Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

That is NOT ALL true,  SOME stations are indeed other hams' stations and they 
get a piece of the action based on what the monthly draw of revenue on the 
station.  However, MANY and the majority of the sites are owned by them.  They 
buy property all over and set up these stations.  SO NOT ALL by any means are 
other hams' stations.

 I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is someone's
> home station (just like all the others in the network).
>




-Original Message-
From: Dave Blaschke, w5un 
To: Carl Luetzelschwab ; topband 

Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 1:15 am
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

I will say this:
operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone else 
will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by your 
hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to build 
one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a beautiful station 
and antenna system here over the past fifteen years, only to see much of 
it destroyed by storms in recent years. Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.

Dave, W5UN

On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:
> Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain these remote
> stations."
>
> My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the Remote Ham
> Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The stations
> are available for a price.
>
> I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is someone's
> home station (just like all the others in the network).
>
> Carl K9LA
> _
> 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: strange propagation

[Carl Luetzelschwab]

Everyone,

I stand corrected with respect to the ownership of the RHR stations.

But the main point is that Tree's observation was likely a remote station
(the one in Portland, OR being most likely), and not some highly-efficient
and unusual mode of 160m propagation.

Carl K9LA
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: lightning grounds for elevated radial antennas

[Grant Saviers]

A lengthy thread re grounding on towertalk prompts me to have concerns 
about protection of my T top (85' to top plus two 33' top wires) wire 
160m vertical with eight 125' elevated radials.  Since that covers more 
than an acre (it's mostly among 100' tall conifers) it has a lot of 
target area, radial routing close to trees, and high ground 
capacitance.  I did DC ground the vertical via a 3 core 240-31 choke, 
about 5k ohms to a single ground rod but that was for static protection 
of radio front ends.  The antenna is fed via a 50:25 ohm TLT so the 
radials have a DC connection to the choke.


What is best practice for lightning protection of elevated radial 
verticals?


Grant KZ1W
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the years 
here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I have also 
rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally scrapped enough 
money together and bought a home next to a large salt pond. I have full 
remote station here but it only functions for contest operated by a 
cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC credit.  The problem with 
the US RHR deals is that it completely skews the process as far as the 
propagation differences across the fruited plan.  I would love to add to 
my DXCC totals as I close into the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this 
but is it ethical.  It sure makes money for a pay to play amateur radio 
scheme. But is it the way you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope 
not as you only will need a computer and an internet connection and 
everything else that used to a worthwhile effort is trashed.


I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who originally 
from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to work a G 
station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I am afraid is 
the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts of  QRO muscle 
and money decided who was on top. That is a shame and perhaps to some a 
disgrace as it really chances everything including the respect we have 
for those who did so much with so little.`


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:

I will say this:
operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone 
else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built 
by your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable 
to build one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a beautiful 
station and antenna system here over the past fifteen years, only to 
see much of it destroyed by storms in recent years. Now I am unable to 
rebuild anymore.


Dave, W5UN

On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:
Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain these 
remote

stations."

My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the 
Remote Ham
Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The 
stations

are available for a price.

I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is someone's
home station (just like all the others in the network).

Carl K9LA
_
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: Strange propagation

[Jim Brown]

On Thu,1/14/2016 10:33 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
I have full remote station here but it only functions for contest 
operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC credit. The 
problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely skews the process 
as far as the propagation differences across the fruited plan.  I 
would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into the 300 mark.  USA 
stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure makes money for a pay 
to play amateur radio scheme.


I strongly agree -- while it is permitted by DXCC rules, it is NOT 
ETHICAL to use a remote station, or a different QTH of your own,  
thousands of miles closer to a DX entity to add to your country totals.


I see no ethical problem with a guy anywhere using a SINGLE remote 
station, or remote stations in a geographic region, to contribute to 
award totals.


And in reality, it IS pay to play -- nice stations cost money! There's 
the gear, the antennas, and the real estate.


73, Jim K9YC
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation - antenna suggestions

[mstangelo]

Dave,

I know your dilemma. In addition we are also getting older and most of us 
likely will have to downsize or relocate. 

I also like to build and fiddle around with my own station. Operating another 
person's not my cup of tea. RHR takes the Amateur out of Amateur radio for me.

I've learned to be adaptable. I'd look at putting up wire antennas and antennas 
which can be easily disassembled or moved.

I started in the hobby at my parent's house on the South Shore of Long Island. 
My budget was also limited at the time so I stuck to wire antenna. The area is 
susceptible to hurricanes so I decided to put my wire antennas on double 
halyards so that they could survive low winds and be easily taken down during a 
storm.

After college and was able to purchase decent equipment but I moved to Queens, 
New York to an "Archie Bunker" type house with a postage stamp size lot. I 
could not get an effective signal out on the HF bands. Since we frequented 
parks and beaches I concentrated on portable operation. This was effective on 
the higher HF bands but I still wanted to get back on 160.

I relocated to central New Jersey near the ocean and convinced my wife to get a 
house with an acre lot. Again, I decided to put up wire antennas for a 
different reason Our area does not have a history of hurricanes; I just did not 
want to go through the hassle of getting a town permit for a tower. My 
transmitting antenna is an Inverted-L about 60 feed high with 32 radials. I 
have various loop receiving antennas.

Anyway, along comes Hurricane Irene, a once-in-a-lifetime storm, followed the 
following year by Sandy. In both instances I was able to take down the antennas 
and get them back up after cleaning the yard. Fortunately I did not have major 
tree damage but I did have to relocate the far end of the L. In both cases I 
get the station running before power was restored.

It is not my ideal setup. I feel it is the minimum required for 160 meter 
operation but one has to make pragmatic decisions.

This is probably the largest lot I will ever have and since my daughter has one 
foot out of the house my wife is talking about downsizing. 

We'll try to get a place without restrictive covenants and in the meantime I'm 
studying designs for smaller transmitting antennas such as K9YC's "Getting on 
160 from a Small Lot (and Larger Ones Too)".

Good Luck.

Mike N2MS

-Original Message-
From: Dave Blaschke, w5un 
To: Carl Luetzelschwab ; topband 

Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 1:15 am
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

I will say this:
operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone else 
will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by your 
hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to build 
one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a beautiful station 
and antenna system here over the past fifteen years, only to see much of 
it destroyed by storms in recent years. Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.

Dave, W5UN

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: K5P first night

[Milt]

Congratulations to all the stations who made it into the log; a lot of them.

To my knowledge the first ten into the log, in order,  were...

N5IA
N7GP
K7ZV
WA7LNW
N6TR
N6RW
VE5UA
AA6RR
N7DD
KJ6P

I made a 2-channel recording of the entire first night of the K5P operation on 
160 Meters.

My setup was as follows.

Left channel from a reciver listening with the 8-Circle TX antenna to 1.827.5 
set at 2.5 kHz bandwidth.  The 8-Circle was oriented due west.

Right channel from a receiver listening with the 245 degree, 1 WL Beverage, to 
the K5P frequency of 1.826.5.  The bandwidth was set at 2.5 kHz.

There is only one hole (~ 10 Minutes) in the entire night of recording when I 
saved the file and started a new one at approximately 1155 Z, prior to leaving 
home for the day.

When examining the recording this morning, the last time I hear K5P is at ~1525 
Z.  This is a full hour after sunrise here in DM52.  K5P completes a Q with 
JA2ONB and after one more CQ sequence, I never hear his signal again.

The signal from K5P was Q-5 from the time he called me when he came on the air 
at 0521 Z, until he faded away at 1525 Z.  That is a full 10 hours of solid 
copy.  Amazing.  A real good job on the expedition’s end.

If you made a Q with K5P during this time period, and think you may have been 
heard at my location within the RX frequency and bandwidth I had set, plus 
being heard off the rear or side of the 8-Circle, send me the time stamp of 
your logged Q and I will attempt to find your call along with K5P’s response.  
If I can find it, I will extract the audio clip and send it to you in MP3 
format.  Send the request to me direct, off list.

73, and good luck to those who didn’t make it the first night.

de Milt, N5IA


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: K5P first night

[Mike Waters]

Milt, are you on a DXpedition operating from Palmyra in Syria?! Of all the
places!

I should switch my antenna back to 160m and see if we can work you.

73, MIke
www.w0btu.com
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: K5P first night

[Mike Waters]

Never mind. I just found a web site that said "Palmyra *Atoll*".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyra_Atoll
All I have to do now is find your 160m  operating schedule, which so far
escapes my searches and browsing.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Mike Waters  wrote:

> Milt, are you on a DXpedition operating from Palmyra in Syria?! Of all the
> places!
>
> I should switch my antenna back to 160m and see if we can work you.
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

Lets face it, the RHR guys take out sizeable ads in QST often times full page 
ads and so it would be shooting themselves in the foot if they in any way went 
against RHR.  SO they did the next best thing and left it up to the individual 
to decide what is moral or ethical for them.  If someone gets DXCC honor roll 
using that system, good for them but it doesn't hold water to me.  But I would 
in no way condemn the RHR system.  They provide a service that is in demand and 
they make n honest living from it.  They work really hard putting up towers on 
a regular basis not to mention maintaining it all.  They make an honest living. 
 



-Original Message-
From: Jim Brown 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

On Thu,1/14/2016 10:33 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
> I have full remote station here but it only functions for contest 
> operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC credit. The 
> problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely skews the process 
> as far as the propagation differences across the fruited plan.  I 
> would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into the 300 mark.  USA 
> stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure makes money for a pay 
> to play amateur radio scheme.

I strongly agree -- while it is permitted by DXCC rules, it is NOT 
ETHICAL to use a remote station, or a different QTH of your own,  
thousands of miles closer to a DX entity to add to your country totals.

I see no ethical problem with a guy anywhere using a SINGLE remote 
station, or remote stations in a geographic region, to contribute to 
award totals.

And in reality, it IS pay to play -- nice stations cost money! There's 
the gear, the antennas, and the real estate.

73, Jim K9YC
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: K5P first night

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

First night I heard K5P fine one a nice post S/R peak on TB 45 minutes 
after my SR.  Unfortunately the wall from the mainland was 
non-penetrable. I noticed from the prop chart that the operation doesn't 
see the wonderful opening I an other Caribbean stations would have from 
9:00 to 10:00.  Even on 80 CW the ops did a great job an hour or so past 
my S/R.  I know they are concentrating on N/A and I shouldn't try to 
nudge them on an hour earlier.  But this is the constant dilemma with 
Pacific DX-peditions who watch the Sunrise-sunset charts as the boss.  I 
will also try the EU only attempts at their Sunset but the Euros have an 
even more difficult problem of only a few minute window at best.  If 
only they could stay on after the EU path is closed for a few minutes or 
in the alternative set the alarm clock and get one of the top band gurus 
to light up the path and forget those darn computer generate SR/SS 
charts for just a moment it would be great.


I am going again to the donation page to help a bit with the awesome 
expenses and put some money where my mouth is.



Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 4:08 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

Never mind. I just found a web site that said "Palmyra *Atoll*".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyra_Atoll
All I have to do now is find your 160m  operating schedule, which so far
escapes my searches and browsing.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Mike Waters  wrote:


Milt, are you on a DXpedition operating from Palmyra in Syria?! Of all the
places!

I should switch my antenna back to 160m and see if we can work you.



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Dave Blaschke, w5un]

Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent 
locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work 
DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites  will become  
hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.


Dave, W5UN

On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the 
years here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I 
have also rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally 
scrapped enough money together and bought a home next to a large salt 
pond. I have full remote station here but it only functions for 
contest operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC 
credit.  The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely skews 
the process as far as the propagation differences across the fruited 
plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into the 300 
mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure makes 
money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the way you 
want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need a 
computer and an internet connection and everything else that used to a 
worthwhile effort is trashed.


I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who 
originally from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to 
work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I am 
afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts of  
QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. That is a shame and 
perhaps to some a disgrace as it really chances everything including 
the respect we have for those who did so much with so little.`


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:

I will say this:
operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone 
else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built 
by your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable 
to build one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a 
beautiful station and antenna system here over the past fifteen 
years, only to see much of it destroyed by storms in recent years. 
Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.


Dave, W5UN

On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:
Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain these 
remote

stations."

My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the 
Remote Ham
Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The 
stations

are available for a price.

I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is 
someone's

home station (just like all the others in the network).

Carl K9LA
_
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 Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: Fading

[Kris Mraz]

I know that fading can be caused by phase rotation of the arriving signal.
Can fading be caused by the signal changing arrival angle over time
(1-3 seconds)?
I ask this because of something I observed while attempting to tune my
Shared Apex Loop (SAL)
antenna the other night.

In the forward direction I tuned in a strong, distant AM broadcast
signal that was fairly steady
strength-wise. It would vary less than an S unit as seen on my radio
S-meter (FTdx5000). Then I
switched to the reverse direction. From the SAL backside the signal
experienced rapid fading
from S0 to S8.

Looking at the elevation pattern of the SAL (or just about any RX
antenna design) it can be seen
that the forward direction has a broad gain pattern around the 20
degree arrival angle. In the reverse
direction there is a deep steep null near that reverse angle. From
this I assumed that the signal was
changing arrival angle, moving into and out of that deep null. Is this
the correct analysis?


Kris N5KM
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: K5P first night

[Carl Braun]

Herb and Topbanders

I, too, heard K5P on TB well after my sunrise here in San Diego...about 25 
minutes past SR.  In fact, the K5P signal on TB was better than it was on 80M.  
I witnessed some real QSB fades on 80 and saw none of that on 160. The pile up 
on 80 was also much less organized than it was on 160...token jammers and such.

FYI, on 80 I use two phased 65' verticals and 1/4 wl spacing with a comtek box 
which was phased SW at Palmyra...I use those same two verticals (in phase 
currently) with base loading for 160...basically an OMNI on 160.  I'll change 
my phasing tonight that allows me to phase wither SW or NE and usually gets me 
a db or two toward the direction of interest.  Maybe tomorrow I can offer an 
update on the signals out of K5P vs SR times for the group.

Let's all support the guys who are making the K5P DXpedition a 
success...especially for us TBers.

Regards 

Carl AG6X

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Herbert 
Schoenbohm
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 12:36 PM
To: Mike Waters; TopBand List
Subject: Re: Topband: K5P first night

First night I heard K5P fine one a nice post S/R peak on TB 45 minutes after my 
SR.  Unfortunately the wall from the mainland was non-penetrable. I noticed 
from the prop chart that the operation doesn't see the wonderful opening I an 
other Caribbean stations would have from
9:00 to 10:00.  Even on 80 CW the ops did a great job an hour or so past my 
S/R.  I know they are concentrating on N/A and I shouldn't try to nudge them on 
an hour earlier.  But this is the constant dilemma with Pacific DX-peditions 
who watch the Sunrise-sunset charts as the boss.  I will also try the EU only 
attempts at their Sunset but the Euros have an even more difficult problem of 
only a few minute window at best.  If only they could stay on after the EU path 
is closed for a few minutes or in the alternative set the alarm clock and get 
one of the top band gurus to light up the path and forget those darn computer 
generate SR/SS charts for just a moment it would be great.

I am going again to the donation page to help a bit with the awesome expenses 
and put some money where my mouth is.


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 4:08 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
> Never mind. I just found a web site that said "Palmyra *Atoll*".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyra_Atoll
> All I have to do now is find your 160m  operating schedule, which so far
> escapes my searches and browsing.
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Mike Waters  wrote:
>
>> Milt, are you on a DXpedition operating from Palmyra in Syria?! Of all the
>> places!
>>
>> I should switch my antenna back to 160m and see if we can work you.
>>
>>
> _
> 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: Strange propagation

[Brian Mattson]

-Original Message- 
From: Louis Parascondola via Topband

Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:27 PM
To: j...@audiosystemsgroup.com ; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

SO they did the next best thing and left it up to the individual to decide 
what is moral or ethical for them.  If someone gets DXCC honor roll using 
that system, good for them but it >doesn't hold water to me. They work 
really hard putting up towers on a regular basis not to mention maintaining 
it all.  They make an honest living.


Remember back in the Golden Years when it was STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to profit 
from "amateur radio"   When did that go away???


-Original Message-
From: Jim Brown 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

On Thu,1/14/2016 10:33 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:


The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely skews the process
as far as the propagation differences across the fruited plan.  I
would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into the 300 mark.  USA
stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure makes money for a pay
to play amateur radio scheme.


Amen Herb!!


I strongly agree -- while it is permitted by DXCC rules, it is NOT
ETHICAL to use a remote station, or a different QTH of your own,
thousands of miles closer to a DX entity to add to your country totals.



And in reality, it IS pay to play -- nice stations cost money! There's
the gear, the antennas, and the real estate.


Yes Jim, ALL of our stations  require those outlays, but we don't make money 
from them!



73, Jim K9YC


Brian,  K8BHZ



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Fading

[Don Kirk]

Hi Kris,

If you belong to the shared apex loop Yahoo Groups click on the file tab
and then look for my call sign.  You will see plots that I generated
looking at the front to back ratio versus elevation angle, and I think
these plots might help answer some of your questions.


Don (wd8dsb)

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Kris Mraz  wrote:

> I know that fading can be caused by phase rotation of the arriving signal.
> Can fading be caused by the signal changing arrival angle over time
> (1-3 seconds)?
> I ask this because of something I observed while attempting to tune my
> Shared Apex Loop (SAL)
> antenna the other night.
>
> In the forward direction I tuned in a strong, distant AM broadcast
> signal that was fairly steady
> strength-wise. It would vary less than an S unit as seen on my radio
> S-meter (FTdx5000). Then I
> switched to the reverse direction. From the SAL backside the signal
> experienced rapid fading
> from S0 to S8.
>
> Looking at the elevation pattern of the SAL (or just about any RX
> antenna design) it can be seen
> that the forward direction has a broad gain pattern around the 20
> degree arrival angle. In the reverse
> direction there is a deep steep null near that reverse angle. From
> this I assumed that the signal was
> changing arrival angle, moving into and out of that deep null. Is this
> the correct analysis?
>
>
> Kris N5KM
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

Dave,  What will happen then is that the RHR gurus will just jack up the 
rates to take the hams with deepest pockets. Additionally the laws of 
supply will kick in and more RHR station and others will invest in this 
scheme to put more stations on the air.  As this progresses the value of 
the entire DXCC program will diminish. There must be some brakes put on 
this before is is to late.  The other night I was thrilled to have an 
Italian station calling me on 160 only to learn later he was actually on 
the mainland via an RHR station.  Is this the way amateur radio is 
supposed to trend?



Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 5:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent 
locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work 
DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will 
become  hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.


Dave, W5UN

On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the 
years here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I 
have also rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally 
scrapped enough money together and bought a home next to a large salt 
pond. I have full remote station here but it only functions for 
contest operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC 
credit.  The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely 
skews the process as far as the propagation differences across the 
fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into 
the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure 
makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the way 
you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need 
a computer and an internet connection and everything else that used 
to a worthwhile effort is trashed.


I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who 
originally from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to 
work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I 
am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts 
of  QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. That is a shame and 
perhaps to some a disgrace as it really chances everything including 
the respect we have for those who did so much with so little.`


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:

I will say this:
operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone 
else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, 
built by your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are 
unable to build one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a 
beautiful station and antenna system here over the past fifteen 
years, only to see much of it destroyed by storms in recent years. 
Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.


Dave, W5UN

On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:
Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain 
these remote

stations."

My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the 
Remote Ham
Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The 
stations

are available for a price.

I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is 
someone's

home station (just like all the others in the network).

Carl K9LA
_
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 Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Barry N1EU]

This is a BIG issue to grapple with.  It would make sense to me that a
callsign transmitted over the air should correspond to a station location
in a publically viewable registry and if the location of the transmission
deviates, the callsign needs to append /XX to reflect the station location.

73, Barry N1EU

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm 
wrote:

> Dave,  What will happen then is that the RHR gurus will just jack up the
> rates to take the hams with deepest pockets. Additionally the laws of
> supply will kick in and more RHR station and others will invest in this
> scheme to put more stations on the air.  As this progresses the value of
> the entire DXCC program will diminish. There must be some brakes put on
> this before is is to late.  The other night I was thrilled to have an
> Italian station calling me on 160 only to learn later he was actually on
> the mainland via an RHR station.  Is this the way amateur radio is supposed
> to trend?
>
>
> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>
>
> On 1/14/2016 5:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>
>> Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent
>> locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work
>> DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will become
>> hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.
>>
>> Dave, W5UN
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>>
>>> I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the years
>>> here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I have also
>>> rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally scrapped enough
>>> money together and bought a home next to a large salt pond. I have full
>>> remote station here but it only functions for contest operated by a cliff
>>> dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC credit.  The problem with the US RHR
>>> deals is that it completely skews the process as far as the propagation
>>> differences across the fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals
>>> as I close into the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.
>>> It sure makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the
>>> way you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need a
>>> computer and an internet connection and everything else that used to a
>>> worthwhile effort is trashed.
>>>
>>> I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who originally
>>> from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to work a G
>>> station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I am afraid is the
>>> end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts of  QRO muscle and
>>> money decided who was on top. That is a shame and perhaps to some a
>>> disgrace as it really chances everything including the respect we have for
>>> those who did so much with so little.`
>>>
>>> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>>
 I will say this:
 operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
 else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by
 your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to build
 one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a beautiful station and
 antenna system here over the past fifteen years, only to see much of it
 destroyed by storms in recent years. Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.

 Dave, W5UN

 On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:

> Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain these
> remote
> stations."
>
> My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the
> Remote Ham
> Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The
> stations
> are available for a price.
>
> I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is
> someone's
> home station (just like all the others in the network).
>
> Carl K9LA
> _
> 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 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: Strange propagation

[Roger D Johnson]

And, what happened to identifying with the call of the station you were 
operating?
It's still in the regs.

73, Roger


On 1/14/2016 4:44 PM, Brian Mattson wrote:



-Original Message- From: Louis Parascondola via Topband
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:27 PM
To: j...@audiosystemsgroup.com ; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

SO they did the next best thing and left it up to the individual to decide 
what is moral or ethical for them.  If someone gets DXCC honor roll using 
that system, good for them but it >doesn't hold water to me. They work really 
hard putting up towers on a regular basis not to mention maintaining it all.  
They make an honest living.


Remember back in the Golden Years when it was STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to profit 
from "amateur radio"   When did that go away???


-Original Message-
From: Jim Brown 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

On Thu,1/14/2016 10:33 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:


The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely skews the process
as far as the propagation differences across the fruited plan.  I
would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into the 300 mark.  USA
stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure makes money for a pay
to play amateur radio scheme.


Amen Herb!!


I strongly agree -- while it is permitted by DXCC rules, it is NOT
ETHICAL to use a remote station, or a different QTH of your own,
thousands of miles closer to a DX entity to add to your country totals.



And in reality, it IS pay to play -- nice stations cost money! There's
the gear, the antennas, and the real estate.


Yes Jim, ALL of our stations  require those outlays, but we don't make money 
from them!



73, Jim K9YC


Brian,  K8BHZ



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Dave Blaschke, w5un]

Herb, when that happens, ham radio, as we know it, will be over.
 (aren't we already used to this sort of thing happening in our time 
and in our country?)


Dave, W5UN


On 1/14/2016 9:52 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
Dave, What will happen then is that the RHR gurus will just jack up 
the rates to take the hams with deepest pockets. Additionally the laws 
of supply will kick in and more RHR station and others will invest in 
this scheme to put more stations on the air.  As this progresses the 
value of the entire DXCC program will diminish. There must be some 
brakes put on this before is is to late.  The other night I was 
thrilled to have an Italian station calling me on 160 only to learn 
later he was actually on the mainland via an RHR station.  Is this the 
way amateur radio is supposed to trend?



Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 5:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent 
locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work 
DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will 
become  hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.


Dave, W5UN

On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the 
years here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I 
have also rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally 
scrapped enough money together and bought a home next to a large 
salt pond. I have full remote station here but it only functions for 
contest operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC 
credit.  The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely 
skews the process as far as the propagation differences across the 
fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into 
the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure 
makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the 
way you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will 
need a computer and an internet connection and everything else that 
used to a worthwhile effort is trashed.


I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who 
originally from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts 
to work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR 
I am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast 
amounts of  QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. That is a 
shame and perhaps to some a disgrace as it really chances everything 
including the respect we have for those who did so much with so 
little.`


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:

I will say this:
operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone 
else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, 
built by your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and 
are unable to build one up, what's your choice? I built (and 
rebuilt) a beautiful station and antenna system here over the past 
fifteen years, only to see much of it destroyed by storms in recent 
years. Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.


Dave, W5UN

On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:
Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain 
these remote

stations."

My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the 
Remote Ham
Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The 
stations

are available for a price.

I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is 
someone's

home station (just like all the others in the network).

Carl K9LA
_
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 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: Strange propagation

[john]

you know,,,at 74 if I need something that bad,,, I need to re-evaluate 
my priorities,,,   what ever I work will be from my home , or my farm, 
32 miles away  I am very fortunate to have both and a basic station   
station at both,, in person

on site
,,, I understand folks in apartments etc,,, but for those folk who , in 
my opinion work  stuff via  what ever cost and remote coast to coast   
is just plain wrong-- arrl need to look at the entire ethics again. I 
know = dollars
for years I was a very hard hunter of game,,, but I never took any thing 
that would not go to some one  to eat.. In the total scheme of things  
trophies and certificates are just that ,,, nothing more , nothing less

just saying
as for me , Ill work what I can from home and at my farm,,, in person, 
on site,, -- again I am not  slamming  anyone from an apartment or place 
that they  can not put up an antenna, who I do slam is the folks that 
will work em at any cost and who  already have substantial stations

dx is
what I have written I have written
done now   73 john w8wej
On 1/14/2016 9:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent 
locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work 
DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will 
become  hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.


