Ok lets take this one step further, and it could be interesting, but how
to police it?
QSO Points.
Points made by CQing, = 1 QSO Point
Points made by S&Ping, = 2 points
Thoughts?
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/8/2017 10:47 AM, Jim Neiger wrote:
Matt, let's take this to an another level of absurdity.
How is the new single operator 2BSIQ any less onerous? OK, I'm
transmitting on only one band at a time, but the pileups that my
dueling CQ's have generated on each band most likely never stop, ergo,
by my direct actions, I'm 'hogging' twice the bandwidth. And the rarer
my multiplier, most probably, the bigger my pileups and I've maximized
my HOGGING COEFFICIENT (HC).
One could say that multi-multi's W3LPL, K3LR et al have taken their HC
to the penultimate level by sometimes (incessantly) CQing on six
frequencies simultaneously. Should we eliminate multi-multi's or
state that they can never CQ on more than 3 bands at a any given
moment? Just think how this will help all the East Coasters who can't
find a clear run frequency to Europe!!
Or to the maxima HC absurdity: only select stations can ever CQ. Most
of us will designated with an HC of Zero and forever be relegated to
the ash heap of Search and Pounce. Assisted and packet spots can take
on a whole new level of appreciation and the designated CQers can
award trophies to those who spotted them the most times thereby
helping all of us by opening up all of this newly found wide open
frequency spectra.
Can't wait.
Vy 73
Jim Neiger N6TJ
On 4/8/2017 5:48 AM, Matt NQ6N wrote:
If the concern is bandwidth used, shouldn't split operation be banned
as well? How does same band dueling CQ use more bandwidth than
"listening on this frequency and 7050"?
In both cases it is the activity triggered by the running station on
both frequencies that prevents those frequencies from being used by
someone else.
Not arguing for banning either, just pointing out that if bandwidth
is the concern they are essentially identical examples of "hogging" a
scarce resource.
73,
Matt NQ6N
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 7:39 AM Jim Neiger <n6tj@sbcglobal.net
<mailto:n6tj@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
i agree. Like a few more signals on any band are suddenly going to
overwhelm everyone? Operators can, and will, adjust.
I remember the 2002 ARRL 10 Meters contest from ZD8. The band was
loaded, every kc up to 29.2. To paraphrase Neil Diamond's song:
Beautiful Noise...................
As far as I'm concerned, wall to wall signals from one end of our
spectra to the other is music. Especially the next five years of
solar
doldrums, we can only dream..............
Vy 73
Jim Neiger N6TJ
On 4/7/2017 10:16 AM, Stein-Roar Brobakken wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> Why not add the category SOMT single op multi transmitter? 👍
>
> So those having skills to run multiple vfo at once can do
practice their skills??
>
> People are just different and some manage to make it!!
>
> Best Regards,
> Stein-Roar Brobakken
> LB3RE K3RAG
> www.lb3re.com <http://www.lb3re.com>
> post@lb3re.com <mailto:post@lb3re.com>
> GSM +4748224421// +4791999421
>
>
>> Den 7. apr. 2017 kl. 17.20 skrev Ron Notarius W3WN
<wn3vaw@verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net>>:
>>
>> IMHO, let's not make too much out of this decision.
>>
>> As explained in the newsbite that made the announcement, the
practice of
>> "dueling CQ's" was never intended to be permitted. Only
recently has
>> technology and (to be fair) operator skill advanced to the
point where it
>> was possible.
>>
>> And now someone did it. Correctly pointing out that within the
strict
>> letter of the contest rules in place, the practice was not
actually
>> prohibited.
>>
>> I know many believe "if it is not strictly forbidden, it is
implicitly
>> allowed". On something like this, it is unfortunate that
accepted practice
>> had to be explicitly mentioned. Regardless, an unintended
consequence of
>> not spelling out this specific instance was that a loophole was
created and
>> exploited.
>>
>> If you want to give a tip of the hat to the PJ4G folks for
finding and
>> exploiting said loophole, well, they or someone on the team did
the work and
>> uncovered it.
>>
>> The important thing is... They did not break the rules, in fact
they
>> strictly adhered to the rules, as they were written at the time.
>>
>> Now that it's been exposed, the loophole has been closed and
the unintended
>> consequence should not happen again. And that is how it
should be.
>>
>> And that should be the end of that.
>>
>> 73, ron w3wn
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto: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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|