[PaQSO] QRP Multiplier

[emiske at comcast.net]

A morph of the QRP mult issue, buy you're correct Matt. A station working only phone has little chance of beating out an equal power station working mixed mode.

I seem to recall some talk here a year or two or more back about splitting the contest into separate phone and CW weekends. Or maybe that was someother reflector. In any case, not realistic, I think.

But when you say "How is someone running phone only supposed to compete with those 
> running CW only at the same power level with 1.5 or 2 points per contact instead 
> of 1?", well, "CW ONLY" is a category (division? I get the names mixed up) unto itself. Anyone working "phone only" or "mixed phone/cw/digital" is not in competition with CW only stations.

Now, should there begin a lobbying effort for a "Phone only" category to go along with the "CW only" category....well, I'd stay out of that one. (Yeah...I can hear the sigh of relief all the way to the 34th floor in downtown Pittsburgh).....lol

Ed/WA3SES

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Matthew Steger <n3ntj at embarqmail.com> 

> Heck, why not also split Phone only, CW only, and Mixed (CW and Phone) modes 
> into separate categories too? Don't digital modes (like RTTY) have their own 
> categories? How is someone running phone only supposed to compete with those 
> running CW only at the same power level with 1.5 or 2 points per contact instead 
> of 1? Just thinking out loud here.. I know its a gentlemen's contest and only 
> for fun (no monetary awards, just bragging rights). 
> 
> Let the discussions begin.. ;-) 
> 
> 73 
> Matt 
> N3NTJ 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: emiske at comcast.net 
> To: "Pa QSO Party Reflector" 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:46:25 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York 
> Subject: [PaQSO] QRP Multiplier 
> 
> Before the discussion mutates too far (and I have no problem with the 
> mutation(s) that have already and/or might come along), I just want to state 
> again what I'm suggesting, and why: 
> 
> I suggest the elimination of the QRP multiplier because: 
> 
> I THINK that, because there are already QRP, >5w/<151W and QRO categories for 
> the EPA and WPA awards, it is unnecessary. 
> 
> I THINK that, for those awards where there is no segregation based on power, 
> the award winner should be based on "raw" score, whether it is a station running 
> 1.5 watts or 1500 watts. If the sponsors were to decide to award Rover, 
> Portable, CW only and Mobile plaques/certificates for all three power 
> categories, then the QRP mult is not necessary. If the sponsors plan to continue 
> to award one Rover, one Portable, one CW only, etc plaque, (which, given the 
> relatively small number of participants in these categories. I would suggest is 
> appropriate), then I ask again "What is the purpose of the QRP mult?" If the 
> purpose is to bring the QRP score up to the level of the medium power stations, 
> then the QRO station has an advantage. If the QRP mult is meant to bring the 
> bring the QRP stations up to the level of the QRO stations, then the medium 
> power station is at a disadvantage." So just do away with it and use raw scores. 
> 
> I THINK it is reasonable to multiply the QRP scores by 2 (or 1.5 or 5 or 
> whatever is deemed best) for the purpose of calculating club scores/awards. 
> 
> I THINK that the impact of this on software may well cause some issues with the 
> "running total" score you might see on your computer, but since you must submit 
> an OFFICIAL summary sheet, it can be easily be dealt with. And how hard is it to 
> mentallhy divide 56,965 by 2 anyhow? 
> 
> I THINK that, if implemented, it would probably become impossible to ever beat 
> the existing QRP score records. And I further think.......SO WHAT......That's 
> why Ford Frick invented the asterisk. (Think Roger Maris) 
> 
> Just to be "on the record" 
> 
> Ed/WA3SES 
> _______________________________________________ 
> PaQSO mailing list 
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net 
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso 
>