Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log

[Peter Voelpel]

Yes, there are several hundred sdr receivers online and reachable via the
internet.

http://sdr.hu/?top=kiwi
http://websdr.org/

And when EA3JE takes over the dx portion of 80m with his wide signal and
illegal power he doesn´t even bother to listen that loud to the websdr he is
using, that from time time his vox is responding to it and you hear it via
his transmissions as well.

73
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of terry
burge
Sent: Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018 07:44
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log

Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went on line
and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ and YT1AA. Also
heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish in the barrel. At least
when you plug into the right SDR over there. They are not going in my log
but I did find out it is easy to do. And I believe it would get so easy the
fascination with working the world would be gone for me. It works but the
most of what I got out of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there'
and how poor my reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!


So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those
webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens, maybe
hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham Radio geeks
think.


Terry

KI7M

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

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

Topband: Cheating the system

[John Randall via Topband]

My final thoughts on this is that perhaps one way around this problem is to 
allow websdr qso's via designated websdr sites only for the award chasers and 
then to penalize them to "try and even the scorecard".Any qso made via other 
websdr's will not be validated. Maybe its a start !
Anyway or either way, I prefer to opt out of awards and contests. 

73 allJohn - M0ELS
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log

[terry burge]

Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went on line 
and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ and YT1AA. Also 
heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish in the barrel. At least when 
you plug into the right SDR over there. They are not going in my log but I did 
find out it is easy to do. And I believe it would get so easy the fascination 
with working the world would be gone for me. It works but the most of what I 
got out of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' and how poor my 
reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!


So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those webSDR's, 
take another think on that. There apparently are dozens, maybe hundreds. Don't 
think they will care what a few of us old Ham Radio geeks think.


Terry

KI7M

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

Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 181, Issue 20

[Pete Rimmel N8PR]

John (and others)

I would not like to see the below suggestion carried out for the following 
reason:


There have been times that I have used a WebSDR receiver in Europe to help 
me decide where to transmit from here in Florida.  An example was the 
3C0/3C1 operations.


I am pretty sure that the pileups from Europe were louder in those locations 
than my signal from Florida.  HOWEVER, I used the WebSDR to find holes in 
the EU pileups and successfully worked both stations on TB.


I could not hear most of those whom I saw on the SDR here in Florida, and my 
Waller Flag was not pointed at EU to look for them.


At the same time, I was hearing the 3C stations here on my receiver in 
Florida, and NOT on the webSDR receivers in Europe.


Should I be penalized for using a TOOL to figure out where to transmit? I 
think not.  This is not "Cheating" as some would suggest.


If you saw a report of me listening on a webSDR, you would falsely conclude 
I was hearing a 3C by using that means.


This tool is the same as using Reverse beacon networks or telnet  reporting 
to find the DX.


I agree that making QSOs where the receiver is not located where the 
transmitter is located is against the rules of DXing and fair play, but 
don't penalize those who would use a tool that is available for getting into 
the DX station's log.


73,  PeteR  N8PR





Message: 1
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:31:38 + (UTC)
From: John Randall 
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: cheating
Message-ID: <978842185.6183458.1516041098...@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has 
become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system 
,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what 
we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY 
written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would 
be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old fogeys 
who have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and also a 
curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force all 
websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then to 
make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be compared to 
say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth chewing over or 
other methods used.
Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain has 
been absent on the bands incl topband.


73John - M0ELS





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

Re: Topband: cheating

[Cecil Acuff]

Well that was a lot of help Steve

You can crawl back under your rock now...

Cecil
K5DL

Sent using recycled electrons.

> On Jan 15, 2018, at 9:23 PM, STEVE DANIEL  wrote:
> 
> Guy. You did it the "hard" way did you? I have been a ham and DXer since 1973 
> and have always encountered people like you. "You don't know how hard it was 
> when I was your age. You have no idea how hard it was to work DX back then" 
> Blah Blah Blah. It was BS then and it is BS now. The only thing that matters 
> is if one works within the rules of the award or contest in which they 
> compete. Technology evolves; rules evolve. Perhaps you and your ilk need to 
> do the same. Look backward if you must. I choose to look in the other 
> direction. Steve Daniel, NN4T
>> On January 15, 2018 at 6:28 PM Guy Olinger K2AV  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> With apologies to Tree, who has asked that this subject be dropped...
>> 
>> The question of the effect of a remote receiver or receivers has
>> already been dealt with by some contest organizers needing clarity and
>> consistency using current actual technical possibilities while
>> retaining the flavor and character of a contest. Probably the best
>> (IMHO) adjustment on remotes is that from Tree and Lew and the
>> inimitable BARC in the Stew Perry TBDC.
>> 
>> The first part of their answer simply says remote RX *and* TX is fine,
>> and is treated like a very long electronic line from key and headset
>> to the station wherever it is. Grid square and possible required
>> xxn/callsign signing are from the remote location, which is the point
>> of record for scoring, standing, awards, etc.
>> 
>> The second part is that using a local TX the receiver(s) may be
>> *entirely* co-located with the TX, or the RX facility may be
>> *entirely* sited at a single location 75 km or less from the TX
>> location. Using this provision, listening on the TX antenna is not
>> permitted during the contest. Although the rule uses the word
>> "receiver" in the singular, in their mind it does not preclude use of
>> a remote diversity RX, eg, K3 equipped with phase-locked diversity
>> subRX.
>> 
>> Please remember that "cheating" with respect to ARRL DXCC has to do
>> with *ARRL* rules for same. Arguably some DXCC rules are so lax as to
>> be meaningless, but they are the ARRL's rules. It has nothing to do
>> with our being irritated or angered by someone who using modern
>> technical extensions claims the same status as ourselves when we have
>> gotten those numbers the HARD way, digging out countries through the
>> urban noise never heard up on those mountain or off-continent remotes.
>> 
>> In the end someone whose status self-image depends on what others do
>> is inevitably doomed to anger. There will always, always be a cheat
>> among us somewhere. If we must compare, compare ourselves only to the
>> most noble examples. Or better yet BE that most noble example, knowing
>> God knows even if no one else does, and sleep well at night.
>> 
>> 73, Guy K2AV
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Steve Daniel  wrote:
>>> John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don’t believe 
>>> it is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word “cheating” suggests 
>>> that it is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
 On Jan 15, 2018, at 12:31 PM, John Randall via Topband 
  wrote:
 
 Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has 
 become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system 
 ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what 
 we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY 
 written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would 
 be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old 
 fogeys who have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and 
 also a curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force 
 all websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and 
 then to make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be 
 compared to say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth 
 chewing over or other methods used.
 Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain 
 has been absent on the bands incl topband.
 
 73John - M0ELS
 _
 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: cheating

[STEVE DANIEL]

Guy. You did it the "hard" way did you? I have been a ham and DXer since 1973 
and have always encountered people like you. "You don't know how hard it was 
when I was your age. You have no idea how hard it was to work DX back then" 
Blah Blah Blah. It was BS then and it is BS now. The only thing that matters is 
if one works within the rules of the award or contest in which they compete. 
Technology evolves; rules evolve. Perhaps you and your ilk need to do the same. 
Look backward if you must. I choose to look in the other direction. Steve 
Daniel, NN4T
> On January 15, 2018 at 6:28 PM Guy Olinger K2AV  wrote:
> 
> 
> With apologies to Tree, who has asked that this subject be dropped...
> 
> The question of the effect of a remote receiver or receivers has
> already been dealt with by some contest organizers needing clarity and
> consistency using current actual technical possibilities while
> retaining the flavor and character of a contest. Probably the best
> (IMHO) adjustment on remotes is that from Tree and Lew and the
> inimitable BARC in the Stew Perry TBDC.
> 
> The first part of their answer simply says remote RX *and* TX is fine,
> and is treated like a very long electronic line from key and headset
> to the station wherever it is. Grid square and possible required
> xxn/callsign signing are from the remote location, which is the point
> of record for scoring, standing, awards, etc.
> 
> The second part is that using a local TX the receiver(s) may be
> *entirely* co-located with the TX, or the RX facility may be
> *entirely* sited at a single location 75 km or less from the TX
> location. Using this provision, listening on the TX antenna is not
> permitted during the contest. Although the rule uses the word
> "receiver" in the singular, in their mind it does not preclude use of
> a remote diversity RX, eg, K3 equipped with phase-locked diversity
> subRX.
> 
> Please remember that "cheating" with respect to ARRL DXCC has to do
> with *ARRL* rules for same. Arguably some DXCC rules are so lax as to
> be meaningless, but they are the ARRL's rules. It has nothing to do
> with our being irritated or angered by someone who using modern
> technical extensions claims the same status as ourselves when we have
> gotten those numbers the HARD way, digging out countries through the
> urban noise never heard up on those mountain or off-continent remotes.
> 
> In the end someone whose status self-image depends on what others do
> is inevitably doomed to anger. There will always, always be a cheat
> among us somewhere. If we must compare, compare ourselves only to the
> most noble examples. Or better yet BE that most noble example, knowing
> God knows even if no one else does, and sleep well at night.
> 
> 73, Guy K2AV
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Steve Daniel  wrote:
> > John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don’t believe 
> > it is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word “cheating” suggests 
> > that it is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jan 15, 2018, at 12:31 PM, John Randall via Topband 
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has 
> >> become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system 
> >> ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what 
> >> we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY 
> >> written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would 
> >> be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old 
> >> fogeys who have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and 
> >> also a curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force 
> >> all websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and 
> >> then to make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be 
> >> compared to say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth 
> >> chewing over or other methods used.
> >> Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain 
> >> has been absent on the bands incl topband.
> >>
> >> 73John - M0ELS
> >> _
> >> 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: cheating

