No subject

Thu Dec 20 21:06:06 CET 2007

contest, which I made assisted, and the qso was considered valid because the 
rules did allow this. Maybe we meet again in the next Dubus, this time 
random. GL, 73 de Gio IK1UWL

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bodo Heyl" <bodoheyl at gmx.de>
To: "moonbounceboard" <moon-net at list-serv.davidv.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 9:24 PM
Subject: [Moon-net] Will things ever change? Pls clarify!

> To make it more clear for me:
>
> A) I am using JT65, look for the logger and see
> XYZ calling on a certain QRG (selfspotting),
> I call him, we exchange the necessary QSO infos,
> I am not using the logger during the QSO.
>
> B) I know from my paper list, that station XYZ is normally
> using the QRG 144.139MHz.
> I see him and call him, we again exchange the infos.
> There is no logger info at all, my computer is switched off.
>
> Which QSO is valid? A or B or none?
>
> C) I am using CW, see XYZ selfspotting in the CW logger,
> call him and fortunately we make a QSO
>
> D) XYZ sends me an E-mail asking for a CW sked.
> We arrange by e-mail (not snail mail) the details like
> QRG and date/time, finally we make a QSO.
>
> Which QSO is valid? C or D or none?
>
> Thanks in advance for enlightment,
>
> 73s Bodo/DL2FCN
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "on4dpx Kenny" <on4dpx at skynet.be>
> To: <moon at moonbounce.info>; <moon-net at list-serv.davidv.net>
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 6:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Moon-net] [Moon] Will things ever change?
>
>
>> Interesting topic .
>>
>> I totally agree with Jimmy , Peter , Petros and many others .
>> The rules should not only be used during contest but during every qso .
>> Contest or not , exchanging qso information via a non radio path should
>> make
>> the qso NOT VALID !
>>
>> Those who says that such qso's are valid should take down their big 
>> arrays
>> ,
>> turn off their radio's and get a couple of computers ...
>>
>> If still not convinced I have various screenshots from a recent 
>> activation
>> (BY7PP) showing extremely high "chat activity" with a lot of qso
>> information
>> being exchanged and afterwards telling that they worked over 40 qso's ! 
>> If
>> someone would like to read the screenshots drop me a mail and I will
>> forward
>> it .
>>
>> It's a milestone that RSGB banned them , unfortunately ARRL don't want to
>> spend much time on this subject as their responses to various emails
>> concerning this problem are very vague , they know whats going on but it
>> seems that they don't want to solve it .
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kenny ON4DPX
>>
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: moon-net-bounces at list-serv.davidv.net
>> [mailto:moon-net-bounces at list-serv.davidv.net] Namens SV3AAF Petros
>> Verzonden: zondag 3 februari 2008 16:28
>> Aan: moon at moonbounce.info; moon-net at list-serv.davidv.net
>> Onderwerp: Re: [Moon-net] [Moon] Will things ever change?
>>
>> As I can see at the "CQ-CONTEST" link, the condemnation of loggers and
>> selfspotting is widespread with many Hams getting fed up with it.
>> I also share the opinion that loggers and selfspotting do not fit in 
>> Radio
>> Contesting and hope ARRL and other contest organizers will ban them just
>> like RSGB did.
>> 73 de Petros sv3aaf
>>
>> Peter Sundberg <sm2cew at telia.com> wrote: Interesting that you bring this
>> up
>> Jimmy, because there has been a big
>> discussion over the same issues on the CQ Contest reflector recently. The
>> discussion there was regarding QSO liason via loggers, during an ongoing
>> contest.
>>
>> See
>> http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2008-January/date.html
>> and
>> scroll down to the end of the month where the subjec lines start saying
>> "Selfspotting...." and later on "Using ON4KST-chat".
>>
>> Most all of the postings say that internet loggers are not a part of a
>> contest.
>> I share that opinion, of course.
>> I also hope that the ARRL will reckognize that selfspotting and logger
>> liason
>> is not radio contesting, regardless of band involved.
>>
>>
>> By the way, the January logs for the 2m Dubus CW EME Event is presented 
>> at
>> http://www.sm2cew.com/aw_logs.html
>> Thanks to all participating stations, see you for the next event on:
>>
>> February 16 1230-1530 GMT
>> February 16 2030-2330 GMT
>>
>> 73 de Peter SM2CEW
>> www.sm2cew.com
>> http://blog.sm2cew.com
>>
>>
>>
>> At 14:28 2008-02-01 , jimmyv at hol.gr wrote:
>>>Hello All
>>>
>>>I came across a very interesting decision of RSGB for its Contest
>>>rules on 6m-4m-2m-70cm Contests.
>>>This clearly shows that in the internet / chatrooms days we are living
>>>(totally true for the absolute majority of JT65 EME assisted QSOs on
>>>an everyday basis for the last 6-7 yrs), they are still Radio Amateur
