EQP Proposed Rules Revision
Locked
 
|
Some comments:
Message must be short and simple. As a contest-man you may agree? K1, K2 or KX1 already defines Elecraft user. How about another transceiver and Elecraft T1 ? Serial number is not essential, but interesting, and may be given during "rag chew" part of contact. US State / VE Province / DXCC Country is not necessary in message. You have other means to find out that multiplier: Callbook CD, Prefix in call-sign or ask the station during contact. The power of other station is not essential. It is your power, that counts. By the way: is 100W max recommendation necessary. Elecraft is going to sell shortly kilowatt-amplifiers. So the message might be like: Elecrafter 599 K2 Other 599 72 and 73 -- Benny AUMALA OH9NB [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
|
Administrator
|
Benny,
Thanks for your input. I appreciate minimal exchanges, too; they produce more QSOs and make a contest easy to operate in. But we'd like EQP to be different. I think of it as a series of condensed QSOs rather than quick-hit contest exchanges. Many participants have common interests, including Elecraft gear, kit building in general, and a passion for portable operation. EQP plays like a reunion of old friends. I can make this clearer by addressing your individual points. > K1, K2 or KX1 already defines Elecraft user. How about another > transceiver and Elecraft T1? In EQP, the focus is on the transceiver. Thanks to the shared building experience, it's intriguing for some ops to know what kind of rig they're talking to. (Myself included, usually serial number 1 or 2 :) > Serial number is not essential, but interesting, and may be given > during "rag chew" part of contact. Serial numbers are important to many of the participants, in part because we offer certificates for collecting them. It's part of the condensed QSO. One could look up numbers in a database later, but that wouldn't be in the spirit of things. > US State / VE Province / DXCC Country is not necessary in message. You > have other means to find out that multiplier: Callbook CD, Prefix in > call-sign or ask the station during contact. Perhaps, but I like this addition. Many stations will be using low power, with which it can be exciting to work someone even in the next state! The mystery of where a station is located -- revealed during a contact -- has always been at the core of the radio experience for me, especially when using QRP. > The power of other station is not essential. It is your power that > counts. Good point. An exchange of power levels is, again, rooted in low-power contests. It's interesting, but I would say that this is the most expendable part of the exchange. > By the way: is 100W max recommendation necessary. Elecraft is going to > sell shortly kilowatt-amplifiers. Elecraft gear has, from the beginning, been about doing more with less, and often doing it while operating in the field. KW operation has its place, but I personally prefer a leaner approach in EQP. Besides, to level the playing field, we'd have to give KW operators fractional QRP points, which seems a bit harsh. > So the message might be like: > Elecrafter 599 K2 > Other 599 Any contest can be minimalist. EQP has meat on its bones! Just my 2.05 cents -- 73, Wayne N6KR --- http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
>> The power of other station is not essential. It is your power that
>> counts. > > Good point. An exchange of power levels is, again, rooted in low-power > contests. It's interesting, but I would say that this is the most > expendable part of the exchange. It seems to me that a score per contact, rather than an overall multiplier, makes some sense and that it should be based on the *other* station's power. Let's face it, if I run 10 mW and you hear me, and come back to me with a 100W signal, it is *you* that did the hard work digging my signal out of the noise, not me doing the work of digging you out. I realize that there is skill involved in timing and offset of the weak signal being transmitted, but the receiving station ought to get higher score for that contact! 73, Lyle KK7P _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
|
|
Hi Lyle (and others),