[JL PFIRMAN]

well said Guy,you hit a home run with the bases loaded! thank you 73 Jim W3TO

> On January 15, 2018 at 7:28 PM Guy Olinger K2AV  wrote:
>
>
> With apologies to Tree, who has asked that this subject be dropped...
>
> The question of the effect of a remote receiver or receivers has
> already been dealt with by some contest organizers needing clarity and
> consistency using current actual technical possibilities while
> retaining the flavor and character of a contest. Probably the best
> (IMHO) adjustment on remotes is that from Tree and Lew and the
> inimitable BARC in the Stew Perry TBDC.
>
> The first part of their answer simply says remote RX *and* TX is fine,
> and is treated like a very long electronic line from key and headset
> to the station wherever it is. Grid square and possible required
> xxn/callsign signing are from the remote location, which is the point
> of record for scoring, standing, awards, etc.
>
> The second part is that using a local TX the receiver(s) may be
> *entirely* co-located with the TX, or the RX facility may be
> *entirely* sited at a single location 75 km or less from the TX
> location. Using this provision, listening on the TX antenna is not
> permitted during the contest. Although the rule uses the word
> "receiver" in the singular, in their mind it does not preclude use of
> a remote diversity RX, eg, K3 equipped with phase-locked diversity
> subRX.
>
> Please remember that "cheating" with respect to ARRL DXCC has to do
> with *ARRL* rules for same. Arguably some DXCC rules are so lax as to
> be meaningless, but they are the ARRL's rules. It has nothing to do
> with our being irritated or angered by someone who using modern
> technical extensions claims the same status as ourselves when we have
> gotten those numbers the HARD way, digging out countries through the
> urban noise never heard up on those mountain or off-continent remotes.
>
> In the end someone whose status self-image depends on what others do
> is inevitably doomed to anger. There will always, always be a cheat
> among us somewhere. If we must compare, compare ourselves only to the
> most noble examples. Or better yet BE that most noble example, knowing
> God knows even if no one else does, and sleep well at night.
>
> 73, Guy K2AV
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Steve Daniel  wrote:
> > John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don’t believe 
> > it is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word “cheating” suggests 
> > that it is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jan 15, 2018, at 12:31 PM, John Randall via Topband 
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has 
> >> become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system 
> >> ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what 
> >> we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY 
> >> written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would 
> >> be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old 
> >> fogeys who have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and 
> >> also a curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force 
> >> all websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and 
> >> then to make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be 
> >> compared to say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth 
> >> chewing over or other methods used.
> >> Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain 
> >> has been absent on the bands incl topband.
> >>
> >> 73John - M0ELS
> >> _
> >> 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: cheating

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

With apologies to Tree, who has asked that this subject be dropped...

The question of the effect of a remote receiver or receivers has
already been dealt with by some contest organizers needing clarity and
consistency using current actual technical possibilities while
retaining the flavor and character of a contest. Probably the best
(IMHO) adjustment on remotes is that from Tree and Lew and the
inimitable BARC in the Stew Perry TBDC.

The first part of their answer simply says remote RX *and* TX is fine,
and is treated like a very long electronic line from key and headset
to the station wherever it is. Grid square and possible required
xxn/callsign signing are from the remote location, which is the point
of record for scoring, standing, awards, etc.

The second part is that using a local TX the receiver(s) may be
*entirely* co-located with the TX, or the RX facility may be
*entirely* sited at a single location 75 km or less from the TX
location. Using this provision, listening on the TX antenna is not
permitted during the contest. Although the rule uses the word
"receiver" in the singular, in their mind it does not preclude use of
a remote diversity RX, eg, K3 equipped with phase-locked diversity
subRX.

Please remember that "cheating" with respect to ARRL DXCC has to do
with *ARRL* rules for same. Arguably some DXCC rules are so lax as to
be meaningless, but they are the ARRL's rules. It has nothing to do
with our being irritated or angered by someone who using modern
technical extensions claims the same status as ourselves when we have
gotten those numbers the HARD way, digging out countries through the
urban noise never heard up on those mountain or off-continent remotes.

In the end someone whose status self-image depends on what others do
is inevitably doomed to anger. There will always, always be a cheat
among us somewhere. If we must compare, compare ourselves only to the
most noble examples. Or better yet BE that most noble example, knowing
God knows even if no one else does, and sleep well at night.

73, Guy K2AV



On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Steve Daniel  wrote:
> John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don’t believe 
> it is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word “cheating” suggests that 
> it is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 15, 2018, at 12:31 PM, John Randall via Topband 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has 
>> become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system 
>> ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what 
>> we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY 
>> written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would 
>> be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old fogeys 
>> who have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and also a 
>> curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force all 
>> websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then to 
>> make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be compared to 
>> say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth chewing over or 
>> other methods used.
>> Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain has 
>> been absent on the bands incl topband.
>>
>> 73John - M0ELS
>> _
>> 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: WebSDR Cheating

[Dave Sharred via Topband]

Maybe there should be an award for being received at a Web sdr location, the 
folks that only want real remote receiving don't need to have any real qso's !!
Sounds nuts to me
73 Dave G3NKC 


Sent from Samsung tablet

 Original message 
From: Roger Kennedy  
Date: 15/01/2018  23:40  (GMT+00:00) 
To: topband@contesting.com 
Subject: Topband:  WebSDR Cheating 


Quite apart from the absurdity of working a DX station who is using a Web
SDR near your location to receive you . . .

Personally I think that even using a Web SDR within a hundred miles or so of
your station is still "cheating", in that it's not YOUR Receiver or Antenna
setup!

