From: ve3hx []
Sent: 10 July 2015 04:43
To: John Gould
Subject: Comments on White Paper 2015

Dear Dr. Gould,

Below please find a copy of a letter I am sending to the Contest Committee.

BERU has been my favourite contest for many years and I trust proposed
changes 2.10 and 6.9 won’t be made. They seem to be a sure way to ruin a
well run and adjudicated contest.


Alan Goodacre VE3HX
1286 Woodside Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K2C 2G9
July 9, 2015
RSGB Contest Committee
Radio Society of Great Britain
3 Abbey Court
Priory Business Park
MK44 3WH
England, UK


In the July issue of RadCom you very thoughtfully ask for comments about
the Contest Committee’s 2015 White Paper so I would like to offer the
following comments:

1. I welcome the proposed requirement in rule 6.5 to provide the power
output used by the entrant. In past BERU contests when I was in the open
category I could have listed my power as 1000 watts which is what the input
power to the final stage of my transmitter was and this was in accordance
with Canadian regulations. But who lists their input power when submitting a
log? My output power was 500 watts which is within Canadian regulations
whereas 1000 watts output power is not according to Industry Canada
publication RBR-4.

2. Having participated in BERU for many years I am AGHAST at proposal
2.10 to let the whole world work Commonwealth stations! I thought that the
purpose of the Commonwealth Contest is to promote friendships amongst
amateurs in the Commonwealth countries. In addition, you will basically
remove those entrants who are running 100 watts to a wire antenna from
contention in making contacts with the rarer Commonwealth prefixes
because non-Commonwealth operators running kilowatt plus stations will be
mainly interested in those rare entities and not the run-of-the-mill
Commonwealth stations (such as VE3s).

3. To whom does proposed rule change 6.9 cater? What is wrong with
remembering that the contest has its roots in the British Empire Radio Union?
In addition, CQ BERU sounds much better on CW than CQ CC.

In summary, proposed change 6.5 is welcome but as far as proposed changes
2.10 and 6.9 are concerned “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”.

Best regards,
Alan Goodacre VE3HX