I understand what you are saying (why shouldn't the QRO op get extra credit for working a QRPp station), but I believe that the power multiplier applied to the sending station is an attempt to: 1 - level the playing field ... someone running 100W is going to probably garnish 10 times as many contacts as someone running QRP simply because the signal is stronger everywhere 2 - encourage QRP operation ... although many of the kit builders and homebrewers are serious low power op's, it is all too tempting to turn the power up if there is absolutely no incentive to keep it down 3 - K.I.S.S. - if we had to individually count each contact with a different value (10 for QRPp, 7 for QRP, ...) then it would become an exercise in frustration for many folks who just want to get on the air, make a few dozen fun contacts with likeminded folks, and submit a quick and easy contest report. However, it might be an interesting study to see how much our scores will differ if we calculated it in two ways: using my power for a multiplier, and using all the other ops power for a multiplier. My 2 cents... 72/73, Daniel AA0NI Oklahoma City --- Lyle Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote: > It seems to me that a score per contact, rather than an overall > multiplier, makes some sense and that it should be based on the *other* > station's power. > > Let's face it, if I run 10 mW and you hear me, and come back to me with > a 100W signal, it is *you* that did the hard work digging my signal out > of the noise, not me doing the work of digging you out. I realize that > there is skill involved in timing and offset of the weak signal being > transmitted, but the receiving station ought to get higher score for > that contact! > > 73, > > Lyle KK7P > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
|
|
In reply to this post by Benny Aumala
Lyle, KK7P wrote:
"Let's face it, if I run 10 mW and you hear me, and come back to me with a 100W signal, it is *you* that did the hard work digging my signal out of the noise, not me doing the work of digging you out. I realize that there is skill involved in timing and offset of the weak signal being transmitted, but the receiving station ought to get higher score for that contact!" ========== Lyle is absolutely right! Not only should QRP stations get a power multiplier, but anyone working them should get bonus points for the QSO. The result would be that everyone digs deeper into the noise to hear the QRPer. To know if any of your QSOs merit bonus points, stations in the QRP category could identify themselves in their exchange by adding "Q" to the RST, i.e., "599 Q ......" 73, de Earl, K6SE _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Benny Aumala
Chuck, AA8VS wrote:
>What! The 599 are not all honest . . . . . . >Sorry > >Chuck > >"The pessimist complains about the wind; >the optimist expects it to change; >the realist adjusts the sails." William Arthur Ward Chuck, "the pessimist complains . . . the realist adjusts . . ." <g> 73 John, N6JW _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
RE: Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
|
|
In reply to this post by Benny Aumala
If the QRP transmitter gets the multiplier, it is incentive for them to
stay low. If the guy who works him gets the multiplier, it is incentive for him to dig out the weak ones. How about having multipliers for the QSO, not for one station or the other. No multiplier if both stations are QRO. 1.5x if one station is QRP, 2X if both are QRP. Multipliers would apply to both stations. The risk here is in making scoring more (too) complex. - Keith - -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Earl W Cunningham Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:02 AM To: [hidden email]; [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision Lyle, KK7P wrote: "Let's face it, if I run 10 mW and you hear me, and come back to me with a 100W signal, it is *you* that did the hard work digging my signal out of the noise, not me doing the work of digging you out. I realize that there is skill involved in timing and offset of the weak signal being transmitted, but the receiving station ought to get higher score for that contact!" ========== Lyle is absolutely right! Not only should QRP stations get a power multiplier, but anyone working them should get bonus points for the QSO. The result would be that everyone digs deeper into the noise to hear the QRPer. To know if any of your QSOs merit bonus points, stations in the QRP category could identify themselves in their exchange by adding "Q" to the RST, i.e., "599 Q ......" 73, de Earl, K6SE _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
I would say keep the rules simple since I'd bet most of us are at best
