[OhQP-mail] Suggestion for 2015 (Or later) OHQP

kb8uey kb8uey at yahoo.com
Sun Apr 13 04:06:31 CDT 2014

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is no need to complicate the already complicated task of those who check the logs. Looking back at previous years, the given scores of listed qrp ops would need an obscene "multiplier" to level the field and put them in a position to be an overall winner. An easier way would be keep your station on the air the whole 12 hours...especially when you have the lone station in a given county.

Just my humble opinion.


Sent on the new Sprint Network from my Samsung Galaxy S®4.

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: paulhurm at gmail.com </div><div>Date:04/12/2014  9:50 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: ohqp-mail at ohqp.org </div><div>Subject: Re: [OhQP-mail] Suggestion for 2015 (Or later) OHQP </div><div>
</div>Remember that if we want to give extra credit to someone who *works* a QRP station then we are going to have to change the contest exchange to include the power level. Such a change would also require all of the programmers who produce our logging software to make the appropriate changes.
There was a comment “The only thing the power mults would do is allow for an "overall winner" of the party...”. Personally I don’t think there is any way to get a single fair “overall” winner. If we wanted to try, how would we adjust for those of us who do not have steerable antennas? Those make a pretty big difference as well, probably as much as the difference between 5 and 100 watts.
Another comment was “All participating stations have a level playing field as far as receive, so the QRP station can hear as well as anyone else.” Sorry but I disagree here too since wire vs steerable/gain antennas makes a big difference. The ability to copy any station depends upon many more things than just the transmitter power of the other guy.
For myself, I like to compare my efforts from year to year. Lengthening the exchange will negate previous years efforts for comparisons. Even though adding a power level to the exchange doesn’t add all that much time to a QSO, it does add up after a while and might possibly cut down on the total number of QSOs. Oops, the mobile moved, there went that last mult I needed.
(Some tongue in cheek comments):
If we want a truly level operating field then we should all be forced to use the same radio / antennas.
You have to put up a beam for me since I don’t have one.
Why not force us all to do all CW contacts without a narrow filter?
No computer aids for anything but logging.
No PC keying or memory keyers, everything manually.
Why 2 points per CW QSO anyhow. Why are they more important? (I’m 99.9% CW BTW)
I’m sure I could come up with more…
Yes, I have operated QRP in OQP. Personally, I would like to see results much sooner and the “per county results map” get updated long before requiring any rules changes without good/convincing arguments behind them.
And I also appreciate the thoughts behind Dave, K9FN’s post.
Paul, N8OT
    paulhurm at gmail.com
* My World War One photography project
    www.typicalfrenchkiddies.com -or- www.facebook.com/typicalfrenchkiddies
* Radio Astronomy
* My article about Field Day 2012
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ohqp.org/pipermail/ohqp-mail_ohqp.org/attachments/20140413/49a1e299/attachment.html>

More information about the OhQP-mail mailing list