[PaQSO] Request

[William N. Goodman, CPA]

I have not been active on HF or in the PA QSO Party for several years. I
have other activities and responsibilities which took me away.  I hope to
return some day in the future.   However, I still read the reflector.  I
used to earn top scores single op or multi op from Northampton County, as
K3ANS or W3FRC.

I believe the QRP multiplier should go  to the receiving station, not the
QRP station!  The receiver strains to pick out the weak station from the
noise level or from the QRM.  The QRP station has the easy job.  A QRP
station requires less mechanical work and electronic skills to manage than
does a QRO station.  If desired, place the QRP stations in a separate class,
but do not multiply a QRP score by 2!  I lost winning single op class for
the PA QSO party a few years ago by that 2 X factor given to a QRP station
in Washington County, PA.  I had the highest raw score with out the
massaging of the points.  The PA QSO Party should be a capitalistic contest,
not enforced socialism.  Otherwise give plaques to all who turn on their
radios, whether they make one or 1600 QSOs!

One year I worked for at least 15 minutes to pull out a weak station on 75
SSB in the CQ WW Phone or ARRL DX Phone contest. I was listening around
3,670 kcs. and transmitting around 3,800 kcs. I hoped it was a new
multiplier.  I asked for many repeats, which were covered by QSB, QRN, QRM,
absorption, signal fatigue, and noise floor.  I told other louder stations
to stand by.   I have outstanding receiving and transmitting antennas on 75
meters aimed to Europe, so if I could not hear him, no one else could.
Eventually I completed the QSO with an  English station, G----.  A few weeks
later he mailed me a very appreciative letter thanking me for my
perseverance.  He was running 10 watts to a folded, shortened, compromised
dipole on 75 meters, in the basement of his high rise apartment house in the
middle of a large English city.  I should have gotten a bonus 100 X point
for that one.  If I were efficient and mean, I would have blown him off and
moved on to more QSOs, but I was curious who he was.  This has happened many
times.  We call CQ and hear many stations in the mud, rise and fall
together.  Pulling them out and separating them is a challenge.  At least
they could help by using adequate antennas and more power. I know they are
limited in their resources, but give us the bonus points.  It was a thrill
for the European modest stations to work a loud USA station, but at what a
price.  Of course, QSLs came soon later.  

In summary, I like QRP operators, as long as they do not slow me down.  This
is a contest, not a social service.  Occasionally, the loudest stations on
10 and 15 meters are mobiles 1,000 miles away.  


William N. Goodman, CPA  (K3ANS)


-----Original Message-----
From: paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of emiske at comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:26 PM
To: Pa QSO Party Reflector
Subject: Re: [PaQSO] Request

Mike, 

If you're listening, I'm talking........

DEATH TO THE QRP MULTIPLIER!!!!!!!

What's the purpose? To equalize QRP scores to QRO scores? If so, why not
give a mult of 1.3 or something like that to the medium power stations to
equalize their scores to QRO scores? 

But why "equalize" any scores? Are not QRP stations in competition with QRP
stations? QRO's vs QRO's? Medium vs. medium?

I understand that when it comes to the Portable, Rover, CW only, (others?)
they are not divided into QRP, Medium and QRO. But there are just not enough
entries in these categories/divisions to justify that.

If it is used at all, it should only be AFTER individual scores have been
calculated so as to help out club scores where the club might have
one/several/many members operating QRP. But for individual scores, it is not
necessary. QRP should compete against QRP, medium power vs medium power and
QRO vs QRO. 

Ed/WA3SES
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Michael Coslo <mjc5 at psu.edu> 

> 
> On Oct 29, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Goody K3NG wrote: 
> 
> > Greetings
> > 
> > I figure this would be a good time to make a suggestion or request 
> > as we have almost a year to chew on it, but could we create a Multi- 
> > multi QRP category? This would be separate from the existing multi- 
> > multi scores and not compete with them, shatter old records, 
> > drastically change the personality of the Party, or hurt cute furry 
> > kittens. :-)
> 
> I'm not opposed to such a thing. It seems pretty interesting. Let's 
> get some activity on the subject, and see what transpires...
> 
> My thoughts are how many people are likely to participate in this 
> manner? (note that low numbers are not a reason to dismiss the idea)
> 
> Impacts in general? 
> 
> I'll be in listening mode here, so let's have at it! 
> 
> -73 de Mike KB3EIA -
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
_______________________________________________
PaQSO mailing list
PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso