Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
We are are going to allow remote receivers, why not remote transmitters all over the world too...It if were legal. We might as well just get on any one of the messaging systems, Facebook, Apple, Hangouts, Skype and have contests and free up the airwaves for more important stuff. You need to hear my transmitter from your location and I need to hear yours from mine. I am a proponent of remote radio where ALL of the receiving and transmitting is done from the same SINGLE remote site with the same distance radius for that equipment to be in. Mike W0MU On 3/17/2015 8:27 AM, Andy Blank wrote: Guys, please keep up this discussion. I am reading all the comments, and it helps to hear what people are thinking. I won't make any personal comments until after I digest it all. I will tell one little story about last night. Although I am not really a DXer, I happened upon the E30 on 1811 with a very strong signal. There was a huge pileup of USA calling, including me. He worked just a couple of EU stations, and no USA that I could tell. It occurred to me he should just dial into to a Web SDR and listen. But that is not a pure radio QSO If he has local noise they need to figure out a way to hear on site. Or maybe not... I am so confused. 73, Andy N2NT On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Kris Mraz n5kilom...@gmail.com wrote: CQWW used to have the Xtreme category that allowed/encouraged remote internet stations. Seems like that's the place for those who want to use remote receivers. I haven't kept up with that category but I believe it was dropped in 2013. Kris, N5KM _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: Fw: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
Ham radio, like life in general, is evolving. With a lot of technology change, it's a good time to breath some fresh air and let it jell out. E30FB did work a few NA, but only on signal peaks. Other wise they had problems receiving in deep QRM. (Even VE1ZZ had to repeat his call). 73 Bruce-K1FZ www.qsl.net/k1fz/pennantnotes.html . Although I am not really a DXer, I happened upon the E30 on 1811 with a very strong signal. There was a huge pileup of USA calling, including me. He worked just a couple of EU stations, and no USA that I could tell. It occurred to me he should just dial into to a Web SDR and listen. But that is not a pure radio QSO If he has local noise they need to figure out a way to hear on site. Or maybe not... I am so confused. 73, Andy N2NT On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Kris Mraz n5kilom...@gmail.com wrote: CQWW used to have the Xtreme category that allowed/encouraged remote internet stations. Seems like that's the place for those who want to use remote receivers. I haven't kept up with that category but I believe it was dropped in 2013. Kris, N5KM _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: What IS troubling about this report
Hey Gary, You took the words out of my mouth. I also listened on the calling QRG and found the same OTers calling, calling and calling w/o listening. One reason I like QSK so much is that I can stop calling as soon as I hear the station come back to someone, maybe even me. 73 de Walt - K2WK -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gary Smith Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:55 AM To: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: What IS troubling about this report What is sad to me is all of the bad things that have been mentioned are seen affecting every DXpedetion or unusual DX working today. It's not just the common experience of dealing with these LIDS, it is the unrelenting, continuous experience of it. I'm sure there isn't one example of stupidity in operation I can comment on that isn't familiar to each of us. I was listening to a pileup from the E3 and some lid East NE from my oceanside QTH kept calling; NA NA NA only NA NA NA ad nauseum. Then came OBAMA OBAMA NA NA NA. It's obvious the guy is mentally disturbed but that's tough to keep listening to when you're trying to hear a faint DX signal through him. It sure would have been helpful if the E3 would have shifted Tx freq a bit. Somebody sent something back to the lid about his mother and amazingly the QRM stopped with that but moments later so did the E3. The LID got his wish. As many have mentioned, the incessant calling when the the DX is not calling to them is pervasive and also seemingly eternal, crosses international sources and is by no means confined to new hams who don't know the code. I was curious to listen to the people calling the DX, as if I were the DX, and listened with the main sub on the K3, the DX in the left ear the pileup in the right. It was incredible to hear so many older calls were completely ignoring who the DX was trying to pull out; The DX calls AA2? and W1..., KP4..., W5.. not to mention myriads of EU and SA are calling in the pileup, calls that long predate any no-code licensing period. These guys know exactly what they are doing and it is intentional QRM of a different sort. I do feel rankled when people blame this on the no-code licensees. I got my Extra back 35 years ago so I have no dog in this no-code = bad CW operators in the pileups hunt. Seems to me the vast majority of offenders are long term hams who have lost their upbringing. One more thing I lament tremendously (non-pileup related), is the lack of interest in name, real signal report QTH with a QSO now-a-days. I understand computer logging makes so much irrelevant like name/QTH and that a signal report is sort of useless anyway as someone with an indoor dipole in the basement won't give or get the same report as a triband would give at the same QTH, but it is tradition. For sure, only rarely with todays radios worldwide do I hear bad signals. But... I feel badly when I make a non-DXpedetion Q and I send 579 name is Gary QTH CT and get a TU CQ CQ CQ DE XYZ in return. When I hear a bad signal on the air, I now-a-days send them an email telling them date time freq what their signal sounds like, I would want to know if my signal was defective. Amazing how very few replies I get back from those comments. Makes me wonder if they like that situation as it makes their signal stand out over the clean ones. I heard JA1NUT CQing on 15M CW remembered his QSL card from ragchews long ago, gave him a call had a45 minute ragchew with him, the first CW ragchew I've had in years it seems. Our first QSO was in 87, had a couple more till 97 and hadn't heard him till this this one in 2014. During the QSO we both lamented the loss of CW ragchews and the vogue contest-like/minimalist-style QSOs of today. I really appreciated that QSO with him. One of the things I like about this and its brother-contesting forums is what seems to be a common bond of interest in maintaining dignity in Ham Radio, and achieving a station that hears well and transmits well. I always look to see what new email comes into this folder for I know that among us are the people that make Ham Radio fun and something to share with newcomers to the hobby. These other people who don't listen or think when they transmit are beyond my comprehension. 73, Gary KA1J --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: DSP and Latency
