Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters News ( - 09 Jan 2019 )
Hi All Mamma Mia ... OK1YQ not the third, but the second ! http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20190109-A4.pdf America.. America. Nick, UY0ZG _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
This unfortunately lost its purpose... : http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181210-A4.pdf A couple of years on the first page will be only representatives of the former socialist countries. uy0zg писал 2018-12-10 19:16: Hello Victor! This is not your topic. I hope that American topbender will achieve the truth without your participation. Nick, UY0ZG _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Hi Jarda, That call OK1YQ is on the front page, so we have the answer, thanks. Please pass our greetings to our old friend Milosh OK1MP. 73/88 Vic US5WE and Helen UR5WA >Понедельник, 10 декабря 2018, 17:08 UTC от Petr Ourednik : > >Hi all, > >Jarda, OK1RD is still active. >Contact is here: http://www.ok1rd.com/ > >73 - Petr, OK1RP > >On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Victor Goncharsky via Topband wrote: >> HI folks, >> I've problems with TOR browser in Ubuntu 16 so could not read mail.ru >> emails blocked by UR government, including the ones from this reflector >> for quite a long time. The problem has been solved. >> As you probably know the licensing authority in Czech Republic started >> to reissue the old 2X2 calls and many 2X3 owners have been changing >> their calls. My assumption is that this OK1YQ could be the case or >> simply a computer error at ARRL Hq. >> CU on the band >> >> >> >Воскресенье, 18 ноября 2018, 1:15 UTC от Pete N8PR < n...@bellsouth.net >: >> > >> >I worked OK1RD in 2011 on 2 Meter EME. Don't k now if he is still active >> >73, PeteR N8PR >> >Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters >> > >> > >> > >> >ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . >> > >> >Who is it ?? >> > >> > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a >> >uto,-12,848 >> >-- >> >Nick, UY0ZG >> >_ >> >From: w...@w5zn.org >> >To: 'topband' < topband@contesting.com > >> >Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters >> >Message-ID: < edb1b9ba3cc1ec998bca03d9d1eb5...@w5zn.org > >> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed >> > >> >Hi J.C., >> > >> >I have not worked this station on 160 meters or on 2 meter EME (or on >> >any band). >> > >> >73 Joel W5ZN >> > >> > >> >On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: >> >> I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME >> >> >> >> ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ >> >> >> >> http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf >> >> >> >> 73's JC >> >> N4IS >> >> >> > >> >_ >> >Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector >> >> >> -- >> 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). >> _ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > >-- >73 - Petr, OK1RP >-- >B: http://goo.gl/Fd2JhJ >G+: http://goo.gl/w3u2s9 >G+: http://goo.gl/gP99xq >_ >Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector -- 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). _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Hello Victor! This is not your topic. I hope that American topbender will achieve the truth without your participation. When will Victor have RX antennas? Will you be an honest amateur radio? Nick, UY0ZG Victor Goncharsky via Topband писал 2018-12-10 18:11: HI folks, I've problems with TOR browser in Ubuntu 16 so could not read mail.ru emails blocked by UR government, including the ones from this reflector for quite a long time. The problem has been solved. As you probably know the licensing authority in Czech Republic started to reissue the old 2X2 calls and many 2X3 owners have been changing their calls. My assumption is that this OK1YQ could be the case or simply a computer error at ARRL Hq. CU on the band US5WE _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Hi all, Jarda, OK1RD is still active. Contact is here: http://www.ok1rd.com/ 73 - Petr, OK1RP On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Victor Goncharsky via Topband wrote: > HI folks, > I've problems with TOR browser in Ubuntu 16 so could not read mail.ru > emails blocked by UR government, including the ones from this reflector > for quite a long time. The problem has been solved. > As you probably know the licensing authority in Czech Republic started > to reissue the old 2X2 calls and many 2X3 owners have been changing > their calls. My assumption is that this OK1YQ could be the case or > simply a computer error at ARRL Hq. > CU on the band > > > >Воскресенье, 18 ноября 2018, 1:15 UTC от Pete N8PR : > > > >I worked OK1RD in 2011 on 2 Meter EME. Don't k now if he is still active > >73, PeteR N8PR > >Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > > > > > > >ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . > > > >Who is it ?? > > > >http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a > >uto,-12,848 > >-- > >Nick, UY0ZG > >_ > >From: w...@w5zn.org > >To: 'topband' < topband@contesting.com > > >Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > >Message-ID: < edb1b9ba3cc1ec998bca03d9d1eb5...@w5zn.org > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > >Hi J.C., > > > >I have not worked this station on 160 meters or on 2 meter EME (or on > >any band). > > > >73 Joel W5ZN > > > > > >On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: > >> I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME > >> > >> ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ > >> > >> http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf > >> > >> 73's JC > >> N4IS > >> > > > >_ > >Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > > -- > 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). > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector -- 73 - Petr, OK1RP -- B: http://goo.gl/Fd2JhJ G+: http://goo.gl/w3u2s9 G+: http://goo.gl/gP99xq _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
HI folks, I've problems with TOR browser in Ubuntu 16 so could not read mail.ru emails blocked by UR government, including the ones from this reflector for quite a long time. The problem has been solved. As you probably know the licensing authority in Czech Republic started to reissue the old 2X2 calls and many 2X3 owners have been changing their calls. My assumption is that this OK1YQ could be the case or simply a computer error at ARRL Hq. CU on the band >Воскресенье, 18 ноября 2018, 1:15 UTC от Pete N8PR : > >I worked OK1RD in 2011 on 2 Meter EME. Don't k now if he is still active >73, PeteR N8PR >Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > > >ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . > >Who is it ?? > >http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a >uto,-12,848 >-- >Nick, UY0ZG >_ >From: w...@w5zn.org >To: 'topband' < topband@contesting.com > >Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters >Message-ID: < edb1b9ba3cc1ec998bca03d9d1eb5...@w5zn.org > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > >Hi J.C., > >I have not worked this station on 160 meters or on 2 meter EME (or on >any band). > >73 Joel W5ZN > > >On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: >> I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME >> >> ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ >> >> http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf >> >> 73's JC >> N4IS >> > >_ >Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector -- 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). _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
FWIW, My 2cents. The continuing threads about DXCC rules bother me. At what point does a rule need to be changed? Regarding remote receive I suppose I accept a private remote with say 10km radius. Group or Club rent a RX, No way! There is no value in anything unless you make an effort yourself. The ARRL DXCC rules already diminished in any value personal or whatever in the DXCC award. The US is a large country with greatly different propagation zones in all corners. The dial up rent a rig business, brainless FT8 operation and the fact that many of the TOP Honor Roll folks have lived and operated in multiple call sign zones throughout their tenure make the paper nearly meaningless. This leaves the last straw of honor if that, in contesting. Where one can honestly compete with people in a more or less fair category if not local region. A place where you might actually learn something like, techniques, skills, propagation, station construction and other technologies. So quit crying about working the last one. Life is too fricking short. Step up to the plate and quit whining like a spoiled rotten kids and get in a contest or two. At least for the most part rules are followed and there are enough categories to satisfy most stations. It might even give a few of you a few goals in life other than griping. Bob, W7RH -- W7RH DM35OS It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. Albert Einstein _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
Dear TopBanders, I think the League's rules have not caught up with the digital age. Four things have changed since the "analog age": 1. Noise is up 2. 160 meter DXCC (and up) is one of the last remaining HF DX challenges 3. Shared low-noise RX sites have become easy to build and for many may be the only hope for 160 m DX 4. Remote operation has become quite common (more then we think), but its not all the same There are two kinds of remote operations: A) A Ham has his remote station within the same region or country and operates through that B) Somebody uses a remote station to gain a favorable position for a DX. A) and B) are very different animals. For A), the station address should be the remote site: i.e. not the radio is remote, but the operator. B) should not be allowed for DXCC credits (but play with it all you want as long you ID correctly) The current rules make little sense: Not a precise analog, but it is like a target range where you were not allowed to use a scope, but you could walk up to the target and put the muzzle against the bulls-eye. And get credit for it! My 1.9 cents worth... George AA7JV/C6AGU On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 17:44:31 + (UTC) Dan Edward Dba East edwards wrote: gotta chip in my $0.02 on this, for what little it may be worth.. i have access to some remote rural property, here in texas, and in oklahoma..but k5rk and w7rh pointed out 'its not legal for dxcc if an Rx only site'but RHR is ok ( ? ) the league's requirement that my transmit antenna be there also greatly increases the cost / time / complexity commitment compared to an Rx only site; i COULD continue to Tx from my home qth, and listen from someplace quieter, with more favorable local terrain..IF it was 'legal' for DXCC.. how about 'same call area' or adjacent states / provinces instead of 500m ? presently, still struggling with man made noise in Hunter's Creek, longview, texas...a very long ways from any salt water...VERY lucky to land zone 17 recently, #38, on demon-cheater mode ( FT-8 )... atter 10 years on 160m, when i started from scratch. happy holidays, y'all, and good luck! 73, W5XZ, dan On Thursday, November 22, 2018, 8:05:50 AM CST, Bill Cromwell wrote: Hi Joe, I would have never assumed that you have acreage whether 5 acres or something the size of the King Ranch. All of those electrical belches are difficult to escape. Moving your receiver out into the swamp, forest, desert, craggy mountaintop or anywhere besides your desktop can help. Using DSP can help and maybe even more than physical isolation. Remote receivers can have both. Have you tried DSP? The software packages come with spectrum displays - much like panadapters - and I have been able to pick out Morse signals between the points of some digital crap resembling the Burger King's crown. Without the DSP there was no way to even hear that CW signal or know it existed. It's not 1956 any more. We have to do whatever we have to do to pull those signals out. Where I live my worst handicap is my 100 foot lot followed by the automotive body shop and it's welders about 250 feet from my back door. DSP is able to pull some signals out even when the welder is in use! In spite of my undersize antennas. 160 DXCC? It ain't going to happen here. I shouldn't even be on 160 meters, But I keep trying. 73, Bill KU8H On 11/22/18 7:38 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: On 2018-11-22 2:08 AM, kol...@rcn.com wrote: And this is easy to say when you have 5 acres in a semi-rural area, hi hi. With no antennas. I have not been seriously active on low bands in the 20 years I've been here precisely because of the increasing prevalence of the multiple remote receiver/remote station operations. However, even semi-rural areas have significant problems with noise from poorly maintained power lines, neighbor's plasma TVs, etc. Multiple remote receiver/"pick your remote station" is the scourge of DXCC in general as it completely removes both station building and operating skills from the equation and replaces them with the check book. One might as well replace amateur radio with "hamsphere" or IRL. 73, ... Joe, W4TV _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector -- bark less - wag more _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
Bill, Lloyd You can overcome the audio mute on TX issue with the SDR Radio Console and Server software from Simon Brown. The Console software syncs with my rig (TS590S) using Omnirig so can mute the RX audio on TX so you don't hear your transmitted signal. Some rewiring of the headphone cable allows radio and PC audio through the same headphones . For a club you could set up a Server off site and share it among multiple club members with a decent link to the Internet at the remote site. There might be some latency but that's better than nothing. Only challenge might be band switching and the sample bandwidth supported by the SDR hardware but not insurmountable. I run a personal setup like the above but have a P2P 5Ghz wireless link to a spot 300 metres away in the fields away from the houses. SDR is a Airspy HF+ that handles a nearby AM broadcaster without front end overload so works a treat on 160M. I have a set of resonant wires and a 200m long beverage at the remote spot. It's battery powered and runs for longer than most sessions I have time and I just drop it off when I need go on air. Most importantly it has transformed my ability copy almost anybody calling me on bands from 30m down to 160m. Regards Paul MM0ZBH On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 at 13:45, Bill Cromwell wrote: > Hi Lloyd, > > What you have described is pretty much what I have envisioned. > Personally I am still receiving at my home with occasional QRM from > industrial sources. DSP is easing the problems for me. The problems with > the gee-whiz approaches are centered around "latency". Tap your Morse > key and then wait for the dit to appear some noticeable time later. The > remote, shared receiver also does not "mute" during your transmission. > Watch out for feedback between your received audio and your mic! > > None of those issues are insurmountable. > > 73, > > Bill KU8H > > On 11/23/18 5:49 PM, Lloyd - N9LB wrote: > > A shared Receive Only site can be used by many operators simultaneously. > > However a shared RX-TX site (remote station) would be impossible. > > ( Think Bouvet on 20m CW, listening up 1-10 ) > > > > Also a club sponsored shared RX could be set up far from any noise > sources, run on solar cells & batteries, with an 802.11A Wi-FI link back to > the nearest wired Internet. > > > > 73 > > > > Lloyd - N9LB > > > > -- > bark less - wag more > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
