You know there is something here. I worked some late night on 80 meters. The noise was high and signals were few. I came across a station with a big signal, and worked him easily. Then I noticed he was working lots of folks! I suspect he had put a lot more time and energy into his 80 meter station than we had into ours. Is it fair he gets to make more contacts with his bigger better station? I think I would argue it is. It is his reward for all of that effort. Did he make it possible for stations that may not have otherwise made a contact 80 to make a contact? Yes, he did. He was monopolizing the frequency, but it seemed to make for a lot of contacts....
Joe kk0sd -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Cunningham Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 9:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FD Mess Excellent! Now let's move to the next step of business and address the true "FD Mess" that comes around every year. The focus is around the FM satellite chaos. Several of us know the when, where, and why the 1 QSO limit was imposed. What I would like to see happen to address this issue is look at the real statistics, before and after the institution of this ruling for the 1 QSO limit. Look at the data and determine how many more QSO's were made before this ruling when a Net Control style of operation took place. If you need help I can provide the hit rate from our Field Day data way back when. It is bigger than many might realize. This type of operation brought about the same level of comment at the time, but I think we overlooked the benefit due to all the rants. With a 1 QSO point credit limit, we removed the fact that somebody could monopolize and run up their point count. Thus, the 1 QSO limit achieved its goal. This issue is that it went too far and promoted chaos. The reason for this investigation applies directly to the new title you are suggesting for the AMSAT event titled "2012 AMSAT Field Day Emergency Preparedness". In the original intent of Field Day it is only reasonable to pull away from this title that we are communicators finding ways to communicate effectively and efficiently. That being the case I think you will find that that a reasonable net control operation on an FM satellite may yield the most completed 2-way QSO's than letting chaos reign. The ARRL even promotes nets for a reason! We have let chaos reign far too long when some may recall when a net control style of operation yielded the most complete 2-way QSO's. Decipher the data and let the data speak for itself. We ran an experiment many years ago on an FM satellite during Field Day that brought on this ruling and we know that a net control style of operation is the only way to command control and bring more orderly operation than a free for all. The current rule on an FM satellite does not promote the style of operation that would normally be conducted under emergency preparedness condition. We can change this and it has been proven that a Net Control style of operation can increase the QSO count. I cannot help but remember listening in frustration years ago when people were calling aimlessly on an FM satellite during Field Day and very few were making 2-way exchanges. We could not stand it! Our station got on the air a few passes and became a target in a Net Style operation and stations were calling the target and we dished out QSO's to many station when nothing was being accomplished at the time. It brought order to chaos and QSO's were being made quickly. The operation was not about the points, but it was all about communicating. However, the aftermath of this specific operation created the great FM satellite rift. It is time to move forward and change the course of chaos. My suggestion is to allow a Net Control type of operation. Let us say you make 5, 10 or more sequential QSO's and pass it off to another station who can capture and command the satellite, if there is one. Efficiency is improved when there is a target. I guess my only point here is that doing nothing will change nothing. We still have the 1 QSO limit so nobody has to worry about a monopoly or somebody running up there point total. I would do it and not claim a QSO point if needed in order to see it changed for the better. When somebody hears a target station they will call it and/or the target station can respond to those calling. This operation clearly netted the most QSO's being made at a specific time in history. It also clears traffic on the satellite faster when stations get their 100 bonus points for the ARRL event or 1 point for the AMSAT event. At this point the other station is dancing in the field bragging about their contact plus they would not get any additional credit even if they made another contact anyway. Disallowing a net style or control point for multiple contacts on an FM satellite only promotes chaos. This is my point and a suggestion for the box. Thank you for your interest and sincerity in advance, Tim - N8DEU ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Paige To: Tim Cunningham ; [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: FD Mess I can handle that... next year it will be "2012 AMSAT Field Day Emergency Preparedness" 73...bruce ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Tim Cunningham <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, June 27, 2011 4:49:06 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FD Mess Read the AMSAT rules. The title of the AMSAT rules IS clear when you read the title as "2011 AMSAT Field Day Competition ". Tim - N8DEU ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Geiger" <[email protected]> To: "STeve Andre'" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 2:11 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FD Mess Of course it isn't a contest. The best evidence is that they print the scores in QST! 73s John AA5JG On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:09 PM, STeve Andre' <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, is IS a contest, no matter what the ARRL says. People see it as > such. > My first FD before I was a ham, looked like a contest to me and it was > only > later, reading all the ARRL books I could get ahold of that I realized it > really wasn't one. > > All contests where you go outside are test runs for emergency stuff. > Our club in Ann Arbor MI (Arrow Communication Association) does the > summer vhf+ contests outside (6m-1296) and those have been a great > way to figure out ways of doing stuff. > > I would argue that the ARRL needs to change the way they talk, and > offer FD as both a contest and exercise in communications, and > speak of the exercise opportunities at the other contests, especially > those of rovers. > > --STeve Andre' > wb8wsf en72 > > On 06/27/11 14:21, Nigel Gunn wrote: > > A bigger FD problem is that FD is advertised as a chance to demonstrate > > your emergency comms ability to Joe Public. > > FD is NOT a contest so why are points and bonuses involved at all? > > > > On 27/06/11 19:13, Bill Acito W1PA wrote: > >> I think we have to let go of the mantra that “any use of the bandwidth > is good use” with respect to “encouraging more satellite activity”. Wasn’t > that the original intent of the “100 point bonus” items? To encourage > specific activities – traffic handling, promotion, emergency power, etc. > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb > _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