Current fastest way of communicating between two points on the planet is via neutrino beam (which travels just fine through solid rock, we don't need no stinking ether or fiber). Incidentally, they use something very similar to morse code (regrettably, not actual morse code!). See http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2847 Look at the size of their collaboration! Must be 100 authors on that paper. Makes most multi-multi's look tiny. Of course they only ever had one claimed QSO and it wasn't even 2-way :-) Tim N3QE On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm he...@vitelcom.net wrote: I listen here to Yuri N2TTA operate my remote contest station NP2P (SO2R) here from his apartment in NYC. My latency to his location is about 120 ms and the link is end to end fiber which travels at about 124,000 miles per second. I can not detect any delay nor problems even when he is running stations at 200 or more q's per hour at 40 wpm. It is really an improved technology via the internet. But ironically since fiber is slower than microwave, end to end stock market traders who have set up microwave links to Chicago from Wall Street are able to make fortunes by using a faster speed and scooping up transactions by arriving a few ms ahead of the orders coming in via fiber. Amazing stuff I think that Albert Einstein even studied the possibility of having matter travel faster than light. Right now all we have working is mental telepathy which reminds me of some of my 160 meter DX QSO's in 40db over S9 tropical QRN.☺ Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ On 3/17/2015 5:41 PM, Jim Brown wrote: On Tue,3/17/2015 12:48 PM, Frank Bogers - ON9CC / PA9A wrote: Audio latency can be solved by DSP. What do you mean solve? Latency is TIME -- more specifically, it is the time it takes electrical signals to get from point A to point B. If digital transport is involved, there is also the time it takes to convert from A/D and D/A. Transmission via radio is at the speed of light. Transmission via the internet is much slower, because of routing protocols and the equipment needed to implement them. Typical internet latencies are in the range of 100 msec, so you're a bit behind. DSP can ADD delay, so that two signals are more nearly in sync, but it cannot REMOVE delay. Also, ALL signals are delayed -- CW, RTTY, control signals, not just audio. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
I almost gave up Amateur Radio living and working here in Las Vegas, where the average subdivision lot is 4000sqft or less. Not to mention CCRs. A city acre these days is just shy of $1-million. My station is network controlled to my Arizona ranch property 200 miles away. I make it very clear that all contacts are from Arizona and not from Nevada on QRZ. It's been that way for ten years. Any real contest efforts are made on site. There have been times when weather prohibited me from getting into the remote site safely. In that case I bag the test and make a few random remote QSOs. All operation is from the remote and meets the radius rules for receivers and transmitter. Quote Mike W0MU, You need to hear my transmitter from your location and I need to hear yours from mine. I am a proponent of remote radio where ALL of the receiving and transmitting is done from the same SINGLE remote site with the same distance radius for that equipment to be in. Seems to me this is a fair and equitable solution. Enforceable, probably not. -- W7RH DM35OS Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
The simple solution to #1 seems to be allowing only ONE receive location. Too much separation between TX and RX sites will cause an asymmetrical situation with regard to propagation, especially spotlight and greyline propagation. I believe limiting to a single RX site, at least amongst the honest operators, will largely make any arbitrary distance requirement unnecessary. The #2's will continue to be... #2. -Jeff, W0ODS From: Tree t...@kkn.net To: 160 topband@contesting.com Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:15 AM Subject: Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests There are two basic issues I see here: 1. Should remote receivers be allowed. 2. There will be cheaters. Let's try to make sure we are talking only one of them. We can argue if remote receivers should be okay for 100 km away - or zero km away - but that is not going to have any impact to #2. From my perspective - allowing them to some degree has NO impact on the cheating aspect. Tree On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:09 AM, mstang...@comcast.net wrote: Jim, I agree with you that contesting is an ego booster. Operating proficiency takes a back seat to using excessive power and any aid, ethical or otherwise, to get the highest score or snag that elusive state or country. How would yo modify the rules to permit a level playing field? Mike N2MS - Original Message - From: Jim Brown j...@audiosystemsgroup.com To: topband@contesting.com Sent: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 06:14:30 - (UTC) Subject: Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests I agree, as long as it also applies to a station that is operated remotely. If we know about cheaters and are certain of it, why are their identities not made public? I strongly disagree with W2GD on one thing though. DX Contesting is an East Coast Old Boys' Club, and while it makes them happy and boosts their egos, it is NOT good for contesting in general. There is VERY little interest in DX contesting west of the Rockies in proportion to the numbers of hams in each region. It is LONG past time for DX Contest scoring rules to be changed so that those outside the East Coast are in the game. 73, Jim K9YCI __ _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 147, Issue 19
Hi Bill, Just to see what would happen I even took the top off with the blow touch right on the material and it would just glow and never ignite. I am thinking the material has gotten old and not longer wants to ignite. I would think the blow torch would be as hot as any spark. Any other comments welcome. I am going to try another container of the igniter but they have all been stored in the same area possibly 10 years. 73 Mike From: topband-requ...@contesting.com Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:00 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 147, Issue 19 Send Topband mailing list submissions to topband@contesting.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to topband-requ...@contesting.com You can reach the person managing the list at topband-ow...@contesting.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Topband digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: CADWELLS (Bill Wichers) 2. Re: CADWELLS (Art Snapper) 3. Re: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests (Kris Mraz) 4. Re: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests (Andy Blank) 5. Re: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests (Stan Stockton) 6. Re: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests (W0MU Mike Fatchett) 7. Fw: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests (k1fz) 8. Re: What IS troubling about this report (Walt) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 02:11:00 + From: Bill Wichers bi...@waveform.net To: Cecil chac...@cableone.net Cc: TOPBAND TOPBAND@CONTESTING.COM, Mike Greenway k...