Even after nearly 50 years on the band, I still get a buzz out of working DX
on 160m - and by DX, I don't mean some rare island . . . I mean ANY station
over a couple of thousand miles away.  My signal is getting to him from my
antenna . . . and I am receiving him on MY receiving setup.  (which IS in a
city, and not on some huge estate!)

I have never bothered applying for any paper awards (despite working all
over the world and well over 200 countries on Top Band). . . so I don't care
about their Rules . . . what gives me the satisfaction is knowing what I
have achieved personally, given my ordinary resources.

Ironically . . . when I'm working 160m mobile from my car, there's a
particular local who has trouble receiving me once I'm over 20 miles away
from him, due to his high noise level.  So he then receivers me via a Web
SDR that is about 200 miles away !!

Roger G3YRO
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: WebSDR Cheating

[Roger Kennedy]

Quite apart from the absurdity of working a DX station who is using a Web
SDR near your location to receive you . . .

Personally I think that even using a Web SDR within a hundred miles or so of
your station is still "cheating", in that it's not YOUR Receiver or Antenna
setup!

Even after nearly 50 years on the band, I still get a buzz out of working DX
on 160m - and by DX, I don't mean some rare island . . . I mean ANY station
over a couple of thousand miles away.  My signal is getting to him from my
antenna . . . and I am receiving him on MY receiving setup.  (which IS in a
city, and not on some huge estate!)

I have never bothered applying for any paper awards (despite working all
over the world and well over 200 countries on Top Band). . . so I don't care
about their Rules . . . what gives me the satisfaction is knowing what I
have achieved personally, given my ordinary resources.

Ironically . . . when I'm working 160m mobile from my car, there's a
particular local who has trouble receiving me once I'm over 20 miles away
from him, due to his high noise level.  So he then receivers me via a Web
SDR that is about 200 miles away !!

Roger G3YRO
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: Even thought this never works...

[DXer]

Tree and Mike,

With all due respect. Has anybody crossed the line? Any personal 
attacks? This is an issue relevant to Topband. If it's not discussed 
here, where will it be?


Has the list turned into something like a major TV station newscast, 
where only catch phrases and punch lines, lasting less than 5 seconds, 
can be aired.


Yes, I got the hint, finally.

Thank you for your attention.

73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: cheating

[Peter Voelpel]

And if all stations would be be obliged to feed their transmit and receive
audio online and in realtime to a homepage you don´t have that RFI problems
either...

73, Peter

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd -
N9LB
Sent: Montag, 15. Januar 2018 20:48
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: cheating

Read:  http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-rules  Section I. Basic Rules, #9 ...

9.  Station Location and Boundary:
 
a) All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be
located within the same DXCC entity.
b) All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a specific
contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle.
c) QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are allowed
to be used for DXCC credit.

The "500-meter diameter circle" rule seems odd because I can hop on a plane
and work Bouvet from Florida for DXCC credit, or remote into a station in
San Diego to work Ducie Island for DXCC credit, but can’t separate my
Wisconsin transmitter and receiver by more than 500 meters.

I think "b)" needs to be deleted, especially in light of the wide scope of
"a)" and "c)".  The noise floor in most cities has increased so much that
hearing DX is becoming impossible for the city/suburban dweller.  A shared
rural SDR Receiver located with-in the same state, or alternately within 100
KM, would seems to be a reasonable and practical solution to the RX RFI
noise problem.  It would also make a great local club project if legalized
by ARRL.

73

Lloyd - N9LB

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Daniel
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 1:32 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: cheating

John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don’t believe
it is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word “cheating” suggests
that it is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T

Sent from my iPhone

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

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

Re: Topband: WebSDR Cheating.

[DXer]

How would you convince the owner to add a 5 second pause. We are not
dealing with ham operated remote receivers necessarily. Peer pressure may
work on a ham, but on other people, it would be limitation of that person's
freedom. Receiving capabilities are not regulated anywhere, outside of
dictatorships.

And in the unlikely event that a non ham agrees to it, who pays for the
upgrade, if costs are involved.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:23 PM, terry burge  wrote:

> Someone suggested a 5 second pause on the webSDR. I think that would be a
> reasonable thing to do and let people know when someone is using a relays
> station. Also, could help when using the webSDR to check the audio of your
> signal. Useful even. Can a delay be put into these unit?
>
> Terry
>
> KI7M
>
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: cheating

[DXer]

I may be missing something here. The way I interpret the excerpt below is
that it's ok to use remote stations, within the same DXCC entity or outside
of it. 'Station' here meaning TX and RX together, or up to 500 meters apart.

I would add that the remote, in addition to being legally licensed, must be
properly identified, if outside of the operator's country. Ex.: A remote in
Italy operated by a US ham, must identify itself with an Italian callsign.

I think b) is covering the case we are discussing at the moment. TX in
India, RX somewhere in the US. And why is that important, because
conditions, for better of for worse, must impact/affect both TX and RX.

As I said yesterday, the 'within the same DXCC entity' is unfair, unless
all entities were the same in size. Let's not get into the geographic
location. We all know that is a factor to.

73 de Vince, VA3VF





===

Read:  http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-rules  Section I. Basic Rules, #9 ...

9.  Station Location and Boundary:

a) All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be located
within the same DXCC entity.
b) All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a specific
contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle.
c) QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are allowed to
be used for DXCC credit.

The "500-meter diameter circle" rule seems odd because I can hop on a plane and
work Bouvet from Florida for DXCC credit, or remote into a station in San Diego
to work Ducie Island for DXCC credit, but can’t separate my Wisconsin
transmitter and receiver by more than 500 meters.

I think "b)" needs to be deleted, especially in light of the wide scope of "a)"
and "c)".  The noise floor in most cities has increased so much that hearing DX
is becoming impossible for the city/suburban dweller.  A shared rural SDR
Receiver located with-in the same state, or alternately within 100 KM, would
seems to be a reasonable and practical solution to the RX RFI noise problem.
It would also make a great local club project if legalized by ARRL.

73

Lloyd - N9LB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: WebSDR Cheating.

[Sean Waite]

We always point new hams at WebSDR for a taste of HF. Can't give a callsign
if you aren't licensed yet.

How do you even regulate this sort of thing as well? Plenty of hams toss up
an SDR at home and have it streaming when they aren't using their antennas
for other things. It'd be playing wackamole with people that may not even
care about contesting.

Sean WA1TE

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM terry burge  wrote:

> Someone suggested a 5 second pause on the webSDR. I think that would be a
> reasonable thing to do and let people know when someone is using a relays
> station. Also, could help when using the webSDR to check the audio of your
> signal. Useful even. Can a delay be put into these unit?
>
>
> Requiring a valid ham license is definitely not the way to go. Why should
> that be a requirement for an SWL'er and BCB DX'er to use one of these
> units. Not everyone want or likes ham radio but being able to listen to
> some down home radio station from Podunk seems a pretty nice thing to do.
>
>
> Terry
>
> KI7M
>
>
> > On January 15, 2018 at 11:57 AM DXer wrote:
> >
> >
> > Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force all
> websdr's
> > to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then
> to make
> > the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be
> compared to
> > say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth
> chewing over
> > or other methods used.
> >
> > Brainstorming for solutions is always a good thing. As for this
> particular
> > suggestion, I can see a couple of problems from the get go. Not
> meant as a
> > criticism, just part of an exchange of ideas.
> >
> > Most WebSDRs are maintained by radio enthusiasts, not necessarily
> hamradio
> > operators. Although some of them may be MW DXers, they may not be
> aware of
> > Topband as a specialty niche.
> >
> > How to force or enforce their compliance? Why would they care? Making
> > databases available, in a reliable and timely manner, would be even
> harder.
> >
> > Once something, anything, is on the net, it's very hard to control.
> Just
> > look at internet crime, and how difficult it's to find and stop it,
> > permanently. Big issues will eventually be dealt with, but 'illegal'
> WebSDR
> > use, is another story altogether.
> >
> > No, I have no idea how to deal with this problem. Short of peer
> pressure,
> > and sorry for saying this, public shaming, what else can be done?
> >
> > The best approach is to 'educate' new hams. But human nature being
> what it
> > is, there will always be a 'small minority' willing to cheat.
> >
> > 73 de Vince, VA3VF
> > _
> > 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: WebSDR Cheating.

[terry burge]

Someone suggested a 5 second pause on the webSDR. I think that would be a 
reasonable thing to do and let people know when someone is using a relays 
station. Also, could help when using the webSDR to check the audio of your 
signal. Useful even. Can a delay be put into these unit?


Requiring a valid ham license is definitely not the way to go. Why should that 
be a requirement for an SWL'er and BCB DX'er to use one of these units. Not 
everyone want or likes ham radio but being able to listen to some down home 
radio station from Podunk seems a pretty nice thing to do.


Terry

KI7M


> On January 15, 2018 at 11:57 AM DXer wrote:
> 
> 
> Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force all websdr's
> to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then to 
> make
> the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be compared to
> say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth chewing over
> or other methods used.
> 
> Brainstorming for solutions is always a good thing. As for this particular
> suggestion, I can see a couple of problems from the get go. Not meant as a
> criticism, just part of an exchange of ideas.
> 
> Most WebSDRs are maintained by radio enthusiasts, not necessarily hamradio
> operators. Although some of them may be MW DXers, they may not be aware of
> Topband as a specialty niche.
> 
> How to force or enforce their compliance? Why would they care? Making
> databases available, in a reliable and timely manner, would be even 
> harder.
> 
> Once something, anything, is on the net, it's very hard to control. Just
> look at internet crime, and how difficult it's to find and stop it,
> permanently. Big issues will eventually be dealt with, but 'illegal' 
> WebSDR
> use, is another story altogether.
> 
> No, I have no idea how to deal with this problem. Short of peer pressure,
> and sorry for saying this, public shaming, what else can be done?
> 
> The best approach is to 'educate' new hams. But human nature being what it
> is, there will always be a 'small minority' willing to cheat.
> 
> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Even thought this never works...

[Mike Waters]

You were right.
Maybe the hint was too subtle?

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Jan 14, 2018 8:44 PM, "Tree"  wrote:

I think the threads talking about VU2GSM and the DXCC program have run
their course.

Thanks!!

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

Re: Topband: cheating

[terry burge]

Hi,


Thanks for stating the rules. I believe the (a) basically means if you move 
from one state to another within your country your DXCC is still valid and you 
don't have to start over. I would not want to do that.

(b) I believe this means you must transmit and receive from your specific 
station keeping it within a 500 meter diameter circle. You station's antennas 
must be located within that range for doing the receiving and sending. Does not 
say anything about using remote stations.

(c) This third point is where the problem is and needs clarification. WebSDR's, 
remote operation of stations, microwave or some type of internet link to 
another station can be legal. But If I use a webSDR from Florida or New England 
to work the Europeans from Oregon how can that possibly be acceptable for DXCC? 


Anyone who has heard me on 80 meters trying to work the Europeans in the SSB DX 
window will know I have a major problem hearing them. But that don't mean I am 
going to resort to using webSDR's. Don't really know how but of course I have 
heard and even seen a QST article about them. I personally though that would be 
a great little receiver to setup on some high, isolated mountain top. But how 
to link to it was my great rub. Of course shouldn't it be within 500 meters to 
be valid DXCC contact from my station? We have lots of tall isolated mountains 
in Oregon including Mt.Jefferson which I can see from my shack. But it just 
need to be clearly stated in the DXCC rules if something like that is valid. 
And then what about also having the transmitter up on that mountain too. Solar 
powered, etc with 440 or 1220 Mhz line of site link. Who has the money? Not me. 
But personally I would like my DXCC to mean a real achievement. Not some game 
of who can beat the dealer.


FWIW,

Terry

KI7M

> On January 15, 2018 at 11:47 AM Lloyd - N9LB wrote:
> 
> 
> Read: http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-rules Section I. Basic Rules, #9 ...
>1. Station Location and Boundary:
> 
> 
> a) All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be 
> located within the same DXCC entity.
> b) All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a 
> specific contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle.
> c) QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are 
> allowed to be used for DXCC credit.
> 
> The "500-meter diameter circle" rule seems odd because I can hop on a 
> plane and work Bouvet from Florida for DXCC credit, or remote into a station 
> in San Diego to work Ducie Island for DXCC credit, but can’t separate my 
> Wisconsin transmitter and receiver by more than 500 meters.
> 
> I think "b)" needs to be deleted, especially in light of the wide scope 
> of "a)" and "c)". The noise floor in most cities has increased so much that 
> hearing DX is becoming impossible for the city/suburban dweller. A shared 
> rural SDR Receiver located with-in the same state, or alternately within 100 
> KM, would seems to be a reasonable and practical solution to the RX RFI noise 
> problem. It would also make a great local club project if legalized by ARRL.
> 
> 73
> 
> Lloyd - N9LB
> * 
>   o 
> + 
>   # 
> * 
>   o 
> + 
>   # 
> * 
>   o 
> + 
>   # 
>   
>   * 
>   
> o 
>   
>   + 
>   
> # 
>   
>   * 
>   
> o 
>   
>   + 
>   
> # 
>   
>   * 
>   
> o 
>   
> 

Topband: WebSDR Cheating.

[DXer]

Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force all websdr's
to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then to make
the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be compared to
say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth chewing over
or other methods used.

Brainstorming for solutions is always a good thing. As for this particular
suggestion, I can see a couple of problems from the get go. Not meant as a
criticism, just part of an exchange of ideas.

Most WebSDRs are maintained by radio enthusiasts, not necessarily hamradio
operators. Although some of them may be MW DXers, they may not be aware of
Topband as a specialty niche.

How to force or enforce their compliance? Why would they care? Making
databases available, in a reliable and timely manner, would be even harder.

Once something, anything, is on the net, it's very hard to control. Just
look at internet crime, and how difficult it's to find and stop it,
permanently. Big issues will eventually be dealt with, but 'illegal' WebSDR
use, is another story altogether.

No, I have no idea how to deal with this problem. Short of peer pressure,
and sorry for saying this, public shaming, what else can be done?

The best approach is to 'educate' new hams. But human nature being what it
is, there will always be a 'small minority' willing to cheat.

73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: cheating

[Lloyd - N9LB]

Read:  http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-rules  Section I. Basic Rules, #9 ...

9.  Station Location and Boundary:
 
a) All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be located 
within the same DXCC entity.
b) All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a specific 
contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle.
c) QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are allowed to 
be used for DXCC credit.

The "500-meter diameter circle" rule seems odd because I can hop on a plane and 
work Bouvet from Florida for DXCC credit, or remote into a station in San Diego 
to work Ducie Island for DXCC credit, but can’t separate my Wisconsin 
transmitter and receiver by more than 500 meters.

I think "b)" needs to be deleted, especially in light of the wide scope of "a)" 
and "c)".  The noise floor in most cities has increased so much that hearing DX 
is becoming impossible for the city/suburban dweller.  A shared rural SDR 
Receiver located with-in the same state, or alternately within 100 KM, would 
seems to be a reasonable and practical solution to the RX RFI noise problem.  
It would also make a great local club project if legalized by ARRL.

73

Lloyd - N9LB

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve Daniel
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 1:32 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: cheating

John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don’t believe it 
is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word “cheating” suggests that it 
is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T

Sent from my iPhone

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

Re: Topband: cheating

[Steve Daniel]

John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don’t believe it 
is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word “cheating” suggests that it 
is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 15, 2018, at 12:31 PM, John Randall via Topband 
>  wrote:
> 
> Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has 
> become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system 
> ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what we 
> should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY 
> written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would be 
> of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old fogeys who 
> have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and also a curse. 
> Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force all websdr's to 
> enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then to make the 
> dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be compared to say the 
> DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth chewing over or other 
> methods used. 
> Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain has 
> been absent on the bands incl topband.
> 
> 73John - M0ELS
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Topband: WebSDR use or not.

[DXer]

I mentioned yesterday the tagline that an SWLer uses on his logs. I just
noticed that he has updated it. It now says: "All logged by my ears, on my
receiver, in real time & without the aid of a computer!"

73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: cheating

[John Randall via Topband]

Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has become 
for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system ,but 
themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what we should 
be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY written 
document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would be of 
tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old fogeys who have 
been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and also a curse. Perhaps 
one way to try and get back some control is force all websdr's to enforce a 
full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then to make the dbases available 
for scrutinity sothat the logs can be compared to say the DXCC mechanisms. This 
is just a thought and worth chewing over or other methods used. 
Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain has 
been absent on the bands incl topband.

73John - M0ELS
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use.

[DXer]

>>>Like Paul, I seriously doubt that Kanti is using a remote receiver.

Well... he confirmed it. Granted that it may not have been used for all
QSOs.

Based on the posted correspondence, it's clear he is not doing anything
with ill intent. It's either need, or his way of enjoying the hobby.

Other people use other techniques, like pre-arranged QSOs, perfectly
'legal', but not everybody's 'cup of tea'. There is also cross-band QSOs,
albeit these are not valid for DXCC, if I'm not mistaken. The hobby is
changing. eQSL even has an Echolink award now.

The problem is not him, but others that will hide their use of remote
receivers.

If contacting him again, ask if he is using the remote receiver on that
particular QSO. Ask also if he could try direct reception. This may well
become part of the Topband 'protocol' going forward.

There are no issues when things are done in the open, with everybody's
knowledge, if not agreement.
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use

[Joe Giacobello, K2XX via Topband]

Like Paul, I seriously doubt that Kanti is using a remote receiver.  I 
have worked him on 30, 40 and 80M and have had occasional correspondence 
with him regarding his relatively recently acquired Expert 1.3K amp.  
The signal reports he has given me seem appropriate for the times and 
band conditions at the time of the QSOs.  I'm confident that had he been 
using a remote RX, it would have come up in our correspondence.


73, Joe
K2XX


Paul Christensen 
Sunday, January 14, 2018 12:29 PM
No doubt some ops are using WebSDR on receive, but in this case, I am 
skeptical of the skepticism. Here's why:


I routinely work VU2GSM on 40m GL-LP in the early morning hours on a 
210-degree bearing from FL to VU. He is consistently S9, peaking +10 
dB on my Elecraft K3. The remote station I share with N4CC is in 
Hilliard, FL just east of the St. Mary's River. Our antenna is a 
full-size 4 el. M2 40m OWA at 140 ft AGL.


On the 210 deg. bearing, the land slopes almost immediately into the 
river valley. VU2GSM's solid signals aren't an isolated event; he is 
that strong most of the LP season. VU2GSM cannot be detected on my 
backyard dipole at my home QTH 30 miles to the south in Jacksonville. 
The dipole is up 35 ft. AGL. When I say he can't be detected, I mean 
there's no trace on the dipole whatsoever, not even a blip that rises 
above the SDR noise floor. That's to be expected on a low dipole if 
the arriving angle is skimming the horizon.


According to HFTA, the statistical mode from FL to VU is 1 degree 
above the horizon. The sloping terrain accounts for much of VU2GSM's 
solid signals into the station. Forget 4-square arrays over good soil, 
Forget stacked arrays up to 200 ft AGL. Apart from verticals on salt 
water, nothing else compares with high horizonal antennas into sloping 
terrain when the statistical mode is 1 degree above the horizon. When 
VU2GSM is +10/S9 here, I am certain he is hearing me on his dipole and 
he doesn't need WebSDR.


When I hear other NA stations calling VU2GSM on 40m, he cannot hear 
many, if not most of them. Of those he picks out, he struggles to copy 
unless they're from stations with excellent antenna systems - like 
those in the RHR group. So, if VU2GSM is routinely using WebSDR on 40m 
receive, his operating habits are not reflective of such claims.


Paul, W9AC






-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
Steve Babcock

Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:03 AM
To: topband 
Cc: Larry D Brailean ; Don Moman VE6JY 


Subject: Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use

I have been "sitting" on this for a few weeks wondering if I should 
share this information, but after seeing some spots yesterday for 
VU2GSM on 160m, I decided that others may appreciate it.

I know I would.