Hi Lloyd, What you have described is pretty much what I have envisioned. Personally I am still receiving at my home with occasional QRM from industrial sources. DSP is easing the problems for me. The problems with the gee-whiz approaches are centered around "latency". Tap your Morse key and then wait for the dit to appear some noticeable time later. The remote, shared receiver also does not "mute" during your transmission. Watch out for feedback between your received audio and your mic! None of those issues are insurmountable. 73, Bill KU8H On 11/23/18 5:49 PM, Lloyd - N9LB wrote: A shared Receive Only site can be used by many operators simultaneously. However a shared RX-TX site (remote station) would be impossible. ( Think Bouvet on 20m CW, listening up 1-10 ) Also a club sponsored shared RX could be set up far from any noise sources, run on solar cells & batteries, with an 802.11A Wi-FI link back to the nearest wired Internet. 73 Lloyd - N9LB -- bark less - wag more _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
It's the shared receive-only site that I will build for my club. I can't think of a better application of subs for members who live in high density housing as we do. LF is now completely out of the question for all but a privileged few. David G3UNA/G6CP -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd - N9LB Sent: 23 November 2018 22:49 To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary A shared Receive Only site can be used by many operators simultaneously. However a shared RX-TX site (remote station) would be impossible. ( Think Bouvet on 20m CW, listening up 1-10 ) Also a club sponsored shared RX could be set up far from any noise sources, run on solar cells & batteries, with an 802.11A Wi-FI link back to the nearest wired Internet. 73 Lloyd - N9LB _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
A shared Receive Only site can be used by many operators simultaneously. However a shared RX-TX site (remote station) would be impossible. ( Think Bouvet on 20m CW, listening up 1-10 ) Also a club sponsored shared RX could be set up far from any noise sources, run on solar cells & batteries, with an 802.11A Wi-FI link back to the nearest wired Internet. 73 Lloyd - N9LB -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dan Edward Dba East edwards Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 11:45 AM To: topband@contesting.com; Bill Cromwell Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary gotta chip in my $0.02 on this, for what little it may be worth.. i have access to some remote rural property, here in texas, and in oklahoma..but k5rk and w7rh pointed out 'its not legal for dxcc if an Rx only site'but RHR is ok ( ? ) the league's requirement that my transmit antenna be there also greatly increases the cost / time / complexity commitment compared to an Rx only site; i COULD continue to Tx from my home qth, and listen from someplace quieter, with more favorable local terrain..IF it was 'legal' for DXCC.. how about 'same call area' or adjacent states / provinces instead of 500m ? presently, still struggling with man made noise in Hunter's Creek, longview, texas...a very long ways from any salt water...VERY lucky to land zone 17 recently, #38, on demon-cheater mode ( FT-8 )... atter 10 years on 160m, when i started from scratch. happy holidays, y'all, and good luck! 73, W5XZ, dan On Thursday, November 22, 2018, 8:05:50 AM CST, Bill Cromwell wrote: Hi Joe, I would have never assumed that you have acreage whether 5 acres or something the size of the King Ranch. All of those electrical belches are difficult to escape. Moving your receiver out into the swamp, forest, desert, craggy mountaintop or anywhere besides your desktop can help. Using DSP can help and maybe even more than physical isolation. Remote receivers can have both. Have you tried DSP? The software packages come with spectrum displays - much like panadapters - and I have been able to pick out Morse signals between the points of some digital crap resembling the Burger King's crown. Without the DSP there was no way to even hear that CW signal or know it existed. It's not 1956 any more. We have to do whatever we have to do to pull those signals out. Where I live my worst handicap is my 100 foot lot followed by the automotive body shop and it's welders about 250 feet from my back door. DSP is able to pull some signals out even when the welder is in use! In spite of my undersize antennas. 160 DXCC? It ain't going to happen here. I shouldn't even be on 160 meters, But I keep trying. 73, Bill KU8H On 11/22/18 7:38 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > > On 2018-11-22 2:08 AM, kol...@rcn.com wrote: >> And this is easy to say when you have 5 acres in a semi-rural area, >> hi hi. > > With no antennas. I have not been seriously active on low bands in > the > 20 years I've been here precisely because of the increasing prevalence > of the multiple remote receiver/remote station operations. However, > even semi-rural areas have significant problems with noise from poorly > maintained power lines, neighbor's plasma TVs, etc. > > Multiple remote receiver/"pick your remote station" is the scourge of > DXCC in general as it completely removes both station building and > operating skills from the equation and replaces them with the check > book. One might as well replace amateur radio with "hamsphere" or > IRL. > > 73, > > ... Joe, W4TV > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > -- bark less - wag more _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
Let's just institute the rules for WAS for DXCC. Wes N7WS On 11/23/2018 10:44 AM, Dan Edward Dba East edwards wrote: gotta chip in my $0.02 on this, for what little it may be worth.. i have access to some remote rural property, here in texas, and in oklahoma..but k5rk and w7rh pointed out 'its not legal for dxcc if an Rx only site'but RHR is ok ( ? ) the league's requirement that my transmit antenna be there also greatly increases the cost / time / complexity commitment compared to an Rx only site; i COULD continue to Tx from my home qth, and listen from someplace quieter, with more favorable local terrain..IF it was 'legal' for DXCC.. how about 'same call area' or adjacent states / provinces instead of 500m ? presently, still struggling with man made noise in Hunter's Creek, longview, texas...a very long ways from any salt water...VERY lucky to land zone 17 recently, #38, on demon-cheater mode ( FT-8 )... atter 10 years on 160m, when i started from scratch. happy holidays, y'all, and good luck! 73, W5XZ, dan On Thursday, November 22, 2018, 8:05:50 AM CST, Bill Cromwell wrote: Hi Joe, I would have never assumed that you have acreage whether 5 acres or something the size of the King Ranch. All of those electrical belches are difficult to escape. Moving your receiver out into the swamp, forest, desert, craggy mountaintop or anywhere besides your desktop can help. Using DSP can help and maybe even more than physical isolation. Remote receivers can have both. Have you tried DSP? The software packages come with spectrum displays - much like panadapters - and I have been able to pick out Morse signals between the points of some digital crap resembling the Burger King's crown. Without the DSP there was no way to even hear that CW signal or know it existed. It's not 1956 any more. We have to do whatever we have to do to pull those signals out. Where I live my worst handicap is my 100 foot lot followed by the automotive body shop and it's welders about 250 feet from my back door. DSP is able to pull some signals out even when the welder is in use! In spite of my undersize antennas. 160 DXCC? It ain't going to happen here. I shouldn't even be on 160 meters, But I keep trying. 73, Bill KU8H On 11/22/18 7:38 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: On 2018-11-22 2:08 AM, kol...@rcn.com wrote: And this is easy to say when you have 5 acres in a semi-rural area, hi hi. With no antennas. I have not been seriously active on low bands in the 20 years I've been here precisely because of the increasing prevalence of the multiple remote receiver/remote station operations. However, even semi-rural areas have significant problems with noise from poorly maintained power lines, neighbor's plasma TVs, etc. Multiple remote receiver/"pick your remote station" is the scourge of DXCC in general as it completely removes both station building and operating skills from the equation and replaces them with the check book. One might as well replace amateur radio with "hamsphere" or IRL. 73, ... Joe, W4TV _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
An additional wrinkle concerning a remote RX site at a distance within 100 km: I used to have such a setup. The non obvious advantage of it is that it allows for FULL DUPLEX operation ON THE SAME FREQUENCY. This is like QSK on steroids. Depending on the circumstances, this can be a huge advantage. Just this morning, I lost a QSO with an A3 station because I kept doubling with him. If necessary, the remote RX could have a optional loop oriented so as to null the TX site. This is a fundamental difference vs a complete station at a remote location. (Someone asked "what is the difference?") I just wanted to point out that distinction. I suppose there could be an unenforceable rule requiring a TX lockout to prevent full duplex. Rick N6RK _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
gotta chip in my $0.02 on this, for what little it may be worth.. i have access to some remote rural property, here in texas, and in oklahoma..but k5rk and w7rh pointed out 'its not legal for dxcc if an Rx only site'but RHR is ok ( ? ) the league's requirement that my transmit antenna be there also greatly increases the cost / time / complexity commitment compared to an Rx only site; i COULD continue to Tx from my home qth, and listen from someplace quieter, with more favorable local terrain..IF it was 'legal' for DXCC.. how about 'same call area' or adjacent states / provinces instead of 500m ? presently, still struggling with man made noise in Hunter's Creek, longview, texas...a very long ways from any salt water...VERY lucky to land zone 17 recently, #38, on demon-cheater mode ( FT-8 )... atter 10 years on 160m, when i started from scratch. happy holidays, y'all, and good luck! 73, W5XZ, dan On Thursday, November 22, 2018, 8:05:50 AM CST, Bill Cromwell wrote: Hi Joe, I would have never assumed that you have acreage whether 5 acres or something the size of the King Ranch. All of those electrical belches are difficult to escape. Moving your receiver out into the swamp, forest, desert, craggy mountaintop or anywhere besides your desktop can help. Using DSP can help and maybe even more than physical isolation. Remote receivers can have both. Have you tried DSP? The software packages come with spectrum displays - much like panadapters - and I have been able to pick out Morse signals between the points of some digital crap resembling the Burger King's crown. Without the DSP there was no way to even hear that CW signal or know it existed. It's not 1956 any more. We have to do whatever we have to do to pull those signals out. Where I live my worst handicap is my 100 foot lot followed by the automotive body shop and it's welders about 250 feet from my back door. DSP is able to pull some signals out even when the welder is in use! In spite of my undersize antennas. 160 DXCC? It ain't going to happen here. I shouldn't even be on 160 meters, But I keep trying. 73, Bill KU8H On 11/22/18 7:38 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > > On 2018-11-22 2:08 AM, kol...@rcn.com wrote: >> And this is easy to say when you have 5 acres in a semi-rural area, hi >> hi. > > With no antennas. I have not been seriously active on low bands in the > 20 years I've been here precisely because of the increasing prevalence > of the multiple remote receiver/remote station operations. However, > even semi-rural areas have significant problems with noise from poorly > maintained power lines, neighbor's plasma TVs, etc. > > Multiple remote receiver/"pick your remote station" is the scourge of > DXCC in general as it completely removes both station building and > operating skills from the equation and replaces them with the check > book. One might as well replace amateur radio with "hamsphere" or > IRL. > > 73, > > ... Joe, W4TV > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > -- bark less - wag more _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
Hi Joe, I would have never assumed that you have acreage whether 5 acres or something the size of the King Ranch. All of those electrical belches are difficult to escape. Moving your receiver out into the swamp, forest, desert, craggy mountaintop or anywhere besides your desktop can help. Using DSP can help and maybe even more than physical isolation. Remote receivers can have both. Have you tried DSP? The software packages come with spectrum displays - much like panadapters - and I have been able to pick out Morse signals between the points of some digital crap resembling the Burger King's crown. Without the DSP there was no way to even hear that CW signal or know it existed. It's not 1956 any more. We have to do whatever we have to do to pull those signals out. Where I live my worst handicap is my 100 foot lot followed by the automotive body shop and it's welders about 250 feet from my back door. DSP is able to pull some signals out even when the welder is in use! In spite of my undersize antennas. 160 DXCC? It ain't going to happen here. I shouldn't even be on 160 meters, But I keep trying. 73, Bill KU8H On 11/22/18 7:38 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: On 2018-11-22 2:08 AM, kol...@rcn.com wrote: And this is easy to say when you have 5 acres in a semi-rural area, hi hi. With no antennas. I have not been seriously active on low bands in the 20 years I've been here precisely because of the increasing prevalence of the multiple remote receiver/remote station operations. However, even semi-rural areas have significant problems with noise from poorly maintained power lines, neighbor's plasma TVs, etc. Multiple remote receiver/"pick your remote station" is the scourge of DXCC in general as it completely removes both station building and operating skills from the equation and replaces them with the check book. One might as well replace amateur radio with "hamsphere" or IRL. 73, ... Joe, W4TV _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector -- bark less - wag more _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
On 2018-11-22 2:08 AM, kol...@rcn.com wrote: And this is easy to say when you have 5 acres in a semi-rural area, hi hi. With no antennas. I have not been seriously active on low bands in the 20 years I've been here precisely because of the increasing prevalence of the multiple remote receiver/remote station operations. However, even semi-rural areas have significant problems with noise from poorly maintained power lines, neighbor's plasma TVs, etc. Multiple remote receiver/"pick your remote station" is the scourge of DXCC in general as it completely removes both station building and operating skills from the equation and replaces them with the check book. One might as well replace amateur radio with "hamsphere" or IRL. 73, ... Joe, W4TV _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
And this is easy to say when you have 5 acres in a semi-rural area, hi hi. As it happens, I do not use a remote RX (it shows!). But at my QTH I can barely fit a K9AY (though it's compromised by masts and other antennas that are necessarily close). I really dig working what DX I can on 160 but even with a lousy TX antenna, I TX better than RX these days. I am sure I am one of those guys that honk people off from time to time because, for me, hearing on 160 is often a come/go proposition. But that's the reality here on the ground. Now 20 years ago, hearing was a lot easier, but in recent years, with all the noise sources nearby, hearing from most non-rural locations has become problematic (to say the least) on 160. So I can understand why people are considering going to remote RX and personally, as long as the RX site is close enough to the TX site (same grid should suffice) that there is no real propagational advantage, I am cool with that. It's making the best out of today's bad situation in my view. Moreover, my suspicion is that in 10/20 years, as more and more solar panel controllers, car charging stations, switching supplies, grow lights (as "certain substances"... "certain substances of an illicit nature", as Monty Python would have it, become legal in more places) etc. come on line, non-rural hams on ANY H.F. band without sophisticated RX arrays will be, as my Dad would have put it, S.O.L. 73, Kevin K3OX - Original Message - From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" To: topband@contesting.com Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 10:28:45 PM Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary On 2018-11-21 2:39 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote: > > Maintaining a club project "remote" receiver is something I would > support with some money and some work. It's a lot more worthwhile than > yet another two meter FM repeater. I don't really care about using it > for 160 meter DXCC but I would certainly get my money's worth playing > with it. This (remote receivers in multiple locations) is specifically what the rules are meant to prevent. rankly there is no justification for the multiple remote receiver operations ... one might as well make an internet QSO! 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-21 2:39 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote: > Hi Joe, > > I live in a small village. Even so, 500 meters isn't going to buy > anything. If we were overwhelmed by noise we would still be overwhelmed > by exactly the same noise. So this is going to be yet another thread > about whose ox is being gored. All those noises don't bother anybody's > transmitter. So why would we care where the transmitter is within the > same grid square as the receiver? > > Maintaining a club project "remote" receiver is something I would > support with some money and some work. It's a lot more worthwhile than > yet another two meter FM repeater. I don't really care about using it > for 160 meter DXCC but I would certainly get my money's worth playing > with it. > > 73, > > Bill KU8H > > On 11/21/18 2:05 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: >> >>> I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, >> would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid >>> square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC >>> Entity. >> I think 500 meters is more than enough of a "circle" to contain both >> transmit and receive antennas. If one is making the effort to create >> a remote site, it can certainly contain both transmit and receive >> antennas. The idea of placing the transmitter *for an amateur station* >> on a salt marsh on the coast and the receive antennas 10 miles distant >> and well away from man made noises (to the extent possible) is ludicrous >> - it reminds me of the commercial maritime stations of old. >> >> Frankly, the DXCC rules should be changed to limit all operators to >> *ONE* location a month unless the operator is physically present at >> the station (as defined by the 500 meter circle) to prevent the near >> simultaneous use of multiple remote transmitters/receivers in physically >> large DXCC entities to "feed" a single DXCC/Challenge/Single Band DXCC >> from propagation advantaged locations. >> >> 73, >> >> ... Joe, W4TV >> >> >> On 2018-11-21 12:37 PM, Lloyd - N9LB wrote: >>> I'd like to see the ARRL change part >> Amateur >>> Radio Community in light of the recent radical increase in electrical >>> noise >>> from consumer switching power supplies, variable speed mo
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
On 2018-11-21 2:39 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote: > > Maintaining a club project "remote" receiver is something I would > support with some money and some work. It's a lot more worthwhile than > yet another two meter FM repeater. I don't really care about using it > for 160 meter DXCC but I would certainly get my money's worth playing > with it. This (remote receivers in multiple locations) is specifically what the rules are meant to prevent. rankly there is no justification for the multiple remote receiver operations ... one might as well make an internet QSO! 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-21 2:39 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote: Hi Joe, I live in a small village. Even so, 500 meters isn't going to buy anything. If we were overwhelmed by noise we would still be overwhelmed by exactly the same noise. So this is going to be yet another thread about whose ox is being gored. All those noises don't bother anybody's transmitter. So why would we care where the transmitter is within the same grid square as the receiver? Maintaining a club project "remote" receiver is something I would support with some money and some work. It's a lot more worthwhile than yet another two meter FM repeater. I don't really care about using it for 160 meter DXCC but I would certainly get my money's worth playing with it. 73, Bill KU8H On 11/21/18 2:05 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC Entity. I think 500 meters is more than enough of a "circle" to contain both transmit and receive antennas. If one is making the effort to create a remote site, it can certainly contain both transmit and receive antennas. The idea of placing the transmitter *for an amateur station* on a salt marsh on the coast and the receive antennas 10 miles distant and well away from man made noises (to the extent possible) is ludicrous - it reminds me of the commercial maritime stations of old. Frankly, the DXCC rules should be changed to limit all operators to *ONE* location a month unless the operator is physically present at the station (as defined by the 500 meter circle) to prevent the near simultaneous use of multiple remote transmitters/receivers in physically large DXCC entities to "feed" a single DXCC/Challenge/Single Band DXCC from propagation advantaged locations. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-21 12:37 PM, Lloyd - N9LB wrote: I'd like to see the ARRL change part Amateur Radio Community in light of the recent radical increase in electrical noise from consumer switching power supplies, variable speed motors, LED lighting, solar panels with "optimizers", and all of the other "energy efficient" wideband RF garbage generators. I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC Entity. I also think that building and maintaining a shared Community Low Noise RX Receiver Site would make a great DX Club project and service. Let's get this rule updated. How do we get started? 73 Lloyd - N9LB _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
Hi Joe, I live in a small village. Even so, 500 meters isn't going to buy anything. If we were overwhelmed by noise we would still be overwhelmed by exactly the same noise. So this is going to be yet another thread about whose ox is being gored. All those noises don't bother anybody's transmitter. So why would we care where the transmitter is within the same grid square as the receiver? Maintaining a club project "remote" receiver is something I would support with some money and some work. It's a lot more worthwhile than yet another two meter FM repeater. I don't really care about using it for 160 meter DXCC but I would certainly get my money's worth playing with it. 73, Bill KU8H On 11/21/18 2:05 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC Entity. I think 500 meters is more than enough of a "circle" to contain both transmit and receive antennas. If one is making the effort to create a remote site, it can certainly contain both transmit and receive antennas. The idea of placing the transmitter *for an amateur station* on a salt marsh on the coast and the receive antennas 10 miles distant and well away from man made noises (to the extent possible) is ludicrous - it reminds me of the commercial maritime stations of old. Frankly, the DXCC rules should be changed to limit all operators to *ONE* location a month unless the operator is physically present at the station (as defined by the 500 meter circle) to prevent the near simultaneous use of multiple remote transmitters/receivers in physically large DXCC entities to "feed" a single DXCC/Challenge/Single Band DXCC from propagation advantaged locations. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-21 12:37 PM, Lloyd - N9LB wrote: I'd like to see the ARRL change part Amateur Radio Community in light of the recent radical increase in electrical noise from consumer switching power supplies, variable speed motors, LED lighting, solar panels with "optimizers", and all of the other "energy efficient" wideband RF garbage generators. I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC Entity. I also think that building and maintaining a shared Community Low Noise RX Receiver Site would make a great DX Club project and service. Let's get this rule updated. How do we get started? 73 Lloyd - N9LB _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector -- bark less - wag more _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
A DXCC rule change to allow shared use of a low band RX site that is located within a specified distance of the main station makes sense to me. My station hears OK, not top tier by any means, but we work our share when the local power lines behave. For the last month, I have had a single source S9 plus as much as 30 db power line noise. The power company has been notified, and I am waiting for them to address the problem. I have available to me a well equipped hilltop station which is equipped for remote operation. I don’t want to do full remote, for various reasons, not the least of which is I want to work the DX from my own station. It makes no sense that I can’t within the DXCC rules log on to this station receiver to hear the DX and transmit from my own antennas. I helped build this station. The remote QTH is within 20 miles as the crow flies. Yet, I can log in and do a full remote and be in compliance with the rules. Many of my friends work 160 but are limited by real estate or urban noise. It would be great if we could build and share a remote, local receiver site. Yes, we could do a full remote rx/tx site. A rx only site would be simpler, and none of us have any real desire to operate a remote transmitter. This is not about RHR type remote operation. I have a very good friend who physically is unable to do any antenna work and I encouraged him to do RHR. He is, and it is working great for him. It keeps him in the DX game, when otherwise he would be QRT. If it were not for my DX Engineering NCC-1 noise canceller, my station would be dead in the water on low bands while this noise source is active . With it, I can do fairly well on reception as long as another 2nd noise source does not pop up. This box is remarkable. It is the best accessory I ever bought for the station. 73 Chas N8RR Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Topband on behalf of Joe Subich, W4TV Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 2:05:48 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary > I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid > square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC > Entity. I think 500 meters is more than enough of a "circle" to contain both transmit and receive antennas. If one is making the effort to create a remote site, it can certainly contain both transmit and receive antennas. The idea of placing the transmitter *for an amateur station* on a salt marsh on the coast and the receive antennas 10 miles distant and well away from man made noises (to the extent possible) is ludicrous - it reminds me of the commercial maritime stations of old. Frankly, the DXCC rules should be changed to limit all operators to *ONE* location a month unless the operator is physically present at the station (as defined by the 500 meter circle) to prevent the near simultaneous use of multiple remote transmitters/receivers in physically large DXCC entities to "feed" a single DXCC/Challenge/Single Band DXCC from propagation advantaged locations. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-21 12:37 PM, Lloyd - N9LB wrote: > I'd like to see the ARRL change part Radio Community in light of the recent radical increase in electrical noise > from consumer switching power supplies, variable speed motors, LED lighting, > solar panels with "optimizers", and all of the other "energy efficient" > wideband RF garbage generators. > > I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid square" or "within > 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC Entity. > > I also think that building and maintaining a shared Community Low Noise RX > Receiver Site would make a great DX Club project and service. > > Let's get this rule updated. How do we get started? > > 73 > > Lloyd - N9LB > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC Entity. I think 500 meters is more than enough of a "circle" to contain both transmit and receive antennas. If one is making the effort to create a remote site, it can certainly contain both transmit and receive antennas. The idea of placing the transmitter *for an amateur station* on a salt marsh on the coast and the receive antennas 10 miles distant and well away from man made noises (to the extent possible) is ludicrous - it reminds me of the commercial maritime stations of old. Frankly, the DXCC rules should be changed to limit all operators to *ONE* location a month unless the operator is physically present at the station (as defined by the 500 meter circle) to prevent the near simultaneous use of multiple remote transmitters/receivers in physically large DXCC entities to "feed" a single DXCC/Challenge/Single Band DXCC from propagation advantaged locations. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-21 12:37 PM, Lloyd - N9LB wrote: I'd like to see the ARRL change part _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
A few UK clubs are doing this or have it in mind, including my own. I think it is the best thing a club can do for its members. David G3UNA/G6CP " I also think that building and maintaining a shared Community Low Noise RX Receiver Site would make a great DX Club project and service." -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd - N9LB Sent: 21 November 2018 17:37 To: 'TopBand List' Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary I'd like to see the ARRL change part mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Thomson Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 10:57 AM To: TopBand List Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:32:20 -0600 From: "Mike Cizek W0VTT" To: "'Jean-Paul Albert'" , Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters <9. Station Location and Boundary: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
I'd like to see the ARRL change part mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Thomson Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 10:57 AM To: TopBand List Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:32:20 -0600 From: "Mike Cizek W0VTT" To: "'Jean-Paul Albert'" , Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters <9. Station Location and Boundary: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
The rules say "transmitters and receivers". They don't refer to antennas being spread over acreage. 73, Greg-N4CCSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Original message From: Jim Thomson Date: 11/21/18 9:57 AM (GMT-07:00) To: TopBand List Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:32:20 -0600From: "Mike Cizek W0VTT" To: "'Jean-Paul Albert'" , Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters<9. Station Location and Boundary:http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:32:20 -0600 From: "Mike Cizek W0VTT" To: "'Jean-Paul Albert'" , Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters <9. Station Location and Boundary: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Thanks Mike for your prompt answer. Rules are very clear about that situation. Thanks to all of YouTube for the great job you do checking QSO’s. See u on top band. Jean-Paul Envoyé de mon iPad > Le 21 nov. 2018 à 16:32, Mike Cizek W0VTT a écrit : > > Hello Jean-Paul, > > From the current DXCC Rules: > > 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. > > This means it is legal to use a remote station to work DX, but it is NOT > legal to transmit from home and use a remote receive site. I know we all > have our own opinions on this, but this is what the rules say. > > Card checkers really have no way of knowing what the applicant was doing, but > we are told to note the time of the QSO on the application for all 160m QSOs. > If a W0 or W9 presents me with a card for a 160m QSO with JA at 1400z, which > is long after our sunrise, I will certainly make note of it on the > application. > > -- > 73, > Mike Cizek WØVTT > > -Original Message- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jean-Paul > Albert via Topband > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 07:16 > To: n...@n4is.com > Cc: Greg; topband; w...@w5zn.org > Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > Hi guys, > > What about remote stations (to transmit, to receive or both) for any awards ? > > Is any recommandations for checkers ? > > Best 73 > > Jean-Paul F6FYA / TM4Q > > Envoyé de mon iPad > > > Le 20 nov. 2018 à 18:55, a écrit : > > > > Hi Guys > > > > Here what I think is the problem. DXCC records and link accounts. This is a > > problem with CQ WAZ as well. Here some examples, Back in late 80's a PY1 > > send 40 cards to claim CQ WAZ 40 zones on 160m, just after HB9AMO Plaque # > > 1 - 13 June 1987 . K1MEM sent a letter to PY1RO to check the cards, and > > several cards was just impossible QSO's, like China during daytime and the > > Chinese station never worked on 160m. The certificate was canceled, however > > 10 to 20 years later the same guy apply again and get his WAZ original > > certificate number validate using old credits. The certificate was canceled > > but the filed credits not. > > > > Same thing on DXCC, after 10 years you can apply again, using link accounts, > > and using old credits on file. I've seen this with others PY, LZ and why not > > this OK. This is fixable. > > > > I understand the ARRL wants to be very discreate when someone is caught > > doing creative things, no moral or ethical help on publicity. > > > > So I believe it is just an internal broken process that allow linked > > accounts and old records to be used again without verification. > > > > The issue I see on LOTW is a lack of card check at the same level we have > > with paper QSL cards. > > > > Here some examples. PY3CEJ posted on his website a QSL card with a SSB QSO > > 11:30 am local noon time, and with only 100w. I call PY3CEJ and challenged > > him about this impossible QSO, few days latter the 4W guy uploaded on Club > > Log this fantastic QSO. If you look on the statistics there is only one > > single QSO on 160, 2 QSO's on 80m and 100's of QSO on 40m SSB, most with > > JA's. I cannot say that this QSO was uploaded to LOTW, but there is nothing > > to prevent it. > > > > In the last six years we've seen a large number of QSO during day time on > > 160m from several " groups club" , like the ongoing strong between PY, LZ > > and YB. QSO's on 160m on broad day sun light. Ongoing means last week with > > new impossible QSO's on Club Log and credits on the DXCC list latter for > > sure. > > > > The explanation from ARRL was that there is no way to stop "them". I don't > > agree with it, a simple code on LOTW DXCC validation can flag those daytime > > 160m QSO's for late "card check". > > > > The real thing here is the most dangerous behavior for our hobby. > > > > if you don't care I don' t mind, and I don't mind if you don't care. > > > > Please! we do care, and we do mint! Do something too!... > > > > 73's > > JC > > N4IS > > > > > > > > _ > > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Hello Jean-Paul, >From the current DXCC Rules: 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. This means it is legal to use a remote station to work DX, but it is NOT legal to transmit from home and use a remote receive site. I know we all have our own opinions on this, but this is what the rules say. Card checkers really have no way of knowing what the applicant was doing, but we are told to note the time of the QSO on the application for all 160m QSOs. If a W0 or W9 presents me with a card for a 160m QSO with JA at 1400z, which is long after our sunrise, I will certainly make note of it on the application. -- 73, Mike Cizek WØVTT -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jean-Paul Albert via Topband Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 07:16 To: n...@n4is.com Cc: Greg; topband; w...@w5zn.org Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Hi guys, What about remote stations (to transmit, to receive or both) for any awards ? Is any recommandations for checkers ? Best 73 Jean-Paul F6FYA / TM4Q Envoyé de mon iPad > Le 20 nov. 2018 à 18:55, a écrit : > > Hi Guys > > Here what I think is the problem. DXCC records and link accounts. This is a > problem with CQ WAZ as well. Here some examples, Back in late 80's a PY1 > send 40 cards to claim CQ WAZ 40 zones on 160m, just after HB9AMO Plaque # > 1 - 13 June 1987 . K1MEM sent a letter to PY1RO to check the cards, and > several cards was just impossible QSO's, like China during daytime and the > Chinese station never worked on 160m. The certificate was canceled, however > 10 to 20 years later the same guy apply again and get his WAZ original > certificate number validate using old credits. The certificate was canceled > but the filed credits not. > > Same thing on DXCC, after 10 years you can apply again, using link accounts, > and using old credits on file. I've seen this with others PY, LZ and why not > this OK. This is fixable. > > I understand the ARRL wants to be very discreate when someone is caught > doing creative things, no moral or ethical help on publicity. > > So I believe it is just an internal broken process that allow linked > accounts and old records to be used again without verification. > > The issue I see on LOTW is a lack of card check at the same level we have > with paper QSL cards. > > Here some examples. PY3CEJ posted on his website a QSL card with a SSB QSO > 11:30 am local noon time, and with only 100w. I call PY3CEJ and challenged > him about this impossible QSO, few days latter the 4W guy uploaded on Club > Log this fantastic QSO. If you look on the statistics there is only one > single QSO on 160, 2 QSO's on 80m and 100's of QSO on 40m SSB, most with > JA's. I cannot say that this QSO was uploaded to LOTW, but there is nothing > to prevent it. > > In the last six years we've seen a large number of QSO during day time on > 160m from several " groups club" , like the ongoing strong between PY, LZ > and YB. QSO's on 160m on broad day sun light. Ongoing means last week with > new impossible QSO's on Club Log and credits on the DXCC list latter for > sure. > > The explanation from ARRL was that there is no way to stop "them". I don't > agree with it, a simple code on LOTW DXCC validation can flag those daytime > 160m QSO's for late "card check". > > The real thing here is the most dangerous behavior for our hobby. > > if you don't care I don' t mind, and I don't mind if you don't care. > > Please! we do care, and we do mint! Do something too!... > > 73's > JC > N4IS > > > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Hi guys, What about remote stations (to transmit, to receive or both) for any awards ? Is any recommandations for checkers ? Best 73 Jean-Paul F6FYA / TM4Q Envoyé de mon iPad > Le 20 nov. 2018 à 18:55, a écrit : > > Hi Guys > > Here what I think is the problem. DXCC records and link accounts. This is a > problem with CQ WAZ as well. Here some examples, Back in late 80's a PY1 > send 40 cards to claim CQ WAZ 40 zones on 160m, just after HB9AMO Plaque # > 1 - 13 June 1987 . K1MEM sent a letter to PY1RO to check the cards, and > several cards was just impossible QSO's, like China during daytime and the > Chinese station never worked on 160m. The certificate was canceled, however > 10 to 20 years later the same guy apply again and get his WAZ original > certificate number validate using old credits. The certificate was canceled > but the filed credits not. > > Same thing on DXCC, after 10 years you can apply again, using link accounts, > and using old credits on file. I've seen this with others PY, LZ and why not > this OK. This is fixable. > > I understand the ARRL wants to be very discreate when someone is caught > doing creative things, no moral or ethical help on publicity. > > So I believe it is just an internal broken process that allow linked > accounts and old records to be used again without verification. > > The issue I see on LOTW is a lack of card check at the same level we have > with paper QSL cards. > > Here some examples. PY3CEJ posted on his website a QSL card with a SSB QSO > 11:30 am local noon time, and with only 100w. I call PY3CEJ and challenged > him about this impossible QSO, few days latter the 4W guy uploaded on Club > Log this fantastic QSO. If you look on the statistics there is only one > single QSO on 160, 2 QSO's on 80m and 100's of QSO on 40m SSB, most with > JA's. I cannot say that this QSO was uploaded to LOTW, but there is nothing > to prevent it. > > In the last six years we've seen a large number of QSO during day time on > 160m from several " groups club" , like the ongoing strong between PY, LZ > and YB. QSO's on 160m on broad day sun light. Ongoing means last week with > new impossible QSO's on Club Log and credits on the DXCC list latter for > sure. > > The explanation from ARRL was that there is no way to stop "them". I don't > agree with it, a simple code on LOTW DXCC validation can flag those daytime > 160m QSO's for late "card check". > > The real thing here is the most dangerous behavior for our hobby. > > if you don't care I don' t mind, and I don't mind if you don't care. > > Please! we do care, and we do mint! Do something too!... > > 73's > JC > N4IS > > > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Guys Just for clarification I mentioned a QSO on 160 between PY3 and 4W SSB low power when there is no darkness near PY3 SR, only few minutes near SS. During winter I can hear Europe on 40 m all day long in South Florida, it is very common on 40m. Not the same on 160m. 73's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband On Behalf Of Wes Stewart Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:56 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters One of our SADXA members just wrote a paper about the possibility of daytime 40-meter DX during mid-December. But on this subject I would like to know who made the ONE 160-meter SSB QSO with VP6D. Wes N7WS On 11/20/2018 11:57 AM, Clive GM3POI wrote: > JC I think you have to be careful about saying this daytime or that > qso could not have happened. "It entirely depends where the station is > located." > An example, I have a QSL with three QSOS between me and a JD1 station > all within about 15 mins of each other, on different dates and centred > on midday here on 40m. Stations in Northerly location will have a > high degree of probability for midwinter daytime DX contacts. They > will at other parts of the cycle, have a similar type of opening to > the Pacific either side of mid night on the higher HF bands. > I agree the OK stuff stinks and considering the previous qsl printing > that went on, you cannot believe any of the data for certain. > 73 Clive GM3POI > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters & Daytime 40-meter DX
I worked a UA station in Vladivostok on 160 meters and it was two hours after his sunrise. This was in winter, so his Sun never got up very high. At the time I did not pay attention to the contact as I was rather clueless about 160 prop. Later on, I started wondering about it. Was it real? The QSO was confirmed on LOTW. I guess it was. Dave K1WHS On 11/20/2018 9:43 PM, Kenneth Grimm wrote: I hasten to point out the obvious, that 40 meters and 160 meters are two different kettles of fish! Lots of DX on 40 at mid-day doesn't translate too well to 160. And while I agree with Clive, GM3POI, that one should probably not say "never" when talking about propagation, if something looks, walks and acts like a duck, it is probably a duckin other words, don't overthink the obvious. Daytime DX on 40 can sometimes be a nuisance. For instance I had to give up my run frequency during SSB Sweepstakes this past weekend due to QRM from stations in Portugal. 8*) 73, Ken - K4XL On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 3:26 PM Lloyd - N9LB wrote: Just FYI... I'm hearing the following DX on 40m between 1 and 2 PM CST, November 20th. Dipole antenna at 60' running E-W, obviously hearing well over the North Pole. EA5XC, HA1RB, CO2VK, EA4GJP, ON1AEY, EA1IMP, DF8KI, PD2HAB, EA4GJP, I0WBX, DJ0FX, CU8FN, EB1BVP, EA4AQQ, SP6IXF, PC5W, TF1A, OK1ZVP, IK1BQD, R6JY, JH1AJT, F4EMG, ON3AD, SP6IXF, DL2VPO, A45XR, F5ADE, SV2AEL, JH1AJT, IK1BQD, I0OSI, UR5RGS, VK7BBB, YO9HP, SP5EAF, 5T2AI, and all of Canada. 73 Lloyd - N9LB in snowy and cold Wisconsin. -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Wes Stewart Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 1:56 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters One of our SADXA members just wrote a paper about the possibility of daytime 40-meter DX during mid-December. But on this subject I would like to know who made the ONE 160-meter SSB QSO with VP6D. Wes N7WS On 11/20/2018 11:57 AM, Clive GM3POI wrote: JC I think you have to be careful about saying this daytime or that qso could not have happened. "It entirely depends where the station is located." An example, I have a QSL with three QSOS between me and a JD1 station all within about 15 mins of each other, on different dates and centred on midday here on 40m. Stations in Northerly location will have a high degree of probability for midwinter daytime DX contacts. They will at other parts of the cycle, have a similar type of opening to the Pacific either side of mid night on the higher HF bands. I agree the OK stuff stinks and considering the previous qsl printing that went on, you cannot believe any of the data for certain. 73 Clive GM3POI _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters & Daytime 40-meter DX
I hasten to point out the obvious, that 40 meters and 160 meters are two different kettles of fish! Lots of DX on 40 at mid-day doesn't translate too well to 160. And while I agree with Clive, GM3POI, that one should probably not say "never" when talking about propagation, if something looks, walks and acts like a duck, it is probably a duckin other words, don't overthink the obvious. Daytime DX on 40 can sometimes be a nuisance. For instance I had to give up my run frequency during SSB Sweepstakes this past weekend due to QRM from stations in Portugal. 8*) 73, Ken - K4XL On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 3:26 PM Lloyd - N9LB wrote: > Just FYI... > > I'm hearing the following DX on 40m between 1 and 2 PM CST, November > 20th. > > Dipole antenna at 60' running E-W, obviously hearing well over the North > Pole. > > EA5XC, HA1RB, CO2VK, EA4GJP, ON1AEY, EA1IMP, DF8KI, PD2HAB, EA4GJP, I0WBX, > DJ0FX, CU8FN, EB1BVP, EA4AQQ, SP6IXF, PC5W, TF1A, OK1ZVP, IK1BQD, R6JY, > JH1AJT, F4EMG, ON3AD, SP6IXF, DL2VPO, A45XR, F5ADE, SV2AEL, JH1AJT, > IK1BQD, I0OSI, UR5RGS, VK7BBB, YO9HP, SP5EAF, 5T2AI, and all of Canada. > > 73 > > Lloyd - N9LB in snowy and cold Wisconsin. > > -Original Message- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Wes > Stewart > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 1:56 PM > To: topband@contesting.com > Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > One of our SADXA members just wrote a paper about the possibility of > daytime 40-meter DX during mid-December. > > But on this subject I would like to know who made the ONE 160-meter SSB > QSO with VP6D. > > Wes N7WS > > On 11/20/2018 11:57 AM, Clive GM3POI wrote: > > JC I think you have to be careful about saying this daytime or that > > qso could not have happened. "It entirely depends where the station is > located." > > An example, I have a QSL with three QSOS between me and a JD1 station > > all within about 15 mins of each other, on different dates and centred > > on midday here on 40m. Stations in Northerly location will have a > > high degree of probability for midwinter daytime DX contacts. They > > will at other parts of the cycle, have a similar type of opening to > > the Pacific either side of mid night on the higher HF bands. > > I agree the OK stuff stinks and considering the previous qsl printing > > that went on, you cannot believe any of the data for certain. > > 73 Clive GM3POI > > > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > -- Ken - K4XL BoatAnchor Manual Archive BAMA - http://bama.edebris.com _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters & Daytime 40-meter DX
Just FYI... I'm hearing the following DX on 40m between 1 and 2 PM CST, November 20th. Dipole antenna at 60' running E-W, obviously hearing well over the North Pole. EA5XC, HA1RB, CO2VK, EA4GJP, ON1AEY, EA1IMP, DF8KI, PD2HAB, EA4GJP, I0WBX, DJ0FX, CU8FN, EB1BVP, EA4AQQ, SP6IXF, PC5W, TF1A, OK1ZVP, IK1BQD, R6JY, JH1AJT, F4EMG, ON3AD, SP6IXF, DL2VPO, A45XR, F5ADE, SV2AEL, JH1AJT, IK1BQD, I0OSI, UR5RGS, VK7BBB, YO9HP, SP5EAF, 5T2AI, and all of Canada. 73 Lloyd - N9LB in snowy and cold Wisconsin. -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Wes Stewart Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 1:56 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters One of our SADXA members just wrote a paper about the possibility of daytime 40-meter DX during mid-December. But on this subject I would like to know who made the ONE 160-meter SSB QSO with VP6D. Wes N7WS On 11/20/2018 11:57 AM, Clive GM3POI wrote: > JC I think you have to be careful about saying this daytime or that > qso could not have happened. "It entirely depends where the station is > located." > An example, I have a QSL with three QSOS between me and a JD1 station > all within about 15 mins of each other, on different dates and centred > on midday here on 40m. Stations in Northerly location will have a > high degree of probability for midwinter daytime DX contacts. They > will at other parts of the cycle, have a similar type of opening to > the Pacific either side of mid night on the higher HF bands. > I agree the OK stuff stinks and considering the previous qsl printing > that went on, you cannot believe any of the data for certain. > 73 Clive GM3POI > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
One of our SADXA members just wrote a paper about the possibility of daytime 40-meter DX during mid-December. But on this subject I would like to know who made the ONE 160-meter SSB QSO with VP6D. Wes N7WS On 11/20/2018 11:57 AM, Clive GM3POI wrote: JC I think you have to be careful about saying this daytime or that qso could not have happened. "It entirely depends where the station is located." An example, I have a QSL with three QSOS between me and a JD1 station all within about 15 mins of each other, on different dates and centred on midday here on 40m. Stations in Northerly location will have a high degree of probability for midwinter daytime DX contacts. They will at other parts of the cycle, have a similar type of opening to the Pacific either side of mid night on the higher HF bands. I agree the OK stuff stinks and considering the previous qsl printing that went on, you cannot believe any of the data for certain. 73 Clive GM3POI _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
JC I think you have to be careful about saying this daytime or that qso could not have happened. "It entirely depends where the station is located." An example, I have a QSL with three QSOS between me and a JD1 station all within about 15 mins of each other, on different dates and centred on midday here on 40m. Stations in Northerly location will have a high degree of probability for midwinter daytime DX contacts. They will at other parts of the cycle, have a similar type of opening to the Pacific either side of mid night on the higher HF bands. I agree the OK stuff stinks and considering the previous qsl printing that went on, you cannot believe any of the data for certain. 73 Clive GM3POI -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of n...@n4is.com Sent: 20 November 2018 17:56 To: 'Greg'; w...@w5zn.org; 'topband' Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Hi Guys Here what I think is the problem. DXCC records and link accounts. This is a problem with CQ WAZ as well. Here some examples, Back in late 80's a PY1 send 40 cards to claim CQ WAZ 40 zones on 160m, just after HB9AMO Plaque # 1 - 13 June 1987 . K1MEM sent a letter to PY1RO to check the cards, and several cards was just impossible QSO's, like China during daytime and the Chinese station never worked on 160m. The certificate was canceled, however 10 to 20 years later the same guy apply again and get his WAZ original certificate number validate using old credits. The certificate was canceled but the filed credits not. Same thing on DXCC, after 10 years you can apply again, using link accounts, and using old credits on file. I've seen this with others PY, LZ and why not this OK. This is fixable. I understand the ARRL wants to be very discreate when someone is caught doing creative things, no moral or ethical help on publicity. So I believe it is just an internal broken process that allow linked accounts and old records to be used again without verification. The issue I see on LOTW is a lack of card check at the same level we have with paper QSL cards. Here some examples. PY3CEJ posted on his website a QSL card with a SSB QSO 11:30 am local noon time, and with only 100w. I call PY3CEJ and challenged him about this impossible QSO, few days latter the 4W guy uploaded on Club Log this fantastic QSO. If you look on the statistics there is only one single QSO on 160, 2 QSO's on 80m and 100's of QSO on 40m SSB, most with JA's. I cannot say that this QSO was uploaded to LOTW, but there is nothing to prevent it. In the last six years we've seen a large number of QSO during day time on 160m from several " groups club" , like the ongoing strong between PY, LZ and YB. QSO's on 160m on broad day sun light. Ongoing means last week with new impossible QSO's on Club Log and credits on the DXCC list latter for sure. The explanation from ARRL was that there is no way to stop "them". I don't agree with it, a simple code on LOTW DXCC validation can flag those daytime 160m QSO's for late "card check". The real thing here is the most dangerous behavior for our hobby. if you don't care I don' t mind, and I don't mind if you don't care. Please! we do care, and we do mint! Do something too!... 73's JC N4IS _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Hi Guys Here what I think is the problem. DXCC records and link accounts. This is a problem with CQ WAZ as well. Here some examples, Back in late 80's a PY1 send 40 cards to claim CQ WAZ 40 zones on 160m, just after HB9AMO Plaque # 1 - 13 June 1987 . K1MEM sent a letter to PY1RO to check the cards, and several cards was just impossible QSO's, like China during daytime and the Chinese station never worked on 160m. The certificate was canceled, however 10 to 20 years later the same guy apply again and get his WAZ original certificate number validate using old credits. The certificate was canceled but the filed credits not. Same thing on DXCC, after 10 years you can apply again, using link accounts, and using old credits on file. I've seen this with others PY, LZ and why not this OK. This is fixable. I understand the ARRL wants to be very discreate when someone is caught doing creative things, no moral or ethical help on publicity. So I believe it is just an internal broken process that allow linked accounts and old records to be used again without verification. The issue I see on LOTW is a lack of card check at the same level we have with paper QSL cards. Here some examples. PY3CEJ posted on his website a QSL card with a SSB QSO 11:30 am local noon time, and with only 100w. I call PY3CEJ and challenged him about this impossible QSO, few days latter the 4W guy uploaded on Club Log this fantastic QSO. If you look on the statistics there is only one single QSO on 160, 2 QSO's on 80m and 100's of QSO on 40m SSB, most with JA's. I cannot say that this QSO was uploaded to LOTW, but there is nothing to prevent it. In the last six years we've seen a large number of QSO during day time on 160m from several " groups club" , like the ongoing strong between PY, LZ and YB. QSO's on 160m on broad day sun light. Ongoing means last week with new impossible QSO's on Club Log and credits on the DXCC list latter for sure. The explanation from ARRL was that there is no way to stop "them". I don't agree with it, a simple code on LOTW DXCC validation can flag those daytime 160m QSO's for late "card check". The real thing here is the most dangerous behavior for our hobby. if you don't care I don' t mind, and I don't mind if you don't care. Please! we do care, and we do mint! Do something too!... 73's JC N4IS _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
I'm a 160 meter DXCC card checker...so I thought I would respond to this. First of all let me say that the DXCC card checkers really need to have an updated manual so that all card checkers have the same understanding and there is a reference to refer to. As far as I know there is none although NC1L said he was working on a new one before he had his accident. The qualifications for being a 160 meter card checker are simply being appointed as a card checker and also having a 160 meter DXCC. (Not all card checkers have a 160 meter DXCC. If they do not, they cannot check 160 meter cards.) My understanding of what I'm supposed to do when I check a 160 meter card is to simply write the time that is on the card on the check sheet. Our job as card checkers is not to decide whether a card is good or not but to confirm that the information that is reported is accurate. However, if we have a suspicion that a card is not good, we note it on the check sheetbut let the ARRL DXCC personnel make the final decision. That's what I do; others may have a different understanding. 73, Greg-N4CC -Original Message- From: Topband On Behalf Of w...@w5zn.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 3:21 PM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters I haven't really followed the 160 meter DXCC card checking process closely since I retired from ARRL elected volunteer service almost 10 years ago and after my good friend Dave NN1N departed I lost any real inquiry opportunity other than a "regular" member would have ":-))" so I have no clue what the current procedure is for a DXCC Field Checker to validate 160 meter DXCC cards. Regardless, as Jeff ZM urges, drop a note to the DXCC desk at HQ and also maybe your ARRL Director (please don't bug a Director in another Division, bug yours!). I would expect it to be investigated if enough folks raise the issue. 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-17 08:08, Bill Tippett wrote: >>> "There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be >>> cards. 73 > > Clive GM3POI" > > > Thanks Clive. I was under the mistaken impression that ARRL had > closed > > the previous loopholes in their paper card process but that is clearly > not > > the case. This (paper cheating on 160 cards) has been going on since > at > > least the late 1980s, so I thought the process would have been > corrected > > by now. Something as simple as "IF 160 total is in the Top X, > crosscheck > > with someone knowledgeable about 160" (even a past or current ARRL > President > > would do...LOL). I don't know what the qualifications are for "160 > certified" > > log checkers but this may need to be reviewed. > > > I was also not intending to cast any aspersions about the integrity of > > LOTW, but as we've seen in the news the past few years, ANYTHING > connected > > to the Internet is subject to hacks. I'm sure ARRL will be > investigating > > everything in their validation process. They are our last and best > hope > > for maintaining the integrity of DXCC (notwithstanding remote country > > cheating, which is another topic). > > > 73, Bill W4ZV > > > P.S I know of at least 6 folks who have been disqualified for 160 > cheating, > > so yes, ARRL does care about this. > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Good dang deal Jeff. Sharon has been there in DXCC for a long, long time and she knows the "skinny". ZN On 2018-11-19 17:19, k1zm--- via Topband wrote: Joel Quite a few 160m friends have sent emails to Sharon Tarantula - and she has replied to each of us - saying the matter will be investigated. Thanks for your support of this matter. 73 JEFF In a message dated 11/19/2018 11:24:08 PM Coordinated Universal Time, w...@w5zn.org writes: I haven't really followed the 160 meter DXCC card checking process closely since I retired from ARRL elected volunteer service almost 10 years ago and after my good friend Dave NN1N departed I lost any real inquiry opportunity other than a "regular" member would have ":-))" so I have no clue what the current procedure is for a DXCC Field Checker to validate 160 meter DXCC cards. Regardless, as Jeff ZM urges, drop a note to the DXCC desk at HQ and also maybe your ARRL Director (please don't bug a Director in another Division, bug yours!). I would expect it to be investigated if enough folks raise the issue. 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-17 08:08, Bill Tippett wrote: "There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be cards. 73 Clive GM3POI" Thanks Clive. I was under the mistaken impression that ARRL had closed the previous loopholes in their paper card process but that is clearly not the case. This (paper cheating on 160 cards) has been going on since at least the late 1980s, so I thought the process would have been corrected by now. Something as simple as "IF 160 total is in the Top X, crosscheck with someone knowledgeable about 160" (even a past or current ARRL President would do...LOL). I don't know what the qualifications are for "160 certified" log checkers but this may need to be reviewed. I was also not intending to cast any aspersions about the integrity of LOTW, but as we've seen in the news the past few years, ANYTHING connected to the Internet is subject to hacks. I'm sure ARRL will be investigating everything in their validation process. They are our last and best hope for maintaining the integrity of DXCC (notwithstanding remote country cheating, which is another topic). 73, Bill W4ZV P.S I know of at least 6 folks who have been disqualified for 160 cheating, so yes, ARRL does care about this. _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Joel Quite a few 160m friends have sent emails to Sharon Tarantula - and she has replied to each of us - saying the matter will be investigated. Thanks for your support of this matter. 73 JEFF In a message dated 11/19/2018 11:24:08 PM Coordinated Universal Time, w...@w5zn.org writes: I haven't really followed the 160 meter DXCC card checking process closely since I retired from ARRL elected volunteer service almost 10 years ago and after my good friend Dave NN1N departed I lost any real inquiry opportunity other than a "regular" member would have ":-))" so I have no clue what the current procedure is for a DXCC Field Checker to validate 160 meter DXCC cards. Regardless, as Jeff ZM urges, drop a note to the DXCC desk at HQ and also maybe your ARRL Director (please don't bug a Director in another Division, bug yours!). I would expect it to be investigated if enough folks raise the issue. 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-17 08:08, Bill Tippett wrote: >>> "There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be >>> cards. 73 > > Clive GM3POI" > > > Thanks Clive. I was under the mistaken impression that ARRL had closed > > the previous loopholes in their paper card process but that is clearly > not > > the case. This (paper cheating on 160 cards) has been going on since > at > > least the late 1980s, so I thought the process would have been > corrected > > by now. Something as simple as "IF 160 total is in the Top X, > crosscheck > > with someone knowledgeable about 160" (even a past or current ARRL > President > > would do...LOL). I don't know what the qualifications are for "160 > certified" > > log checkers but this may need to be reviewed. > > > I was also not intending to cast any aspersions about the integrity of > > LOTW, but as we've seen in the news the past few years, ANYTHING > connected > > to the Internet is subject to hacks. I'm sure ARRL will be > investigating > > everything in their validation process. They are our last and best > hope > > for maintaining the integrity of DXCC (notwithstanding remote country > > cheating, which is another topic). > > > 73, Bill W4ZV > > > P.S I know of at least 6 folks who have been disqualified for 160 > cheating, > > so yes, ARRL does care about this. > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
I haven't really followed the 160 meter DXCC card checking process closely since I retired from ARRL elected volunteer service almost 10 years ago and after my good friend Dave NN1N departed I lost any real inquiry opportunity other than a "regular" member would have ":-))" so I have no clue what the current procedure is for a DXCC Field Checker to validate 160 meter DXCC cards. Regardless, as Jeff ZM urges, drop a note to the DXCC desk at HQ and also maybe your ARRL Director (please don't bug a Director in another Division, bug yours!). I would expect it to be investigated if enough folks raise the issue. 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-17 08:08, Bill Tippett wrote: "There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be cards. 73 Clive GM3POI" Thanks Clive. I was under the mistaken impression that ARRL had closed the previous loopholes in their paper card process but that is clearly not the case. This (paper cheating on 160 cards) has been going on since at least the late 1980s, so I thought the process would have been corrected by now. Something as simple as "IF 160 total is in the Top X, crosscheck with someone knowledgeable about 160" (even a past or current ARRL President would do...LOL). I don't know what the qualifications are for "160 certified" log checkers but this may need to be reviewed. I was also not intending to cast any aspersions about the integrity of LOTW, but as we've seen in the news the past few years, ANYTHING connected to the Internet is subject to hacks. I'm sure ARRL will be investigating everything in their validation process. They are our last and best hope for maintaining the integrity of DXCC (notwithstanding remote country cheating, which is another topic). 73, Bill W4ZV P.S I know of at least 6 folks who have been disqualified for 160 cheating, so yes, ARRL does care about this. _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
At 08:47 17/11/2018 -0500, you wrote: (or overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest). It was made at Friedrichshafen in 2008 and he was listed in the pdf file "DXCC Standings". In 2009 he was removed from the file. I have those files in my archive if needed. Paolo I4EWH _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
I worked OK1RD in 2011 on 2 Meter EME. Don't k now if he is still active 73, PeteR N8PR Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . Who is it ?? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a uto,-12,848 -- Nick, UY0ZG _ From: w...@w5zn.org To: 'topband' Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Hi J.C., I have not worked this station on 160 meters or on 2 meter EME (or on any band). 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: > I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME > > ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ > > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf > > 73's JC > N4IS > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
He filed LOTW back in 2009 with callsign of OK1RD John k9uwa > >>"There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be cards. 73 > > Clive GM3POI" _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
He filed LOTW back in 2009 with callsign of OK1RD John k9uwa > >>"There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be cards. 73 > > Clive GM3POI" _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Folks, Hopefully the ARRL will look into this and act in a way we all will be satisfied but they can't act until they have done their own due diligence. Informing DXCC about it is the best we can hope to do unless they do not act on it. I expect they will act on it when they find the truth for themselves. To me, It's the same story as always; Whether someone cheats or not, my score is still mine and I'll never see 339 on 160. On all band, possibly, as I'm getting close. His score if done by cheating is worthless to anyone but him and if he holds it high, he is deluding himself and is just another wretch to be pitied for a mental imbalance. I suspect if this was done by cheating, this is just a small window into the rest of his life. 73, Gary KA1J _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
The last LOTW log update for both OK7XX and OK1RD was April 2009.Bob W4Dr -Original Message- From: uy0zg Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 11:09 AM To: Wes Stewart Cc: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Ok my friend. But in this case all 339 were presented ! Nick, UY0ZG http://www.topband.in.ua Wes Stewart писал 2018-11-17 17:18: I can carry one card to an approved 160 field checker and get it approved. He has no idea what my total are. Wes N7WS On 11/17/2018 7:32 AM, uy0zg wrote: Joe ! To the checker was declared all 339. No doubt ! Nick, UY0ZG Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 16:22: The checker does not know the total. That number is only in the DXCC records at ARRL. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-17 9:09 AM, uy0zg wrote: How can they (checker ) not pay attention to this result ( 339 ! ) ? Nick, UY0ZG Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 15:47: On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:> Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? The DXCC standings list is generated automatically from the DXCC records (not LotW). OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly field checker (or overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote: Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181117-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a%20%20uto,-12,848 Nick, _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Ok my friend. But in this case all 339 were presented ! Nick, UY0ZG http://www.topband.in.ua Wes Stewart писал 2018-11-17 17:18: I can carry one card to an approved 160 field checker and get it approved. He has no idea what my total are. Wes N7WS On 11/17/2018 7:32 AM, uy0zg wrote: Joe ! To the checker was declared all 339. No doubt ! Nick, UY0ZG Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 16:22: The checker does not know the total. That number is only in the DXCC records at ARRL. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-17 9:09 AM, uy0zg wrote: How can they (checker ) not pay attention to this result ( 339 ! ) ? Nick, UY0ZG Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 15:47: On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:> Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? The DXCC standings list is generated automatically from the DXCC records (not LotW). OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly field checker (or overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote: Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181117-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a%20%20uto,-12,848 Nick, _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
but he must have an idea if it´s a "possible" contact! Some months ago, my manager (my Mom) did an error with the time filling a JA QSL on topband. This JA asked me for a new QSL with the right time, because the JA checker rejected this QSL card. That´s great!, hopefully all checkers do the same, but not sure 73, Jorge CX6VM/CW5W El sáb., 17 nov. 2018 a las 12:19, Wes Stewart () escribió: > I can carry one card to an approved 160 field checker and get it > approved. He > has no idea what my total are. > > Wes N7WS > > On 11/17/2018 7:32 AM, uy0zg wrote: > > > > Joe ! > > > > To the checker was declared all 339. No doubt ! > > > > Nick, UY0ZG > > > > > > Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 16:22: > >> The checker does not know the total. That number is only in the > >> DXCC records at ARRL. > >> > >> 73, > >> > >>... Joe, W4TV > >> > >> > >> On 2018-11-17 9:09 AM, uy0zg wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> How can they (checker ) not pay attention to this result ( 339 ! ) ? > >>> > >>> Nick, UY0ZG > >>> > >>> > >>> Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 15:47: > On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:> > > Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? > > The DXCC standings list is generated automatically from the DXCC > records (not LotW). > > OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with > fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly field checker (or > overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest). > > 73, > > ... Joe, W4TV > > > On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote: > > > > Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? > > > > > > > > > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181117-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a%20%20uto,-12,848 > > Nick, UY0ZG > >> > > _ > > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > -- 73, Jorge CX6VM/CW5W _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
I can carry one card to an approved 160 field checker and get it approved. He has no idea what my total are. Wes N7WS On 11/17/2018 7:32 AM, uy0zg wrote: Joe ! To the checker was declared all 339. No doubt ! Nick, UY0ZG Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 16:22: The checker does not know the total. That number is only in the DXCC records at ARRL. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-17 9:09 AM, uy0zg wrote: How can they (checker ) not pay attention to this result ( 339 ! ) ? Nick, UY0ZG Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 15:47: On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:> Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? The DXCC standings list is generated automatically from the DXCC records (not LotW). OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly field checker (or overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote: Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181117-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a%20%20uto,-12,848 Nick, UY0ZG _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
>>"There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be cards. 73 Clive GM3POI" Thanks Clive. I was under the mistaken impression that ARRL had closed the previous loopholes in their paper card process but that is clearly not the case. This (paper cheating on 160 cards) has been going on since at least the late 1980s, so I thought the process would have been corrected by now. Something as simple as "IF 160 total is in the Top X, crosscheck with someone knowledgeable about 160" (even a past or current ARRL President would do...LOL). I don't know what the qualifications are for "160 certified" log checkers but this may need to be reviewed. I was also not intending to cast any aspersions about the integrity of LOTW, but as we've seen in the news the past few years, ANYTHING connected to the Internet is subject to hacks. I'm sure ARRL will be investigating everything in their validation process. They are our last and best hope for maintaining the integrity of DXCC (notwithstanding remote country cheating, which is another topic). 73, Bill W4ZV P.S I know of at least 6 folks who have been disqualified for 160 cheating, so yes, ARRL does care about this. _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Thanks JC. LoTW does in fact require a QSO check from the other station for the confirmation to occur. Unless the other station uploads QSO details a confirmation does not occur. I’m not suggesting there hasn’t been bogus activity but I can tell you if there is proof a flaw or breach has occurred with the LoTW system ARRL will address it. 73 Joel W5ZN Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 17, 2018, at 7:28 AM, wrote: > > Hi Joel > > I have the same impression as Bill mentioned. 160m paper QSL requires a card > checker, however LOTW confirmation does not have the same process, no QSO or > QSL check at all. We've seen 160m " QSO's" on Club Log and subsequent > confirmation on LOTW on plain day light. > > 73's > JC > N4IS > > -Original Message- > From: Topband On Behalf Of w...@w5zn.org > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 8:12 AM > To: topband > Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > Folks - I'm not exactly understanding the LoTW comments on this thread. > If it is referring to the LoTW screen shot totals listed by OK1RD on his > website then that is the combined totals in his DXCC record, not the totals > confirmed solely via LoTW so a "hack" has not necessarily occurred. > > Regardless, there is convincing evidence some bogus QSL cards were reviewed > and accepted by a DXCC card checker somewhere and then entered into his DXCC > record! > > 73 Joel W5ZN > > On 2018-11-17 05:29, Bill Tippett wrote: >>>> Doesn't say much for the DXCC checking process either. 73 Clive >>>> GM3POI >> >> >> Guys this was probably done by OK1RD to embarrass ARRL/DXCC, in >> retaliation >> >> for ARRL (correctly) removing his bogus listing over 10 years ago. He >> >> probably found a way to hack LOTW and no human monitored the result. >> I'm >> >> sure they will correct the listing but it does raise some serious >> issues >> >> about the security of their system. >> >> >> 73, Bill W4ZV >> _ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband >> Reflector > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
He could upload under a previous call Sent from my iPad > On Nov 17, 2018, at 8:37 AM, Clive GM3POI wrote: > > There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be cards. 73 > Clive GM3POI > > -Original Message- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of > n...@n4is.com > Sent: 17 November 2018 13:29 > To: w...@w5zn.org; 'topband' > Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > Hi Joel > > I have the same impression as Bill mentioned. 160m paper QSL requires a card > checker, however LOTW confirmation does not have the same process, no QSO or > QSL check at all. We've seen 160m " QSO's" on Club Log and subsequent > confirmation on LOTW on plain day light. > > 73's > JC > N4IS > > -Original Message- > From: Topband On Behalf Of w...@w5zn.org > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 8:12 AM > To: topband > Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > Folks - I'm not exactly understanding the LoTW comments on this thread. > If it is referring to the LoTW screen shot totals listed by OK1RD on his > website then that is the combined totals in his DXCC record, not the totals > confirmed solely via LoTW so a "hack" has not necessarily occurred. > > Regardless, there is convincing evidence some bogus QSL cards were reviewed > and accepted by a DXCC card checker somewhere and then entered into his DXCC > record! > > 73 Joel W5ZN > > On 2018-11-17 05:29, Bill Tippett wrote: >>>> Doesn't say much for the DXCC checking process either. 73 Clive >>>> GM3POI >> >> >> Guys this was probably done by OK1RD to embarrass ARRL/DXCC, in >> retaliation >> >> for ARRL (correctly) removing his bogus listing over 10 years ago. He >> >> probably found a way to hack LOTW and no human monitored the result. >> I'm >> >> sure they will correct the listing but it does raise some serious >> issues >> >> about the security of their system. >> >> >> 73, Bill W4ZV >> _ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband >> Reflector > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Joe ! To the checker was declared all 339. No doubt ! Nick, UY0ZG Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 16:22: The checker does not know the total. That number is only in the DXCC records at ARRL. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-17 9:09 AM, uy0zg wrote: How can they (checker ) not pay attention to this result ( 339 ! ) ? Nick, UY0ZG Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 15:47: On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:> Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? The DXCC standings list is generated automatically from the DXCC records (not LotW). OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly field checker (or overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote: Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181117-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a%20%20uto,-12,848 Nick, UY0ZG _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Apparently, all he wants to do is hang the award on his shack wall, either to impress visitors or himself?? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 7:47 AM Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > > ... OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with > fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly field checker (or > overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest). > > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
The checker does not know the total. That number is only in the DXCC records at ARRL. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-17 9:09 AM, uy0zg wrote: How can they (checker ) not pay attention to this result ( 339 ! ) ? Nick, UY0ZG Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 15:47: On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:> Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? The DXCC standings list is generated automatically from the DXCC records (not LotW). OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly field checker (or overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote: Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181117-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a%20%20uto,-12,848 Nick, UY0ZG _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
How can they (checker ) not pay attention to this result ( 339 ! ) ? Nick, UY0ZG Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 15:47: On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:> Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? The DXCC standings list is generated automatically from the DXCC records (not LotW). OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly field checker (or overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote: Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181117-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a%20%20uto,-12,848 Nick, UY0ZG _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Thanks JC. LoTW does in fact require a QSO check from the other station for the confirmation to occur. Unless the other station uploads QSO details a confirmation does not occur. I'm not suggesting there hasn't been bogus activity but I can tell you if there is proof a flaw or breach has occurred with the LoTW system ARRL will address it. 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-17 06:28, n...@n4is.com wrote: Hi Joel I have the same impression as Bill mentioned. 160m paper QSL requires a card checker, however LOTW confirmation does not have the same process, no QSO or QSL check at all. We've seen 160m " QSO's" on Club Log and subsequent confirmation on LOTW on plain day light. 73's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband On Behalf Of w...@w5zn.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 8:12 AM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Folks - I'm not exactly understanding the LoTW comments on this thread. If it is referring to the LoTW screen shot totals listed by OK1RD on his website then that is the combined totals in his DXCC record, not the totals confirmed solely via LoTW so a "hack" has not necessarily occurred. Regardless, there is convincing evidence some bogus QSL cards were reviewed and accepted by a DXCC card checker somewhere and then entered into his DXCC record! 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-17 05:29, Bill Tippett wrote: Doesn't say much for the DXCC checking process either. 73 Clive GM3POI Guys this was probably done by OK1RD to embarrass ARRL/DXCC, in retaliation for ARRL (correctly) removing his bogus listing over 10 years ago. He probably found a way to hack LOTW and no human monitored the result. I'm sure they will correct the listing but it does raise some serious issues about the security of their system. 73, Bill W4ZV _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Yes " Here you can query Logbook to find out the last time log data was uploaded for a particular call sign. Last upload for OK1YQ: No log data found " Nick, UY0ZG Clive GM3POI писал 2018-11-17 15:37: There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be cards. 73 Clive GM3POI -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of n...@n4is.com Sent: 17 November 2018 13:29 To: w...@w5zn.org; 'topband' Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Hi Joel I have the same impression as Bill mentioned. 160m paper QSL requires a card checker, however LOTW confirmation does not have the same process, no QSO or QSL check at all. We've seen 160m " QSO's" on Club Log and subsequent confirmation on LOTW on plain day light. 73's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband On Behalf Of w...@w5zn.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 8:12 AM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Folks - I'm not exactly understanding the LoTW comments on this thread. If it is referring to the LoTW screen shot totals listed by OK1RD on his website then that is the combined totals in his DXCC record, not the totals confirmed solely via LoTW so a "hack" has not necessarily occurred. Regardless, there is convincing evidence some bogus QSL cards were reviewed and accepted by a DXCC card checker somewhere and then entered into his DXCC record! 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-17 05:29, Bill Tippett wrote: Doesn't say much for the DXCC checking process either. 73 Clive GM3POI Guys this was probably done by OK1RD to embarrass ARRL/DXCC, in retaliation for ARRL (correctly) removing his bogus listing over 10 years ago. He probably found a way to hack LOTW and no human monitored the result. I'm sure they will correct the listing but it does raise some serious issues about the security of their system. 73, Bill W4ZV _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:> > Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? The DXCC standings list is generated automatically from the DXCC records (not LotW). OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly field checker (or overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote: Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181117-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a%20%20uto,-12,848 Nick, UY0ZG _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be cards. 73 Clive GM3POI -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of n...@n4is.com Sent: 17 November 2018 13:29 To: w...@w5zn.org; 'topband' Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Hi Joel I have the same impression as Bill mentioned. 160m paper QSL requires a card checker, however LOTW confirmation does not have the same process, no QSO or QSL check at all. We've seen 160m " QSO's" on Club Log and subsequent confirmation on LOTW on plain day light. 73's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband On Behalf Of w...@w5zn.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 8:12 AM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Folks - I'm not exactly understanding the LoTW comments on this thread. If it is referring to the LoTW screen shot totals listed by OK1RD on his website then that is the combined totals in his DXCC record, not the totals confirmed solely via LoTW so a "hack" has not necessarily occurred. Regardless, there is convincing evidence some bogus QSL cards were reviewed and accepted by a DXCC card checker somewhere and then entered into his DXCC record! 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-17 05:29, Bill Tippett wrote: >>> Doesn't say much for the DXCC checking process either. 73 Clive >>> GM3POI > > > Guys this was probably done by OK1RD to embarrass ARRL/DXCC, in > retaliation > > for ARRL (correctly) removing his bogus listing over 10 years ago. He > > probably found a way to hack LOTW and no human monitored the result. > I'm > > sure they will correct the listing but it does raise some serious > issues > > about the security of their system. > > > 73, Bill W4ZV > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Hi Joel I have the same impression as Bill mentioned. 160m paper QSL requires a card checker, however LOTW confirmation does not have the same process, no QSO or QSL check at all. We've seen 160m " QSO's" on Club Log and subsequent confirmation on LOTW on plain day light. 73's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband On Behalf Of w...@w5zn.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 8:12 AM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters Folks - I'm not exactly understanding the LoTW comments on this thread. If it is referring to the LoTW screen shot totals listed by OK1RD on his website then that is the combined totals in his DXCC record, not the totals confirmed solely via LoTW so a "hack" has not necessarily occurred. Regardless, there is convincing evidence some bogus QSL cards were reviewed and accepted by a DXCC card checker somewhere and then entered into his DXCC record! 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-17 05:29, Bill Tippett wrote: >>> Doesn't say much for the DXCC checking process either. 73 Clive >>> GM3POI > > > Guys this was probably done by OK1RD to embarrass ARRL/DXCC, in > retaliation > > for ARRL (correctly) removing his bogus listing over 10 years ago. He > > probably found a way to hack LOTW and no human monitored the result. > I'm > > sure they will correct the listing but it does raise some serious > issues > > about the security of their system. > > > 73, Bill W4ZV > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Folks - I'm not exactly understanding the LoTW comments on this thread. If it is referring to the LoTW screen shot totals listed by OK1RD on his website then that is the combined totals in his DXCC record, not the totals confirmed solely via LoTW so a "hack" has not necessarily occurred. Regardless, there is convincing evidence some bogus QSL cards were reviewed and accepted by a DXCC card checker somewhere and then entered into his DXCC record! 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-17 05:29, Bill Tippett wrote: Doesn't say much for the DXCC checking process either. 73 Clive GM3POI Guys this was probably done by OK1RD to embarrass ARRL/DXCC, in retaliation for ARRL (correctly) removing his bogus listing over 10 years ago. He probably found a way to hack LOTW and no human monitored the result. I'm sure they will correct the listing but it does raise some serious issues about the security of their system. 73, Bill W4ZV _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Bill, all indications are that he got his fake OK1RD 2008 DXCC totals using paper cards, not LOTW. I would expect he got his fake 2018 totals in a similar way. Example fake card, as deconstructed by G3TXF: http://www.g3txf.com/dxtrip/Fake-C21XF/Fake-C21.html One thing is for sure, he's tenacious. He was still trying to invent corroborating evidence for the fake 2005 C21XF QSL as late as 2017. The guy does not give up. Tim N3QE Tim N3QE On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 7:30 AM Bill Tippett wrote: > >>Doesn't say much for the DXCC checking process either. 73 Clive GM3POI > > > Guys this was probably done by OK1RD to embarrass ARRL/DXCC, in retaliation > > for ARRL (correctly) removing his bogus listing over 10 years ago. He > > probably found a way to hack LOTW and no human monitored the result. I'm > > sure they will correct the listing but it does raise some serious issues > > about the security of their system. > > > 73, Bill W4ZV > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
>>Doesn't say much for the DXCC checking process either. 73 Clive GM3POI Guys this was probably done by OK1RD to embarrass ARRL/DXCC, in retaliation for ARRL (correctly) removing his bogus listing over 10 years ago. He probably found a way to hack LOTW and no human monitored the result. I'm sure they will correct the listing but it does raise some serious issues about the security of their system. 73, Bill W4ZV _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
If OK1YQ is OK1RD as you say Bob, then pse read: http://www.g3txf.com/dxtrip/Fake-C21XF/Fake-C21.html https://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?action=printpage;topic=110968.0 73 Peter SM2CEW At 00:32 2018-11-17, Bob W4DR wrote: OK1YQ is actually OK1RD -Original Message- From: donov...@starpower.net Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 7:06 PM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters JC, I have well over a million QSOs in my computer log but not even a single QSO with OK1YQ 73 Frank W3LPL On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf 73's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM To: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . Who is it ?? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a uto,-12,848 _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Doesn't say much for the DXCC checking process either. 73 Clive GM3POI -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of k1zm--- via Topband Sent: 17 November 2018 08:16 To: w...@mindspring.com; donov...@starpower.net; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters hm Why would anyone with a LEGITIMATE 339 DXCC entities made on 160m made as licensed station OK1RD submit a DXCC total as CALLSIGN OK1YQ? That's kind of wacky.isn't it? If it is legit - then congrats! 73 JEFF K1ZM In a message dated 11/17/2018 12:33:17 AM Coordinated Universal Time, w...@mindspring.com writes: OK1YQ is actually OK1RD -Original Message- From: donov...@starpower.net Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 7:06 PM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters JC, I have well over a million QSOs in my computer log but not even a single QSO with OK1YQ 73 Frank W3LPL On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: > I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME > > ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ > > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf > > 73's JC > N4IS > > -Original Message- > From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM > To: Topband@contesting.com > Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > > > ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . > > Who is it ?? > > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a > uto,-12,848 _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181117-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a%20%20uto,-12,848 Nick, UY0ZG k1zm--- via Topband писал 2018-11-17 10:15: hm Why would anyone with a LEGITIMATE 339 DXCC entities made on 160m made as licensed station OK1RD submit a DXCC total as CALLSIGN OK1YQ? That's kind of wacky.isn't it? If it is legit - then congrats! 73 JEFF K1ZM In a message dated 11/17/2018 12:33:17 AM Coordinated Universal Time, w...@mindspring.com writes: OK1YQ is actually OK1RD -Original Message- From: donov...@starpower.net Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 7:06 PM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters JC, I have well over a million QSOs in my computer log but not even a single QSO with OK1YQ 73 Frank W3LPL On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf 73's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM To: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . Who is it ?? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a uto,-12,848 -- Nick, UY0ZG _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Anywhere, nothing about this station. Wrong call ? Jean-Paul F6FYA/TM4Q Envoyé de mon iPad > Le 17 nov. 2018 à 01:06, donov...@starpower.net a écrit : > > > JC, > > > I have well over a million QSOs in my computer log but not even a single QSO > with OK1YQ > > > 73 > Frank > W3LPL > > >> On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: >> I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME >> >> ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ >> >> http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf >> >> 73's JC >> N4IS >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg >> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM >> To: Topband@contesting.com >> Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters >> >> >> >> ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . >> >> Who is it ?? >> >> http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a >> uto,-12,848 > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
hm Why would anyone with a LEGITIMATE 339 DXCC entities made on 160m made as licensed station OK1RD submit a DXCC total as CALLSIGN OK1YQ? That's kind of wacky.isn't it? If it is legit - then congrats! 73 JEFF K1ZM In a message dated 11/17/2018 12:33:17 AM Coordinated Universal Time, w...@mindspring.com writes: OK1YQ is actually OK1RD -Original Message- From: donov...@starpower.net Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 7:06 PM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters JC, I have well over a million QSOs in my computer log but not even a single QSO with OK1YQ 73 Frank W3LPL On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: > I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME > > ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ > > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf > > 73's JC > N4IS > > -Original Message- > From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM > To: Topband@contesting.com > Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > > > ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . > > Who is it ?? > > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a > uto,-12,848 _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
OK1RD is active on 6m EME. Paul, K7CW On Fri, 11/16/18, Tom Haavisto wrote: Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters To: w...@mindspring.com Cc: "TopBand List" , "Frank Donovan" Date: Friday, November 16, 2018, 4:58 PM Neither of those calls show up in my log on any band. Tom - VE3CX On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:33 PM Bob W4DR wrote: > OK1YQ is actually OK1RD > > -Original Message- > From: donov...@starpower.net > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 7:06 PM > To: topband > Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > > JC, > > > I have well over a million QSOs in my computer log but not even a single > QSO > with OK1YQ > > > 73 > Frank > W3LPL > > > On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: > > I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME > > > > ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ > > > > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf > > > > 73's JC > > N4IS > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg > > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM > > To: Topband@contesting.com > > Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > > > > > > > ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . > > > > Who is it ?? > > > > > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a > > uto,-12,848 > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Neither of those calls show up in my log on any band. Tom - VE3CX On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:33 PM Bob W4DR wrote: > OK1YQ is actually OK1RD > > -Original Message- > From: donov...@starpower.net > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 7:06 PM > To: topband > Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > > JC, > > > I have well over a million QSOs in my computer log but not even a single > QSO > with OK1YQ > > > 73 > Frank > W3LPL > > > On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: > > I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME > > > > ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ > > > > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf > > > > 73's JC > > N4IS > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg > > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM > > To: Topband@contesting.com > > Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > > > > > > > ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . > > > > Who is it ?? > > > > > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a > > uto,-12,848 > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
OK1YQ is actually OK1RD -Original Message- From: donov...@starpower.net Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 7:06 PM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters JC, I have well over a million QSOs in my computer log but not even a single QSO with OK1YQ 73 Frank W3LPL On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf 73's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM To: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . Who is it ?? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a uto,-12,848 _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
He doesn't appear in the Czech call book on ng3k.com (but not all calls are listed there). Tony ve3rz On 11/16/2018 7:15 PM, WW3S wrote: Call sign not found in qrz.maybe a silent key? Sent from my iPad On Nov 16, 2018, at 6:28 PM, w...@w5zn.org wrote: Hi J.C., I have not worked this station on 160 meters or on 2 meter EME (or on any band). 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf 73's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM To: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . Who is it ?? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a uto,-12,848 _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com -- Tony VE3RZ www.tonysturnings.com <http://www.tonysturnings.com> _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Call sign not found in qrz.maybe a silent key? Sent from my iPad > On Nov 16, 2018, at 6:28 PM, w...@w5zn.org wrote: > > Hi J.C., > > I have not worked this station on 160 meters or on 2 meter EME (or on any > band). > > 73 Joel W5ZN > > >> On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: >> I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME >> ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ >> http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf >> 73's JC >> N4IS >> -Original Message- >> From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg >> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM >> To: Topband@contesting.com >> Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters >> ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . >> Who is it ?? >> http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a >> uto,-12,848 > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
JC, I have well over a million QSOs in my computer log but not even a single QSO with OK1YQ 73 Frank W3LPL On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: > I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME > > ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ > > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf > > 73's JC > N4IS > > -Original Message- > From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM > To: Topband@contesting.com > Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters > > > > ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . > > Who is it ?? > > http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a > uto,-12,848 _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
Hi J.C., I have not worked this station on 160 meters or on 2 meter EME (or on any band). 73 Joel W5ZN On 2018-11-16 13:32, n...@n4is.com wrote: I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf 73's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM To: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . Who is it ?? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a uto,-12,848 _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
I never heard him on any band but he must be very active on EME ARRL DXCC - 2 Meters -151 OK1YQ http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-2M-20181116-USLetter.pdf 73's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband On Behalf Of uy0zg Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:41 PM To: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . Who is it ?? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=a uto,-12,848 -- Nick, UY0ZG _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters -339 OK1YQ . Who is it ?? http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181116-A4.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-12,848 -- Nick, UY0ZG _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