@bellsouth.net Subject: Re: Topband: CADWELLS Message-ID: 2fb91b25-63dd-4b9a-931f-583d0e1ca...@waveform.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Just to add: the spark igniter is a flint-type unit. Those used for starting a torch would probably work too but would be more difficult to aim into the mold than the gun-like cadweld ones are. -Bill Sent from my iPhone On Mar 16, 2015, at 9:35 PM, Cecil chac...@cableone.net wrote: There is a spark igniter that is used with cadweld...I've had trouble lighting them off with a propane torch. Usually if they have been stored in a dry location they are good for years. The blue tube is loaded with an igniting compound in the bottom...so it is the last thing that goes into the mold and a small amount of it is trailed over the edge to facilitate lighting once the lid is closed. So just any of the powder won't light off you have to light off the starter powder. Cecil Sent using recycled electrons. On Mar 16, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Mike Greenway k...@bellsouth.net wrote: I some have old style Cadwell that require lighting off with a torch. I have had them for many years and apparently the chemical mixture has gotten too old to fire off as I tried one today and just no reaction. Has anyone run into this before? Don?t guess there anything easily mixed up to replace the thermo compound. 73 Mike K4PI _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband -- Message: 2 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:57:50 -0400 From: Art Snapper a...@nk8x.net Cc: TOPBAND TOPBAND@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: CADWELLS Message-ID: CAH6Jzym390g=l0nmzcgxrybnhncbre7fespf65eqzpfb1up...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sparklers (kids fireworks) can be an effective fuse for Cadwelds. It even works in the rain. 73 Art On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Bill Wichers bi...@waveform.net wrote: Just to add: the spark igniter is a flint-type unit. Those used for starting a torch would probably work too but would be more difficult to aim into the mold than the gun-like cadweld ones are. -Bill Sent from my iPhone On Mar 16, 2015, at 9:35 PM, Cecil chac...@cableone.net wrote: There is a spark igniter that is used with cadweld...I've had trouble lighting them off with a propane torch. Usually if they have been stored in a dry location they are good for years. The blue tube is loaded with an igniting compound in the bottom...so it is the last thing that goes into the mold and a small amount of it is trailed over the edge to facilitate lighting once the lid is closed. So just any of the powder won't light off you have to light off the starter powder. Cecil Sent using recycled electrons. On Mar 16, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Mike Greenway k...@bellsouth.net wrote: I some have old style Cadwell that require lighting off with a torch. I have had them for many years and apparently the chemical mixture has gotten too old to fire off as I tried one today and just no reaction. Has anyone run
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
What is competitive about DXCC? How can we have a competition when there is no start and finish? Are people passionate about DXCC and working new ones? Absolutely! I am a member of the Mile Hi DX Association. We all do our own thing and try to help others and get the DX in everyone's log. If I was competing against them why would I want to help them? Maybe those of us in the rarefied marijuana rocky mountain high do thing differently. There is nothing stopping people from doing it the old school way, which has changed over time or whatever way they want within the rules. Nothing needs to change. Your DXCC does not say all contact made at location does it? You do it your way within the rules and I will do it my way. Your way is not any better or worse than my way or any other way as long as it is within the rules. Mike W0MU _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: DSP and Latency
On Tue,3/17/2015 12:48 PM, Frank Bogers - ON9CC / PA9A wrote: Audio latency can be solved by DSP. What do you mean solve? Latency is TIME -- more specifically, it is the time it takes electrical signals to get from point A to point B. If digital transport is involved, there is also the time it takes to convert from A/D and D/A. Transmission via radio is at the speed of light. Transmission via the internet is much slower, because of routing protocols and the equipment needed to implement them. Typical internet latencies are in the range of 100 msec, so you're a bit behind. DSP can ADD delay, so that two signals are more nearly in sync, but it cannot REMOVE delay. Also, ALL signals are delayed -- CW, RTTY, control signals, not just audio. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: CADWELL
For all that responded thanks for the input. I took another canister of the igniter/powder and this time looked closely at the bottom of the pile that was dumped. There appear to be a few granules that are at the bottom that are a little larger ie 1/8 inch maybe that must be the igniter. I don’t recall seeing this on the first canister. This time I used a flint lighter that was used in the old school days of lighting a propane torch. It took off like a scalded dog and I see why they have gone to an electric igniters on the newer models. You could get seriously burned if you are not cautious. Now I just need a canister of the material to replaced the one that more of less went to waste. That is probably something I will never find but who knows. Anyway first ground rod done. 73 Mike K4PI _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Fw: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
Jim, I take no side (yet) on this issue but RHR has changed that game. If you can't afford to build the remote station, you can easily rent a station for any contest and use it. That is entirely within the rules as they exist today. 73, Andy N2NT On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Jim Brown j...@audiosystemsgroup.com wrote: On Tue,3/17/2015 10:10 AM, Art Snapper wrote: The easiest answer IMHO, is to drop any distinction between a receiver and transmitter. In other words, if you are going to remote a receiver, you might as well remote the whole station. Remoting an entire station (TX/RX) is far more complex, and also far more invasive. It may, for example, be possible to get permission from a land owner for a couple of Beverages, but not for a full size TX antenna. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
I've been reading the mail on this and naturally have an opinion. The internet is not radio! ANY use of the internet during contests should be prohibited. Before, fine. After, fine. During? It ain't radio! No internet spotting! A remote receiver site that is linked by amateur radio is reasonable and should be allowed in a contest. Provided that only one site is used for the duration of the contest. Ditto for a remote transmitter site. This means that if a remote site is used the local site is excluded. If the link goes down...fix it or give up. This is radio! Spotting should be allowed but only on site or over radio. No telephone. No internet. PigeonOK, an exception for pigeon. I'm serious. No friends reporting spots from the internet over the radio. Special 'Olympics' Category stations exception. Use of the internet to interact with a station from afar. Think long sticks tied to the knobs because the shack is full of biting spiders or too far for the dialysis tubing. OK, provided only one station is used for the duration of the contest and the internet is used for nothing else. Violation voids the stations entry and all credit for contacts with that station. 73, Bob ah7i _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
