Re: Topband: Cheating etc
Roger, I agree 100%. If it's easy enough to get the card I'll send off for it. I don't chase for the ARRL's certificate. I have a couple from the 80's and 90's couple DXCC's WAS WAZ... Truthfully I can't even remember...I don't think I even have 160 DXCC from ARRL. I know I have worked enough ...but it got too expensive...I would rather spend the cash on my station. Like Mike said you are only cheating yourself. Nick we hear you and understand but I think you have to present your evidence to the proper authorities. To be Top Dog on Topband must be a big deal to some?? As far as I'm concerned I'm Top Dog on Topband ...well in my neighborhood anyway.maybe just on my street ;) 73 Fred KB4QZH On 2/14/2020 6:43 AM, Roger Kennedy wrote: Personally, I don't really care what anyone else does ! I achieved DXCC on 160m many years ago . . . and stopped even counting new countries once I had worked over 200. (it used to be really hard, as so few Countries were licensed for Top Band, but these days almost everyone is) I KNOW I worked those stations . . . but never bothered collecting QSL cards or applying for some piece of paper to put on the wall. To me it's about the SATISFACTION of having achieved something. In fact - as I've stated before on here - I'm really not bothered about working somebody in a rare country . . . it's working ANY distant station on Top Band that gives me a buzz . . . and regardless of how many times I've worked that station before. The same goes for Contests . . . decades ago I used to actually enter Top Band contests . . . but it really holds no interest for me having hundreds of quite easy contacts hour after hour . . . I now just come on to try and pick out the DX stations in-between all the strong Europeans (again, a unique problem on 160m, as there is no Skip) - THAT to me is an achievement. Again, I am not bothered about the people using their Computer to have contacts . . . it would never interest me in a million years, as I feel there is no operator or equipment skill involved, so zero satisfaction. But hey, if it floats some people's boats, that's up to them. The only thing that DOES bother me is when people stop coming on Human-based modes on 160m because they think the only activity is on the Computer modes ! If more people make an effort to come on the band (instead of complaining) there WILL be more CW & SSB DX activity on Top Band ! Anyway . . . hope to work some of you in the Contest this weekend. (Had to put my antenna back up yesterday, as it came down in the Gales we had over here !) 73 Roger G3YRO _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Cheating etc
To put it simply You are only cheating yourself. It is not up to me to control other adults. Mike va3mw On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 6:43 AM Roger Kennedy wrote: > > Personally, I don't really care what anyone else does ! > > I achieved DXCC on 160m many years ago . . . and stopped even counting new > countries once I had worked over 200. (it used to be really hard, as so > few > Countries were licensed for Top Band, but these days almost everyone is) > > I KNOW I worked those stations . . . but never bothered collecting QSL > cards > or applying for some piece of paper to put on the wall. To me it's about > the > SATISFACTION of having achieved something. > > In fact - as I've stated before on here - I'm really not bothered about > working somebody in a rare country . . . it's working ANY distant station > on > Top Band that gives me a buzz . . . and regardless of how many times I've > worked that station before. > > The same goes for Contests . . . decades ago I used to actually enter Top > Band contests . . . but it really holds no interest for me having hundreds > of quite easy contacts hour after hour . . . I now just come on to try and > pick out the DX stations in-between all the strong Europeans (again, a > unique problem on 160m, as there is no Skip) - THAT to me is an > achievement. > > Again, I am not bothered about the people using their Computer to have > contacts . . . it would never interest me in a million years, as I feel > there is no operator or equipment skill involved, so zero satisfaction. > But > hey, if it floats some people's boats, that's up to them. > > The only thing that DOES bother me is when people stop coming on > Human-based > modes on 160m because they think the only activity is on the Computer modes > ! > > If more people make an effort to come on the band (instead of complaining) > there WILL be more CW & SSB DX activity on Top Band ! > > Anyway . . . hope to work some of you in the Contest this weekend. (Had to > put my antenna back up yesterday, as it came down in the Gales we had over > here !) > > 73 Roger G3YRO > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Topband: Cheating etc
Personally, I don't really care what anyone else does ! I achieved DXCC on 160m many years ago . . . and stopped even counting new countries once I had worked over 200. (it used to be really hard, as so few Countries were licensed for Top Band, but these days almost everyone is) I KNOW I worked those stations . . . but never bothered collecting QSL cards or applying for some piece of paper to put on the wall. To me it's about the SATISFACTION of having achieved something. In fact - as I've stated before on here - I'm really not bothered about working somebody in a rare country . . . it's working ANY distant station on Top Band that gives me a buzz . . . and regardless of how many times I've worked that station before. The same goes for Contests . . . decades ago I used to actually enter Top Band contests . . . but it really holds no interest for me having hundreds of quite easy contacts hour after hour . . . I now just come on to try and pick out the DX stations in-between all the strong Europeans (again, a unique problem on 160m, as there is no Skip) - THAT to me is an achievement. Again, I am not bothered about the people using their Computer to have contacts . . . it would never interest me in a million years, as I feel there is no operator or equipment skill involved, so zero satisfaction. But hey, if it floats some people's boats, that's up to them. The only thing that DOES bother me is when people stop coming on Human-based modes on 160m because they think the only activity is on the Computer modes ! If more people make an effort to come on the band (instead of complaining) there WILL be more CW & SSB DX activity on Top Band ! Anyway . . . hope to work some of you in the Contest this weekend. (Had to put my antenna back up yesterday, as it came down in the Gales we had over here !) 73 Roger G3YRO _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Cheating the system
John wrote: Just for being nosey, I ran the ft8 software last night before bed to see what I could see and boy, there were stations from all over the world on topband, happily working each other. 73John - M0ELS = John -- were those hams happily working each other, or were their computers happily working each other? 73, Jeff KH6O _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: cheating the system
Well, I had to have a last last say did'nt I. In the latest February Edition of Practical Wireless magazine is an article on a diversity adapter, whereby one can connect your receiver to one ant port and say a websdtr or another receiver at your 2nd home to the other port and than adjust the convergence pot so that the two signals blend into one stable good signal. How would this pan out in the ARRL rules. I think that there must be a serious discussion among the various telecom regions to try and iron out a plan of action, if they even dare to. Just for being nosey, I ran the ft8 software last night before bed to see what I could see and boy, there were stations from all over the world on topband, happily working each other. Twenty minutes later I went back to my flex 3000 and heard some german and italians on the QRO section and bliss returned. 73John - M0ELS _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: Cheating the system
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
Re: Topband: cheating
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
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
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
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: cheating
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 cant 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 dont 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
Topband: cheating
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: cheating
> * > > o > > + > > # > > * > > > o > > > + > > > # - > > > -Original Message- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com > mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com ] On Behalf Of Steve Daniel > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 1:32 PM > To: topband@contesting.com mailto: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: 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
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 > 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: cheating
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