casual contesters. The exchange itself should be straightforward and uncomplicated, but that doesn't necessarily mean minimalist. I want to know where the guy is, what he is running and the Elecraft serial number. Otherwise it's just another of a long line of (to me) pointless contests. I think opening up for suggestions was nice as a gesture or democracy, but I think it would have been better to just post the rules and set the date. You had a pro design it. Let his take on the rules stand. Besides, most of us will be there because it is part of the Elecraft camaraderie, not for the glory of a contest. Eric KE6US www.ke6us.com -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of wayne burdick Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:48 PM To: Benny Aumala Cc: Elecraft Reflector Subject: [Elecraft] Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision Benny, Thanks for your input. I appreciate minimal exchanges, too; they produce more QSOs and make a contest easy to operate in. But we'd like EQP to be different. I think of it as a series of condensed QSOs rather than quick-hit contest exchanges. Many participants have common interests, including Elecraft gear, kit building in general, and a passion for portable operation. EQP plays like a reunion of old friends. I can make this clearer by addressing your individual points. > K1, K2 or KX1 already defines Elecraft user. How about another > transceiver and Elecraft T1? In EQP, the focus is on the transceiver. Thanks to the shared building experience, it's intriguing for some ops to know what kind of rig they're talking to. (Myself included, usually serial number 1 or 2 :) > Serial number is not essential, but interesting, and may be given > during "rag chew" part of contact. Serial numbers are important to many of the participants, in part because we offer certificates for collecting them. It's part of the condensed QSO. One could look up numbers in a database later, but that wouldn't be in the spirit of things. > US State / VE Province / DXCC Country is not necessary in message. You > have other means to find out that multiplier: Callbook CD, Prefix in > call-sign or ask the station during contact. Perhaps, but I like this addition. Many stations will be using low power, with which it can be exciting to work someone even in the next state! The mystery of where a station is located -- revealed during a contact -- has always been at the core of the radio experience for me, especially when using QRP. > The power of other station is not essential. It is your power that > counts. Good point. An exchange of power levels is, again, rooted in low-power contests. It's interesting, but I would say that this is the most expendable part of the exchange. > By the way: is 100W max recommendation necessary. Elecraft is going to > sell shortly kilowatt-amplifiers. Elecraft gear has, from the beginning, been about doing more with less, and often doing it while operating in the field. KW operation has its place, but I personally prefer a leaner approach in EQP. Besides, to level the playing field, we'd have to give KW operators fractional QRP points, which seems a bit harsh. > So the message might be like: > Elecrafter 599 K2 > Other 599 Any contest can be minimalist. EQP has meat on its bones! Just my 2.05 cents -- 73, Wayne N6KR --- http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
>> US State / VE Province / DXCC Country is not necessary in message.
>> You have other means to find out that multiplier: Callbook CD, >> Prefix in call-sign or ask the station during contact. > > Perhaps, but I like this addition. Many stations will be using low > power, with which it can be exciting to work someone even in the > next state! The mystery of where a station is located -- revealed > during a contact -- has always been at the core of the radio > experience for me, especially when using QRP. > > >> The power of other station is not essential. It is your power that >> counts. > > Good point. An exchange of power levels is, again, rooted in > low-power contests. It's interesting, but I would say that this is > the most expendable part of the exchange. If I may make a suggestion: Exchange locators and power: 599 jo33ab 5W Points are then miles/kilometers per watt. One could also fool with idea of the points being: (distance * (PowerOtherStation + PowerMyStation) / 2) vy 73 de toby -- DD5FZ (ex dj7mgq, dg5mgq, dd5fz) K2 #885 K2/100 #3248 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
RE: Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
|
|
> Points are then miles/kilometers per watt.
