I think XDIF could represent this log easily, and I have some sample
XSLT files that can be used to do cross-platform realtime scoring...
Leigh / WA5ZNU
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:41 am, Daniel Reynolds wrote:
This is starting to sound like the "really complex, ultimate, extreme
QRP
contest" I pro
Although I don't like to fill up everyone's e-mail inbox with frivolous
nonsense and foolishness ... I'm going to take a moment to add a little more
levity to the discussion. If you don't like the proposed rules 'discussion'
taking place ... delete this now because this is taking that discussion to
John Huffman wrote:
For the record, I only want to compete with simple minded doofs, like
myself, that have poor feedline, high latitude, 8 watts, bad hearing,
a lousy fist, and a bad attitude. Anything else, by definition, would
be blatantly unfair.
Back to the drawing board to create some
Keith Darwin wrote:
"How about having multipliers for the QSO, not for one station or the
other. No multiplier if both stations are QRO. 1.5x if one station is
QRP, 2X if both are QRP. Multipliers would apply to both stations."
==
The bonus I propose is for *receiving" a QRP station. I
Elecraft Reflector'"
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
Points are then miles/kilometers per watt.
One could also fool with idea of the points being:
(distance * (PowerOtherStation + PowerMyStation) / 2)
Hmmm
Craig Rairdin wrote:
Points are then miles/kilometers per watt.
One could also fool with idea of the points being:
(distance * (PowerOtherStation + PowerMyStation) / 2)
Hmmm Good idea. But I'm thinking distance propogated by the signal, not
earth-surface distance. And you'd want to a
cember 01, 2005 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
Points are then miles/kilometers per watt.
One could also fool with idea of the points being:
(distance * (PowerOtherStation + PowerMyStation) / 2)
Hmmm Good idea. But I'm thinking distance propogated by th
> Points are then miles/kilometers per watt.
>
> One could also fool with idea of the points being:
>
> (distance * (PowerOtherStation + PowerMyStation) / 2)
Hmmm Good idea. But I'm thinking distance propogated by the signal, not
earth-surface distance. And you'd want to adjust for the effec
Constitutional Amendment #2: The right to arm bears shall not be ...
Dan
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb
contesting the vote."
When did the lambs get an advocate with the Supremes?
US State / VE Province / DXCC Country is not necessary in message.
You have other means to find out that multiplier: Callbook CD,
Prefix in call-sign or ask the station during contact.
Perhaps, but I like this addition. Many stations will be using low
power, with which it can be exciting to wo
craft Reflector
Subject: [Elecraft] Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
Benny,
Thanks for your input. I appreciate minimal exchanges, too; they produce
more QSOs and make a contest easy to operate in.
But we'd like EQP to be different. I think of it as a series of condensed
QSOs rather th
, 2005 11:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Re: EQP Proposed Rules Revision
Lyle, KK7P wrote:
"Let's face it, if I run 10 mW and you hear me, and come back to me with
a 100W signal, it is *you* that did the hard work digging my signal out
of the
Chuck, AA8VS wrote:
>What! The 599 are not all honest . . . . . .
>Sorry
>
>Chuck
>
>"The pessimist complains about the wind;
>the optimist expects it to change;
>the realist adjusts the sails." William Arthur Ward
Chuck, "the pessimist complains . . . the realist adjusts . . ."
Lyle, KK7P wrote:
"Let's face it, if I run 10 mW and you hear me, and come back to me with
a 100W signal, it is *you* that did the hard work digging my signal out
of the noise, not me doing the work of digging you out. I realize that
there is skill involved in timing and offset of the weak signa
Hi Lyle (and others),
I understand what you are saying (why shouldn't the QRO op get extra credit for
working a QRPp station), but I believe that the power multiplier applied to the
sending station is an attempt to:
1 - level the playing field ... someone running 100W is going to probably
garnish
What! the 599 are not all honest...
Sorry
--
__
___/ Chuck \_
| |
| www.aa8vs.org/aa8vs |
The pessimist complains about the
wind; the optimist expect
> From: Bob Patten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [Elecraft] EQP Proposed Rules Revision
...
> 1. New exchange - RST, S/P/C, and Elecraft rig and S/N (or power for
> non-Elecraft). The name was replaced with S/P/C,
> but feel free to extend the QSO and share name and other non-contest
> comment
The power of other station is not essential. It is your power that
counts.
Good point. An exchange of power levels is, again, rooted in low-power
contests. It's interesting, but I would say that this is the most
expendable part of the exchange.
It seems to me that a score per contact, rather
Benny,
Thanks for your input. I appreciate minimal exchanges, too; they
produce more QSOs and make a contest easy to operate in.
But we'd like EQP to be different. I think of it as a series of
condensed QSOs rather than quick-hit contest exchanges. Many
participants have common interests, in
19 matches
Mail list logo
