[OhQP-mail] Suggestion for 2015 (Or later) OHQP
n8xx at arrl.org
Sun Apr 13 13:42:37 CDT 2014
Naww, the scoring team doesn't care what the software calculates.
Besides, having /QRP or /LOW or /HIGH at the end of each call letter
would brand us as LIDS who use a power level to ID ourselves.
I NEVER, EVER, NO NEVER use /QRP, and I'd say that >99.44% of the
operators who choose to operate with 5 watts or less power do NOT use
the /QRP suffix.
I often cross out the "claimed score" part of my entry, because I know
that the contest adjudicating committee will recalculate it, subtracting
the errors in logging which I do in >99.44% of the times. It's rare I
have a "golden log."
72/73 de n8xx Hg
QRP >99.44% of the time
On 4/12/2014 9:50 PM, paulhurm at gmail.com wrote:
> 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 <mailto:paulhurm at gmail.com>
> * My World War One photography project
> www.typicalfrenchkiddies.com -or-
> * Radio Astronomy
> www.naapo.org <http://www.naapo.org>
> * My article about Field Day 2012
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OhQP-mail