[PaQSO] Request

Tue Oct 30 15:49:41 EST 2007

Amen brother.

73 to all

Bill/K8SYH
--- "William N. Goodman, CPA"
<wgoodman at goodmancpa.biz> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 