|
1-3 of 3 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
SOP
|
Reply
|
|
by w6sj on December 1, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Years ago I tried a "Sports Car Rally" where you try to go over an unknown course at a specified, but changing,speed, the objective being to vary as little as possible from the "perfect" result.
Because the use of computers made the variations so small, anyone not using a computer was at a considerable disadvantage, so they had a "Seat-of-the-Pants (SOP) category.
The computer has done for contesting, making high QSO rates possible, but has anyone ever considered having an SOP cateogory, open to those operators who do not use a) computerized keying of CQ's or responses and/or b) who don't use DX clusters to spot targets. Obviously, computer logging would be OK.
Seems to me that those who are not in a position to amass a great score regardless of how hard they try, might find it fun to compete agains others who do the contest "barefoot."
Thoughts?
Randy Johnson W6SJ
[email protected]
|
| |
|
RE: SOP
|
Reply
|
|
by M5EET on December 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First of all let me say that I don't do CW contests. Mainly because I haven't progressed very much from the 5WPM I did to get my license. But one day I fully intend to.
In my opinion using morse readers and pc keyers effectively turns CW into a digital mode like PSK31 or RTTY and shouldn't even be allowed.
The CW should be received aurally and sent manually, paddles, straight key, bug or whatever, but manually - with the exception (there's always one) that memory keyers are OK for calling CQ.
Perhaps I should suggest this as a survey question - I will once I've got my flak jacket on.
Well, that's my twopenneth (or whatever similar phrase you colonials use - is it two cents worth?).
73,
Tony.
[email protected]
|
| |
|
RE: SOP
|
Reply
|
|
by n6kb on December 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I don't think you need to worry about anybody using a CW reader in a contest and being competitive. At least not at the present state of the technology. As for having other catgories for stations using differing levels of technological assistance: I am in favor of it. I have often been annoyed that most contests lump all multioperator entrys together, having no distinction between high power and low power when there is more than one operator.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
Forums, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Forums Manager.
|
