(Araucaria) RES: ENC: [CQ-Contest] Multi-op rule change in CQWW

[py5eg]

Ola

Agora eles vão exigir a prova que estariam usando software e hardware que impediam a QUALQUER TEMPO também mais de duas estações ao mesmo tempo no M/2 e mais de uma no M/S

Atilano

 

________________________________

De: araucaria-bounces em araucariadx.com [mailto:araucaria-bounces em araucariadx.com] Em nome de Luc PY8AZT
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 18 de agosto de 2011 18:49
Para: Araucaria DX Group
Assunto: Re: (Araucaria) ENC: [CQ-Contest] Multi-op rule change in CQWW

 

Atilano


 

A regra original já era correta: "um único sinal por banda". Este remendo é desnecessário. 

 

Bastaria aplicar o regulamento e desclassificar um monte de gente que opera com mais de um rádio na mesma banda - com dois sinais na mesma banda, sem nenhum tipo de sistema de interlock.

 

73, Luc
__
PW7T Team member
WRTC.2010 Brazilian Team Leader
PY8AZT (also PT7AG, PX8C, ZZ8Z, ZY7C)
LABRE, ARRL, CWJF & Fortaleza DX Group Member
 <http://feeds.feedburner.com/dxbrasil.gif?w=2&c=1&bb=RXLO> 

 





2011/8/18 py5eg <py5eg em iesa.com.br>

Ate que em fim esta regra esta sendo adequada.
Atilano

ATILANO DE OMS
PP5EG - PY5EG - PY2OMS
ZW5B, PS2T, PT5T
ARAUCARIA DX GROUP


-----Mensagem original-----
De: cq-contest-bounces em contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces em contesting.com] Em nome de Bob Naumann
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 18 de agosto de 2011 09:39
Para: cq-contest em contesting.com
Assunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] Multi-op rule change in CQWW

Unnecessary? Really?

The rule is in place to assure that two signals cannot occur
simultaneously
on a band in compliance with the rules. Dueling CQ's is already
forbidden in
the rules for many reasons.

It is quite apparent in the recent CQWW and RDXS results with
disqualifications that many stations are not managing one signal on a
band
properly.

If a station is going to enter such a category and use more than one
radio
per band, they should use proper technology to manage it properly.

I see this as completely appropriate and given the recent
disqualifications,
obviously necessary.

73,

Bob W5OV

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces em contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces em contesting.com] On Behalf Of Juha Rantanen
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 12:24 AM
To: cq-contest em contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Multi-op rule change in CQWW

CQWW CC has created a totally unnecessary rule change for multi-ops in
CQWW:

12. When two or more transmitters are present on a band, either a
software or hardware device MUST be used to prevent more than one
signal at any one time;&xnbsp; interlocking two or more transmitters
on a band with alternating CQs (soliciting contacts) is not allowed.

Those who have the capabilities of creating such a station that allows
alternate CQ's on the same band and the skills to use it efficiently
should be allowed to do it. I wonder what is behind this rule again?
We have seen past few days that the signal interlocking rule can be
enforced is one wants to it as RDXC CC has done.

Juha OH6XX

"CQWW - Stone Age contesting!"
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest em contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest em contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
Araucaria mailing list
Araucaria em araucariadx.com
http://list.araucariadx.com/mailman/listinfo/araucaria

 

-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: <http://list.araucariadx.com/pipermail/araucaria/attachments/20110818/a1c3eb0a/attachment.html>