Articles & Stories
This Week's Contests
Mailing List FAQs
About This Site
Contesting Online Survey
Current Survey Question
Recently the RDXC committee
reclassified P3F to
power from low power without
providing strong evidence
infraction had occurred.
concluded was that the
running HP on 80/40m but
not full-time, just 10
and there without any
evidence. It appears they
used the RBN as their source
of information. Should the
to publicly provide
station from LP to HP?
Randy, K5ZD, wrote a sidebar
Convergence and Change" in
CQWW CW printed results in
magazine. He wrote that the
"convergence of personal
DX clusters, and CW Skimmer
changed the nature of
CW contesting". He goes to
say that it
is "more difficult to police
single operator working
those who are using the
assistance of DX spotting."
In light of this convergence
change is it time to
recombine SO and
SOA into a single category?
What's your primary Software
for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF
Are you ready the this year's
What ways have you found to
to attract newcomers to our
What is your linear?
View All Survey Questions
Have a good idea for a Contesting Online Survey question?
Enter your idea!
Which of the following categories should be offered during a 24-hour DX Challenge in the CQWW (For more details on the 24-hour DX Challenge see the new article at http://www.contesting.com/articles/1320 )?
Posted: May 08, 2013
(76 votes, 6 comments)
24 hour continuous - contestant chooses the start time
A total of 24 hours with fixed minimum time off periods
Both categories - each contestant can only enter one category
Single Op/24 hours
I'd like to see a further limitation - two continuous 8 hour turns on each day - that's sixteen hours of total operation no matter how you break it up - two 8 hour back-to-back or two separate 8 hour periods.
My reasoning is this: The Iron Butts of the world (and the Big Gun Contesters) still get to do their thing, but for us small or QRP guns, it will require some strategy - chase mults or Qs? Or both? Break pileups or stick with the outliers? There's a whole world of techniques, theories, strategies and tactical decisions that one can use.
My only other suggestion is to limit the category to QRP, Low Power categories - the Big Guns don't need to get involved.
on November 26, 2013
No 24 hour at all for CQ WW DX !!!!!!
on October 23, 2013
24-hour DX Challenge in the CQWW
24hr DX Challenge would not take anything away from "iron
men - sit and sweat" -contesting (been there, too).
However, a "WPX style" QRV planning would be an interesting
choice to the DXer/Contesters.
Regional 24hr DX Trophy would bring up the operatos who
know the propagation and can plan the QRV strategy
In addition, 24hr operation e.g. in 4 hr slots would be a safer
choice for OTs still interested to participate vs. 48hrs-no rest
(I do not want to open the health discussion, but …)
on May 27, 2013
24 hour DX Challenge.
I voted option 3 for it's flexibility in achieving the object of your challenge. It puts something on offer for guys who are time challenged in different ways and periods of time and could well encourage many to put in some extra time for the opportunity to win something.
Guys who are in there for more than 24 hours are probably intent on at least 30/36 hours so any fallback from those contesters to enter this new initiative would be minimal.
73 Brian C4Z / 5B4AIZ.
on May 9, 2013
Category that suits all
24 hours contesting category would be nice.
I would like to add there some spice:
How to give some add-on to the score if the entrant operates more than 24 hours.
It would be great to encourage people operate even more than 24 hours of the 48.
Could the entrants contest more and select the 24 hours they want to count in their score?
For example, if someone contests 38.4 hours, he could select the 24.0 hours he wants to count for this activity within CQ WW.
on May 9, 2013
"None of the above"
I voted "don't know" because I have a pretty
good idea of what my preference is, but I'm
not sure how it fits into the options
Given the intent of the side content -- to
bolster participation by appealing to the
smaller guns, there are two interpretations
of "24 hours" I wouldn't want to see:
I wouldn't want to see "24 clock hours", as
that is still an iron man competition, and
the mere mortals you're trying to boost
participation from will have difficulty
I wouldn't want to see "any 24 hours of the
entrant's choice", as that probably won't
materially impact the rank-ordering versus
the parent 48-hour contest. Everyone picks
their best 24 individual hours, and the
ironmen have more hours to choose from.
I would prefer to see "contiguous log entries
spanning 24 operating hours" be the standard
(perhaps with a better description, however).
An example to illustrate:
Assume that you have someone who operates as
Day 1: 0000-0400; 1200-1500; 1700-1800; 2100-
Day 2: 0000-0300; 1100-1700; 1900-2400
That's 25 operating hours, although (for the
sake of argument) the 1700 hour on Day 1
I would like to see the 24 hour competition
take our fearless hero's log from 0000 on Day
1 - 2300 on Day 2 -OR- 0100 Day 1 - 2400 Day
2 (his choice).
However, I would not support excluding the
1700 hour on Day 1 and entering the rest of
on May 8, 2013
To post a comment, you must be logged in.
If you are not a member, become one now!