[NLRS] [VcrVHF:474] Re: [Rmg] Comments on proposed UHF and Up contest rules
John Toscano
tosca005 at umn.edu
Sat May 14 23:04:49 EDT 2016
Now that I think about it some more, I guess it makes sense to exclude EME
contacts because of the distance scoring methodology, NOT because the radio
signal is reflected off of some object. When you think about it, contacts
via aurora, meteor scatter, rain scatter, snow scatter, and many others,
involve bouncing a radio signal off of a PASSIVE REFLECTOR, and should all
be allowable. Repeaters and manmade satellites are a totally different
matter, since the repeater or satellite has a receiver and transmitter, so
the quality of signal at the "far end" of a QSO is determined more by the
capabilities of the repeater or satellite, rather than the capabilities of
the original transmitters or receivers. Hence, such contacts provide an
unfair advantage over direct non-repeated contacts, and have rightly been
excluded from most contests.
Anyway, back to EME. Although I initially opposed the exclusion of EME
contacts because of reasons along the lines of what Ed Cole said from
Alaska, and my own experience of knowing at least a couple of operators in
the NLRS territory who make a small number of EME contacts in VHF and up
contests, I now think it is not a good idea to include EME in this new UHF
& Up contest. The reason is because of the enormous geographical distance
that can be covered by a single EME contact -- it could span most of a
single half of the planet. What if a station in Alaska, say grid BO19vf
made contact with a station in Mexico, say grid EK35qb on 10 GHz
moonbounce. That single QSO would earn 4226 distance points (4226 miles)
times the 20x band factor for 10 GHz, or 84,520 points! Everyone else is
going to have to make a lot of QSO's to compete with that! Even worse (i.e,
more extreme) would be a contact between that hypothetical Alaskan station
in BO19vf with a hypothetical station in Argentina, grid GF05hh. Distance
is 8482 miles, so single 10 GHz QSO would net 8482x20 = 169,640 points!
Yikes! So, because of distance scoring, I now think that EME needs to be
excluded from the new UHF & Up contest. (Sorry, Ed!)
73 de WØJT/5, EL09vu
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Kermit Carlson <w9xa at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Kent;
>
> Thank you for your input.
>
> 73, Kermit Carlson W9XA
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* KENT BRITAIN <wa5vjb at flash.net>
> *To:* John Toscano <tosca005 at umn.edu>; "vhf-input at arrl.org" <
> vhf-input at arrl.org>; NLRS Reflector <nlrs at mailman.qth.net>; RMG <
> rmg at k5rmg.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 14, 2016 1:38 PM
> *Subject:* [VcrVHF:474] Re: [Rmg] Comments on proposed UHF and Up contest
> rules
>
> The no EME is to give a lock to a California station winning the contest.
> It is the only way hams in the rest of the US could compete with 6's up
> on 12,000 foot peaks.
>
> WA5VJB
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* John Toscano <tosca005 at umn.edu>
> *To:* vhf-input at arrl.org; NLRS Reflector <nlrs at mailman.qth.net>; RMG <
> rmg at k5rmg.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 14, 2016 1:29 PM
> *Subject:* [Rmg] Comments on proposed UHF and Up contest rules
>
> Overall, the rules look good, but there are a few problems and areas of
> concern.
>
>
> 1. Rule 3.3 has a welcome statement that basically allows a Rover
> station that has a breakdown or equipment failure after activating their
> first grid to submit a log as a Rover, even though they never make it to a
> second grid. But I am surprised to see that, unlike the 10 GHz & Up rules,
> the Rover station still has to move to a new 4-digit grid to re-work other
> stations that have not moved instead of only needing to move to a new
> 6-digit grid. This may in fact be what was intended, but it should be
> stressed (perhaps set in *boldface type*) so it is not missed or
> misunderstood. As the rules are presented, the operation and scoring of
> this contest is a hybrid of the old UHF rules (must move to a new 4-digit
> grid) and the 10 GHz rules (scoring based on distance between 6-digit
> grids).
> 2. Rule 3.3.2 is in direct conflict with Rule 3.3.1 (Family Rule). If
> two family members are sharing a vehicle and radio equipment, they use two
> callsigns (Rule 3.3.1), not a single callsign (Rule 3.3.2). Just omit rule
> 3.3.2 because its intent is already present in Rule 3.3.1 (one station
> except for the family rule).
> 3. Rule 3.3.6 is actually two unrelated rules, and should be broken
> into such: a rule allowing a Rover to submit a second Fixed Station log,
> and a rule on club scoring if a Rover moves out of the club territory for
> any of its QSO's. This latter part of the rule should either become a
> separate rule, *i.e.* 3.3.7 in the current numbering scheme, or
> omitted altogether, since it is covered in the Club Competition section's
> Rule 6.1
> 4. Rule 5.1 distance scoring uses the distance in miles from one
> 6-digit grid to another 6-digit grid. In the 10 GHz & Up contest, distance
> scoring is done in kilometers, not miles. Obviously, it does not matter to
> the ultimate outcome of awarding higher scores to longer contacts, but the
> inconsistency between two ARRL contests (miles vs. kilometers) is not
> welcome, and even complicates the design of a way to support logging for
> the new contest. Sure, it is not insurmountable, but why do it two
> different ways?
> 5. Rule 5.2 Band Factors have an unusual progression of weights: 1, 1,
> 4, 4, 20, 20, 20, 20, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50, based on the relative
> difficulty of getting on the band and making a contact. I'm not sure that
> 10 GHz is 20 times as hard as 222 MHz, but I'd be willing to try out a
> contest with these weights. I'd probably try the scoring out on one of my
> old UHF logs, although from home I was never able to reliably get on any
> band higher than 1.2 GHz, and as a Rover, I never managed to get out of the
> driveway with what I considered a full complement of bands, namely 222 MHz
> through 10 GHz,
> 6. The Team Competition is new, and interesting. But a team of size 3,
> for example, is not likely to be competitive with a team of, say, 10
> members. So the value of the team groupings is not obvious to me. Also, the
> "...suggested grouping of three station* (sic)* with at least one
> Rover..." table does not match its description:
> 1. Reference 5 has zero Rovers, which contradicts the description
> 2. Reference 7 has a total teram size of 4, not 3.
> 3. There should be a line for 2 Multi-Op stations with one Rover
> 4. There should be a line for 1 Single-Op plus 1 Multi-Op plus 1
> Rover
> 5. Although not exactly matching the lead-in description, a team of
> 3 members could conceivably have zero Rovers, and be made up of a
> combination of Single-Op and Multi-Op stations (4 possible combinations
> there). If this was included in the table, however, the lead-in description
> would need to be modified to describing a Team of 3 members and not say
> anything there about Rovers.
> 7. If I understand the Team rules correctly, team members would submit
> two logs, one with all of their contacts, and one with only contacts with
> other Team members. The overall log would compete in the Single-Op,
> Multi-Op, or Rover class, and the Team log gets accumulated with other Team
> members' logs for a separate scoring category. Who accumulates the Team
> logs, a member of the Team, or the Contest Robot?
> 8. Rule 8.4 surprised me by excluding the validity of EME contacts.
> This is not an exclusion in any other VHF and up contest. Was it
> intentional? Is it a good idea? It is probably not a major issue, given the
> (probable) small number of EME contacts made in most non-EME contests, but
> why exclude it here?
> 9. Rule 8.4 as worded contradicts Rule 8.5, with respect to repeater
> frequencies. Rule 8.5 allows the use of repeaters for self-spotting, but
> Rule 8.4 prohibits tje use of repeater frequencies, whether occupied by a
> repeater or not. Rule 8.4 needs to clarify that repeater frequencies can
> only be used for self-spotting, not for QSO's.
> 10. The existing Cabrillo logging method does not support distance
> scoring of a UHF contest. I would urge the Contest Branch to expand the
> Cabrillo format to allow the scoring of this contest properly, and while
> they are at it, also create a Cabrillo format for the 10 GHz and Up
> contest, which would be similar. I have previously sent a proposal to the
> Contest Branch for a Cabrillo format that would support the 10 GHz Contest.
> I would be happy to consult with the Contest Branch on developing Cabrillo
> formats for both contests.
>
> I hope that these comments are considered helpful to the Committee.
>
> John P. Toscano, WØJT/5, EL09vu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VcrVHF mailing list
> VcrVHF at reflector.arrl.org
> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/vcrvhf
>
>
>
More information about the NLRS
mailing list