[PaQSO] Two questions

Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:04:28 -0400

Good point Ron, if you want to take an amp and operate portable high power
then that should be your choice.  I agree.  In fact I could see where that
might even be helpful in encouraging west of the Mississippi and DX
participation by getting some bigger signals headed their way.

That said, I still would like to see a distinction between low and a high
power.  Why?  I would say for the same reason there is a low and a high
power distinction for the permanent station class of the contest.  It allows
those who desire to run low power to compete with the low power entrants,
and those who desire to run high power to likewise compete with their high
power counterparts.  In fact, I would be willing to sponsor the High Power
Portable Plaque if there would be enough entrants to support it.

I really don't want to turn this into a new thread about low versus high
power classes so, unless someone from the NARC would like to talk about it
further, this is probably all I'm going to have to say, at least on the
reflector.  Besides, by comparison there aren't that many portable
operations and I don't want to bore the rest of the folks to tears.

Great discussions also taking place about food during the contest.  I'm
really fortunate in that my wife and my mom accompany me on the portable
excursions.  In fact, we treat the trip more like a mini vacation to the big
woods to enjoy nature and its fall colors.  So, I have 3 really good meals
both days of the contest.  Yep, they really take care of me while I'm on the
air.  However, I also snack during the contest and that usually consists of
large doses of coffee and assorted pretzels and/or other "stuff".  Funny but
when there are slow periods (Sunday afternoon) I seem to eat more.  By the
way, all eating is done while operating CW.

Thanks again folks for your really great input to these threads.  I think
they contribute immensely to bolstering the interest in this fantastic
contest!

Take care.

Bob, N3FR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius WN3VAW" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 17:16
Subject: Re: [PaQSO] Two questions

> Sorry, I strongly disagree with the idea that "portable" stations should
be
> limited to 100 Watts.  If I want to take the time and trouble to haul
along
> my linear and run high power, that should be my prerogative.  Having said
> that, as someone who has run both with a linear & barefoot during portable
> operations, I would agree with Blair that most of the time it may be more
> trouble than it's worth -- but leave that as my choice.
>
> For the nature of the PaQP, I doubt that more than 500-600 W out will be
> needed the vast majority of the time.  But a rule change on maximum power
> might be unenforceable, so I wouldn't bother about it.
>
> 73, ron wn3vaw
>
> "And they give you cash,
> which is just as good as money!"
> Yogi Berra, AFLAC Commercial, 2002
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 4:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [PaQSO] Two questions
>
>
> In a message dated 07/12/2002 14:58:35 Eastern Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << 1. What do you like most about the Pa QSO Party?>>  We in PA can work
> EVERYBODY, on any band we can hear them.  (Unlike stations in Calif. QP,
> NEQP, etc.) For those of us who like to RUN, 'nuff said!  [The mandatory
> "off-time" is a close second.]
>
>  <<2. If you could make one change what would it be? >>Hmmm, maybe 10~20 &
> 160 meter QSO's should be 2.0 points each to encourage activity there,
with
> 40 & 80 meter Q's worth only 1 point.
>
> My first thought on N3FR's suggestion about limiting portables to 100
watts
> was, why?
>
> I've been part of a multi-op portable operation in a semi-rare county
[Pike]
> for several years.  We have taken along an amp--some years.  It helped
> overcome the antenna limitations of our site and enabled more
> folks--especially on 20~10 meters--to hear and work us.  It never helped
our
> score so much that we won any category.
>
> I'd like to hear the benefit(s) of the suggested power limitation? (Other
> than reducing back pain--amps are HEAVY!)
>
> 73,  Blair k3yd
> _______________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso