[Cwo] FW: CW OPEN

[Alan Maenchen]

Pete, thanks for forwarding.

All:  Please keep this discussion on the CWO at kkn.net reflector so we all
can share ideas.

A couple of thoughts ..

I think the initial CWO was successful despite the various problems.  We had
excellent turnout in NA.  We need to think how we can get AS and EU
involved. The answer probably lies in a different date. We need to think
about this.

Given the turnout we had, it was a bit long for 4 hours. However, I would
not advocate shortening it.  Instead, let's concentrate on building
participation.  The 04Z session is our "bad" session here in NA .. expected
.. but should have been the "sweet" session in AS and EU. That was the
intent.

Again, sorry for flaking out on Session 3 last night. My "running" was not
of the radio kind, and the nearest flush toilet was several miles away so I
packed it in early. I'm fine now.

73, Alan  AD6E



On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Peter Chamalian <w1rm at arrl.net> wrote:

> Bad email addresses…****
>
> ** **
>
> Pete, W1RM****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Peter Chamalian [mailto:w1rm at arrl.net]
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 21, 2011 11:44 AM
> *To:* 'Rob'; 'Jim Talens'; 'Don Greenbaum'; 'webaron at gmail.com'; '
> ad6e at inreach.com'; 'kz5d at arrl.net'; 'John Silva N3AM'
> *Subject:* RE: CW OPEN****
>
> ** **
>
> I totally agree on changing the date.  I also do not agree that 599 vlad is
> a valid exchange for anyone working a UA in the CWO and looking to claim the
> contact.  The intent is that 599 is a signal report not a serial number.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> As for the first session, RDA and conditions made this an SS like event and
> that killed us on the east coast.  Where I expected to be working lots of EU
> there were only a meager handful.  But that’s the way it goes…****
>
> ** **
>
> I was not able to be on for the 20z session due to a previous engagement so
> I sure hope conditions were better.****
>
> ** **
>
> As for 04z – naw, I’m asleep!****
>
> ** **
>
> Pete, W1RM****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Rob [mailto:k6rb at baymoon.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 21, 2011 10:49 AM
> *To:* Peter Chamalian; Jim Talens; Don Greenbaum; webaron at gmail.com;
> ad6e at inreach.com; kz5d at arrl.net; John Silva N3AM
> *Subject:* CW OPEN****
>
> ** **
>
> All told, I think CW OPEN was a success. Given all the factors beyond our
> control (RDA, JA "keyman," etc.), the first two sessions were well attended.
> Here are some things that need attention:****
>
>  ****
>
> - the date is not good (NAQP SSB and RDA)****
>
> - the last session (unless there are a lot of JAs and EUs is a problem)***
> *
>
>  ****
>
> First, I looked at the perpetual calendar on Bruce's website and the
> weekend of July 23 (or thereabouts) has virtual no conflicts of any kind.
> So, I would propose that next year we move it to that weekend, and publicize
> the change right away.****
>
>  ****
>
> Second, maybe if RDA and keyman were not an issue, we would have gotten
> more EU and JA players (I hope so). So, changing the schedule would solve
> that problem, too.****
>
>  ****
>
> Lastly, the 2000-2400Z session (session 2) should have been the "sweetspot"
> session in North America. If 20, 15 and 10 are all operative, even with only
> 200 players, a solid 10 meter opening would have minimized the dip when 15
> went "soft" but it was still too early for 40 to go "long." That is
> something, however, that we cannot control.****
>
>  ****
>
> I am open to suggestion about changing the starting times on any session;
> and open to suggestion about shortening the sessions from, say, 4 to 3
> hours. However, if we had sufficient participation, the 4-hour sessions seem
> like they should produce results.****
>
>  ****
>
> Anyway, introducing a new contest that has some significantly new
> structures, scoring, and the like is not easy and I think we all did a
> creditable job. I will write something up for Solid Copy for the next issue.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Rob K6RB****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Rob K6RB****
>
>  ****
>
>
>  ****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20110821/caf23571/attachment-0001.html