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

[Luc PY8AZT]

Entendi. O interlock é para a mesma banda. Por exemplo a K3LR, KC1XX, W3LPL
que usam mais de um rádio para a mesma banda.

Na PW7T não usamos mais de um rádio para a mesma banda.

73, Luc
__
PW7T Team member
WRTC.2010 Brazilian Team Leader
PY8AZT (also PT7AG, PX8C, ZZ8Z, ZY7C)
LABRE, ARRL, CWJF & Fortaleza DX Group Member





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

> **
>
> 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 PY**8AZT
> *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
> ****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> ****
>
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110818/36d8f7d3/attachment.html>