If someone doesn't believe DXCC is a competition then you have never been to a DX club meeting, a DX Forum at a hamfest or attended a DX event where the Stand up and count down activity is conducted. You can classify it however you want, but it IS a competition just the same as a radio sport event because when it comes right down to it, radio sport is just a personal achievement with a similar plaque to hang on the wall just like DXCC. I enjoy both and also enjoying leaning back in my chair and admiring My personal achievements in both areas and also enjoy strutting around with those lapel pins on (c'monso does everyone else!! :-)) I have no issue with remotes being used to access a person's station in a single location, or a person using a station remotely that is located in a specific geographical area and identified as such. But to utilize a remote station to gain a geographical advantage in DXCC or a radiosport event is simply not fair or on a level field. I believe we all agree on that. One can argue over current rules, whether DXCC or radio sport, until we're exhausted and still have not changed each others opinion but we appear to all agree that 1)remote operation is here and will be from this day fourth; and 2) Rules will most definitely need to be revised and adjusted to address this. One could also argue that the impact on some amateur bands is minimal but when 160 meters and 6 meters come in to play there is a significant impact and therein lies part of the difficult issue to address. I, for one, look forward to the end result because I do believe rule revisions need to be made in both DXCC and radio sport, but my experience in the area of amateur radio rules, regulations and politics says this will be an ongoing evolution for a long time in both areas of DXCC competition and radio sport competition. 73 Joel W5ZN ARRL changed the rules to allow remotes within the country. I didn't. I don't even use remotes. The ARRL also allowed you to move around. These are completely different animals. Since you can move around and work DXCC then why not use Remote radios to work DX, ***IF you want* I worked DXCC stuff in Montana while I lived there and here in Colorado. Some people have chosen to start over. DXCC is a personal singular based award. What you do with DXCC and how you chase it has NO impact on my ability to chase my own DXCC. The alleged IT0XXX who worked K1N from the USA, probably operated that radio outside our laws and regs. He failed to identify properly and might have put the actual station owner at risk to FCC action. Exactly who was in control of that radio and how was this allowed to happen? Remote radio owners who share their stations might want to take note. Contesting is a specific event on specific dates. If Andy wants to allow remote SDR receivers and that is in the rules then if you want to be competitive you better figure out how to do that IF you want*. Contesting is a competition. DXCC is singular award that can take place over years and years.I can't understand how people think DXCC is a competition. Everyone can get DXCC Honor Roll #1. If we are all sitting at 339 and a new country comes up the guy that gets number 1 is not the first guy that makes it into the log. Everyone gets number 1 that works them and gets it confirmed, right? If a contest is created that allows participants to use remote radios anywhere in their country or allowed by all the various laws, so be it. Maybe it would be a big hit. It would be quite different than what we have now. Please explain to me how DXCC relates at all to Contesting. Mike W0MU On 3/17/2015 10:31 AM, Larry Burke wrote: Absolutely fascinating that you would hold this view for contesting but not for DXCC based on your historical comments, Mike. Larry K5RK -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:08 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests We are are going to allow remote receivers, why not remote transmitters all over the world too...It if were legal. We might as well just get on any one of the messaging systems, Facebook, Apple, Hangouts, Skype and have contests and free up the airwaves for more important stuff. You need to hear my transmitter from your location and I need to hear yours from mine. I am a proponent of remote radio where ALL of the receiving and transmitting is done from the same SINGLE remote site with the same distance radius for that equipment to be in. Mike W0MU _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband www.w5zn.org _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: DSP and Latency
I listen here to Yuri N2TTA operate my remote contest station NP2P (SO2R) here from his apartment in NYC. My latency to his location is about 120 ms and the link is end to end fiber which travels at about 124,000 miles per second. I can not detect any delay nor problems even when he is running stations at 200 or more q's per hour at 40 wpm. It is really an improved technology via the internet. But ironically since fiber is slower than microwave, end to end stock market traders who have set up microwave links to Chicago from Wall Street are able to make fortunes by using a faster speed and scooping up transactions by arriving a few ms ahead of the orders coming in via fiber. Amazing stuff I think that Albert Einstein even studied the possibility of having matter travel faster than light. Right now all we have working is mental telepathy which reminds me of some of my 160 meter DX QSO's in 40db over S9 tropical QRN.☺ Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ On 3/17/2015 5:41 PM, Jim Brown wrote: On Tue,3/17/2015 12:48 PM, Frank Bogers - ON9CC / PA9A wrote: Audio latency can be solved by DSP. What do you mean solve? Latency is TIME -- more specifically, it is the time it takes electrical signals to get from point A to point B. If digital transport is involved, there is also the time it takes to convert from A/D and D/A. Transmission via radio is at the speed of light. Transmission via the internet is much slower, because of routing protocols and the equipment needed to implement them. Typical internet latencies are in the range of 100 msec, so you're a bit behind. DSP can ADD delay, so that two signals are more nearly in sync, but it cannot REMOVE delay. Also, ALL signals are delayed -- CW, RTTY, control signals, not just audio. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
Well said, Joel. And let's not forget the DXCC Challenge. Google De Soto Cup and you get ARRL press releases like ARRL Announces DeSoto Cup Winner, DXCC Challenge Top 10. Something with a winner and a top 10 sure sounds competitive to me. - Larry K5RK -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joel Harrison Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:35 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests If someone doesn't believe DXCC is a competition then you have never been to a DX club meeting, a DX Forum at a hamfest or attended a DX event where the Stand up and count down activity is conducted. You can classify it however you want, but it IS a competition just the same as a radio sport event because when it comes right down to it, radio sport is just a personal achievement with a similar plaque to hang on the wall just like DXCC. I enjoy both and also enjoying leaning back in my chair and admiring My personal achievements in both areas and also enjoy strutting around with those lapel pins on (c'monso does everyone else!! :-)) I have no issue with remotes being used to access a person's station in a single location, or a person using a station remotely that is located in a specific geographical area and identified as such. But to utilize a remote station to gain a geographical advantage in DXCC or a radiosport event is simply not fair or on a level field. I believe we all agree on that. One can argue over current rules, whether DXCC or radio sport, until we're exhausted and still have not changed each others opinion but we appear to all agree that 1)remote operation is here and will be from this day fourth; and 2) Rules will most definitely need to be revised and adjusted to address this. One could also argue that the impact on some amateur bands is minimal but when 160 meters and 6 meters come in to play there is a significant impact and therein lies part of the difficult issue to address. I, for one, look forward to the end result because I do believe rule revisions need to be made in both DXCC and radio sport, but my experience in the area of amateur radio rules, regulations and politics says this will be an ongoing evolution for a long time in both areas of DXCC competition and radio sport competition. 73 Joel W5ZN ARRL changed the rules to allow remotes within the country. I didn't. I don't even use remotes. The ARRL also allowed you to move around. These are completely different animals. Since you can move around and work DXCC then why not use Remote radios to work DX, ***IF you want* I worked DXCC stuff in Montana while I lived there and here in Colorado. Some people have chosen to start over. DXCC is a personal singular based award. What you do with DXCC and how you chase it has NO impact on my ability to chase my own DXCC. The alleged IT0XXX who worked K1N from the USA, probably operated that radio outside our laws and regs. He failed to identify properly and might have put the actual station owner at risk to FCC action. Exactly who was in control of that radio and how was this allowed to happen? Remote radio owners who share their stations might want to take note. Contesting is a specific event on specific dates. If Andy wants to allow remote SDR receivers and that is in the rules then if you want to be competitive you better figure out how to do that IF you want*. Contesting is a competition. DXCC is singular award that can take place over years and years.I can't understand how people think DXCC is a competition. Everyone can get DXCC Honor Roll #1. If we are all sitting at 339 and a new country comes up the guy that gets number 1 is not the first guy that makes it into the log. Everyone gets number 1 that works them and gets it confirmed, right? If a contest is created that allows participants to use remote radios anywhere in their country or allowed by all the various laws, so be it. Maybe it would be a big hit. It would be quite different than what we have now. Please explain to me how DXCC relates at all to Contesting. Mike W0MU On 3/17/2015 10:31 AM, Larry Burke wrote: Absolutely fascinating that you would hold this view for contesting but not for DXCC based on your historical comments, Mike. Larry K5RK -Original Message- From: Topband [ mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:08 AM To: mailto:topband@contesting.com topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests We are are going to allow remote receivers, why not remote transmitters all over the world too...It if were legal. We might as well just get on any one of the messaging systems, Facebook, Apple, Hangouts, Skype
Re: Topband: Fw: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
On Tue,3/17/2015 10:10 AM, Art Snapper wrote: The easiest answer IMHO, is to drop any distinction between a receiver and transmitter. In other words, if you are going to remote a receiver, you might as well remote the whole station. Remoting an entire station (TX/RX) is far more complex, and also far more invasive. It may, for example, be possible to get permission from a land owner for a couple of Beverages, but not for a full size TX antenna. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
I agree with you Joel, DXCC is a competitive endeavor, in a different way than contesting but competitive none the less and it's excluded from the discussions here I believe because the focus of this list and it's membership is contesting. The use of remote receiving sites especially for the low bands is a game changer for DXCC as wellI don't doubt that remote transceiver sites are being used on other continents to achieve contacts with some of the rare DX and expeditions as well...they may not be part of the RHR system but they are not the only game in town. How do you police it...don't know... I do think if there were another category to compete in...say an Unlimited category those utilizing that technology under the radar now would be more likely to move to that category and compete openly with full disclosure as opposed to continuing to cheat in a Legacy category. Maybe then it would just sort itself out. I do agree...the genie is out of the bottle and has been for some time and we are going to need changes to set things right or we risk diluting the process whether it be contest events or DXCC to the point where many see it as having lost all integrity and value. That's where many are now with the DXCC program. Let's hope for changes to both the contesting and DXCC processes that allow for both the Legacy (old school) ops and the new generation techie stations to coexist peacefully and productively. Cecil K5DL Sent using recycled electrons. On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Joel Harrison w...@w5zn.org wrote: If someone doesn't believe DXCC is a competition then you have never been to a DX club meeting, a DX Forum at a hamfest or attended a DX event where the Stand up and count down activity is conducted. You can classify it however you want, but it IS a competition just the same as a radio sport event because when it comes right down to it, radio sport is just a personal achievement with a similar plaque to hang on the wall just like DXCC. I enjoy both and also enjoying leaning back in my chair and admiring My personal achievements in both areas and also enjoy strutting around with those lapel pins on (c'monso does everyone else!! :-)) I have no issue with remotes being used to access a person's station in a single location, or a person using a station remotely that is located in a specific geographical area and identified as such. But to utilize a remote station to gain a geographical advantage in DXCC or a radiosport event is simply not fair or on a level field. I believe we all agree on that. One can argue over current rules, whether DXCC or radio sport, until we're exhausted and still have not changed each others opinion but we appear to all agree that 1)remote operation is here and will be from this day fourth; and 2) Rules will most definitely need to be revised and adjusted to address this. One could also argue that the impact on some amateur bands is minimal but when 160 meters and 6 meters come in to play there is a significant impact and therein lies part of the difficult issue to address. I, for one, look forward to the end result because I do believe rule revisions need to be made in both DXCC and radio sport, but my experience in the area of amateur radio rules, regulations and politics says this will be an ongoing evolution for a long time in both areas of DXCC competition and radio sport competition. 73 Joel W5ZN ARRL changed the rules to allow remotes within the country. I didn't. I don't even use remotes. The ARRL also allowed you to move around. These are completely different animals. Since you can move around and work DXCC then why not use Remote radios to work DX, ***IF you want* I worked DXCC stuff in Montana while I lived there and here in Colorado. Some people have chosen to start over. DXCC is a personal singular based award. What you do with DXCC and how you chase it has NO impact on my ability to chase my own DXCC. The alleged IT0XXX who worked K1N from the USA, probably operated that radio outside our laws and regs. He failed to identify properly and might have put the actual station owner at risk to FCC action. Exactly who was in control of that radio and how was this allowed to happen? Remote radio owners who share their stations might want to take note. Contesting is a specific event on specific dates. If Andy wants to allow remote SDR receivers and that is in the rules then if you want to be competitive you better figure out how to do that IF you want*. Contesting is a competition. DXCC is singular award that can take place over years and years.I can't understand how people think DXCC is a competition. Everyone can get DXCC Honor Roll #1. If we are all sitting at 339 and a new country comes up the guy that gets number 1 is not the first guy that makes it into the log. Everyone gets number 1 that works them and gets it
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
Hi Tree, all, I believe there 's a third basic issue here: 3. The change of the leveling playing field Adaptions of shortcuts introduces new opportunities within the rules. Although the Remote RX station is initially meant to serve those who are hampered by local noise in the city, others will make use of it as well, changing the leveled playing field. One has to plan his Remote RX location strategically. Within the rules there now is an advantage by gaining from propagation and/or geographical differences. Most top stations have good locations, but there is always a better/quieter one within 100km. Even 10 - 30 kms can make a difference working the weak ones, using diversity. Audio latency can be solved by DSP. Please let me explain and use my current situation as a possible example'. I run a small sized contest station in a small town. During winter time I am allowed to use the field of my neighbour farmer to setup several full sized beverages in all directions. It all works fb and offers me very satisfying results. With the new Remote RX possibility, to be competitive I am forced to do the allowed upgrade and add two RX sites: - One to the max west border right near the sea. This allows for easier working of more QRP stations from the British Islands and secondly it delivers a propagation advantage towards W/VE. - The second one will be at the south border, up in the hills at a top location which is even more quiet than my current QTH and offers the right downslope to create superb take-off from an 8-circle or so. I will not be the only station designing such an upgrade, within the new rules. Someone in France will have ST1 in Bretagne at the sea and ST2 near Nice(Italy), similar for the Germans who will have to install ST1 at the North-Sea near Hamburg, and ST2 beyond Munich near the OE-border. Other countries might have less available strategic geographical opportunities. Now let's see how many stations will (have to) upgrade in the next two years... Another possible scenario is that the competition will even move it's remote RX station to another continent. That's even 'better' and if you need to setup remote RX set it up as far away as you can (where is the limit?). So they have an advantage by taking the shortcut, while others do what HAM radio and Topband is all about. So my answer to the first basic issue: the whole contesting game will be affected and as such Remote RX should not be allowed during 160m contests. Topband will loose a lot of it's flair and I think most of us like 160m because it's a challenge ... My 2 cents. 73 Frank ON9CC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
When multiple streaming receive sites are approved for competition, I expect that DSP software will be developed to sum the signals and subtract the noise and QRM. I'm not sure how well this would work for voice, but it should work for cw/rtty. Art On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Frank Bogers - ON9CC / PA9A p...@live.nl wrote: Hi Tree, all, I believe there 's a third basic issue here: 3. The change of the leveling playing field Adaptions of shortcuts introduces new opportunities within the rules. Although the Remote RX station is initially meant to serve those who are hampered by local noise in the city, others will make use of it as well, changing the leveled playing field. One has to plan his Remote RX location strategically. Within the rules there now is an advantage by gaining from propagation and/or geographical differences. Most top stations have good locations, but there is always a better/quieter one within 100km. Even 10 - 30 kms can make a difference working the weak ones, using diversity. Audio latency can be solved by DSP. Please let me explain and use my current situation as a possible example'. I run a small sized contest station in a small town. During winter time I am allowed to use the field of my neighbour farmer to setup several full sized beverages in all directions. It all works fb and offers me very satisfying results. With the new Remote RX possibility, to be competitive I am forced to do the allowed upgrade and add two RX sites: - One to the max west border right near the sea. This allows for easier working of more QRP stations from the British Islands and secondly it delivers a propagation advantage towards W/VE. - The second one will be at the south border, up in the hills at a top location which is even more quiet than my current QTH and offers the right downslope to create superb take-off from an 8-circle or so. I will not be the only station designing such an upgrade, within the new rules. Someone in France will have ST1 in Bretagne at the sea and ST2 near Nice(Italy), similar for the Germans who will have to install ST1 at the North-Sea near Hamburg, and ST2 beyond Munich near the OE-border. Other countries might have less available strategic geographical opportunities. Now let's see how many stations will (have to) upgrade in the next two years... Another possible scenario is that the competition will even move it's remote RX station to another continent. That's even 'better' and if you need to setup remote RX set it up as far away as you can (where is the limit?). So they have an advantage by taking the shortcut, while others do what HAM radio and Topband is all about. So my answer to the first basic issue: the whole contesting game will be affected and as such Remote RX should not be allowed during 160m contests. Topband will loose a lot of it's flair and I think most of us like 160m because it's a challenge ... My 2 cents. 73 Frank ON9CC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
Andy, But that is not a pure radio QSO If he has local noise they need to figure out a way to hear on site. You were not confused with that thought. It was crystal clear thinking regarding what constitutes a valid two way QSO between two station locations without other communication methods involved. It's going to be 70 degrees today. Be the ball, Andy :-) 73...Stan, K5GO Sent from my iPad On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Andy Blank andyn...@gmail.com wrote: Guys, please keep up this discussion. I am reading all the comments, and it helps to hear what people are thinking. I won't make any personal comments until after I digest it all. I will tell one little story about last night. Although I am not really a DXer, I happened upon the E30 on 1811 with a very strong signal. There was a huge pileup of USA calling, including me. He worked just a couple of EU stations, and no USA that I could tell. It occurred to me he should just dial into to a Web SDR and listen. But that is not a pure radio QSO If he has local noise they need to figure out a way to hear on site. Or maybe not... I am so confused. 73, Andy N2NT On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Kris Mraz n5kilom...@gmail.com wrote: CQWW used to have the Xtreme category that allowed/encouraged remote internet stations. Seems like that's the place for those who want to use remote receivers. I haven't kept up with that category but I believe it was dropped in 2013. Kris, N5KM _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
Guys, please keep up this discussion. I am reading all the comments, and it helps to hear what people are thinking. I won't make any personal comments until after I digest it all. I will tell one little story about last night. Although I am not really a DXer, I happened upon the E30 on 1811 with a very strong signal. There was a huge pileup of USA calling, including me. He worked just a couple of EU stations, and no USA that I could tell. It occurred to me he should just dial into to a Web SDR and listen. But that is not a pure radio QSO If he has local noise they need to figure out a way to hear on site. Or maybe not... I am so confused. 73, Andy N2NT On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Kris Mraz n5kilom...@gmail.com wrote: CQWW used to have the Xtreme category that allowed/encouraged remote internet stations. Seems like that's the place for those who want to use remote receivers. I haven't kept up with that category but I believe it was dropped in 2013. Kris, N5KM _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
Absolutely fascinating that you would hold this view for contesting but not for DXCC based on your historical comments, Mike. Larry K5RK -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:08 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests We are are going to allow remote receivers, why not remote transmitters all over the world too...It if were legal. We might as well just get on any one of the messaging systems, Facebook, Apple, Hangouts, Skype and have contests and free up the airwaves for more important stuff. You need to hear my transmitter from your location and I need to hear yours from mine. I am a proponent of remote radio where ALL of the receiving and transmitting is done from the same SINGLE remote site with the same distance radius for that equipment to be in. Mike W0MU _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Fw: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
Xtreme category, where have I heard that term? Classical 160 meter operating involves real estate and the expenditure of lots of money or time for effective transmitting and receiving antenna systems and amplifiers. This is accomplished mostly by old men with lots of spending money and time on their hands, kind of like the Olympic games. How can younger people or those without the resources participate in these endeavors? They came up with the X-games instead of the Olympics. Hams are starting to use the newer technology to enhance their radio experience. I am one of those old men how is presently busy with work but retirement is on the horizon. I have an acre property now but my wife and I will probably downsize once our mixing product leaves the nest. If you asked me a decade ago I would preach the classical operator model but now I will take advantage of the new technology to allow me to operate in the future. Both methods have to co-exist or else the hobby will die. They should have additional categories for remote receiving or operating in contests and awards chasing. Mike N2MS - Original Message - From: k1fz k...@myfairpoint.net snip Ham radio, like life in general, is evolving. With a lot of technology change, it's a good time to breath some fresh air and let it jell out. snip 73 Bruce-K1FZ snip On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Kris Mraz n5kilom...@gmail.com wrote: CQWW used to have the Xtreme category that allowed/encouraged remote internet stations. Seems like that's the place for those who want to use remote receivers. I haven't kept up with that category but I believe it was dropped in 2013. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
ARRL changed the rules to allow remotes within the country. I didn't. I don't even use remotes. The ARRL also allowed you to move around. These are completely different animals. Since you can move around and work DXCC then why not use Remote radios to work DX, ***IF you want* I worked DXCC stuff in Montana while I lived there and here in Colorado. Some people have chosen to start over. DXCC is a personal singular based award. What you do with DXCC and how you chase it has NO impact on my ability to chase my own DXCC. The alleged IT0XXX who worked K1N from the USA, probably operated that radio outside our laws and regs. He failed to identify properly and might have put the actual station owner at risk to FCC action. Exactly who was in control of that radio and how was this allowed to happen? Remote radio owners who share their stations might want to take note. Contesting is a specific event on specific dates. If Andy wants to allow remote SDR receivers and that is in the rules then if you want to be competitive you better figure out how to do that IF you want*. Contesting is a competition. DXCC is singular award that can take place over years and years.I can't understand how people think DXCC is a competition. Everyone can get DXCC Honor Roll #1. If we are all sitting at 339 and a new country comes up the guy that gets number 1 is not the first guy that makes it into the log. Everyone gets number 1 that works them and gets it confirmed, right? If a contest is created that allows participants to use remote radios anywhere in their country or allowed by all the various laws, so be it. Maybe it would be a big hit. It would be quite different than what we have now. Please explain to me how DXCC relates at all to Contesting. Mike W0MU On 3/17/2015 10:31 AM, Larry Burke wrote: Absolutely fascinating that you would hold this view for contesting but not for DXCC based on your historical comments, Mike. Larry K5RK -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:08 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests We are are going to allow remote receivers, why not remote transmitters all over the world too...It if were legal. We might as well just get on any one of the messaging systems, Facebook, Apple, Hangouts, Skype and have contests and free up the airwaves for more important stuff. You need to hear my transmitter from your location and I need to hear yours from mine. I am a proponent of remote radio where ALL of the receiving and transmitting is done from the same SINGLE remote site with the same distance radius for that equipment to be in. Mike W0MU _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Fw: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
Hey Mike, This is why we work hard all our lives, so we can earn enough to do this. I, too, was on a small city lot most of my life. Noe I'm not (earned it). Dave, W5UN On 3/17/2015 4:44 PM, mstang...@comcast.net wrote: Xtreme category, where have I heard that term? Classical 160 meter operating involves real estate and the expenditure of lots of money or time for effective transmitting and receiving antenna systems and amplifiers. This is accomplished mostly by old men with lots of spending money and time on their hands, kind of like the Olympic games. How can younger people or those without the resources participate in these endeavors? They came up with the X-games instead of the Olympics. Hams are starting to use the newer technology to enhance their radio experience. I am one of those old men how is presently busy with work but retirement is on the horizon. I have an acre property now but my wife and I will probably downsize once our mixing product leaves the nest. If you asked me a decade ago I would preach the classical operator model but now I will take advantage of the new technology to allow me to operate in the future. Both methods have to co-exist or else the hobby will die. They should have additional categories for remote receiving or operating in contests and awards chasing. Mike N2MS - Original Message - From: k1fz k...@myfairpoint.net snip Ham radio, like life in general, is evolving. With a lot of technology change, it's a good time to breath some fresh air and let it jell out. snip 73 Bruce-K1FZ snip On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Kris Mraz n5kilom...@gmail.com wrote: CQWW used to have the Xtreme category that allowed/encouraged remote internet stations. Seems like that's the place for those who want to use remote receivers. I haven't kept up with that category but I believe it was dropped in 2013. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Fw: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
The easiest answer IMHO, is to drop any distinction between a receiver and transmitter. In other words, if you are going to remote a receiver, you might as well remote the whole station. Art On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un w...@wt.net wrote: Hey Mike, This is why we work hard all our lives, so we can earn enough to do this. I, too, was on a small city lot most of my life. Noe I'm not (earned it). Dave, W5UN On 3/17/2015 4:44 PM, mstang...@comcast.net wrote: Xtreme category, where have I heard that term? Classical 160 meter operating involves real estate and the expenditure of lots of money or time for effective transmitting and receiving antenna systems and amplifiers. This is accomplished mostly by old men with lots of spending money and time on their hands, kind of like the Olympic games. How can younger people or those without the resources participate in these endeavors? They came up with the X-games instead of the Olympics. Hams are starting to use the newer technology to enhance their radio experience. I am one of those old men how is presently busy with work but retirement is on the horizon. I have an acre property now but my wife and I will probably downsize once our mixing product leaves the nest. If you asked me a decade ago I would preach the classical operator model but now I will take advantage of the new technology to allow me to operate in the future. Both methods have to co-exist or else the hobby will die. They should have additional categories for remote receiving or operating in contests and awards chasing. Mike N2MS - Original Message - From: k1fz k...@myfairpoint.net snip Ham radio, like life in general, is evolving. With a lot of technology change, it's a good time to breath some fresh air and let it jell out. snip 73 Bruce-K1FZ snip On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Kris Mraz n5kilom...@gmail.com wrote: CQWW used to have the Xtreme category that allowed/encouraged remote internet stations. Seems like that's the place for those who want to use remote receivers. I haven't kept up with that category but I believe it was dropped in 2013. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Fw: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
On Tue,3/17/2015 9:44 AM, mstang...@comcast.net wrote: Classical 160 meter operating involves real estate and the expenditure of lots of money or time for effective transmitting and receiving antenna systems and amplifiers. This is accomplished mostly by old men with lots of spending money and time on their hands, kind of like the Olympic games. Exactly right. How can younger people or those without the resources participate in these endeavors? They came up with the X-games instead of the Olympics. Hams are starting to use the newer technology to enhance their radio experience. I am one of those old men how is presently busy with work but retirement is on the horizon. I have an acre property now but my wife and I will probably downsize once our mixing product leaves the nest. If you asked me a decade ago I would preach the classical operator model but now I will take advantage of the new technology to allow me to operate in the future. Both methods have to co-exist or else the hobby will die. They should have additional categories for remote receiving or operating in contests and awards chasing. Exactly right again. As an OT, ham since age 14 (1955), I'm about ten years ahead of you in the retirement game, with 8 acres of woods. I'm limited in what I can work by the RX noise of distant stations, and even here, with my nearest neighbors 500 ft from my antennas, I'm increasingly limited by their noise. I've got grow lights to the NE (EU) and a big solar installation at the border of my property (SE). Any model for the future that does not allow Joe Ham to somehow escape his increasingly noisy RF environment WILL lead to death of the hobby. The key is to make the rule(s) reasonable for reasonable people. The Stew Perry rule seems to be in the ballpark for individual contesters. I fully appreciate the technical challenges for multi-ops, and agree that for contest stations, TX and RX ought to be limited to a single site. And I strongly support remotely operated multi-ops, such as the recent operation that began this discussion a month or so ago, and that they ought to be treated as any other multi-op. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