>>>Unions and Contest Organizers (e.g. RSGB, DUBUS, REF etc.)  acting
>>>responsibly,  putting Radio as their first priority.
>>>And prohibit Assisted Class and chatroom QSOs in a Contest.
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>>>Here is the info:
>>>http://www.vhfcc.org/rules/08rules/General.htm
>>>
>>>Section i:
>>>i. The active use (posting messages, arranging skeds, self spotting
>>>etc) of the DX Cluster and other spotting networks (including internet
>>>facilities for example ON4KST) to assist an entry to a contest on 6m,
>>>4m, 2m and 70cm is banned in all RSGB contests with the exception of
>>>three IARU Region 1 co-ordinated contests (50MHz Trophy in June,
>>>144MHz Trophy in September and 432MHz to 248GHz IARU in October) and
>>>the 144MHz Marconi contest in November where permitted by the IARU
>>>rules for these contests. You may spot a DX station as long as your
>>>operating frequency is not given. A list of do's and don'ts can be
>>>found here http://www.vhfcc.org/rules/08rules/dods.html
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>>>
>>>The list of do's and don'ts for RSGB related Contests could still be
>>>useful to all modes, in the context of new ARRL EME Contest rules,
>>>with NO Assisted class.
>>>
>>>Pardon me but I am really troubled with questions i want to share with
>>>you: I REALLY WONDER WILL ARRL EVER  DO THE SAME FOR THE EME
>>>COMPETITION? Take out Assisted class? Bring back the focus to Radio,
>>>the challenge to the operator, the thrill of Random EME operation?
>>>
>>>Because even though Assisted is intended for new to EME and/or QRP
>>>stations (by the way such class never existed in the cw days !!! for a
>>>far more difficult mode of operation on moonbounce), in ARRL EME
>>>Competition it is fully used by experienced, average, qro, etc.
>>>stations in digital mode.
>>>
>>>I do understand the reasoning and arguments of QRP and new to
>>>moonbounce stations. I really do. But pls allow me to say that they
>>>claim they need help only because they ''were brought up'' by the
>>>majority of their fellow logger ops this way. It is the Teachers'
>>>fault - influence who put them in this norm from day 1.
>>>
>>>However, in the past software random digital tool development has been
>>>released for those working digital, start working on random. This has
>>>been MAP65. A paper on Random QSO practises had been published. Both,
>>>by Joe K1JT. In the latter, examples on how random digital QSOs can be
>>>made and examples of frequency segments for CQ callers and listeners,
>>>were given. Jeremy W7EME had suggested the same, several times, in the
>>>past. Will these suggestions ever be implemented? Some stations went
>>>on further working digital Unassisted (minority) in recent yrs
>>>Contests, developing various ways to be more effective, as they saw
>>>fit. Congrats to all for taking the lead trying to improve their
>>>station and help others!
>>>But why ARRL has introduced Assisted class since it is used for other
>>>purposes? Why should it remain?
>>>
>>>Could you tell me why in the cw only days, such class never existed?
>>>For any operator, qrp/qro, new/old, whoever. Why cw Contest QSOs 99%
>>>take place on random? Why can't we have a Radio - not an Internet -
>>>ARRL Contest without exceptions?
>>>
>>>Those who claim fun as their first priority regardless of anything
>>>else, or those who, for their own reasons, can only operate Assisted
>>>6m-2m-70cm-23cm, they could ask ARRL to organize a separate rallye
>>>type of EME event where everything is allowed to maximize their
>>>beloved QSO numbers. Why not?
>>>
>>>Final note:I totally understand the need of Specific forms of
>>>assistance required for 13cm (current frequencies allocation, doppler
>>>shift, multiple feeds etc.) and above bands for all modes of
>>>operation. Therefore, this is not a topic of this discussion.
>>>
>>>73
>>>Jimmy SV1BTR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Moon mailing list
>>>Moon at moonbounce.info
>>>http://www.moonbounce.info/mailman/listinfo/moon
>>>
>>> Please enter/update your standings:
>>> http://www.vhf-dx.net/top.html
>>>
>>> When you decide to remain anonymous I may consider this unpolite and
>> remove
>> you from the list
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moon mailing list
>> Moon at moonbounce.info
>> http://www.moonbounce.info/mailman/listinfo/moon
>>
>> Please enter/update your standings:
>> http://www.vhf-dx.net/top.html
>>
>> When you decide to remain anonymous I may consider this unpolite and
>> remove
>> you from the list
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo!
>> Search.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
>> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
>> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at 
> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
> 