[PaQSO] More Points for CW

Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:18:46 +0100

It is amazing at the 'feeding frenzy' that always seems to surface 
around the same time each year.  [Must be all the antsy personnel
getting in the right frame of mind for another PaQSO Party!!].
Concerning all the talk re: the pros & cons of CW vs SSB point
system.  The only thing I could interject is that I would like
one of the best QSO Parties currently active, to evolve into
a 'really big one' - i.e., separate CW and SSB contests.  This would
silence all critics, and it would definitely level the playing field,
and get more activity into what I feel is the true method of long -
range communications [I do have a flack jacket to put on - so flame
away].  Prior to my departure for the government, I had the 
distasteful part in removing all/all CW/HF communication activity.
Although it was strongly supported by the 'worker bees', the power
to bees - [many of them engineers that had no/no working knowledge of
what operational communications really was] overrule the working class
and HF as many of us knew it died. This is also evident with the MARS
program that FORBIDS CW transmissions - have to 'graduate' to the
newer modes, i.e., PSK31, etc.  Anyway I again will look forward to
this years event - and again get my 'coffee cup' - and really enjoy
trying to get all the counties on CW this year.  
I have to state that I do not/not place one mode of operation over
the other - the old saying 'different strokes' - and I also do not
hold to the premise that a lot of 'old' extra class have that if you
got your extra class license now - you are not among the elite.  Well,
I am still an old General class - taught CW in the USN and GOVT - 
and know many of us oldies that are comfortable @ 35-40WPM.  Hey -
this is a great hobby - currently in my 48th year - let's all enjoy
it.
73,
Joe W7LPF  

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> BlairBates wrote:
> ........The disadvantage is that all the old
> records won't be comparable to the new scores.
> 
> I realize I may be the only one with this opinion, but I do not feel that
> this is a disadvantage.
> 
> If some change is the right thing to do for whatever reason, the fact that
> it will make the old records fall like autumn leaves, as far as I'm
> concerned, is meaningless.
> 
> Now maybe the fact that I don't hold any records has something to do with
> that?  :>)
> 
> Ed Miske
> Kennametal
> Telecom Analyst
> Latrobe, Pa
> (724)539-4676
> 
> 
>                     [email protected]
>                     m                       To:
>                     Sent by:                cc:     [email protected]
>                     paqso-admin@mailm       Subject:     Re: [PaQSO] More Points for CW
>                     an.qth.net
> 
>                     09/26/2002 09:47
>                     PM
> 
> 
> 
> Every contest has rules.  In this one (PAQP) CW is 1.5 or 2 points, QRP is
> a
> x2 mult.  So to maximize one's score, working QRP, with lots of CW QSO's is
> 
> the way to go--MAYBE.
> 
> Can you work more than half as many stations (i.e. per hour), and the same
> number of mults. while running QRP as you can while running medium or high
> power?  If so, then QRP may be the way to go.  If not, higher power will
> produce the higher score.
> 
> Same thing with CW.  Can you work > 2/3 (> 1/2 on 80 & 160) as many
> stations
> on CW than you would on phone?  If not, then staying on phone may produce
> the
> higher score--for you.
> 
> It's strategy, guys & gals.  YOU have to decide what power level and mode
> may
> produce the best score for YOUR skills and YOUR station.
> 
> Make the right choices and you set a new record; make the wrong choices and
> 
> it's, "Wait till next year!"
> 
> So, if NARC changes the rules, or the point allocations, we'll study the
> rules and re-allocate our efforts.  The disadvantage is that all the old
> records won't be comparable to the new scores.
> 
> My father-in-law had an expression, "If it's not too broke, don't fix it."
> 
> Well, I don't see the the rules as "too broke."  So, I cast my vote for NOT
> 
> fixing them.
> 
> 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