[PaQSO] QRP Multiplier

[Matthew Steger]

Hi Ed:

I'm not suggesting a separate weekend for Phone or CW, but possibly separate
scoring categories for Phone ONLY, CW Only, and Mixed (Phone/CW/etc.).

In response to another posting about the last hour Sat.  I often am on the
air from midnight to 1am, yet rarely work anyone..maybe 1 or 2 contacts in
that hour, it seems.  I wonder if moving that hour from late Saturday night
to Sunday (either early or late) would provide more efficient to contacts.
Again, thinking out loud.. 

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of emiske at comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:33 PM
To: Pa QSO Party Reflector
Subject: Re: [PaQSO] QRP Multiplier

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