -0700
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good afternoon all, Len WA6KLK
> CM89
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the recent contest I worked
> about 2 hours
> > > 45
> > > > > minutes on saturday only.
> > > > > > 84 Qs from six bands. I spent
> allot of the
> > > time
> > > > > checking 927.5 fm and was
> > > > > > rewarded with a couple near 150
> mile full
> > > quieting
> > > > > contacts. This was from
> > > > > > a 3600 foot hill overlooking the
> Sacramento
> > > Valley.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The BIG surprize was working Mike
> WB6FFC in
> > > CN82 on
> > > > > Table Mountain. This
> > > > > > was a 214 mile airline path. First
> contact
> > > was on six
> > > > > meters with quarter
> > > > > > wave whip to quarter wave whip
> with both of
> > > us at 100
> > > > > watts. Next was a two
> > > > > > meter contact. Here I was running
> about 150
> > > watts to a
> > > > > pair of horizontal
> > > > > > loops while Mike was running a
> half wave
> > > vertical and
> > > > > 50 watts. Then 432
> > > > > > where I had about 11 elements
> horizontal and
> > > 70 watts
> > > > > and Mike had 20 watts
> > > > > > and a vertical, think a couple of
> halfwaves
> > > in phase.
> > > > > ?????
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signals on my end where not strong
> but very
> > > copiable
> > > > > for ssb. Thus good
> > > > > > propagation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, it takes a bit of time and
> effort. I
> > > was into
> > > > > more of checking a
> > > > > > couple of antennas than working
> allot of
> > > folks. Two
> > > > > hours drive one way is
> > > > > > a bit but doable. Dont think I
> heard one
> > > rover at all
> > > > > during the time I was
> > > > > > on but am sure a least a couple
> made it.
> > > Small as is
> > > > > rigs with small
> > > > > > antennas--4 or 5 element
> beams--work well
> > > with a
> > > > > little forethoought into
> > > > > > where you are going, and ALLOT of
> listening
> > > and paying
> > > > > attention to what is
> > > > > > going on on the bands. Having a cw
> key is a
> > > must
> > > > > also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many folks can do small local
> hilltops and
> > > not have to
> > > > > go to big hills.
> > > > > > Letting folks know where you are
> going to be
> > > and when
> > > > > is a big plus. I did
> > > > > > not, but the location is great.
> Catching
> > > Mike was good
> > > > > luck and was
> > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Keep it up and get a few more out
> and on if
> > > you can.
> > > > > Encourage the new
> > > > > > folks, even if you take them along
> and do a
> > > few hours.
> > > > > They will get
> > > > > > ""bit"" by the
> bug and
> > > then you and they will have
> > > > > more fun.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On another subject, I am the VUAC
> rep down
> > > here in the
> > > > > Pacific Division. Am
> > > > > > hoping to make Seaside but it is
> real iffy
> > > at the
> > > > > moment. If I do, it will
> > > > > > be a last minute thing for me.
> Lots of work
> > > discussing
> > > > > the various things
> > > > > > before any recommendations are
> amde. It must
> > > be noted
> > > > > that most comments do
> > > > > > NOT come until after the
> recommendations are
> > > made.
> > > > > While some folks do not
> > > > > > like what is in the rules others
> do. Can not
> > > satisfy
> > > > > every one. As far as
> > > > > > ""assistance""
> goes, you
> > > can make schedules to your
> > > > > hearts content before
> > > > > > the contest. That gives you
> frequency and
> > > time. Make a
> > > > > whole bunch !! It
> > > > > > is just that during the contest it
> is NOT
> > > > > allowed--with certain
> > > > > > exceptions--because of a few
> things that
> > > have happened
> > > > > in the past. Yes,
> > > > > > there is possibly some telephone
> or private
> > > e-mail
> > > > > "contacts" made but the
> > > > > > only one being hurt is the person
> doing it.
> > > What
> > > > > happened to being the
> > > > > > operator in the contact ?? Why do
> folks have
> > > to rely
> > > > > on realtime schedules
> > > > > > and exchange of information by
> other than
> > > radio ?? Do
> > > > > ALL your scheduling
> > > > > > before and then do some listening
> also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I know that technology has
> changed.
> > > However, in
> > > > > the contests we are
> > > > > > talking about there are certain
> rules. Other
> > > contests
> > > > > thru out the year you
> > > > > > can do what you want. A lot of
> effort and
> > > discussion
> > > > > has gone into things.
> > > > > > Give it chance to settle down for
> a couple
> > > of years to
> > > > > see how it goes
> > > > > > rather than want an immediate
> change because
> > > someone
> > > > > does not like it.
> > > > > > This is kinda like the Forest
> Practice Rules
> > > I worked
> > > > > with as a Forester in
> > > > > > California. Some folks would
> scream for rule
> > > changes
> > > > > when they did not like
> > > > > > them and they had only been in
> effect 10
> > > days. Some of
> > > > > the rules took a few
> > > > > > years to see what would happen.
> They were
> > > watched
> > > > > closely tho.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a HOBBY so relax a bit
> folks. In the
> > > long run
> > > > > all will work out
> > > > > > well. Maybe some day I will have
> the setup
> > > to have the
> > > > > computer just
> > > > > > monitor all the frequencies and
> make the
> > > contacts,etc,
> > > > > while I am out at the
> > > > > > lake fishing !!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 73 Len PSSSS Mikes notes below are
> really
> > > TRUE !!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From:
> <eaglepoint.or@juno.com>
> > > > > > To: <k3uhf@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > Cc: <ve7dxg@rac.ca>;
> > > > > <pnwvhfs@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 16,
> 2009 11:05
> > > AM
> > > > > > Subject: [PNWVHFS] Re: Reasonable
> Tropo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As those of you who do make
> the effort
> > > to go
> > > > > mountain topping or
> > > > > > > roving know it takes a lot
> of
> > > preparation and
> > > > > expense for these
> > > > > > > expeditions and also it is
> difficult to
> > > find
> > > > > other VHF interested
> > > > > > > hams to help with the efforts
> unlike
> > > field day
> > > > > where every one
> > > > > > > seems to show up. The cost
> per QSO gets
> > > pretty
> > > > > high. And now with
> > > > > > > the Forest service and other
> agencies
> > > slowly
> > > > > closing off many
> > > > > > > of the past popular mountain
> sites also
> > > makes it
> > > > > more difficult.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think if we could some how
> encourage
> > > more folks
> > > > > with home stations
> > > > > > > to equip them selves to at
> least the
> > > level of
> > > > > equipment dragged
> > > > > > > to mountain tops, it would
> encourage
> > > more guys to
> > > > > make the effort.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Invest in a preamp and an
> antenna a
> > > little better
> > > > > than a 20 year
> > > > > > > old Cushcraft FM yagi, dump
> the RG-58
> > > feed line,
> > > > > get a set of head
> > > > > > > phones, turn you antenna once
> in a
> > > while away
> > > > > from Portland and San
> > > > > > > Francisco direction.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have worked into Canada
> almost every
> > > year from
> > > > > Mt Ashland (CN-82)
> > > > > > > on 6, 2 & 70 cm with
> various
> > > stations during
> > > > > the June contest.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please get some good aluminum
> up (and
> > > maybe get
> > > > > on CW), the path is there!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > > WB6FFC
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ____________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > Get Your Degree Online
> > > > > > > Study online, anytime. 8
> Degree
> > > Programs offered
> > > > > at Saint Leo Univ.
> > > > > > >
> > >
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=T5CV_oI0RHV8e-RmclSXBgAAJ1DEl3pz3RfpFSk7O49T48zNAAUAAAAAAAAAAIwlPz6whv3Vx8eCHdD_h5CUjFIxAAAAAA==
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> > > > > > ~The Voice of the Pacific
> NorthWest VHF
> > > Society~
> > > > > > You received this message because
> you are
> > > subscribed
> > > > > to the Google Groups
> "PNWVHFS" group.
> > > > > > To post to this group, send email
> to
> > > PNWVHFS@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group,
> send email
> > > to PNWVHFS-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > For more options, visit this group
> at
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/PNWVHFS
> > > > > >
> > >
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > Ready for Fall shows? Use Bing to find
> helpful
> > > ratings and
> > > > > reviews on digital tv's.
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.bing.com/shopping/search?q=digital+tv's&form=MSHNCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHNCB_Vertical_Shopping_DigitalTVs_1x1
> > > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > > > > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > > > >
> > >
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Insert movie times and more
> > > without leaving Hotmail®. See
> > > how.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Insert movie times and more without
> leaving Hotmail®. See
> how.
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|