Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
cq-contest@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cq-contest-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
cq-contest-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Here we go again (Bill Turner)
2. Re: Be careful (Bill Turner)
3. Re: Be careful (K0HB )
4. Re: Here we go again (wd0t)
5. RE: Chiming in -- SO2R (Dick Green WC1M)
6. Re: SS Funnies (K4RO Kirk Pickering)
7. Radiosports for the 21st Century (Joe Contester)
8. Anonymous/pseudonymous posts (Pete Smith)
9. Re: Radiosports for the 21st Century (asciibaron@comcast.net)
10. FW: [CQ-Contest] cqww cw spot analysis (jukka.klemola@Nokia.com)
11. Re: Radiosports for the 21st Century (Pat N8VW)
12. Re: Radiosports for the 21st Century (Pat N8VW)
13. Limited Antenna Height Category (Russell Hill)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:39:30 -0800
From: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <hq1oq01ns6gqnm51prqm1c12qes5oko74b@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:13:30 -00, K0HB wrote:
Diana Moon Glompers would love it. A true celebration of
vanilla-mediocrity.
_________________________________________________________
Much like WRTC. Vanilla-mediocrity at a fever pitch.
--
Bill W6WRT
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:46:34 -0800
From: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Be careful
To: "Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x@kr6x.com>
Cc: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <t72oq05e8avg4n321lmckc65eehqn7l3ov@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:43:50 -0800, Leigh S. Jones wrote:
<massive snip>
Finally, a level playing field!
_________________________________________________________
Already been done. They call it WRTC. The best of the best.
--
Bill W6WRT
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:47:24 -00
From: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Be careful
To: "Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x@kr6x.com>, CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <410-220041123054724531@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
This would be to create a category for those who are forced to
do all of their contesting from truly inadequate stations.
Call the class SOU (Single Op Underserving)
73, de Hans, K0HB
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:16:07 -0600
From: "wd0t" <tdravland@pie.midco.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Cc: WD0T <tdravland@pie.midco.net>, "Jim Z.-KD0S" <kd0s@sdhams.com>
Message-ID: <005201c4d6a4$144ba960$93b9e618@midco.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Help me out here. Who defines what is fair, and who defines what is a
level
playing field??
As to the comment about listening while transmitting and SO2R, it is not
hard to do, but hard to do effectively, yes. It takes practice,
determination, persistance, and time... some of the things that are
required
to perform at a high level. Will you win because you do these things?
Maybe,
but probably not, because there are a LOT of other factors. Will you do
well, and have fun.. yes, I believe so.
Myself included, lets try to have more fun with what we are doing, because
in 100 years, is anyone gonna remember what we did in radio contesting?
God Bless.
Todd, WD0T
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> I am glad to see the SO2R folks have "mind flexibility" and understand
> the word "competition". Flexing their minds, they will now understand
> why having the ability to listen while transmitting makes the
> competition "unfair" and why an SO1R category helps make it more fair.
>
> Likewise, they understand the competition is most fair and most
> exciting when the playing field is as level as possible, and will work
> to make it so.
>
> They will now understand why Indy cars do not race against stock cars,
> why heavyweights do not box middleweights and why 40-foot sailboats do
> not race against 20-footers. The Indy car guys do not point to the
> stock car guys and say "life is not fair, get used to it".
>
> If their minds really are flexible, they will understand that all
> sports, other than amateur radio, make a serious attempt to level the
> playing field as much as possible.
>
> And for what seems like the zillionth time, NOBODY WANTS TO BAN SO2R.
> They just want SO1R in its own category. There is at least one
> contest which already does this: The Mexican RTTY contest, held the
> second weekend of February. Perhaps other contest sponsors will take
> note?
>
> --
> Bill W6WRT
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:47:29 -0500
From: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m@msn.com>
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <BAY3-DAV32996DE6FE8EDEA0DEC99F8DBE0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I really enjoyed this and the post from KR6X.
I suggest that anyone who thinks SO2R should be a separate class try an
all-out serious SO2R effort in the next contest. Borrow a station if you
have to. You will find that it's incredibly difficult -- a whole new level
of skill is required. My scores dropped the first season I tried SO2R, and
it took a couple more seasons before I even began to get the hang of it. I
still have a long way to go, and I think I'm going on four full years of
SO2R. Also, I suggest you ask yourself if SO2R is such a big advantage,
why
W1WEF consistently makes the top ten as SO1R (and just a stack of
tribanders.)
My thesis is that the three most important things for a winning score are,
in this order -- skill, skill, and skill. Yeah, bigger antennas help a
lot.
Hardline helps. Two rigs help. An understanding XYL helps (can we have a
separate category for people whose spouses don't like towers or contest
weekends?) But you will never win unless you develop your skills to the
highest level. I've seen incredible scores for partial efforts posted by
some of the nation's best contesters -- I can think of one case where the
score made the top ten with only about 30 hours put in. You want a
separate
category? How about "Northeast QTH"? How about "Towers over 150'"? How
about
"Three stacks or greater"? How about "Much better op than me"?
C'mon! This game is about doing what it takes to improve your score,
whether
that means developing your skills (the best way), putting in more hours
(the
second best way), building better antennas (the third best way), or
optimizing your radios (a distant fourth.) If you do the first two items,
you won't need a so-called level playing field. Stop grousing and get with
it!
73, Dick WC1M
-----Original Message-----
From: Art Boyars [mailto:art.boyars@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:57 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R
Having just finished my now-standard last-22-hours of the CW
DX test at W3LPL, and seeing all the discussion going on here
on the CQ-Contest Reflector (not subscribed; I read it on the
Web), I feel like I have to get my opinions out there. I'm
starting with SO2R; more to follow.
Myself, I think that 2R should not be a separate class, but I
can understand why others would disagree. (An aside -- I
wish we could keep the personal attacks off the Reflector; if
you must get personal (but why must you???), make it
private.) The only valid rationale that I've seen is that 2R
"doubles" the available listening time.
However, there is a flaw in that thinking: you are assuming
that "two radios" means two transceivers. Before SSCW 2004 I
used separate TX and RX, without transceive. (In one
write-up, I joked that that was not what they meant by two
radios.) Many of you remember when that was all there was --
and when a computer would have cost more than all the radios
in a M/M station. Well, with separate TX and RX, all you
need for listentening on another band while calling CQ or
sending your report is a separate antenna, a CQ wheel (like
W4KFC) or tape loop, and a little switching. Just like SO2R,
but with only one receiver. Of course, you could set up a
spare receiver just for listening, and bandswitch the main
rig when you heard something good on the apare RX. Or you
could set up a whole second rig. And I'm sure many good op's
did. I have a vague memory of some people keeping one rig
permanently on 40M for SSCW, and bandswitching the other rig.
And I don't think there was any consideration of making this
a separate class.
So, then, the advantage of modern SO2R is in the increased
agility that you get with modern transceivers and computer
control (I remarked on that in my return to SS CW about four
years ago; you could look it up). You can still get part of
the advantage with just a second non-computered receiver
(wanna buy an old R-4B?), and I don't think we'd consider
THAT to be a separate class. From "spare RX" to modern SO2R
there is pretty much a continuum, and, IMHO, there is no
clear point at which the advantage merits a separate class.
Heck, it's just more hardware, and it's too hard to satisfy
everybody with distinctions there. And it's still one
operator, showing amazing skills that are way beyond me (can
anybody address the similarity with playing organ masterworks?).
So, I'd like to know who is one-RX and who is 2-RX, but I'm
willing to have them all in the same class. But you may
disagree (civilly). And, if we have polite disagreement,
let's settle it with some polite vote-taking. Gee whiz, it
IS just a hobby.
BTW, since the advantage of 2R is the increased listening
time, perhaps anything else that gives you extra operating
time should merit a separate class. Like, say, the OT's who
learned to send with their off-hand so they could send while
writing the info in the log. Or memory keyers, that let you
do the same thing. Or computer logging. Or electronic
keyers (didn't K5RC bring this one up a few years ago?). Or
straight keys -- let's make everybody send by pumping the
handle of a monster knife switch immersed in oil.
Next on the docket -- "fixing" SS, and packet.
73, Art K3KU
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:33:01 -0600
From: K4RO Kirk Pickering <k4ro@k4ro.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS Funnies
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <20041130073301.GA16403@darkstar.k4ro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I confess, I was the lid who pulled this stunt.
At least it got a good laugh from the K4JNY crew.
My face probably looked like a 3-500Z at 1kW RTTY.
Thanks for giving us the QSO OM. It had been a tough
frequency to hold on to, and I thought I heard another
CQ instead of an answer to our CQ. Now crawling back
under my CW rock...
-Kirk K4RO
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 07:34:29PM -0500, Ted Bryant wrote:
Overheard near the end of the test:
Station A: "cq ss"
Station B: "K8---"
Station A: "K8---, the frequency is in use, om"
Station B: "yeah, I know, I'm calling YOU"
-W4NZ
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:28:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Contester <radiosporting@yahoo.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Radiosports for the 21st Century
To: CQ-Contest MailList <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <20041130122819.49652.qmail@web80907.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- wd0t <tdravland@pie.midco.net> wrote:
Help me out here. Who defines what is fair, and who
defines what is a level playing field??
I was hoping that someone would ask this question. I
believe that _we_ define it (many here seem to have
already, haven't they?), then we compete to whatever
that definition is. Submitting to a central authority
is nothing more than the public recognician of our
participation. "Categories" are nothing more than a
way to segment the printed results when the medium is
a page in a printed magazine.
What if we weren't afraid to think entirely
differently? Imagine a Radiosporting world where
there is a combination of several of the ideas already
floated here (tnx K0HB, W6WRT, K1TTT, K5TR, W2EV and
others):
1. Identify all of the factors that come to play for
scoring potential and design a client that captures
them all. Stations would input their information in a
"setup screen" prior to starting the event. Note:
input is still being sought on this -> off list,
please.
2. Create a cluster of Internet-based Telnet servers
that the client-side software would send statistical
information to (not QSO-specific -- simply stats)
periodically.
3. Those servers would send back stats to the client.
The client would present them on a Dashboard,
according to two styles: (1) them vs. the entire
playing field and (2) them vs. the competition as THEY
have defined it. Example: Single-op, Single Band, 40,
50-200 watts, 0 dBd antenna, 40-60 feet high.
4. At the end of the event, the full-log is submitted
automatically (be accurate, it's part of the
skillset!) and the results are posted in score-order
(no categorization) by default with the ability to
resort the results in a way that is similar to the way
that the ARRL does in it's online system.
5. DQ's occur publicly, with the reasons being
announced openly. Replies to rules interpretation
will be made publicly so that all participants will
have the benefit of having the same knowledge.
Bottom line: you want to appear higher in the list as
it shows up by default? Address it by enhancing your
skill, station, etc so that your score increases.
Much of this is in discussion on this list. There is
an active effort under way to make such discussion a
reality. There are many aspects yet to consider.
Keep the thread alive. There is much value in public
discussion on this topic.
"Welcome to the next level" :)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radiosporting/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:49:56 -0500
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Anonymous/pseudonymous posts
To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20041130074526.0cd5ce08@mail.adelphia.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
These postings from Joe Contester raise this point; should it not be
standard practice that people posting to cq-contest sign either their
call-signs or their real names? It seems to me that signing your real
call
or name discourages irresponsible, malicious or deceptive posts, and
conversely .....
73, Pete N4ZR
The World HF Contest Station Database
was updated 20 Oct 2004
2796 contest stations at
www.pvrc.org/WCSD/WCSDsearch.htm
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:25:14 +0000
From: asciibaron@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Radiosports for the 21st Century
To: CQ-Contest MailList <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID:
<113020041325.7176.41AC74BA00007BFB00001C08220076219402019D0E0D07070C9C0E@comcast.net>
Before the ARRL SS SSB, i evaluted my station and my skills and determined
what my goal was going to be based on those factors. I was going to be
competing against the previous year's top 5 in the MDC section in the SOLP
unassisted category.
I deteremined the number of QSO's and MULTS i needed to log to make it to
one of the top 5 places in last year's contest. 200 QSO's and 70 MULTS
for a total score of 28,000 would put me at number 5. That was my goal
and I surpassed it with a total of 423 QSO's and 76 MULTS more than
doubling my score goal.
I don't have the skills needed to make a run for the top 5 SOLP unassisted
yet - but by setting a realistic goal each year, I hope to make it there.
Sure I can blame a poor score on living on the East Coast in the
Mid-Atlantic region. I can blame having a 100w signal into a 35'
tribander and wires for the low bands. I can blame a poor score on not
having my Extra ticket and not being able to work down low on the bands.
I can blame a low score on a number of things, but does that make me a
better operator or person for that matter?
I am beginning to set my goals for the coming ARRL 10m contest. I know I
have a simple station - no stacks, no amp, no years of previous
experience to help guide me. But I'm going to get on the air and work as
many stations as I can. I know I can't compete against the more
experienced stations in my category unless I build my skills, and
ultimately isn't this what we must do in order to win or to be successful
in other areas of life?
I am the high school team up against the Yankees or if you prefer, the Red
Sox. Either way, I'm going to the slaughter, but that's what it will take
for me to become competitive in the future. I will do well simply
because I am working to beat a personal goal. At some point that personal
goal will take me to the leader board.
I may not become a national or international contender (or I might) but
that is not my goal - I am first and foremost competing against myself and
then against my local peers. If I can place high in my section, than I
know I am on the right track.
-Steve Hanlon
KB3KAQ
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:27:49 +0200
From: <jukka.klemola@Nokia.com>
Subject: FW: [CQ-Contest] cqww cw spot analysis
To: <k1ttt@arrl.net>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID:
<A50403BB26FFEF4DA9A91DD986DA39CD30BB81@saebe051.nmp.nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of ext
David Robbins
K1TTT
...
Sure would be nice to get the ip address info back from DXSummit for
these spotters.
Spotter FromNode Dx Freq Comment
PY3GH DXSummit XQ4ZW 21064 ZONE 12
JH1FSF DXSummit XQ4ZW 28024.9
UA3FJK DXSummit XQ4ZW 21064 CE 12
PY6GT DXSummit XQ4ZW 21076 ZONE 12 !!
UA3FHJ DXSummit XQ4ZW 21064 CE 12
S51DI S50CLX XQ4ZW 28089.5
PY4FG DXSummit XQ4ZW 21082 Z 12
W3BGH DXSummit XQ4ZW 21082 Z 12
PY3RF DXSummit XQ4ZW 21064 ZONE 12
OH2GV DXSummit XQ4ZW 21064 ZONE 12
its interesting that most of the dxsummit spots had to be
sure you knew
ce was zone 12. Most contest spotters don't bother with a
comment like
that so having a whole group like that is odd. also, w3bgh
is not found
in latest buckmaster cd. also note that all the ones with
comments are
exact integer frequencies, most cw spots have some variance around the
real tx just due to how people tune them in.
This case seems pretty nice as OH2GV does not exist.
73,
Jukka OH6LI
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:36:45 -0500
From: Pat N8VW <n8vw@linuxcolumbus.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Radiosports for the 21st Century
To: CQ-Contest MailList <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <20041130133645.GD21840@linuxcolumbus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:28:19AM -0800, Joe Contester wrote:
I was hoping that someone would ask this question. I
believe that _we_ define it (many here seem to have
already, haven't they?), then we compete to whatever
that definition is. Submitting to a central authority
is nothing more than the public recognician of our
participation. "Categories" are nothing more than a
way to segment the printed results when the medium is
a page in a printed magazine.
I think first we must define who. Who are you?
What if we weren't afraid to think entirely
differently? Imagine a Radiosporting world where
there is a combination of several of the ideas already
floated here (tnx K0HB, W6WRT, K1TTT, K5TR, W2EV and
others):
What if we weren't afraid to give our true name and call?
1. Identify all of the factors that come to play for
scoring potential and design a client that captures
them all. Stations would input their information in a
"setup screen" prior to starting the event. Note:
input is still being sought on this -> off list,
please.
One factor. Trust. Who are you?
2. Create a cluster of Internet-based Telnet servers
that the client-side software would send statistical
information to (not QSO-specific -- simply stats)
periodically.
Telnet? You are kidding right.