If you have worked Kanti, VU2GSM recently on the low bands...40, 80 or 
160 you should be aware that he was most likely RX using a NA webSDR. 
The links below are PDF copies of email correspondence with Kanti 
confirming that this is routine for him.The emails are between both 
VE5UA, myself and VU2GSM. (Please read the email threads from the 
"bottom up" to be chronological.)


https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing 



To be clear, I do not judge Kanti for his desire to augment his rx, 
and do not think it is wrong. If he chooses to use Ham radio this way 
that is his choice. However, I myself do not wish to include a "half" 
QSO toward my own (personal) DXCC count, and perhaps others will feel 
the same hence this email. I also don't judge others that are good 
with such webSDR QSOs since each has his own goals and objectives.


Here is some background. I have been working VU2GSM frequently and 
with ease on 40m in the morning and evening. He would respond almost 
immediately to my calls which seemed odd. More typical is Rakash 
VU2RAK who has a great signal but usually can't copy me, though we 
have QSOd a few times when conditions are exceptional.
While at a local ham lunch, I mentioned this, and Don VE6JY said that 
Kanti is often logged into his webSDR. The following week I copied 
VU2GSM on 80m in the evening with very light copy with my 2el Yagi and 
1000' beverage (diversity rx with K3). He answered immediately and we 
had a QSO. I was suspicious. I emailed Don VE6JY and he confirmed that 
at that time Kanti was indeed logged into his SDR.

I deleted the QSO from my log.
This then precipitated the e-mail correspondence which I share on the 
attached links.


There is little doubt

Re: Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use

[Mark van Wijk]

Hi Manoj.

Much appreciate your (RX antenna) efforts !

Don't worry too much about the typical negative comments, especially those on
chat-rooms.

Today's world is too much about "instant gratification at no personal effort". 
And self-declared know-it-all personalities :)

If I cannot work you on Top-Band then it is my  is my goal to slowly learn and
become better, analyze my efforts&results, built, test antennas and such.

In the meantime we can chat somewhere about our efforts and share learnings

That is what this wonderful hobby is about.

Maybe I work you this season, maybe the next, maybe in 10yrs from now. That's
all fine and we have something to look forward to :)

Good luck and enjoy !

73 Mark, PA5MW



> Op 15 januari 2018 om 6:22 schreef Manoj Ramawarrier :
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I am a newbie on TB and started working here only from 02 Dec 2017. I have so
> far 632 QSOs 58 DXCC entities worked and 52 confirmed on lotw. 
> Each of these QSOs, were hard, but I can proudly say I heard and worked all on
> my TX/RX.
> 
> I have been seeing the discussion on this topic and is equally dismayed and
> pained at the comments and conclusions implying all VU’s might be doing this. 
> Please don’t generalise that all VUs and 4S7s. I understand VU is rare on TB
> and have been getting a lot of email requests and some of them - US5WE and
> K4PI had to really sweat it out for almost 2 weeks. 
> If websdr was the option, we would have done it on first day itself.
> 
> There were complaints on ON4KST chat room that I don’t hear well. Fine, I went
> ahead and installed a 350 ft Beverage and I started hearing much better in
> NNW/SSE direction. Now next is an E/W Beverage.
> 
> If any of you want a QSO on any band/mode please feel free to contact. I use
> lotw and will be happy to confirm your qso immediately.
> 
> HNY & 73
> 
> Manoj VU2CPL
> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use

[Victor Goncharsky via Topband]

Thank you Manoj, it was more then hard but we did it!

I was running a WEBSDR under Ubuntu16 on 6 meters myself to control the quality 
of my signal especially on JT65 so I know the technology from the inside.
If someone does not want anyone from outside the local area to use his WEBSDR 
he can easily put the GEO-IP filtered access on. 
Instead, we see the private correspondence being made public.
I was lucky to earn DXCC HR#1 long before new computer technologies started to 
dominate the hobby so just having fun nowadays.
CU all in CQWW160 contest.    


>Понедельник, 15 января 2018, 5:22 UTC от Manoj Ramawarrier :
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I am a newbie on TB and started working here only from 02 Dec 2017. I have so 
>far 632 QSOs 58 DXCC entities worked and 52 confirmed on lotw. 
>Each of these QSOs, were hard, but I can proudly say I heard and worked all on 
>my TX/RX.
>
>I have been seeing the discussion on this topic and is equally dismayed and 
>pained at the comments and conclusions implying all VU’s might be doing this. 
>Please don’t generalise that all VUs and 4S7s. I understand VU is rare on TB 
>and have been getting a lot of email requests and some of them - US5WE and 
>K4PI had to really sweat it out for almost 2 weeks. 
>If websdr was the option, we would have done it on first day itself.
>
>There were complaints on ON4KST chat room that I don’t hear well. Fine, I went 
>ahead and installed a 350 ft Beverage and I started hearing much better in 
>NNW/SSE direction. Now next is an E/W Beverage.
>
>If any of you want a QSO on any band/mode please feel free to contact. I use 
>lotw and will be happy to confirm your qso immediately.
>
>HNY & 73
>
>Manoj VU2CPL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_
>Topband Reflector Archives -  http://www.contesting.com/_topband


-- 
73, Victor Goncharsky US5WE/K1WE (UW5W in VHF contests, ex UB5WE), P.E.
UARL Technical and VHF Committies
DXCC Honor Roll #1 (Mixed, Phone), 9BDXCC, 8BWAS
DXCC card checker (160 meters).
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband