> On CW, contesting 3.0 (Skimmer+RBN), the game is over for that tactic
> if he uses normal computer generated CW.
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
So...don't do that!"
So don't use normal computer generated CW! There are a number of things
that prevent the Skimmer/RBN from spotting you - not sending "CQ", sending
"TEST" at high speed, any number of simple tactics to minimize being picked
up by an automated decoder. Send something it can't decode - like
dahdidahdahdahdaaahhhdidah.
Dither your transmitting frequency, as well - move it back and forth a
couple hundred hertz with each QSO. Not so much that the pileup moves with
you but enough to spread out your spot signature. Program it into a macro
key or something.
Think "countermeasures" - anything to limit the queue and maximize net rate.
Technology is not going to go away and participation is getting bigger and
bigger - this is the right kind of problem to have! So use your 20-watt,
glucose-powered machine and figure it out.
73, Ward N0AX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jukka Klemola" <jpklemola@gmail.com>
To: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil@gmail.com>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Split operation in CQ WW CW
> 2012/8/28 Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com>:
>>> Option 1: DX quits and goes to beach.
>>> Option 2: DX tries calling someone on the same frequency.
>>> Option 3: DX starts S&P and never tries to resume running
>>> Option 4: DX asks up 3
>>> Option 5: DX asks up 5
>>> Option 6: DX asks up and listens 3-7 up
>>
>> Jukka, there is another option that will surely become more popular: DX
>> QSYs
>> and starts another smaller pileup.
> ..
>> it may result in
>> a higher net rate than trying to manage a simplex pileup that is out of
>> control for reasons not of the DX station's making.
> ...
>> In contesting 1.0, the strategy is to be loud (thank you, N2AA) but
>> in contesting 2.0, the strategy must change to be both loud AND workable.
>
>
> Hi Ward (AX) .. Hi Tom (JI) and Hi Lloyd (LC), and also others
>
>
> Yes. there are other possible tactics han what I listed.
>
> On SSB this Ward's tactic produces results as long as nobody spots the
> poor DX.
> 20 seconds after the spot, the chaos resumes if the DX tries simplex.
>
> On CW, contesting 3.0 (Skimmer+RBN), the game is over for that tactic
> if he uses normal computer generated CW.
> The chaos is back in 20 seconds after the DX sends his call with some
> form cq on any frequency.
>
>
> Tom suggested to use some kHz split for both, CW and SSB, but not
> spreading around the pileup.
>
>
> Lloyd suggested to keep the pileup just next to DX frequency.
> Reasoning was many-fold.
> Primary thought was the pileup will stay better in line if the split
> is as narrow as possible.
> And the spectrum usage is clear, as there is 'one place' for the
> activity about logging that one great multiplier.
>
>
> I think, if the split would be like 3kHz for CW, the people will try
> any trick to get through the pileup. They will call at least 300Hz up
> and also down the announced 3kHz.
>
> So Tom's theory of equal spectrum usage should be not-precise?
> I mean, if the announced split is 25kHz for SSB, the same thing
> happens. People will try calling a bit up and down from the 25kHz ..
> maybe just some 1 to 3kHz up or down.
>
>
> I was expecting some un-assisted to give a comment.
>
> I think, some added value comes from minimizing confusion for the
> un-assisted.
> If the DX is next to the pileup, it is more logical.
> If pileup is somewhere many kHz away, it adds to difficulty finding
> the multiplier.
>
>
> My suggestion for the DX behavior is to try to manage the pileup close
> to the own transmitting frequency and try to keep the listening on a
> very narrow area. Spreading out the pile up will be bad for everybody.
> The suggestion to people in the pileup is they should try to
> understand the whole situation and try to behave when ensuring the
> multiplier comes back to them.
> The people in the pileup decide the QSO rate. DX tries to be as
> accurate and as fast as possible (in that order).
>
>
> Nobody commented about the worst case scenario either.
> It was a trick question.
>
> The worst scenario is not listed in the original set of choices.
> The worst scenario is the DX would announce up and give a good span
> for the listening frequencies .. and then actually listen for calls on
> a very wide spectrum.
>
> That sure would ruin many things for many contesters.
>
>
> 73,
> Jukka OH6LI
>
>
>> Given that we now have the tools to know so much about who is operating
>> where, running strategies must evolve to limit the pileup size to
>> maximize
>> rate. In contesting 1.0, the strategy is to be loud (thank you, N2AA)
>> but
>> in contesting 2.0, the strategy must change to be both loud AND workable.
>> The optimum tactics for implementing workability are yet to be
>> determined.
>>
>> 73, Ward N0AX
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|