> > One could also fool with idea of the points being: > > (distance * (PowerOtherStation + PowerMyStation) / 2) Hmmm.... Good idea. But I'm thinking distance propogated by the signal, not earth-surface distance. And you'd want to adjust for the effects of gravity as the signal passes nearer the surface of the earth. To keep it fair, I think we absolutely have to adjust for the attenuation of the signal due to the directionality of the antenna. I should get more points for a QRP QSO off the end of my dipole than you guys with beams get for QSOs where you're aiming right at the station. Ditto for the receiving antenna. I'll get started on the math unless one of you knows this off the top of your head. We'll want to nail this down pretty quick so the logging programs will have time to implement and test it. Craig NZ0R K1 #1966 K2/100 #4941 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
|
|
While you are at it, you should make allowances for the skill of the
operator. If I make a contact, it is a big deal!!! Wayne K9NE ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Rairdin" <[hidden email]> To: "'Elecraft Reflector'" <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:52 AM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision > Points are then miles/kilometers per watt. > > One could also fool with idea of the points being: > > (distance * (PowerOtherStation + PowerMyStation) / 2) Hmmm.... Good idea. But I'm thinking distance propogated by the signal, not earth-surface distance. And you'd want to adjust for the effects of gravity as the signal passes nearer the surface of the earth. To keep it fair, I think we absolutely have to adjust for the attenuation of the signal due to the directionality of the antenna. I should get more points for a QRP QSO off the end of my dipole than you guys with beams get for QSOs where you're aiming right at the station. Ditto for the receiving antenna. I'll get started on the math unless one of you knows this off the top of your head. We'll want to nail this down pretty quick so the logging programs will have time to implement and test it. Craig NZ0R K1 #1966 K2/100 #4941 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
|
|
In reply to this post by Craig Rairdin
Craig Rairdin wrote: >>Points are then miles/kilometers per watt. >>One could also fool with idea of the points being: >>(distance * (PowerOtherStation + PowerMyStation) / 2) >> >> >Hmmm.... Good idea. But I'm thinking distance propogated by the signal, not >earth-surface distance. And you'd want to adjust for the effects of gravity >as the signal passes nearer the surface of the earth. > > gravitational fields can change space-time, and thereby the path of electromagnetic radiation, but in what way would you have in mind, and are you sure you want to start including relativistic effects? And are you sure you want to account for the propagation paths? How do you decide how many hops are involved? Short path or long path? If all you really want to do is equalize the antenna questions, why not use ERP rather than merely power? So you would have the power out, - coax losses, +/- antenna gain; that seems relatively fair doesn't it? >To keep it fair, I think we absolutely have to adjust for the attenuation of >the signal due to the directionality of the antenna. I should get more >points for a QRP QSO off the end of my dipole than you guys with beams get >for QSOs where you're aiming right at the station. Ditto for the receiving >antenna. > > I think the modified formula using ERP on both ends would normalize for this, wouldn't it? >I'll get started on the math unless one of you knows this off the top of >your head. We'll want to nail this down pretty quick so the logging programs >will have time to implement and test it. > >Craig >NZ0R >K1 #1966 >K2/100 #4941 > --Dave, W5SV K1 # 1306 KX1 # 1127 K2 # 4950 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
|
|
In reply to this post by Craig Rairdin
Craig -
You are on to something... How about long-path multipliers? Polar absorption is greater at higher latitudes, latitude multiplier? My feedline is old and crappy. To be fair, there must be a way to adjust for that. For the record, I only want to compete with simple minded doofs, like myself, that have poor feedline, high latitude, 8 watts, bad hearing, a lousy fist, and a bad attitude. Anything else, by definition, would be blatantly unfair. :-) 73 de NA8M John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Rairdin" <[hidden email]> To: "'Elecraft Reflector'" <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:52 AM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision > Points are then miles/kilometers per watt. > > One could also fool with idea of the points being: > > (distance * (PowerOtherStation + PowerMyStation) / 2) Hmmm.... Good idea. But I'm thinking distance propogated by the signal, not earth-surface distance. And you'd want to adjust for the effects of gravity as the signal passes nearer the surface of the earth. To keep it fair, I think we absolutely have to adjust for the attenuation of the signal due to the directionality of the antenna. I should get more points for a QRP QSO off the end of my dipole than you guys with beams get for QSOs where you're aiming right at the station. Ditto for the receiving antenna. I'll get started on the math unless one of you knows this off the top of your head. We'll want to nail this down pretty quick so the logging programs will have time to implement and test it. Craig NZ0R K1 #1966 K2/100 #4941 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
|
|
In reply to this post by Benny Aumala
Keith Darwin wrote:
"How about having multipliers for the QSO, not for one station or the other. No multiplier if both stations are QRO. 1.5x if one station is QRP, 2X if both are QRP. Multipliers would apply to both stations." ========== The bonus I propose is for *receiving" a QRP station. If a QRP station works a QRP station, he should not be given a bigger bonus for hearing him than a QRO operator! -- Transmitted power has nothing to do with receiving!! To keep it simple, a fixed number of bonus points should be awarded for each QSO with a QRP station. A 10-point bonus does not seem too outlandish. 73, de Earl, K6SE _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by John Huffman-2
John Huffman wrote:
> For the record, I only want to compete with simple minded doofs, like > myself, that have poor feedline, high latitude, 8 watts, bad hearing, > a lousy fist, and a bad attitude. Anything else, by definition, would > be blatantly unfair. Back to the drawing board to create some new categories. :-) See ya in the Spartan Sprint Monday. All antennas were lost in Wilma, but have a new Cushcraft A4S atop the tower which performed well in the Phone Sweepstakes. Today, I finished tuning a new tri-band dipole for 40/80/160. -- 73, Bob Patten, N4BP Plantation, FL E-Mail: [hidden email] Website: http://www.qsl.net/n4bp QRP ARCI #3412 SOC #1 ARS #799 SMIRK #6625 FISTS #7871 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
|
|
In reply to this post by Earl W Cunningham
Although I don't like to fill up everyone's e-mail inbox with frivolous
nonsense and foolishness ... I'm going to take a moment to add a little more levity to the discussion. If you don't like the proposed rules 'discussion' taking place ... delete this now because this is taking that discussion to a new extreme. This is starting to sound like the "really complex, ultimate, extreme QRP contest" I proposed on QRP-L over a year ago (that wasn't the exact term used... but it is still the same concept). <tongue in cheek> In the interest of doing more with less - and under extreme conditions ... the multipliers might go something like this: Each contact is worth the sum of your received signal report (R+S): 599 = 14 points 559 = 10 points 339 = 6 points 229 = 4 points SPC: x number of S/P/C Your power: 0.0-0.1W ... x4 0.1-0.5W ... x3 0.5-2.5W ... x2 Your lowest noise level on the lowest band operated (with preamp and attenutator off and filters set to widest setting): >s7 ... x5 <s7 ... x4 <s5 ... x3 <s3 ... x2 Your minimum filter width: 1500 Hz ... x4 750 Hz ... x3 500 Hz ... x2 Highest point of Antenna above ground: 00-05 ft ... x4 05-10 ft ... x3 10-20 ft ... x2 Antenna Length (all antenna elements combined): 00-10 ft ... x4 10-20 ft ... x3 20-40 ft ... x2 Total Retail Cost of your Radio, Key, Power Supply, and Antenna/tower/mast/mount (everything that goes between the operator and the ether and whatever you use to power it): <$50 ... x5 <$100 ... x4 <$250 ... x3 <$500 ... X2 Radio Construction: Homebrew ... x3 Homebuilt kit ... x2 Prebuilt kit/commercial ... x1 Age of op: 00-10 ... x10 10-19 ... x5 20-29 ... no mult 30-40 ... x2 40-50 ... x3 50-60 ... x4 60-70 ... x5 70-80 ... x6 80-90 ... x7 (and so on) Where is your station: Inside ... no mult Outside ... x2 Mobile ... x3 Mobile:driving during QSO's ... x4 Mobile:drinking coffee and driving during QSO's ... x5 </tongue in cheek> But with all seriousness ... some of these ideas might stir some creativity in the group. I look forward to the EQP. I only wish it was more than once a year. I missed the last one. 72/73, Daniel AA0NI Oklahoma City _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
Administrator
|
I think XDIF could represent this log easily, and I have some sample
XSLT files that can be used to do cross-platform realtime scoring... Leigh / WA5ZNU On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:41 am, Daniel Reynolds wrote: > This is starting to sound like the "really complex, ultimate, extreme > QRP > contest" I proposed on QRP-L over a year ago _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |