Re: Topband: [CQ-Contest] Stew Perry Streaming Audio
Rule 6 of the Stew Perry is a joke in so many ways. enjoy the contest the way we did back when Stew Perry was around contradicted by: We do realize band scopes can show that someone is on 1829.3 - but since they don't tell you who is actually there, that is okay. Therefore, remote receivers are okay as long as they are not more than 100 kM from your transmitter site. How many remote receivers and band scopes did W1BB use ? 73, Steve, N2IC On 12/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stan Stockton wrote: Hans, First - I know there was no il-intent. Others have done it without public complaints. However, ask yourself how fair it would be for one of the competitors in WRTC to be allowed to announce to the world that their callsign (not operators calls) would be streaming live audio during the IARU next year. Is there a difference? Would it be a stretch to see an advantage over the others ? How is that different? Rules say Boy and his radio (!) and also any communication with humans other than exchanges that take place over the air can be considered assistance. Example of exception for asking wife for sandwich is given. Assuming a sidetone of some sort is audible, would it be any different if the operator were allowed to call people on the phone (one way communication) to tell them he hears them and what report he is sending? I can't see any difference other than a different, non-radio means of communicating. I think we have all gotten to the point of mixing up in our own heads what is radio and what is not. The Internet is a great thing and can be used in conjunction with ham radio to add enjoyment. However, listening to audio via Internet or telephone is not radio. Recording the entire contest with side tone and posting it for everyone to listen to after the contest is over is a fine idea. With no malice but a very strong opinion... 73...Stan, K5GO Sent from Stan's IPhone On Dec 28, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Radio K0HBkzer...@gmail.com wrote: What a shame that you've abandoned the idea. I'm not 160-equipped in my RV but it would have been fun to listen in on the action, and it's a stretch to see this as an advantage over other competitors. 73, de Hans, K0HB/K7 On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eric NO3Mn...@no3m.net wrote: Since there seems to be too much concern over this, though no ill intent was intended, audio will not be broadcast. GL / 73 Eric NO3M On 12/28/2013 06:23 AM, Stan Stockton wrote: Eric, You made it clear what you were doing, and I am quite sure Clive understood. I think the logic behind his question has to do with whether it is within the spirit of the contest - especially this one. Let's say, as a result of the announcement or advertisement , 15 DX stations and 25 USA stations who are not even going to send in their log called you, just for fun and the novelty of it, so they could listen to their own signal at your end via Internet. What if some have enough QRM or QRN that they could only copy whether you came back to them by listening via internet? Fair to your competitors? It is cool, but I've always had a problem with this, regardless of what contest. 73...Stan, K5GO Sent from my iPad ___ CQ-Contest mailing list cq-cont...@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest ___ CQ-Contest mailing list cq-cont...@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: [CQ-Contest] Stew Perry Streaming Audio
Hi Steve, I'm afraid that if remote receivers were not allowed, I would not be taking part. That is the only way that I can do ham radio nowadays, due to planning restrictions. I can assure you that, although the technologies are different from those used in the old days, getting a remote station to work properly, requires just as much design skill and ingenuity as the old timers used to set up their stations. 73, Greg, ZL3IX On 2013-12-29 08:39 a.m., Steve London wrote: Rule 6 of the Stew Perry is a joke in so many ways. enjoy the contest the way we did back when Stew Perry was around contradicted by: We do realize band scopes can show that someone is on 1829.3 - but since they don't tell you who is actually there, that is okay. Therefore, remote receivers are okay as long as they are not more than 100 kM from your transmitter site. How many remote receivers and band scopes did W1BB use ? 73, Steve, N2IC On 12/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stan Stockton wrote: Hans, First - I know there was no il-intent. Others have done it without public complaints. However, ask yourself how fair it would be for one of the competitors in WRTC to be allowed to announce to the world that their callsign (not operators calls) would be streaming live audio during the IARU next year. Is there a difference? Would it be a stretch to see an advantage over the others ? How is that different? Rules say Boy and his radio (!) and also any communication with humans other than exchanges that take place over the air can be considered assistance. Example of exception for asking wife for sandwich is given. Assuming a sidetone of some sort is audible, would it be any different if the operator were allowed to call people on the phone (one way communication) to tell them he hears them and what report he is sending? I can't see any difference other than a different, non-radio means of communicating. I think we have all gotten to the point of mixing up in our own heads what is radio and what is not. The Internet is a great thing and can be used in conjunction with ham radio to add enjoyment. However, listening to audio via Internet or telephone is not radio. Recording the entire contest with side tone and posting it for everyone to listen to after the contest is over is a fine idea. With no malice but a very strong opinion... 73...Stan, K5GO Sent from Stan's IPhone On Dec 28, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Radio K0HBkzer...@gmail.com wrote: What a shame that you've abandoned the idea. I'm not 160-equipped in my RV but it would have been fun to listen in on the action, and it's a stretch to see this as an advantage over other competitors. 73, de Hans, K0HB/K7 On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eric NO3Mn...@no3m.net wrote: Since there seems to be too much concern over this, though no ill intent was intended, audio will not be broadcast. GL / 73 Eric NO3M On 12/28/2013 06:23 AM, Stan Stockton wrote: Eric, You made it clear what you were doing, and I am quite sure Clive understood. I think the logic behind his question has to do with whether it is within the spirit of the contest - especially this one. Let's say, as a result of the announcement or advertisement , 15 DX stations and 25 USA stations who are not even going to send in their log called you, just for fun and the novelty of it, so they could listen to their own signal at your end via Internet. What if some have enough QRM or QRN that they could only copy whether you came back to them by listening via internet? Fair to your competitors? It is cool, but I've always had a problem with this, regardless of what contest. 73...Stan, K5GO Sent from my iPad ___ CQ-Contest mailing list cq-cont...@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest ___ CQ-Contest mailing list cq-cont...@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: [CQ-Contest] Stew Perry Streaming Audio
Take a look at radiomarine.org to see how remote receivers were implemented commercially more than 40 years ago. It's easier now, but remote receiving isn't a new thing. For that matter, neither are Band Scopes, a.k.a. Spectrum Analyzers. My ancient HP-141T, ca 1974, even has a tracking generator that shows the marker frequency on a friendly nixie tube display. -Jeff, W0ODS From: Greg - ZL3IX zl...@inet.net.nz To: topband@contesting.com Sent: Subject: Re: Topband: [CQ-Contest] Stew Perry Streaming Audio Hi Steve, I'm afraid that if remote receivers were not allowed, I would not be taking part. That is the only way that I can do ham radio nowadays, due to planning restrictions. I can assure you that, although the technologies are different from those used in the old days, getting a remote station to work properly, requires just as much design skill and ingenuity as the old timers used to set up their stations. 73, Greg, ZL3IX On 2013-12-29 08:39 a.m., Steve London wrote: Rule 6 of the Stew Perry is a joke in so many ways. enjoy the contest the way we did back when Stew Perry was around contradicted by: We do realize band scopes can show that someone is on 1829.3 - but since they don't tell you who is actually there, that is okay. Therefore, remote receivers are okay as long as they are not more than 100 kM from your transmitter site. How many remote receivers and band scopes did W1BB use ? 73, Steve, N2IC On 12/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stan Stockton wrote: Hans, First - I know there was no il-intent. Others have done it without public complaints. However, ask yourself how fair it would be for one of the competitors in WRTC to be allowed to announce to the world that their callsign (not operators calls) would be streaming live audio during the IARU next year. Is there a difference? Would it be a stretch to see an advantage over the others ? How is that different? Rules say Boy and his radio (!) and also any communication with humans other than exchanges that take place over the air can be considered assistance. Example of exception for asking wife for sandwich is given. Assuming a sidetone of some sort is audible, would it be any different if the operator were allowed to call people on the phone (one way communication) to tell them he hears them and what report he is sending? I can't see any difference other than a different, non-radio means of communicating. I think we have all gotten to the point of mixing up in our own heads what is radio and what is not. The Internet is a great thing and can be used in conjunction with ham radio to add enjoyment. However, listening to audio via Internet or telephone is not radio. Recording the entire contest with side tone and posting it for everyone to listen to after the contest is over is a fine idea. With no malice but a very strong opinion... 73...Stan, K5GO Sent from Stan's IPhone On Dec 28, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Radio K0HBkzer...@gmail.com wrote: What a shame that you've abandoned the idea. I'm not 160-equipped in my RV but it would have been fun to listen in on the action, and it's a stretch to see this as an advantage over other competitors. 73, de Hans, K0HB/K7 On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eric NO3Mn...@no3m.net wrote: Since there seems to be too much concern over this, though no ill intent was intended, audio will not be broadcast. GL / 73 Eric NO3M On 12/28/2013 06:23 AM, Stan Stockton wrote: Eric, You made it clear what you were doing, and I am quite sure Clive understood. I think the logic behind his question has to do with whether it is within the spirit of the contest - especially this one. Let's say, as a result of the announcement or advertisement , 15 DX stations and 25 USA stations who are not even going to send in their log called you, just for fun and the novelty of it, so they could listen to their own signal at your end via Internet. What if some have enough QRM or QRN that they could only copy whether you came back to them by listening via internet? Fair to your competitors? It is cool, but I've always had a problem with this, regardless of what contest. 73...Stan, K5GO Sent from my iPad ___ CQ-Contest mailing list cq-cont...@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest ___ CQ-Contest mailing list cq-cont...@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest _ 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: [CQ-Contest] Stew Perry Streaming Audio
And what is point, relative to the Stew Perry rules ? Are you inferring that any technology that was available in 1974, should be allowed ? I'll remind you that 2 meter, voice DX spotting nets were popular in every metropolitan area of the USA in 1974. The packet DX spotting that we have today was simply a natural evolution. Let's face it, OT's, we enjoy thinking about the nostalgia of a boy and his radio, but, with the exception of W7DRA and KU8H, very few of us want to use only 1950's technology, and experience the Loran QRN and power limits in the 2013 Stew Perry. 73, Steve, N2IC On 12/28/2013 01:46 PM, Jeff Woods wrote: Take a look at radiomarine.org to see how remote receivers were implemented commercially more than 40 years ago. It's easier now, but remote receiving isn't a new thing. For that matter, neither are Band Scopes, a.k.a. Spectrum Analyzers. My ancient HP-141T, ca 1974, even has a tracking generator that shows the marker frequency on a friendly nixie tube display. -Jeff, W0ODS From: Greg - ZL3IXzl...@inet.net.nz To: topband@contesting.com Sent: Subject: Re: Topband: [CQ-Contest] Stew Perry Streaming Audio Hi Steve, I'm afraid that if remote receivers were not allowed, I would not be taking part. That is the only way that I can do ham radio nowadays, due to planning restrictions. I can assure you that, although the technologies are different from those used in the old days, getting a remote station to work properly, requires just as much design skill and ingenuity as the old timers used to set up their stations. 73, Greg, ZL3IX On 2013-12-29 08:39 a.m., Steve London wrote: Rule 6 of the Stew Perry is a joke in so many ways. enjoy the contest the way we did back when Stew Perry was around contradicted by: We do realize band scopes can show that someone is on 1829.3 - but since they don't tell you who is actually there, that is okay. Therefore, remote receivers are okay as long as they are not more than 100 kM from your transmitter site. How many remote receivers and band scopes did W1BB use ? 73, Steve, N2IC On 12/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stan Stockton wrote: Hans, First - I know there was no il-intent. Others have done it without public complaints. However, ask yourself how fair it would be for one of the competitors in WRTC to be allowed to announce to the world that their callsign (not operators calls) would be streaming live audio during the IARU next year. Is there a difference? Would it be a stretch to see an advantage over the others ? How is that different? Rules say Boy and his radio (!) and also any communication with humans other than exchanges that take place over the air can be considered assistance. Example of exception for asking wife for sandwich is given. Assuming a sidetone of some sort is audible, would it be any different if the operator were allowed to call people on the phone (one way communication) to tell them he hears them and what report he is sending? I can't see any difference other than a different, non-radio means of communicating. I think we have all gotten to the point of mixing up in our own heads what is radio and what is not. The Internet is a great thing and can be used in conjunction with ham radio to add enjoyment. However, listening to audio via Internet or telephone is not radio. Recording the entire contest with side tone and posting it for everyone to listen to after the contest is over is a fine idea. With no malice but a very strong opinion... 73...Stan, K5GO Sent from Stan's IPhone On Dec 28, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Radio K0HBkzer...@gmail.com wrote: What a shame that you've abandoned the idea. I'm not 160-equipped in my RV but it would have been fun to listen in on the action, and it's a stretch to see this as an advantage over other competitors. 73, de Hans, K0HB/K7 On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eric NO3Mn...@no3m.net wrote: Since there seems to be too much concern over this, though no ill intent was intended, audio will not be broadcast. GL / 73 Eric NO3M On 12/28/2013 06:23 AM, Stan Stockton wrote: Eric, You made it clear what you were doing, and I am quite sure Clive understood. I think the logic behind his question has to do with whether it is within the spirit of the contest - especially this one. Let's say, as a result of the announcement or advertisement , 15 DX stations and 25 USA stations who are not even going to send in their log called you, just for fun and the novelty of it, so they could listen to their own signal at your end via Internet. What if some have enough QRM or QRN that they could only copy whether you came back to them by listening via internet? Fair to your competitors? It is cool, but I've always had a problem with this, regardless of what contest. 73...Stan, K5GO Sent from my iPad ___ CQ-Contest mailing list cq-cont...@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com