Dave, W5UN

On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the 
years here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I 
have also rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally 
scrapped enough money together and bought a home next to a large salt 
pond. I have full remote station here but it only functions for 
contest operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC 
credit.  The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely 
skews the process as far as the propagation differences across the 
fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into 
the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure 
makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the way 
you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need 
a computer and an internet connection and everything else that used 
to a worthwhile effort is trashed.


I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who 
originally from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to 
work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I 
am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts 
of  QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. That is a shame and 
perhaps to some a disgrace as it really chances everything including 
the respect we have for those who did so much with so little.`


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:

I will say this:
operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone 
else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, 
built by your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are 
unable to build one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a 
beautiful station and antenna system here over the past fifteen 
years, only to see much of it destroyed by storms in recent years. 
Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.


Dave, W5UN

On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:
Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain 
these remote

stations."

My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the 
Remote Ham
Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The 
stations

are available for a price.

I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is 
someone's

home station (just like all the others in the network).

Carl K9LA
_
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 Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: Fwd: Strange propagation

[Larry via Topband]

-Original Message-
From: Larry 
To: barry.n1eu 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 10:22 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation


More than once I have worked some Ukraine station in the 160 meter contest at 
S9 plus when it is broad daylight in UB5. Obviously they are operating a remote 
station. Guess I need to log them, Ha.


The kicker is when i receive a QSL card direct and they expect a return.


Yes I understand the need to integrate modern technology into ham radio. Remote 
stations,
remote receiving locations etc. My opinion is that if you cant operate from 
your physical location for what ever the reason then try another hobby.


Happy new year!


Larry
N7DD
 


-Original Message-
From: Barry N1EU 
To: topBand List 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

This is a BIG issue to grapple with.  It would make sense to me that a
callsign transmitted over the air should correspond to a station location
in a publically viewable registry and if the location of the transmission
deviates, the callsign needs to append /XX to reflect the station location.

73, Barry N1EU

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm 
wrote:

> Dave,  What will happen then is that the RHR gurus will just jack up the
> rates to take the hams with deepest pockets. Additionally the laws of
> supply will kick in and more RHR station and others will invest in this
> scheme to put more stations on the air.  As this progresses the value of
> the entire DXCC program will diminish. There must be some brakes put on
> this before is is to late.  The other night I was thrilled to have an
> Italian station calling me on 160 only to learn later he was actually on
> the mainland via an RHR station.  Is this the way amateur radio is supposed
> to trend?
>
>
> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>
>
> On 1/14/2016 5:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>
>> Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent
>> locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work
>> DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will become
>> hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.
>>
>> Dave, W5UN
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>>
>>> I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the years
>>> here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I have also
>>> rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally scrapped enough
>>> money together and bought a home next to a large salt pond. I have full
>>> remote station here but it only functions for contest operated by a cliff
>>> dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC credit.  The problem with the US RHR
>>> deals is that it completely skews the process as far as the propagation
>>> differences across the fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals
>>> as I close into the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.
>>> It sure makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the
>>> way you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need a
>>> computer and an internet connection and everything else that used to a
>>> worthwhile effort is trashed.
>>>
>>> I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who originally
>>> from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to work a G
>>> station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I am afraid is the
>>> end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts of  QRO muscle and
>>> money decided who was on top. That is a shame and perhaps to some a
>>> disgrace as it really chances everything including the respect we have for
>>> those who did so much with so little.`
>>>
>>> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>>
 I will say this:
 operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
 else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by
 your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to build
 one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a beautiful station and
 antenna system here over the past fifteen years, only to see much of it
 destroyed by storms in recent years. Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.

 Dave, W5UN

 On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:

> Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain these
> remote
> stations."
>
> My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the
> Remote Ham
> Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The
> stations
> are available for a price.
>
> I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is
> someone's
> home station (just like all the others in the network).
>
> Carl K9LA
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
 _
 Topband Reflector Archiv

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

It didn't, it is still in play.  Profiting from Ham radio by using the air 
waves for business purposes is what is illegal.  For example If I use ham radio 
to dispatch taxi cabs or to call my employees that are on the road to send them 
to their next job, or to handle traffic between to people involved in business 
where the communications are commercial in nature.  This is what is illegal.  
To "rent" a station to another person to carry on normal LEGAL communications 
on the ham bands is perfectly legal.  Trust me I know, the RHR guys have been 
through this and the FCC is well aware and there is no issues.  Is selling a 
ham radio transceiver or amplifier or any such accessory to carry out radio 
communications illegal?  No.  SO why would culminating all this apparatus owned 
by one entity to be used by another ham for profit be illegal?

Remember back in the Golden Years when it was STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to profit 
from "amateur radio"   When did that go away???




-Original Message-
From: Brian Mattson 
To: Louis Parascondola ; topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation



-Original Message- 
From: Louis Parascondola via Topband
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:27 PM
To: j...@audiosystemsgroup.com ; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

>SO they did the next best thing and left it up to the individual to decide 
>what is moral or ethical for them.  If someone gets DXCC honor roll using 
>that system, good for them but it >doesn't hold water to me. They work 
>really hard putting up towers on a regular basis not to mention maintaining 
>it all.  They make an honest living.

Remember back in the Golden Years when it was STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to profit 
from "amateur radio"   When did that go away???

-Original Message-
From: Jim Brown 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

On Thu,1/14/2016 10:33 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

>The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely skews the process
> as far as the propagation differences across the fruited plan.  I
> would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into the 300 mark.  USA
> stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure makes money for a pay
> to play amateur radio scheme.

Amen Herb!!

>I strongly agree -- while it is permitted by DXCC rules, it is NOT
>ETHICAL to use a remote station, or a different QTH of your own,
>thousands of miles closer to a DX entity to add to your country totals.

>And in reality, it IS pay to play -- nice stations cost money! There's
>the gear, the antennas, and the real estate.

Yes Jim, ALL of our stations  require those outlays, but we don't make money 
from them!

>73, Jim K9YC

Brian,  K8BHZ





_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Ken K6MR]

“Remember back in the Golden Years when it was STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to profit
from "amateur radio"   When did that go away???”

I believe the rule is “station must not transmit communications for hire or for 
material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised…”

That’s way different from “profit from amateur radio”. Otherwise all the 
equipment manufacturers would be non-profits (more likely out of business).

Ken K6MR




From: Brian Mattson
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 13:45
To: Louis Parascondola; 
topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation



-Original Message-
From: Louis Parascondola via Topband
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:27 PM
To: j...@audiosystemsgroup.com ; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

>SO they did the next best thing and left it up to the individual to decide
>what is moral or ethical for them.  If someone gets DXCC honor roll using
>that system, good for them but it >doesn't hold water to me. They work
>really hard putting up towers on a regular basis not to mention maintaining
>it all.  They make an honest living.

Remember back in the Golden Years when it was STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to profit
from "amateur radio"   When did that go away???

-Original Message-
From: Jim Brown 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

On Thu,1/14/2016 10:33 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

>The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely skews the process
> as far as the propagation differences across the fruited plan.  I
> would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into the 300 mark.  USA
> stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure makes money for a pay
> to play amateur radio scheme.

Amen Herb!!

>I strongly agree -- while it is permitted by DXCC rules, it is NOT
>ETHICAL to use a remote station, or a different QTH of your own,
>thousands of miles closer to a DX entity to add to your country totals.

>And in reality, it IS pay to play -- nice stations cost money! There's
>the gear, the antennas, and the real estate.

Yes Jim, ALL of our stations  require those outlays, but we don't make money
from them!

>73, Jim K9YC

Brian,  K8BHZ



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

You probably worked the IT9 station in Sicily, Right?  Why bitch?  You get full 
credit for working IT9 on the top band and it counts for every award you can 
apply to it.  The problem is the person using the station stateside remotely 
gets NO credit for anything he works, but you do.  SO what is the beef?  RHR is 
just another form of progress due to advances in technology, if we did not 
embrace progress in ham radio technology we would all still be talking to one 
another on Lunch boxes and Gooney boxes!  

The other night I was thrilled to have an 
Italian station calling me on 160 only to learn later he was actually on 
the mainland via an RHR station.  Is this the way amateur radio is 
supposed to trend?





-Original Message-
From: Herbert Schoenbohm 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 4:54 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Dave,  What will happen then is that the RHR gurus will just jack up the 
rates to take the hams with deepest pockets. Additionally the laws of 
supply will kick in and more RHR station and others will invest in this 
scheme to put more stations on the air.  As this progresses the value of 
the entire DXCC program will diminish. There must be some brakes put on 
this before is is to late.  The other night I was thrilled to have an 
Italian station calling me on 160 only to learn later he was actually on 
the mainland via an RHR station.  Is this the way amateur radio is 
supposed to trend?


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 5:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
> Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent 
> locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work 
> DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will 
> become  hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.
>
> Dave, W5UN
>
> On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>> I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the 
>> years here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I 
>> have also rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally 
>> scrapped enough money together and bought a home next to a large salt 
>> pond. I have full remote station here but it only functions for 
>> contest operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC 
>> credit.  The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely 
>> skews the process as far as the propagation differences across the 
>> fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into 
>> the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure 
>> makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the way 
>> you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need 
>> a computer and an internet connection and everything else that used 
>> to a worthwhile effort is trashed.
>>
>> I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who 
>> originally from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to 
>> work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I 
>> am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts 
>> of  QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. That is a shame and 
>> perhaps to some a disgrace as it really chances everything including 
>> the respect we have for those who did so much with so little.`
>>
>> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>> I will say this:
>>> operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone 
>>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, 
>>> built by your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are 
>>> unable to build one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a 
>>> beautiful station and antenna system here over the past fifteen 
>>> years, only to see much of it destroyed by storms in recent years. 
>>> Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.
>>>
>>> Dave, W5UN
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:
 Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain 
 these remote
 stations."

 My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the 
 Remote Ham
 Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The 
 stations
 are available for a price.

 I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is 
 someone's
 home station (just like all the others in the network).

 Carl K9LA
 _
 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 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: Strange propagation

[Mike Waters]

Dave, Herb, et al:

Respectfully, RHR is likely here to stay, like it or not. If you want to
try and change that, fine. But I am not going to let that --or how others
use RHR to their advantage-- bother me. :-)

I get a warm fuzzy feeling of deep contentment operating the 160 meter
station that I built --and largely designed-- at minimal cost with my own
two hands and with what's left of my brain. (Well, my XYL, KD0LAJ helped
with those antennas. ;-) The inverted-L and the tuner. Both 2-wire Beverage
antennas and the control systems for them. The preamps.
The only things I paid money for were parts, such as ferrite cores,
connectors, wire/coax, and other components. I also built a unique
legal-limit amplifier for 160 from junk and hamfest parts.

Others might disagree (and I have no problem whatsoever with that), but
that's why I enjoy amateur radio: build something, and then get on the
radio and see how well it works. And when it does (like breaking a DX
pileup with only 100 watts), I run upstairs all exited so that I can share
my excitement with my wife.

And I'm not alone.* So, why should we let what others do upset us?
Gentlemen, let's just have fun doing our own thing on 160 (at least most of
the time. :-)*

Having said that, I can appreciate that you might want to win a contest,
and feel that RHR is unfair. I don't disagree with that. But is it
realistic to think that anyone can change that? From what I've read, that's
not likely. (End of psychology dissertation. ;-)


On another note ...

I'm now at the point where I'm actually getting somewhat bored with 160m.
It has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing.
The "new" has worn off; after operating for over 5 years with the same
setup, I now pretty much know what to expect from my existing antennas now.
(Spectacular band openings are nice; however, they just don't 'pop my
clutch'. It's what we can accomplish during "normal" band conditions that
excites me.)

The only thing that will change that and restore my enthusiasm is modifying
what I have here. And I have several things on the list:

 - Modifying our Beverage antennas so that I can remotely switch the
lengths from 580' to over 800', and perhaps adding a third E-W Beverage.

 - Adding the ability to phase them against the inverted-L during receive
to null out unwanted signals and noise, using the MFJ-1025 that I've hardly
ever used

 - And adding a few more elevated radials to the inverted-L


When some of that is done, it'll be SO EXCITING again! I won't even care
about getting involved in discussions like this! ;-)


I'm not at all against anyone trying to change the RHR (or any other)
rules. *But let's keep in mind that at least part of the time, we can shut
that out of our minds and enjoy 160 meters like we used to.*

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm 
wrote:

> ... a former 160 meter DX pioneer ... used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25
> watts to work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR
> I am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts of
> QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. ...
>
> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>
>>   ... operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by
>> your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to build
>> one up, what's your choice? [snip]
>>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

When a ham  operates a remote station using his call sign that is within the 
continental US, it makes no difference. If a ham is operating at an alternate 
QTH he does not have to sign/X any longer.  Those days are gone.  SO even if 
you look him up it does not mean he is at that location.  The rub comes in when 
you want credit for an award like WAS, so what credit do you get?  I suppose he 
needs to know where the station is located so he can write it on a QSL card for 
your credit.

This is a BIG issue to grapple with.  It would make sense to me that a
callsign transmitted over the air should correspond to a station location
in a publically viewable registry and if the location of the transmission
deviates, the callsign needs to append /XX to reflect the station location.





-Original Message-
From: Barry N1EU 
To: topBand List 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

This is a BIG issue to grapple with.  It would make sense to me that a
callsign transmitted over the air should correspond to a station location
in a publically viewable registry and if the location of the transmission
deviates, the callsign needs to append /XX to reflect the station location.

73, Barry N1EU

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm 
wrote:

> Dave,  What will happen then is that the RHR gurus will just jack up the
> rates to take the hams with deepest pockets. Additionally the laws of
> supply will kick in and more RHR station and others will invest in this
> scheme to put more stations on the air.  As this progresses the value of
> the entire DXCC program will diminish. There must be some brakes put on
> this before is is to late.  The other night I was thrilled to have an
> Italian station calling me on 160 only to learn later he was actually on
> the mainland via an RHR station.  Is this the way amateur radio is supposed
> to trend?
>
>
> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>
>
> On 1/14/2016 5:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>
>> Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent
>> locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work
>> DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will become
>> hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.
>>
>> Dave, W5UN
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>>
>>> I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the years
>>> here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I have also
>>> rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally scrapped enough
>>> money together and bought a home next to a large salt pond. I have full
>>> remote station here but it only functions for contest operated by a cliff
>>> dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC credit.  The problem with the US RHR
>>> deals is that it completely skews the process as far as the propagation
>>> differences across the fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals
>>> as I close into the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.
>>> It sure makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the
>>> way you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need a
>>> computer and an internet connection and everything else that used to a
>>> worthwhile effort is trashed.
>>>
>>> I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who originally
>>> from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to work a G
>>> station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I am afraid is the
>>> end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts of  QRO muscle and
>>> money decided who was on top. That is a shame and perhaps to some a
>>> disgrace as it really chances everything including the respect we have for
>>> those who did so much with so little.`
>>>
>>> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>>
 I will say this:
 operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
 else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by
 your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to build
 one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a beautiful station and
 antenna system here over the past fifteen years, only to see much of it
 destroyed by storms in recent years. Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.

 Dave, W5UN

 On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:

> Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain these
> remote
> stations."
>
> My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the
> Remote Ham
> Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The
> stations
> are available for a price.
>
> I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is
> someone's
> home station (just like all the others in the network).
>
> Carl K9LA
> _
> Topband Reflector Archive

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

You are the control operator of that station and it is your call that is used.  



-Original Message-
From: Roger D Johnson 
To: Brian Mattson 
Cc: Louis Parascondola ; topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 5:22 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

And, what happened to identifying with the call of the station you were 
operating?
It's still in the regs.

73, Roger


On 1/14/2016 4:44 PM, Brian Mattson wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message- From: Louis Parascondola via Topband
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:27 PM
> To: j...@audiosystemsgroup.com ; topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation
>
>> SO they did the next best thing and left it up to the individual to decide 
>> what is moral or ethical for them.  If someone gets DXCC honor roll using 
>> that system, good for them but it >doesn't hold water to me. They work 
>> really 
>> hard putting up towers on a regular basis not to mention maintaining it all. 
>>  
>> They make an honest living.
>
> Remember back in the Golden Years when it was STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to profit 
> from "amateur radio"   When did that go away???
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Brown 
> To: topband 
> Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 1:49 pm
> Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation
>
> On Thu,1/14/2016 10:33 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>
>> The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely skews the process
>> as far as the propagation differences across the fruited plan.  I
>> would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into the 300 mark.  USA
>> stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure makes money for a pay
>> to play amateur radio scheme.
>
> Amen Herb!!
>
>> I strongly agree -- while it is permitted by DXCC rules, it is NOT
>> ETHICAL to use a remote station, or a different QTH of your own,
>> thousands of miles closer to a DX entity to add to your country totals.
>
>> And in reality, it IS pay to play -- nice stations cost money! There's
>> the gear, the antennas, and the real estate.
>
> Yes Jim, ALL of our stations  require those outlays, but we don't make money 
> from them!
>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> Brian,  K8BHZ
>
>
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

I hardly doubt that it would ever be that big because eventually everyone who 
wants to do RHR will and those that won't, won't. 

Herb, when that happens, ham radio, as we know it, will be over.
  (aren't we already used to this sort of thing happening in our time 
and in our country?)






-Original Message-
From: Dave Blaschke, w5un 
To: Herbert Schoenbohm ; topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 5:26 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Herb, when that happens, ham radio, as we know it, will be over.
  (aren't we already used to this sort of thing happening in our time 
and in our country?)

Dave, W5UN


On 1/14/2016 9:52 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
> Dave, What will happen then is that the RHR gurus will just jack up 
> the rates to take the hams with deepest pockets. Additionally the laws 
> of supply will kick in and more RHR station and others will invest in 
> this scheme to put more stations on the air.  As this progresses the 
> value of the entire DXCC program will diminish. There must be some 
> brakes put on this before is is to late.  The other night I was 
> thrilled to have an Italian station calling me on 160 only to learn 
> later he was actually on the mainland via an RHR station.  Is this the 
> way amateur radio is supposed to trend?
>
>
> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>
> On 1/14/2016 5:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>> Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent 
>> locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work 
>> DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will 
>> become  hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.
>>
>> Dave, W5UN
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>>> I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the 
>>> years here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I 
>>> have also rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally 
>>> scrapped enough money together and bought a home next to a large 
>>> salt pond. I have full remote station here but it only functions for 
>>> contest operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC 
>>> credit.  The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely 
>>> skews the process as far as the propagation differences across the 
>>> fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into 
>>> the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure 
>>> makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the 
>>> way you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will 
>>> need a computer and an internet connection and everything else that 
>>> used to a worthwhile effort is trashed.
>>>
>>> I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who 
>>> originally from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts 
>>> to work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR 
>>> I am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast 
>>> amounts of  QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. That is a 
>>> shame and perhaps to some a disgrace as it really chances everything 
>>> including the respect we have for those who did so much with so 
>>> little.`
>>>
>>> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
 I will say this:
 operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone 
 else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, 
 built by your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and 
 are unable to build one up, what's your choice? I built (and 
 rebuilt) a beautiful station and antenna system here over the past 
 fifteen years, only to see much of it destroyed by storms in recent 
 years. Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.

 Dave, W5UN

 On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:
> Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain 
> these remote
> stations."
>
> My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the 
> Remote Ham
> Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The 
> stations
> are available for a price.
>
> I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is 
> someone's
> home station (just like all the others in the network).
>
> Carl K9LA
> _
> 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 Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
> _
> 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: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

Did you ever shoot an animal with a gun?  Shooting an animal with a gun is like 
using RHR for ANTO.  Shooting an animal with a bow and arrow is like using your 
station that may be just average.  The ethics of the whole thing has already 
been settled by the ARRL so ethics don't have to be looked at. 

for years I was a very hard hunter of game,




-Original Message-
From: john 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 5:28 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

you know,,,at 74 if I need something that bad,,, I need to re-evaluate 
my priorities,,,   what ever I work will be from my home , or my farm, 
32 miles away  I am very fortunate to have both and a basic station   
station at both,, in person
on site
,,, I understand folks in apartments etc,,, but for those folk who , in 
my opinion work  stuff via  what ever cost and remote coast to coast   
is just plain wrong-- arrl need to look at the entire ethics again. I 
know = dollars
for years I was a very hard hunter of game,,, but I never took any thing 
that would not go to some one  to eat.. In the total scheme of things  
trophies and certificates are just that ,,, nothing more , nothing less
just saying
as for me , Ill work what I can from home and at my farm,,, in person, 
on site,, -- again I am not  slamming  anyone from an apartment or place 
that they  can not put up an antenna, who I do slam is the folks that 
will work em at any cost and who  already have substantial stations
dx is
what I have written I have written
done now   73 john w8wej
On 1/14/2016 9:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
> Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent 
> locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work 
> DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will 
> become  hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.
>
> Dave, W5UN
>
> On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>> I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the 
>> years here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I 
>> have also rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally 
>> scrapped enough money together and bought a home next to a large salt 
>> pond. I have full remote station here but it only functions for 
>> contest operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC 
>> credit.  The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely 
>> skews the process as far as the propagation differences across the 
>> fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into 
>> the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure 
>> makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the way 
>> you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need 
>> a computer and an internet connection and everything else that used 
>> to a worthwhile effort is trashed.
>>
>> I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who 
>> originally from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to 
>> work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I 
>> am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts 
>> of  QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. That is a shame and 
>> perhaps to some a disgrace as it really chances everything including 
>> the respect we have for those who did so much with so little.`
>>
>> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>> I will say this:
>>> operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone 
>>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, 
>>> built by your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are 
>>> unable to build one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a 
>>> beautiful station and antenna system here over the past fifteen 
>>> years, only to see much of it destroyed by storms in recent years. 
>>> Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.
>>>
>>> Dave, W5UN
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:
 Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain 
 these remote
 stations."

 My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the 
 Remote Ham
 Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The 
 stations
 are available for a price.

 I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is 
 someone's
 home station (just like all the others in the network).

 Carl K9LA
 _
 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 Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Refl

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Larry via Topband]

>From Wikipedia. Please note the word "pecuniary". Should you think otherwise 
>please write to them and ask for a correction and for what reasons.


Amateur radio (also called ham radio) describes the use of radio 
frequencyspectra for purposes of non-commercial exchange of messages, 
wirelessexperimentation, self-training, private recreation and emergency 
communication. The term "amateur" is used to specify "a duly authorised person 
interested in radioelectric practice with a purely personal aim and without 
pecuniary interest;"[1] (either direct monetary or other similar reward) and to 
differentiate it from commercial broadcasting, public safety (such as police 
and fire), or professional two-way radio services (such as maritime, aviation, 
taxis, etc.).


Thanks,
Larry
N7DD



-Original Message-
From: Mike Waters 
To: Herbert Schoenbohm 
Cc: TopBand List ; Dave Blaschke, w5un 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 10:45 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Dave, Herb, et al:

Respectfully, RHR is likely here to stay, like it or not. If you want to
try and change that, fine. But I am not going to let that --or how others
use RHR to their advantage-- bother me. :-)

I get a warm fuzzy feeling of deep contentment operating the 160 meter
station that I built --and largely designed-- at minimal cost with my own
two hands and with what's left of my brain. (Well, my XYL, KD0LAJ helped
with those antennas. ;-) The inverted-L and the tuner. Both 2-wire Beverage
antennas and the control systems for them. The preamps.
The only things I paid money for were parts, such as ferrite cores,
connectors, wire/coax, and other components. I also built a unique
legal-limit amplifier for 160 from junk and hamfest parts.

Others might disagree (and I have no problem whatsoever with that), but
that's why I enjoy amateur radio: build something, and then get on the
radio and see how well it works. And when it does (like breaking a DX
pileup with only 100 watts), I run upstairs all exited so that I can share
my excitement with my wife.

And I'm not alone.* So, why should we let what others do upset us?
Gentlemen, let's just have fun doing our own thing on 160 (at least most of
the time. :-)*

Having said that, I can appreciate that you might want to win a contest,
and feel that RHR is unfair. I don't disagree with that. But is it
realistic to think that anyone can change that? From what I've read, that's
not likely. (End of psychology dissertation. ;-)


On another note ...

I'm now at the point where I'm actually getting somewhat bored with 160m.
It has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing.
The "new" has worn off; after operating for over 5 years with the same
setup, I now pretty much know what to expect from my existing antennas now.
(Spectacular band openings are nice; however, they just don't 'pop my
clutch'. It's what we can accomplish during "normal" band conditions that
excites me.)

The only thing that will change that and restore my enthusiasm is modifying
what I have here. And I have several things on the list:

 - Modifying our Beverage antennas so that I can remotely switch the
lengths from 580' to over 800', and perhaps adding a third E-W Beverage.

 - Adding the ability to phase them against the inverted-L during receive
to null out unwanted signals and noise, using the MFJ-1025 that I've hardly
ever used

 - And adding a few more elevated radials to the inverted-L


When some of that is done, it'll be SO EXCITING again! I won't even care
about getting involved in discussions like this! ;-)


I'm not at all against anyone trying to change the RHR (or any other)
rules. *But let's keep in mind that at least part of the time, we can shut
that out of our minds and enjoy 160 meters like we used to.*

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm 
wrote:

> ... a former 160 meter DX pioneer ... used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25
> watts to work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR
> I am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts of
> QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. ...
>
> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>
>>   ... operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by
>> your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to build
>> one up, what's your choice? [snip]
>>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Fwd: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

Larry, I do believe when the remote station is not in the same country the 
operator must sign a /   Like UB5XXX/W2  He would if he was physically here 
operating stateside, so he made a mistake by not doing so.  BTW...Larry, what 
was the name of your old girlfriend that moved to Connecticut years ago?  She 
was dating K2ZZ for a while and she was one of my clients.  I just can't 
remember her name, but I do remember she had a southern accent.  Very nice 
looking young lady, I remember that.

More than once I have worked some Ukraine station in the 160 meter contest at 
S9 plus when it is broad daylight in UB5. Obviously they are operating a remote 
station. Guess I need to log them, Ha.





-Original Message-
From: Larry via Topband 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 5:30 pm
Subject: Topband: Fwd:  Strange propagation





-Original Message-
From: Larry 
To: barry.n1eu 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 10:22 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation


More than once I have worked some Ukraine station in the 160 meter contest at 
S9 plus when it is broad daylight in UB5. Obviously they are operating a remote 
station. Guess I need to log them, Ha.


The kicker is when i receive a QSL card direct and they expect a return.


Yes I understand the need to integrate modern technology into ham radio. Remote 
stations,
remote receiving locations etc. My opinion is that if you cant operate from 
your physical location for what ever the reason then try another hobby.


Happy new year!


Larry
N7DD
 


-Original Message-
From: Barry N1EU 
To: topBand List 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

This is a BIG issue to grapple with.  It would make sense to me that a
callsign transmitted over the air should correspond to a station location
in a publically viewable registry and if the location of the transmission
deviates, the callsign needs to append /XX to reflect the station location.

73, Barry N1EU

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm 
wrote:

> Dave,  What will happen then is that the RHR gurus will just jack up the
> rates to take the hams with deepest pockets. Additionally the laws of
> supply will kick in and more RHR station and others will invest in this
> scheme to put more stations on the air.  As this progresses the value of
> the entire DXCC program will diminish. There must be some brakes put on
> this before is is to late.  The other night I was thrilled to have an
> Italian station calling me on 160 only to learn later he was actually on
> the mainland via an RHR station.  Is this the way amateur radio is supposed
> to trend?
>
>
> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>
>
> On 1/14/2016 5:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>
>> Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent
>> locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work
>> DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will become
>> hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.
>>
>> Dave, W5UN
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>>
>>> I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the years
>>> here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I have also
>>> rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally scrapped enough
>>> money together and bought a home next to a large salt pond. I have full
>>> remote station here but it only functions for contest operated by a cliff
>>> dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC credit.  The problem with the US RHR
>>> deals is that it completely skews the process as far as the propagation
>>> differences across the fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals
>>> as I close into the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.
>>> It sure makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the
>>> way you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need a
>>> computer and an internet connection and everything else that used to a
>>> worthwhile effort is trashed.
>>>
>>> I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who originally
>>> from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to work a G
>>> station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I am afraid is the
>>> end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts of  QRO muscle and
>>> money decided who was on top. That is a shame and perhaps to some a
>>> disgrace as it really chances everything including the respect we have for
>>> those who did so much with so little.`
>>>
>>> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>>
 I will say this:
 operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
 else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by
 your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to build
 one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a beautiful station and
 antenna system here over the past fiftee

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

That is the right attitude to take.  Working DX and the like should be a 
personal endeavor and what others do is their business.  This is why the ARRL 
came down on the issue as they did and of course for other reasons, but this 
way no one gets harmed.  Tell me you worked 5BDXCC that way and it would mean 
nothing to me.  No sweat.

Respectfully, RHR is likely here to stay, like it or not. If you want to
try and change that, fine. But I am not going to let that --or how others
use RHR to their advantage-- bother me. :-)

I get a warm fuzzy feeling of deep contentment operating the 160 meter
station that I built --and largely designed-- at minimal cost with my own
two hands and with what's left of my brain.




-Original Message-
From: Mike Waters 
To: Herbert Schoenbohm 
Cc: TopBand List ; Dave Blaschke, w5un 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Dave, Herb, et al:

Respectfully, RHR is likely here to stay, like it or not. If you want to
try and change that, fine. But I am not going to let that --or how others
use RHR to their advantage-- bother me. :-)

I get a warm fuzzy feeling of deep contentment operating the 160 meter
station that I built --and largely designed-- at minimal cost with my own
two hands and with what's left of my brain. (Well, my XYL, KD0LAJ helped
with those antennas. ;-) The inverted-L and the tuner. Both 2-wire Beverage
antennas and the control systems for them. The preamps.
The only things I paid money for were parts, such as ferrite cores,
connectors, wire/coax, and other components. I also built a unique
legal-limit amplifier for 160 from junk and hamfest parts.

Others might disagree (and I have no problem whatsoever with that), but
that's why I enjoy amateur radio: build something, and then get on the
radio and see how well it works. And when it does (like breaking a DX
pileup with only 100 watts), I run upstairs all exited so that I can share
my excitement with my wife.

And I'm not alone.* So, why should we let what others do upset us?
Gentlemen, let's just have fun doing our own thing on 160 (at least most of
the time. :-)*

Having said that, I can appreciate that you might want to win a contest,
and feel that RHR is unfair. I don't disagree with that. But is it
realistic to think that anyone can change that? From what I've read, that's
not likely. (End of psychology dissertation. ;-)


On another note ...

I'm now at the point where I'm actually getting somewhat bored with 160m.
It has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing.
The "new" has worn off; after operating for over 5 years with the same
setup, I now pretty much know what to expect from my existing antennas now.
(Spectacular band openings are nice; however, they just don't 'pop my
clutch'. It's what we can accomplish during "normal" band conditions that
excites me.)

The only thing that will change that and restore my enthusiasm is modifying
what I have here. And I have several things on the list:

 - Modifying our Beverage antennas so that I can remotely switch the
lengths from 580' to over 800', and perhaps adding a third E-W Beverage.

 - Adding the ability to phase them against the inverted-L during receive
to null out unwanted signals and noise, using the MFJ-1025 that I've hardly
ever used

 - And adding a few more elevated radials to the inverted-L


When some of that is done, it'll be SO EXCITING again! I won't even care
about getting involved in discussions like this! ;-)


I'm not at all against anyone trying to change the RHR (or any other)
rules. *But let's keep in mind that at least part of the time, we can shut
that out of our minds and enjoy 160 meters like we used to.*

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm 
wrote:

> ... a former 160 meter DX pioneer ... used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25
> watts to work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR
> I am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts of
> QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. ...
>
> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>
>>   ... operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by
>> your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to build
>> one up, what's your choice? [snip]
>>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Fwd: Strange propagation

[John]

We are all entitled to our opinions and, of course, they may differ from
others. I'm fine with thoughtful discussion.  I think it's healthy.

I do, however, tire of always having the technology bit thrown in my face.
It is NOT an objection to new technology, including the use of remote
operations. It has to do with the award(s) process.  IMVHO, CQ got it right;
a separate award for using remote operations. After all, it is the use of
remote, correct?  I find it  curious that some (or most) of those using
remote object to that. I wonder why, and would like to hear your reasoning.

73 John W4II

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[john]

 really? to which I say,,,God bless you,,, Ill just turn the other 
check   for me this thread is over

73 john w8wej

On 1/14/2016 10:56 PM, Louis Parascondola via Topband wrote:

Did you ever shoot an animal with a gun?  Shooting an animal with a gun is like 
using RHR for ANTO.  Shooting an animal with a bow and arrow is like using your 
station that may be just average.  The ethics of the whole thing has already 
been settled by the ARRL so ethics don't have to be looked at.

for years I was a very hard hunter of game,




-Original Message-
From: john 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 5:28 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

you know,,,at 74 if I need something that bad,,, I need to re-evaluate
my priorities,,,   what ever I work will be from my home , or my farm,
32 miles away  I am very fortunate to have both and a basic station
station at both,, in person
on site
,,, I understand folks in apartments etc,,, but for those folk who , in
my opinion work  stuff via  what ever cost and remote coast to coast
is just plain wrong-- arrl need to look at the entire ethics again. I
know = dollars
for years I was a very hard hunter of game,,, but I never took any thing
that would not go to some one  to eat.. In the total scheme of things
trophies and certificates are just that ,,, nothing more , nothing less
just saying
as for me , Ill work what I can from home and at my farm,,, in person,
on site,, -- again I am not  slamming  anyone from an apartment or place
that they  can not put up an antenna, who I do slam is the folks that
will work em at any cost and who  already have substantial stations
dx is
what I have written I have written
done now   73 john w8wej
On 1/14/2016 9:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:

Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent
locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work
DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will
become  hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.

Dave, W5UN

On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the
years here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I
have also rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally
scrapped enough money together and bought a home next to a large salt
pond. I have full remote station here but it only functions for
contest operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC
credit.  The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely
skews the process as far as the propagation differences across the
fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into
the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure
makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the way
you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need
a computer and an internet connection and everything else that used
to a worthwhile effort is trashed.

I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who
originally from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to
work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I
am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts
of  QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. That is a shame and
perhaps to some a disgrace as it really chances everything including
the respect we have for those who did so much with so little.`

Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:

I will say this:
operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station,
built by your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are
unable to build one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a
beautiful station and antenna system here over the past fifteen
years, only to see much of it destroyed by storms in recent years.
Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.

Dave, W5UN

On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:

Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain
these remote
stations."

My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the
Remote Ham
Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The
stations
are available for a price.

I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is
someone's
home station (just like all the others in the network).

Carl K9LA
_
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 Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Larry Burke]

> The ethics of the whole thing has already been settled by the ARRL so
ethics don't have to be looked at.

Actually the ARRL didn't do squat about ethics. They left the "ethics" up to
the operator. You are confusing "rules" with "ethics". There is a difference
between what is permitted and what is moral/ethical. Adultery is not a crime
in most industrialized countries. It is not a crime in 29 of the US states.
It is "legal" -- but ask your spouse whether they think it is cheating.

Larry K5RK





_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Jorge Diez CX6VM]

Hello

I have one doubt about that

Can you confirm me that before RHR nobody worked DXCC and WAS from different 
locations?

For example someone that move from east coast to Texas and them to west coast 
and compute all his/her qsos from this 3 QTH,s? 

73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 14 ene. 2016, a las 19:42, Mike Waters  escribió:
> 
> Dave, Herb, et al:
> 
> Respectfully, RHR is likely here to stay, like it or not. If you want to
> try and change that, fine. But I am not going to let that --or how others
> use RHR to their advantage-- bother me. :-)
> 
> I get a warm fuzzy feeling of deep contentment operating the 160 meter
> station that I built --and largely designed-- at minimal cost with my own
> two hands and with what's left of my brain. (Well, my XYL, KD0LAJ helped
> with those antennas. ;-) The inverted-L and the tuner. Both 2-wire Beverage
> antennas and the control systems for them. The preamps.
> The only things I paid money for were parts, such as ferrite cores,
> connectors, wire/coax, and other components. I also built a unique
> legal-limit amplifier for 160 from junk and hamfest parts.
> 
> Others might disagree (and I have no problem whatsoever with that), but
> that's why I enjoy amateur radio: build something, and then get on the
> radio and see how well it works. And when it does (like breaking a DX
> pileup with only 100 watts), I run upstairs all exited so that I can share
> my excitement with my wife.
> 
> And I'm not alone.* So, why should we let what others do upset us?
> Gentlemen, let's just have fun doing our own thing on 160 (at least most of
> the time. :-)*
> 
> Having said that, I can appreciate that you might want to win a contest,
> and feel that RHR is unfair. I don't disagree with that. But is it
> realistic to think that anyone can change that? From what I've read, that's
> not likely. (End of psychology dissertation. ;-)
> 
> 
> On another note ...
> 
> I'm now at the point where I'm actually getting somewhat bored with 160m.
> It has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing.
> The "new" has worn off; after operating for over 5 years with the same
> setup, I now pretty much know what to expect from my existing antennas now.
> (Spectacular band openings are nice; however, they just don't 'pop my
> clutch'. It's what we can accomplish during "normal" band conditions that
> excites me.)
> 
> The only thing that will change that and restore my enthusiasm is modifying
> what I have here. And I have several things on the list:
> 
> - Modifying our Beverage antennas so that I can remotely switch the
> lengths from 580' to over 800', and perhaps adding a third E-W Beverage.
> 
> - Adding the ability to phase them against the inverted-L during receive
> to null out unwanted signals and noise, using the MFJ-1025 that I've hardly
> ever used
> 
> - And adding a few more elevated radials to the inverted-L
> 
> 
> When some of that is done, it'll be SO EXCITING again! I won't even care
> about getting involved in discussions like this! ;-)
> 
> 
> I'm not at all against anyone trying to change the RHR (or any other)
> rules. *But let's keep in mind that at least part of the time, we can shut
> that out of our minds and enjoy 160 meters like we used to.*
> 
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
> 
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm 
> wrote:
> 
>> ... a former 160 meter DX pioneer ... used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25
>> watts to work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR
>> I am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts of
>> QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. ...
>> 
>>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>> 
>>>  ... operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
>>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by
>>> your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to build
>>> one up, what's your choice? [snip]
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

Jorge, Many years ago the rules for these awards required that one had to stay 
within a radius of 250 miles from any of the various locations they operated 
and accumulated contacts for awards.  At some point in time that rule was 
changed.  Now the rule is (regarding US hams) that they can be anywhere in the 
continental 48 states and the accumulation of contacts for awards are all 
valid.  But at one time you would be correct in assuming that this was not the 
case.

HelloI have one doubt about thatCan you confirm me that before RHR nobody 
worked DXCC and WAS from different locations?For example someone that move from 
east coast to Texas and them to west coast and compute all his/her qsos from 
this 3 QTH,




-Original Message-
From: Jorge Diez CX6VM 
To: Mike Waters 
Cc: TopBand List ; Herbert Schoenbohm 
; Dave Blaschke, w5un 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 6:39 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

HelloI have one doubt about thatCan you confirm me that before RHR nobody 
worked DXCC and WAS from different locations?For example someone that move from 
east coast to Texas and them to west coast and compute all his/her qsos from 
this 3 QTH,s? 73,JorgeCX6VM/CW5WEnviado desde mi iPhone> El 14 ene. 2016, a las 
19:42, Mike Waters  escribió:> > Dave, Herb, et al:> > 
Respectfully, RHR is likely here to stay, like it or not. If you want to> try 
and change that, fine. But I am not going to let that --or how others> use RHR 
to their advantage-- bother me. :-)> > I get a warm fuzzy feeling of deep 
contentment operating the 160 meter> station that I built --and largely 
designed-- at minimal cost with my own> two hands and with what's left of my 
brain. (Well, my XYL, KD0LAJ helped> with those antennas. ;-) The inverted-L 
and the tuner. Both 2-wire Beverage> antennas and the control systems for them. 
The preamps.> The only things I paid money for were parts, such as ferrite 
cores,> connectors, wire/coax, and other components. I also built a unique> 
legal-limit amplifier for 160 from junk and hamfest parts.> > Others might 
disagree (and I have no problem whatsoever with that), but> that's why I enjoy 
amateur radio: build something, and then get on the> radio and see how well it 
works. And when it does (like breaking a DX> pileup with only 100 watts), I run 
upstairs all exited so that I can share> my excitement with my wife.> > And I'm 
not alone.* So, why should we let what others do upset us?> Gentlemen, let's 
just have fun doing our own thing on 160 (at least most of> the time. :-)*> > 
Having said that, I can appreciate that you might want to win a contest,> and 
feel that RHR is unfair. I don't disagree with that. But is it> realistic to 
think that anyone can change that? From what I've read, that's> not likely. 
(End of psychology dissertation. ;-)> > > On another note ...> > I'm now at the 
point where I'm actually getting somewhat bored with 160m.> It has nothing to 
do with what anyone else is doing.> The "new" has worn off; after operating for 
over 5 years with the same> setup, I now pretty much know what to expect from 
my existing antennas now.> (Spectacular band openings are nice; however, they 
just don't 'pop my> clutch'. It's what we can accomplish during "normal" band 
conditions that> excites me.)> > The only thing that will change that and 
restore my enthusiasm is modifying> what I have here. And I have several things 
on the list:> > - Modifying our Beverage antennas so that I can remotely switch 
the> lengths from 580' to over 800', and perhaps adding a third E-W Beverage.> 
> - Adding the ability to phase them against the inverted-L during receive> to 
null out unwanted signals and noise, using the MFJ-1025 that I've hardly> ever 
used> > - And adding a few more elevated radials to the inverted-L> > > When 
some of that is done, it'll be SO EXCITING again! I won't even care> about 
getting involved in discussions like this! ;-)> > > I'm not at all against 
anyone trying to change the RHR (or any other)> rules. *But let's keep in mind 
that at least part of the time, we can shut> that out of our minds and enjoy 
160 meters like we used to.*> > 73, Mike> www.w0btu.com> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 
at 12:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm > wrote:> >> ... a former 
160 meter DX pioneer ... used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25>> watts to work a 
G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR>> I am afraid is the 
end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts of>> QRO muscle and money 
decided who was on top. ...>> >>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un 
wrote:>>> >>>  ... operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by 
someone>>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, 
built by>>> your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable 
to build>>> one up, what's your choice? [snip]> _> Topband 
Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband_Topband 
Reflector Archive

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[kd9sv]

FYI...I have dxcc 304 and 40 zones on 160 meters and all were worked from my
home in NE Indiana.  73, de gary, kd9sv

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jorge
Diez CX6VM
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 6:38 PM
To: Mike Waters
Cc: TopBand List; Herbert Schoenbohm; Dave Blaschke,w5un
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Hello

I have one doubt about that

Can you confirm me that before RHR nobody worked DXCC and WAS from different
locations?

For example someone that move from east coast to Texas and them to west
coast and compute all his/her qsos from this 3 QTH,s? 

73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 14 ene. 2016, a las 19:42, Mike Waters  escribió:
> 
> Dave, Herb, et al:
> 
> Respectfully, RHR is likely here to stay, like it or not. If you want to
> try and change that, fine. But I am not going to let that --or how others
> use RHR to their advantage-- bother me. :-)
> 
> I get a warm fuzzy feeling of deep contentment operating the 160 meter
> station that I built --and largely designed-- at minimal cost with my own
> two hands and with what's left of my brain. (Well, my XYL, KD0LAJ helped
> with those antennas. ;-) The inverted-L and the tuner. Both 2-wire
Beverage
> antennas and the control systems for them. The preamps.
> The only things I paid money for were parts, such as ferrite cores,
> connectors, wire/coax, and other components. I also built a unique
> legal-limit amplifier for 160 from junk and hamfest parts.
> 
> Others might disagree (and I have no problem whatsoever with that), but
> that's why I enjoy amateur radio: build something, and then get on the
> radio and see how well it works. And when it does (like breaking a DX
> pileup with only 100 watts), I run upstairs all exited so that I can share
> my excitement with my wife.
> 
> And I'm not alone.* So, why should we let what others do upset us?
> Gentlemen, let's just have fun doing our own thing on 160 (at least most
of
> the time. :-)*
> 
> Having said that, I can appreciate that you might want to win a contest,
> and feel that RHR is unfair. I don't disagree with that. But is it
> realistic to think that anyone can change that? From what I've read,
that's
> not likely. (End of psychology dissertation. ;-)
> 
> 
> On another note ...
> 
> I'm now at the point where I'm actually getting somewhat bored with 160m.
> It has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing.
> The "new" has worn off; after operating for over 5 years with the same
> setup, I now pretty much know what to expect from my existing antennas
now.
> (Spectacular band openings are nice; however, they just don't 'pop my
> clutch'. It's what we can accomplish during "normal" band conditions that
> excites me.)
> 
> The only thing that will change that and restore my enthusiasm is
modifying
> what I have here. And I have several things on the list:
> 
> - Modifying our Beverage antennas so that I can remotely switch the
> lengths from 580' to over 800', and perhaps adding a third E-W Beverage.
> 
> - Adding the ability to phase them against the inverted-L during receive
> to null out unwanted signals and noise, using the MFJ-1025 that I've
hardly
> ever used
> 
> - And adding a few more elevated radials to the inverted-L
> 
> 
> When some of that is done, it'll be SO EXCITING again! I won't even care
> about getting involved in discussions like this! ;-)
> 
> 
> I'm not at all against anyone trying to change the RHR (or any other)
> rules. *But let's keep in mind that at least part of the time, we can shut
> that out of our minds and enjoy 160 meters like we used to.*
> 
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
> 
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm 
> wrote:
> 
>> ... a former 160 meter DX pioneer ... used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25
>> watts to work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be.
RHR
>> I am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts
of
>> QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. ...
>> 
>>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>> 
>>>  ... operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
>>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by
>>> your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to
build
>>> one up, what's your choice? [snip]
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4492/11394 - Release Date: 01/13/16

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

Larry, You are entitled to your opinion.  I can see your point.  But don't 
blame the RHR guys.  I would blame those who you think should not be getting 
credit and do.  I'll bet some hams use RHR and they don't care about awards, 
they just want to operate ham radio because MAYBE they can't otherwise.



-Original Message-
From: Larry Burke 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 6:37 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

> The ethics of the whole thing has already been settled by the ARRL so
ethics don't have to be looked at.

Actually the ARRL didn't do squat about ethics. They left the "ethics" up to
the operator. You are confusing "rules" with "ethics". There is a difference
between what is permitted and what is moral/ethical. Adultery is not a crime
in most industrialized countries. It is not a crime in 29 of the US states.
It is "legal" -- but ask your spouse whether they think it is cheating.

Larry K5RK





_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: K5P QRV 160

[wb6rse1]

Just noted 2336Z per K9CT on the 160 chat:

“Hello from Palmyra …..we have fixed the 160m antenna and will be on at our SS 
… GL"

Steve WB6RSE
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

That is fantastic Gary, I wish I can say the same. That is something to be very 
proud of indeed.



-Original Message-
From: kd9sv 
To: 'Jorge Diez CX6VM' ; 'Mike Waters' 

Cc: 'TopBand List' ; 'Herbert Schoenbohm' 
; 'Dave Blaschke, w5un' 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

FYI...I have dxcc 304 and 40 zones on 160 meters and all were worked from my
home in NE Indiana.  73, de gary, kd9sv

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jorge
Diez CX6VM
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 6:38 PM
To: Mike Waters
Cc: TopBand List; Herbert Schoenbohm; Dave Blaschke,w5un
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Hello

I have one doubt about that

Can you confirm me that before RHR nobody worked DXCC and WAS from different
locations?

For example someone that move from east coast to Texas and them to west
coast and compute all his/her qsos from this 3 QTH,s? 

73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 14 ene. 2016, a las 19:42, Mike Waters  escribió:
> 
> Dave, Herb, et al:
> 
> Respectfully, RHR is likely here to stay, like it or not. If you want to
> try and change that, fine. But I am not going to let that --or how others
> use RHR to their advantage-- bother me. :-)
> 
> I get a warm fuzzy feeling of deep contentment operating the 160 meter
> station that I built --and largely designed-- at minimal cost with my own
> two hands and with what's left of my brain. (Well, my XYL, KD0LAJ helped
> with those antennas. ;-) The inverted-L and the tuner. Both 2-wire
Beverage
> antennas and the control systems for them. The preamps.
> The only things I paid money for were parts, such as ferrite cores,
> connectors, wire/coax, and other components. I also built a unique
> legal-limit amplifier for 160 from junk and hamfest parts.
> 
> Others might disagree (and I have no problem whatsoever with that), but
> that's why I enjoy amateur radio: build something, and then get on the
> radio and see how well it works. And when it does (like breaking a DX
> pileup with only 100 watts), I run upstairs all exited so that I can share
> my excitement with my wife.
> 
> And I'm not alone.* So, why should we let what others do upset us?
> Gentlemen, let's just have fun doing our own thing on 160 (at least most
of
> the time. :-)*
> 
> Having said that, I can appreciate that you might want to win a contest,
> and feel that RHR is unfair. I don't disagree with that. But is it
> realistic to think that anyone can change that? From what I've read,
that's
> not likely. (End of psychology dissertation. ;-)
> 
> 
> On another note ...
> 
> I'm now at the point where I'm actually getting somewhat bored with 160m.
> It has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing.
> The "new" has worn off; after operating for over 5 years with the same
> setup, I now pretty much know what to expect from my existing antennas
now.
> (Spectacular band openings are nice; however, they just don't 'pop my
> clutch'. It's what we can accomplish during "normal" band conditions that
> excites me.)
> 
> The only thing that will change that and restore my enthusiasm is
modifying
> what I have here. And I have several things on the list:
> 
> - Modifying our Beverage antennas so that I can remotely switch the
> lengths from 580' to over 800', and perhaps adding a third E-W Beverage.
> 
> - Adding the ability to phase them against the inverted-L during receive
> to null out unwanted signals and noise, using the MFJ-1025 that I've
hardly
> ever used
> 
> - And adding a few more elevated radials to the inverted-L
> 
> 
> When some of that is done, it'll be SO EXCITING again! I won't even care
> about getting involved in discussions like this! ;-)
> 
> 
> I'm not at all against anyone trying to change the RHR (or any other)
> rules. *But let's keep in mind that at least part of the time, we can shut
> that out of our minds and enjoy 160 meters like we used to.*
> 
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
> 
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm 
> wrote:
> 
>> ... a former 160 meter DX pioneer ... used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25
>> watts to work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be.
RHR
>> I am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts
of
>> QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. ...
>> 
>>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>> 
>>>  ... operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
>>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by
>>> your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to
build
>>> one up, what's your choice? [snip]
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4492/11394 - Release Date: 0

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

Most of the gun hunters say that to the bow hunters.



-Original Message-
From: john 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 6:14 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

really? to which I say,,,God bless you,,, Ill just turn the other 
check   for me this thread is over
73 john w8wej

On 1/14/2016 10:56 PM, Louis Parascondola via Topband wrote:
> Did you ever shoot an animal with a gun?  Shooting an animal with a gun is 
> like using RHR for ANTO.  Shooting an animal with a bow and arrow is like 
> using your station that may be just average.  The ethics of the whole thing 
> has already been settled by the ARRL so ethics don't have to be looked at.
>
> for years I was a very hard hunter of game,
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: john 
> To: topband 
> Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 5:28 pm
> Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation
>
> you know,,,at 74 if I need something that bad,,, I need to re-evaluate
> my priorities,,,   what ever I work will be from my home , or my farm,
> 32 miles away  I am very fortunate to have both and a basic station
> station at both,, in person
> on site
> ,,, I understand folks in apartments etc,,, but for those folk who , in
> my opinion work  stuff via  what ever cost and remote coast to coast
> is just plain wrong-- arrl need to look at the entire ethics again. I
> know = dollars
> for years I was a very hard hunter of game,,, but I never took any thing
> that would not go to some one  to eat.. In the total scheme of things
> trophies and certificates are just that ,,, nothing more , nothing less
> just saying
> as for me , Ill work what I can from home and at my farm,,, in person,
> on site,, -- again I am not  slamming  anyone from an apartment or place
> that they  can not put up an antenna, who I do slam is the folks that
> will work em at any cost and who  already have substantial stations
> dx is
> what I have written I have written
> done now   73 john w8wej
> On 1/14/2016 9:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>> Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent
>> locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work
>> DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will
>> become  hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.
>>
>> Dave, W5UN
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>>> I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the
>>> years here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I
>>> have also rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally
>>> scrapped enough money together and bought a home next to a large salt
>>> pond. I have full remote station here but it only functions for
>>> contest operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC
>>> credit.  The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely
>>> skews the process as far as the propagation differences across the
>>> fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into
>>> the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure
>>> makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the way
>>> you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need
>>> a computer and an internet connection and everything else that used
>>> to a worthwhile effort is trashed.
>>>
>>> I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who
>>> originally from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to
>>> work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I
>>> am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts
>>> of  QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. That is a shame and
>>> perhaps to some a disgrace as it really chances everything including
>>> the respect we have for those who did so much with so little.`
>>>
>>> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
 I will say this:
 operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
 else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station,
 built by your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are
 unable to build one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a
 beautiful station and antenna system here over the past fifteen
 years, only to see much of it destroyed by storms in recent years.
 Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.

 Dave, W5UN

 On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:
> Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain
> these remote
> stations."
>
> My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the
> Remote Ham
> Radio network (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The
> stations
> are available for a price.
>
> I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is
> someone's
> home station (just like all the others in the network).
>
> Carl K9LA
> _
> Topband Reflector 

Topband: Before remote op...way before

[Stoskopf]

I haven't been on 160 for a long time. Intending to when I get back.  In
HK now heading so Vietnam for pleasure.  Didn't get the free trip 40 years
ago!

But I was on on the 60s and had the excitement of working VK with a S40B
RX and an ARC5 from KS. Also go to visit W0VXO in MN (Hi Herb) and W1BB in
MA for shack tours. Will be on soon with an Acomm2000 and Hermes. Big
difference is used a straight key last time and at age 76 struggle with
those high speed guys.

As for remote operationI do have a 2 mile WiFi link to a remote site
so might as well be anywherebut it is more fun being theresuch as
my hour on Ducie as VP 6UU

Cheers.  N0UU

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: Strange propagation

[Jim Murray via Topband]

 " SO what is the beef?  RHR is just another form of progress due to advances 
in technology, if we did not embrace progress in ham radio technology we would 
all still be talking to one another on Lunch boxes and Gooney boxes! "

Problems begin when technology changes ethics.
Jimk2hn 

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: A reminder

[Tree]

Please sign your emails with your callsign (assuming you have one).

Thanks.

Tree N6TR
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

Jim,

 Artificial insemination is advanced technology also but pray tell me 
that it is more fun.  We are not taking about an either- or situation of 
"embracing progress in amateur radio" at all. What some of us eschew is 
the replacement of what was here to for a relatively stable paradigm and 
replacing it with something that is much different.  Stew Perry, W1BB, 
Charlie O Brien, W2EQS, and Bryce W9PNE did with what they had and made 
us proud of their accomplishments and contributions. Now Stew did not 
get in his car and use the super powered MacKay  coastal stations near 
by to work 160 meters. He took a right turn to his hamshack location at 
an old lighthouse, put up a zepp antenna,  and worked the first 160 
meter DXCC with 100 watts.  Some may call this "old school" but this is 
precisely what topbanders were all about. I hate to see this lost in 
`some pay to play scheme in the future.



Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
On 1/14/2016 9:00 PM, Jim Murray via Topband wrote:

  " SO what is the beef?  RHR is just another form of progress due to advances in 
technology, if we did not embrace progress in ham radio technology we would all still be 
talking to one another on Lunch boxes and Gooney boxes! "

Problems begin when technology changes ethics.
Jimk2hn

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Kris Mraz]

Which brings to mind another issue: 160m card checkers will disallow a
card if the
DX QSO occurred in the middle of the day since the path would be impossible.
Can't make that assumption, anymore.

Kris N5KM

-Original Message-
From: Larry 
To: barry.n1eu 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 10:22 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

More than once I have worked some Ukraine station in the 160 meter
contest at S9 plus when it is broad daylight in UB5. Obviously they
are operating a remote station. Guess I need to log them, Ha.

The kicker is when i receive a QSL card direct and they expect a return.

Yes I understand the need to integrate modern technology into ham
radio. Remote stations,
remote receiving locations etc. My opinion is that if you cant operate
from your physical location for what ever the reason then try another
hobby.

Happy new year!

Larry
N7DD
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Larry Burke]

I was specifically told by one checker that he doesn't even check the time
of a Topband QSO. Go figure. 


Larry K5RK

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kris Mraz
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:19 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Which brings to mind another issue: 160m card checkers will disallow a card
if the DX QSO occurred in the middle of the day since the path would be
impossible.
Can't make that assumption, anymore.

Kris N5KM


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

Well so much for the ARRL card checkers as unless the checker here in a 
U.S. Territory  has a DXCC on 160 they will not accredit him/her and I 
must send the cards for 160 meter (just 160 meters) via the post 
office.  Another one of the ARRL's inconsistent policies that makes no 
sense.



Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 9:19 PM, Kris Mraz wrote:
Boxbe  This message is eligible for 
Automatic Cleanup! (n5kilom...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule 
 
| More info 
 




Which brings to mind another issue: 160m card checkers will disallow a
card if the
DX QSO occurred in the middle of the day since the path would be impossible.
Can't make that assumption, anymore.

Kris N5KM

-Original Message-
From: Larry 
To: barry.n1eu 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 10:22 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

More than once I have worked some Ukraine station in the 160 meter
contest at S9 plus when it is broad daylight in UB5. Obviously they
are operating a remote station. Guess I need to log them, Ha.

The kicker is when i receive a QSL card direct and they expect a return.

Yes I understand the need to integrate modern technology into ham
radio. Remote stations,
remote receiving locations etc. My opinion is that if you cant operate
from your physical location for what ever the reason then try another
hobby.

Happy new year!

Larry
N7DD
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[JC]

<>

The issue is what you do and not what you say 

If all this new technology is do good , the HRH users should be proud of is
and PUBLISH, open publicly and announce proudly . 

""  I am a HRH user!!! ""

However that is far from reality,  the main business drive is privacy. HRH
warranty nobody will possibly know you are using this fantastic technology.

WHY?? Open the list of users, be proud of it! 

My 100 cents

N4IS
JC



-Original Message-
From: Herbert Schoenbohm 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 4:54 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Dave,  What will happen then is that the RHR gurus will just jack up the
rates to take the hams with deepest pockets. Additionally the laws of supply
will kick in and more RHR station and others will invest in this scheme to
put more stations on the air.  As this progresses the value of the entire
DXCC program will diminish. There must be some brakes put on this before is
is to late.  The other night I was thrilled to have an Italian station
calling me on 160 only to learn later he was actually on the mainland via an
RHR station.  Is this the way amateur radio is supposed to trend?


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 5:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
> Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent 
> locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work 
> DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will become  
> hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.
>
> Dave, W5UN
>
> On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>> I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the 
>> years here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I 
>> have also rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally 
>> scrapped enough money together and bought a home next to a large salt 
>> pond. I have full remote station here but it only functions for 
>> contest operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC 
>> credit.  The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely 
>> skews the process as far as the propagation differences across the 
>> fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into 
>> the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure 
>> makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the way 
>> you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need 
>> a computer and an internet connection and everything else that used 
>> to a worthwhile effort is trashed.
>>
>> I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who 
>> originally from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to 
>> work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I 
>> am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts 
>> of  QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. That is a shame and 
>> perhaps to some a disgrace as it really chances everything including 
>> the respect we have for those who did so much with so little.`
>>
>> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>> I will say this:
>>> operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone 
>>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, 
>>> built by your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are 
>>> unable to build one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a 
>>> beautiful station and antenna system here over the past fifteen 
>>> years, only to see much of it destroyed by storms in recent years.
>>> Now I am unable to rebuild anymore.
>>>
>>> Dave, W5UN
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 2:26 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:
 Ed N1UR said "It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain 
 these remote stations."

 My guess is it was someone using the Portland, OR station in the 
 Remote Ham Radio network 
 (http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/). The stations are 
 available for a price.

 I don't know whose actual station that is - but I'm sure it is 
 someone's home station (just like all the others in the network).

 Carl K9LA
 _
 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 Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
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: Strange propagation

[Mike Cizek W0VTT]

Larry, et al,

I am a 160 card checker, and I damn well DO check the times!  I'm sorry 
to report that I have found cases where "impossible" QSOs were claimed, 
and reported them to the mother ship in Newington.  I would sincerely 
hope that my colleagues would do the same.


--
73,
Mike Cizek WØVTT



On 14-Jan-16 19:35, Larry Burke wrote:

I was specifically told by one checker that he doesn't even check the time
of a Topband QSO. Go figure.


Larry K5RK

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kris Mraz
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:19 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Which brings to mind another issue: 160m card checkers will disallow a card
if the DX QSO occurred in the middle of the day since the path would be
impossible.
Can't make that assumption, anymore.

Kris N5KM


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Larry Burke]

Mike, if you were presented with a card showing a Topband QSO that took
place two hours after the sunrise at the QTH of the card holder how would
you handle it? Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that the card holder
has lived at the same QTH for his entire hamming "career".


Larry K5Rki


-Original Message-
From: Mike Cizek W0VTT [mailto:mgci...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:41 PM
To: Larry Burke; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Larry, et al,

I am a 160 card checker, and I damn well DO check the times!  I'm sorry to
report that I have found cases where "impossible" QSOs were claimed, and
reported them to the mother ship in Newington.  I would sincerely hope that
my colleagues would do the same.

--
73,
Mike Cizek WØVTT


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[JC]

>>>Which brings to mind another issue: 160m card checkers will disallow a
card if the DX QSO occurred in the middle of the day since the path would be
impossible.
Can't make that assumption, anymore.<<<


LOTW is responsible for 90% or more 160m DXCC confirmation and there is no
check on day light QSO on LOTW.

73's
JC
N4IS



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Tom W8JI]

I am a 160 card checker, and I damn well DO check the times!  I'm sorry
to report that I have found cases where "impossible" QSOs were claimed,
and reported them to the mother ship in Newington.  I would sincerely
hope that my colleagues would do the same.>>>

But isn't it legal to operate anywhere in the lower continental USA to make 
a DXCC contact in the lower continental USA?


As far as I know, they made that legal many years ago, and the contact 
simply has to be made from the USA lower 48 no matter where.


Where were all the complainers when they did that? As far as I'm concerned, 
that was the end of DXCC meaning very much. I wrote and complained. Now it 
is what it is.


73 Tom 


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Carl Braun]

JC hit the nail on the head...lets identify those who are using RHR openly.  My 
preference would be a specific suffix designator that would identify the 
transmitting station and then let's see if anyone wants to work a RHR on the 
air.

I witnessed a local san diego station working RHR last Christmas via a KH6 RHR 
station with the implication he was actually in Hawaii.  Operators asked about 
the WX and operating power with the stateside station playing along as if he 
was truly in Hawaii.  QSOs went on and on without any clarification from the 
stateside operator that signed KH6/x.

My suggestion is to determine a suitable (international) suffix designator for 
RHR stations so we all know who and where the signal is coming from...or NOT.  
Those opposed to that rationale could be those that enjoy the thrill of 
deception rather than an honest QSO.  What other reason could there be for a 
station that wouldn't want to use a suffix designator that clearly identifies 
the fact that their RF origin could literally be from anywhere in the world?

BTW, there hasn't been so many posts related to a single topic 
sincewell, since the first time RHR was discussed on the reflector.  
This topic has so many posts it constipated my netzero account.

Carl AG6X

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of JC
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:39 PM
To: 'TopBand'
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation



<>

The issue is what you do and not what you say 

If all this new technology is do good , the HRH users should be proud of is and 
PUBLISH, open publicly and announce proudly . 

""  I am a HRH user!!! ""

However that is far from reality,  the main business drive is privacy. HRH 
warranty nobody will possibly know you are using this fantastic technology.

WHY?? Open the list of users, be proud of it! 

My 100 cents

N4IS
JC



-Original Message-
From: Herbert Schoenbohm 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 4:54 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Dave,  What will happen then is that the RHR gurus will just jack up the rates 
to take the hams with deepest pockets. Additionally the laws of supply will 
kick in and more RHR station and others will invest in this scheme to put more 
stations on the air.  As this progresses the value of the entire DXCC program 
will diminish. There must be some brakes put on this before is is to late.  The 
other night I was thrilled to have an Italian station calling me on 160 only to 
learn later he was actually on the mainland via an RHR station.  Is this the 
way amateur radio is supposed to trend?


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 5:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
> Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent 
> locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work 
> DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will become 
> hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.
>
> Dave, W5UN
>
> On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>> I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the 
>> years here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I 
>> have also rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally 
>> scrapped enough money together and bought a home next to a large salt 
>> pond. I have full remote station here but it only functions for 
>> contest operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC 
>> credit.  The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely 
>> skews the process as far as the propagation differences across the 
>> fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into 
>> the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure 
>> makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the way 
>> you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need 
>> a computer and an internet connection and everything else that used 
>> to a worthwhile effort is trashed.
>>
>> I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who 
>> originally from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to 
>> work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I 
>> am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts 
>> of  QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. That is a shame and 
>> perhaps to some a disgrace as it really chances everything including 
>> the respect we have for those who did so much with so little.`
>>
>> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>> I will say this:
>>> operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone 
>>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, 
>>> built by your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are 
>>> unable to build one up, what's your choice? I built (and rebuilt) a 
>>> beautiful station and antenna system here over the past fifteen 
>>> years, only to see m

Re: Topband: strange propagation

[Ed Sawyer]

In the case discussed of a station remoting in and not properly identifying
(ie an Italian station remoting a USA station but continuing to use the
Italian callsign), it seems to me that the FCC would consider the station
owner the control operator and therefore responsible for the proper IDing of
transmissions made from their station.

 

I would think a few fines issued by the FCC to the remote station holder,
would shut these games down in a hurry.  I wonder if the RHR station owners
that are being leased out by individuals realize their liability in these
circumstances.  I think some people will be shocked with a certified letter
at some point and the game will quickly change.

 

Ed  N1UR

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Kris Mraz]

Aha. You got me there :-)

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 7:46 PM, JC  wrote:
>
Which brings to mind another issue: 160m card checkers will disallow a
> card if the DX QSO occurred in the middle of the day since the path would be
> impossible.
> Can't make that assumption, anymore.<<<
>
>
> LOTW is responsible for 90% or more 160m DXCC confirmation and there is no
> check on day light QSO on LOTW.
>
> 73's
> JC
> N4IS
>
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: A reminder

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

On 1/14/2016 5:05 PM, Tree wrote:

Please sign your emails with your callsign (assuming you have one).

Thanks.

Tree N6TR
_


It would also be very helpful to give your QTH, especially if
your call is out of district.

Rick N6RK
Galt, CA
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

It is the same thing as if he was here physically, he must use his call with a 
/ w2 or whatever.  

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: Ed Sawyer 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation


In the case discussed of a station remoting in and not properly identifying
(ie an Italian station remoting a USA station but continuing to use the
Italian callsign), it seems to me that the FCC would consider the station
owner the control operator and therefore responsible for the proper IDing of
transmissions made from their station.

 

I would think a few fines issued by the FCC to the remote station holder,
would shut these games down in a hurry.  I wonder if the RHR station owners
that are being leased out by individuals realize their liability in these
circumstances.  I think some people will be shocked with a certified letter
at some point and the game will quickly change.

 

Ed  N1UR

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband"; 
target="_blank">http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

We have to see if RHR is a registered trademark name so that when we say things 
like this we make sure we are not singling out this specific group that 
supplies this service as opposed to anyone who remotes any station.

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: Carl Braun 
To: JC ; 'TopBand' 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation


JC hit the nail on the head...lets identify those who are using RHR openly.  My 
preference would be a specific suffix designator that would identify the 
transmitting station and then let's see if anyone wants to work a RHR on the 
air.

I witnessed a local san diego station working RHR last Christmas via a KH6 RHR 
station with the implication he was actually in Hawaii.  Operators asked about 
the WX and operating power with the stateside station playing along as if he 
was truly in Hawaii.  QSOs went on and on without any clarification from the 
stateside operator that signed KH6/x.

My suggestion is to determine a suitable (international) suffix designator for 
RHR stations so we all know who and where the signal is coming from...or NOT.  
Those opposed to that rationale could be those that enjoy the thrill of 
deception rather than an honest QSO.  What other reason could there be for a 
station that wouldn't want to use a suffix designator that clearly identifies 
the fact that their RF origin could literally be from anywhere in the world?

BTW, there hasn't been so many posts related to a single topic 
sincewell, since the first time RHR was discussed on the reflector.  
This topic has so many posts it constipated my netzero account.

Carl AG6X

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com?";>mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com]
 On Behalf Of JC
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:39 PM
To: 'TopBand'
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation



<>

The issue is what you do and not what you say 

If all this new technology is do good , the HRH users should be proud of is and 
PUBLISH, open publicly and announce proudly . 

""  I am a HRH user!!! ""

However that is far from reality,  the main business drive is privacy. HRH 
warranty nobody will possibly know you are using this fantastic technology.

WHY?? Open the list of users, be proud of it! 

My 100 cents

N4IS
JC



-Original Message-
From: Herbert Schoenbohm he...@vitelcom.net>
To: topband topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 4:54 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Dave,  What will happen then is that the RHR gurus will just jack up the rates 
to take the hams with deepest pockets. Additionally the laws of supply will 
kick in and more RHR station and others will invest in this scheme to put more 
stations on the air.  As this progresses the value of the entire DXCC program 
will diminish. There must be some brakes put on this before is is to late.  The 
other night I was thrilled to have an Italian station calling me on 160 only to 
learn later he was actually on the mainland via an RHR station.  Is this the 
way amateur radio is supposed to trend?


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 1/14/2016 5:28 PM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
> Look at the situation; There are just a few stateside RHR for rent 
> locations. As more and more "hams" begin to use these sites to work 
> DXpeditions, the queue length to access one of these sites will become 
> hopeless long. JUST A THOUGHT.
>
> Dave, W5UN
>
> On 1/14/2016 6:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>> I have lost my amateur station in three major hurricanes over the 
>> years here, everything including radios (from water) and antennas. I 
>> have also rebuilt them a four different locations until I finally 
>> scrapped enough money together and bought a home next to a large salt 
>> pond. I have full remote station here but it only functions for 
>> contest operated by a cliff dweller in NYC who cares not for DXCC 
>> credit.  The problem with the US RHR deals is that it completely 
>> skews the process as far as the propagation differences across the 
>> fruited plan.  I would love to add to my DXCC totals as I close into 
>> the 300 mark.  USA stations can do this but is it ethical.  It sure 
>> makes money for a pay to play amateur radio scheme. But is it the way 
>> you want low band Dx-ing to become?  I hope not as you only will need 
>> a computer and an internet connection and everything else that used 
>> to a worthwhile effort is trashed.
>>
>> I remember a former 160 meter DX pioneer, Charles O'Brien who 
>> originally from Illinois used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25 watts to 
>> work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR I 
>> am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts 
>> of  QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. That is a shame and 
>> perhaps to some a disgrace as it really chances everything including 
>> the respect 

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

Tom please comment on the 4pm QSL card from ct. Claiming S2 at 4pm local time.

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: Tom W8JI 
To: topband ; Mike Cizek W0VTT 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 09:42 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation


I am a 160 card checker, and I damn well DO check the times!  I'm sorry
to report that I have found cases where "impossible" QSOs were claimed,
and reported them to the mother ship in Newington.  I would sincerely
hope that my colleagues would do the same.>>>

But isn't it legal to operate anywhere in the lower continental USA to make 
a DXCC contact in the lower continental USA?

As far as I know, they made that legal many years ago, and the contact 
simply has to be made from the USA lower 48 no matter where.

Where were all the complainers when they did that? As far as I'm concerned, 
that was the end of DXCC meaning very much. I wrote and complained. Now it 
is what it is.

73 Tom 

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband"; 
target="_blank">http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

And what about the S2 QSO I talk about?

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: Larry Burke 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 08:46 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation


Mike, if you were presented with a card showing a Topband QSO that took
place two hours after the sunrise at the QTH of the card holder how would
you handle it? Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that the card holder
has lived at the same QTH for his entire hamming "career".


Larry K5Rki


-Original Message-
From: Mike Cizek W0VTT [mailto:mgci...@gmail.com?";>mailto:mgci...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:41 PM
To: Larry Burke; mailto:topband@contesting.com";>topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Larry, et al,

I am a 160 card checker, and I damn well DO check the times!  I'm sorry to
report that I have found cases where "impossible" QSOs were claimed, and
reported them to the mother ship in Newington.  I would sincerely hope that
my colleagues would do the same.

--
73,
Mike Cizek WØVTT


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband"; 
target="_blank">http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

Once again what would you do with the S2 QSL card?

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: Larry Burke 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 08:37 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation


I was specifically told by one checker that he doesn't even check the time
of a Topband QSO. Go figure. 


Larry K5RK

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com?";>mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com]
 On Behalf Of Kris Mraz
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:19 PM
To: mailto:topband@contesting.com";>topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Strange propagation

Which brings to mind another issue: 160m card checkers will disallow a card
if the DX QSO occurred in the middle of the day since the path would be
impossible.
Can't make that assumption, anymore.

Kris N5KM


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband"; 
target="_blank">http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola via Topband]

Do you have any idea what information your cell phone can tell others when you 
say OK to the terms of the apps you download?  Talk about technology and 
ethics?   But it seems many of us allow them to scrub whatever information they 
want to get that app.

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: Jim Murray via Topband 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 08:01 PM
Subject: Topband:  Strange propagation


 " SO what is the beef?  RHR is just another form of progress due to advances 
in technology, if we did not embrace progress in ham radio technology we would 
all still be talking to one another on Lunch boxes and Gooney boxes! "

Problems begin when technology changes ethics.
Jimk2hn 

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband"; 
target="_blank">http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: strange propagation

[Ed Sawyer]

Correct, but if he doesn’t, its actually the primary responsibility of the 
control operator/station owner to shut down the station to prevent further 
illegal transmissions.

 

Ed  N1UR

 

From: Louis Parascondola [mailto:gudguy...@aol.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:53 AM
To: sawye...@earthlink.net; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation

 

It is the same thing as if he was here physically, he must use his call with a 
/ w2 or whatever.  

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: Ed Sawyer 
To: topband 
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation


In the case discussed of a station remoting in and not properly identifying
(ie an Italian station remoting a USA station but continuing to use the
Italian callsign), it seems to me that the FCC would consider the station
owner the control operator and therefore responsible for the proper IDing of
transmissions made from their station.



I would think a few fines issued by the FCC to the remote station holder,
would shut these games down in a hurry. I wonder if the RHR station owners
that are being leased out by individuals realize their liability in these
circumstances. I think some people will be shocked with a certified letter
at some point and the game will quickly change.



Ed N1UR

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband