[WRTC2018] Competition rules
Mike Smith VE9AA
ve9aa at nbnet.nb.ca
Wed Oct 7 11:44:43 CEST 2015
So anyone not owning an (old) clicky FT-1000MP or new (read expensive) K3S with a subreceiver now has to go purchase one.
Something to think about maybe.
Mike, Coreen & Corey
Keswick Ridge, NB
From: WRTC2018 [mailto:wrtc2018-bounces at lists.wrtc2018.de] On Behalf Of Uwe Koenneker, DL8OBF
Sent: October 7, 2015 4:14 AM
To: wrtc2018 at lists.wrtc2018.de
Subject: [WRTC2018] Competition rules
there have been some very good comments and arguments regarding our question on WRTC 2018 competition rules. We appreciate the input and the discussion!
There were also questions with regard to the technical feasibility of our potential proposals, i.e. on 160m operation as well as the referees observing the subreceivers. We have started an evaluation of both aspects which is still ongoing. It seems that both aspects (160m operation as well as subreceivers) are technically feasible. The detailed evaluation is not yet finished and obviously there are disadvantages with both approaches. The addition of a subreceiver would assume that the referee in the tent could only check samples of the audiostream. We could add technical means such as recordings or SDRs to compensate that partly, but obviously it would come with some significant change of philosophy. The 160m operation is possible with shortened dipoles. In our trials we have seen decent 160m QSO-rates with loaded dipoles and 100 Watt here in M/Europe. So we believe that subreceivers as well as 160m operation would technically be possible, but coming with an expense. The open question remains: Are we willing to accept these expenses ?
Thanks and vy 73
Member of WRTC AC and responsible for competition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WRTC2018