Hi Ev,
I'll volunteer an answer based on my own observations.
The intent of the rule in the first place was to eliminate QSOs with a
flashlight and eyes.
The term coherence has been questioned over the use of monochromatic LEDs
instead of lasers.
All contestants should operate with the same interpretation of the rules.
There is no right or wrong answer and responses that are not focused (pun
intended) are fine.
73, Fred K2TR (Hudson Division VUAC)
--- On Thu, 12/3/09, Ev Tupis <w2ev@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Ev Tupis <w2ev@yahoo.com>
Subject: [VHFcontesting] The meaning of coherence [was: [WSVHF] [VHF] VUAC
Seeks Input]
To: "Stanford VHF email Remailer" <VHF@w6yx.stanford.edu>
Cc: wsvhf@mailman.qth.net, "Vhfcontesting Remailer"
<VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 5:31 AM
As this thread becomes more incoherant (many of us don't belong to all of the
lists cc'd, so our replies will be missed)...I keyed in on the actual request,
"to determine if the rule should be modified to make it clearer as to
the meaning of coherence."
Dear VUCC,
You have the advantage. We don't know...
... the intent of the rule's presence in the first place.
... the what way(s) in which the meaning of the term being misunderstood
... what problems this causes for you.
As a result, our commentary is "all over the board". Could you clarify these
three points?
Ev, W2EV
_______________________________________________
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
|