4. At the end of the event, the full-log is submitted
automatically (be accurate, it's part of the
skillset!) and the results are posted in score-order
(no categorization) by default with the ability to
resort the results in a way that is similar to the way
that the ARRL does in it's online system.
I guess the people with no access to internet connections won't count, eh.
"Welcome to the next level" :)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radiosporting/
So who is running this? We don't even know who you are, but I have my
suspects.
Pat N8VW
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:53:23 -0500
From: Pat N8VW <n8vw@linuxcolumbus.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Radiosports for the 21st Century
To: CQ-Contest MailList <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <20041130135323.GF21840@linuxcolumbus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:36:45AM -0500, Pat N8VW wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:28:19AM -0800, Joe Contester wrote:
> I was hoping that someone would ask this question. I
> believe that _we_ define it (many here seem to have
> already, haven't they?), then we compete to whatever
> that definition is. Submitting to a central authority
> is nothing more than the public recognician of our
> participation. "Categories" are nothing more than a
> way to segment the printed results when the medium is
> a page in a printed magazine.
>
I think first we must define who. Who are you?
Did a bit of research and found matching ip addresses in the emails from
Joe C. and Ev W2EV.
It is trivial to find out from where the email orginates because yahoo
adds the orginating IP to the headers.
Pat N8VW
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:20:04 -0600
From: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill@earthlink.net>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <00dc01c4d6f0$119b9300$28d0f218@RCHill>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
I would like to suggest this thread consider something else--keeping the
casual operator in the contest. I have read many comments about the
necessity to have the casual operators in the contests-- they are involved
in the majority of Qs-- we need them!
As it is now, there is argument about using categories to "level the
playing
field" or not. My guess is the casual contester perceives this as
self-serving B.S. He knows that the greatest hardware difference he faces
is the ability to put up BIG antennas. He correctly perceives that no
matter what category he chooses, there will be 100 or 200 foot tower
stations competing in the same category. With fairly low antennas, you
can
give him all the SO2R, High Power, Multi-Ops, Computer usage, Extra Class
privileges in the world, and he can never compete with the 200 foot tower
guy, or even with the 70 foot tower guy. Why should he bother to try?
Are
there many super scores from a station with stacked monobanders limited to
50 feet in height? No? So guess what? The little pistol, on average,
doesn't try, he gets on for a little while on Saturday to "give out a few
contacts", etc.
I believe that if we had a category which limited antenna height to 50
feet
or so, and we honored those who do well with that limitation, we might
encourage the little pistol to improve his station and make a serious
attempt to place well in the low antenna category. In the process we
might
just get more participation from the little pistols, and isn't this what
we
want?
I don't believe the antenna height for the category should be any higher
than 50 feet. In the past, I competed successfully on 10 M and
occasionally
on 15 M with a 60 foot tower, and had a lot of fun. At 60 feet stacked 10M
is very plausible. I think we should establish a category height which
allows discourages the use of stacks at HF, in order to give the vast
majority of hams, the little pistols, an opportunity to compete with each
other. And we definitely do not want a height (22M) which just happens to
allow for 20M monobanders at a wave-length high. It would defeat the
purpose.
Those of us who want to compete with our towers at above 50 feet would not
be hurt in the slightest by having an antenna category which allowed the
little pistols the opportunity to compete with each other and gain
recognition. We might come out way ahead, and even avoid the Sunday
Doldrums, by giving this encouragement to the little pistols.
No, I don't think we need more categories. Separate category for SO2R?
Nope, that relates to operator proficiency. I can't do SO2R, and that is
my
problem. I do not want a separate category to protect me from the more
proficient operator. He deserves to win.
Incidentally, my pitch for a 50 foot category is not self serving. I have
a
72 foot crankup which will support 15 M at 37 and 72 feet very nicely
(when
I get around to it), or when the sun spots get better, perhaps 10 M at 37,
54, and 72 feet. (I personally like Single Band.) More hardware makes
more
Qs makes more fun, and I have no intention to play in the sub 50'
category.
But I do strongly believe the contesting community would be better off
with
such a category.
Thanks for the BW.
73, Rusty, na5tr
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 23, Issue 86
******************************************