Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
This is starting to become very amusing to me. All the Contest folks are telling the DX'er they are over reacting and becoming emotional on remote operation, and they should just calm down and enjoy radio.Live and Let Live, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die But those same folks, when it comes to contesting, are saying HELL NOT WE WON'T GO!! So now what's the difference??? NOTHING!!! Just don't pee in my swimming pool and I'm happy. Interesting.or as Mr. Spock would say FASCINATING! 73 Joel W5ZN DXCC is a joke for many. At one time it was fun to chase DX, listen for hours to work a new one and perhaps compare with locals in a friendly competition. With Internet spotting and the ability to operate from anywhere in the country using a remote site, it has long since become meaningless on 160m. I would have appreciated the dedication if K7TJR, for example, worked the EP6T station from his own station in Oregon and thought so what if I heard that WB6XXX had worked him using RHR's W8JI site. However, I disagree regarding contests. To say that you should not worry about someone making 50 more contacts in a contest is to say that the competition (the very essence of a contest) is unimportant and that it is also a joke. Regarding working the band out...that is true for USA contacts. It's absolutely not true for working the important stuff (Europe) during the available openings. It will be soon enough that we will be having the conversation about not only remote operation but robotic QSO making software. In the meantime, if the only way someone can get on at all (in a rest home, for example) is to operate a remote site, I'm all for it. The impact on contest results would be minimal, if there even is an impact. At the point in time when the only way one could possibly compete would be to have multiple sites and an Internet connection, the thrill is gone for me. Is is really and truly a RADIO CONTEST if you cannot possibly make a radio QSO without using the Internet? I know some people who I actually think believe what we are doing in these reflectors is radio... (I already know all the justifications comparing the WWW communications system to a six foot headphone cable located at your own station.). What do you think? Enjoy it while you can. 73...Stan, K5GO _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband www.w5zn.org _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Joel: I agree with you! It is what it is and all the moaning and complaining will not change the rules. I am antenna restricted where I live to somewhat and I have a much better station at my farm, 98 miles west of me. But when I want to operate, I get in my truck and drive over there. So that is my operating position, no big deal to me. I do not have remote capabilities yet, but if I ever do, it is what it is and I play by the rules. I am in the same state, but a different grid square at my farm. I am glad to see them change the rules on the VHF+ contests because I am in a real desert when it comes to VHF+ Weak Signal Operators. You are probably one of the closer VHF+ operators to me and you are 263 miles away from me. So it is good to be able to use the internet for assistance so maybe someone will turn their antennas my way. Like I said, the rules are the rules and we have to live by them. But I know that some people can live with themselves even if they do not play by the rules. But I am not one of those guys! 73, Alan Clark, N5PA -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joel Harrison Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:29 AM To: TopBand List Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule This is starting to become very amusing to me. All the Contest folks are telling the DX'er they are over reacting and becoming emotional on remote operation, and they should just calm down and enjoy radio.Live and Let Live, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die But those same folks, when it comes to contesting, are saying HELL NOT WE WON'T GO!! So now what's the difference??? NOTHING!!! Just don't pee in my swimming pool and I'm happy. Interesting.or as Mr. Spock would say FASCINATING! 73 Joel W5ZN DXCC is a joke for many. At one time it was fun to chase DX, listen for hours to work a new one and perhaps compare with locals in a friendly competition. With Internet spotting and the ability to operate from anywhere in the country using a remote site, it has long since become meaningless on 160m. I would have appreciated the dedication if K7TJR, for example, worked the EP6T station from his own station in Oregon and thought so what if I heard that WB6XXX had worked him using RHR's W8JI site. However, I disagree regarding contests. To say that you should not worry about someone making 50 more contacts in a contest is to say that the competition (the very essence of a contest) is unimportant and that it is also a joke. Regarding working the band out...that is true for USA contacts. It's absolutely not true for working the important stuff (Europe) during the available openings. It will be soon enough that we will be having the conversation about not only remote operation but robotic QSO making software. In the meantime, if the only way someone can get on at all (in a rest home, for example) is to operate a remote site, I'm all for it. The impact on contest results would be minimal, if there even is an impact. At the point in time when the only way one could possibly compete would be to have multiple sites and an Internet connection, the thrill is gone for me. Is is really and truly a RADIO CONTEST if you cannot possibly make a radio QSO without using the Internet? I know some people who I actually think believe what we are doing in these reflectors is radio... (I already know all the justifications comparing the WWW communications system to a six foot headphone cable located at your own station.). What do you think? Enjoy it while you can. 73...Stan, K5GO _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband www.w5zn.org _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Tom: thank you for placing all of this in the correct context.it's a friggin' hobby, not something to start gnashing the teeth over or initiate some hand wringing due to a) misinterpretation of rules, b) purposefully bending/breaking the rules or c) using some combination of a and b to win some certificate! I got caught up in all of that paper/certificate chasing until about two years agothe onset of a debilitating disease caused me to stop all if that nonsense. Downsizing the shack and returning to a more basic approach - QRP and QRPp operating as far as this hobby is concerned is my new 'mantra and CONOPS - lots more rag chewing, finding chat type nets, exploring the bands to see how propagation is doing, tweaking the antenna system or trying new antennas as the disease allows me, etc. If some want to bend, break or reconstruct the rules, have at itI'm rediscovering the fun in amateur radio to much fire up one synapses over that sort of piddly craphihi 71.5, 72 Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV People are putting far too much emotion in this. It is a technical issue. The technology to do this at one site is not all that difficult. Get a K3 and a reasonable amplifier, and you have minimal composite noise on site. Phase-null the TX antenna out of the RX antenna ahead of any RX amplification, and you can get down to noise floor at 1500 watts with reasonable spacing. Even if the transmitter is nulled, the contact advantage is minimal in a 160 contest. The reason is any good station will run the band nearly dry of contacts. You pick up far more contacts with the operator going slow at slow times to get slow stations than someone would ever get by duplex. The primary advantage to duplex is in multi-op, where an operator can be dedicated to moving up and down the band picking people off. Successful multi-ops already have space to duplex, at least to some reasonable extent. The real advantage to remote or split site is a better noise or antenna environment. What we should be debating are the real facts and effects, not what we want to be the facts. As for DXCC, since sometime in the 1990's (as I recall), we could legally move anywhere or operate anywhere and collect DXCC. Prior to that, it was not unheard of for people to call people on the phone to help them get a new country. 160 meters for many years had a phone-a-friend list. I recall that going on in various forms since the 1970's, at least. Suddenly, it is a major problem that will ruin radio as we know it! The most tragic thing I recall in Ham radio was hearing W8UDN, Ed, (a person I rarely spoke to) actually crying on the radio when he was losing his 160 station. Listening to Ed's open distress and sadness at no longer being able to enjoy something he loved for most of his life turned a page for me. If letting someone who loves radio operate a radio, however he can manage to do it, without unfairly taking away from other's ability to enjoy what they want, I'm all for it. I think anyone who bases their success or value in life by how they rank in something as silly as a national DXCC list, or worrying about someone making 50 more contacts in a contest, deserves all the angst and distress worrying about others creates for them. I hope the people who write rules eventually let people like VO1HP enjoy radio, instead of false concerns. Radio is all the better when we help each other, instead of holding someone like Ed back. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
As the ham population ages historically many people have been forced to go off air when they move to retirement communities, assisted living situations etc. Let’s not also forget what remote stations can do for these folks. To operate my remote station would cost someone about $200 in hardware. And many of these hams might trade their equipment (which could be used in the remote stations) for the access. The only real complexity is that without better engineering than I am capable of only one station can operate from a QTH on each band at a time because of interference. (I have no experience with duplexers) In fact it could be a good local club project to begin to set up simple remote stations (100 watt radio, multi band doublet) that could serve these folks. KQ0C On Jan 30, 2015, at 8:27 AM, James Rodenkirch rodenkirch_...@msn.com wrote: Tom: thank you for placing all of this in the correct context.it's a friggin' hobby, not something to start gnashing the teeth over or initiate some hand wringing due to a) misinterpretation of rules, b) purposefully bending/breaking the rules or c) using some combination of a and b to win some certificate! I got caught up in all of that paper/certificate chasing until about two years agothe onset of a debilitating disease caused me to stop all if that nonsense. Downsizing the shack and returning to a more basic approach - QRP and QRPp operating as far as this hobby is concerned is my new 'mantra and CONOPS - lots more rag chewing, finding chat type nets, exploring the bands to see how propagation is doing, tweaking the antenna system or trying new antennas as the disease allows me, etc. If some want to bend, break or reconstruct the rules, have at itI'm rediscovering the fun in amateur radio to much fire up one synapses over that sort of piddly craphihi 71.5, 72 Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV People are putting far too much emotion in this. It is a technical issue. The technology to do this at one site is not all that difficult. Get a K3 and a reasonable amplifier, and you have minimal composite noise on site. Phase-null the TX antenna out of the RX antenna ahead of any RX amplification, and you can get down to noise floor at 1500 watts with reasonable spacing. Even if the transmitter is nulled, the contact advantage is minimal in a 160 contest. The reason is any good station will run the band nearly dry of contacts. You pick up far more contacts with the operator going slow at slow times to get slow stations than someone would ever get by duplex. The primary advantage to duplex is in multi-op, where an operator can be dedicated to moving up and down the band picking people off. Successful multi-ops already have space to duplex, at least to some reasonable extent. The real advantage to remote or split site is a better noise or antenna environment. What we should be debating are the real facts and effects, not what we want to be the facts. As for DXCC, since sometime in the 1990's (as I recall), we could legally move anywhere or operate anywhere and collect DXCC. Prior to that, it was not unheard of for people to call people on the phone to help them get a new country. 160 meters for many years had a phone-a-friend list. I recall that going on in various forms since the 1970's, at least. Suddenly, it is a major problem that will ruin radio as we know it! The most tragic thing I recall in Ham radio was hearing W8UDN, Ed, (a person I rarely spoke to) actually crying on the radio when he was losing his 160 station. Listening to Ed's open distress and sadness at no longer being able to enjoy something he loved for most of his life turned a page for me. If letting someone who loves radio operate a radio, however he can manage to do it, without unfairly taking away from other's ability to enjoy what they want, I'm all for it. I think anyone who bases their success or value in life by how they rank in something as silly as a national DXCC list, or worrying about someone making 50 more contacts in a contest, deserves all the angst and distress worrying about others creates for them. I hope the people who write rules eventually let people like VO1HP enjoy radio, instead of false concerns. Radio is all the better when we help each other, instead of holding someone like Ed back. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
It will be soon enough that we will be having the conversation about not only remote operation but robotic QSO making software. Is is really and truly a RADIO CONTEST if you cannot possibly make a radio QSO without using the Internet? I know some people who I actually think believe what we are doing in these reflectors is radio... (I already know all the justifications comparing the WWW communications system to a six foot headphone cable located at your own station.). What do you think? Enjoy it while you can. Stan You are right!. The sadness is causing the emotion Tom mentioned, however the real issue is the trade we are facing with RHR, the trade between value and cost! Work hard to setup a remote station and work a rare DX has a lot of value, You can be proud of it and the technology is always welcome and part of our DNA. What is not acceptable is to transform HAM Radio into a business and charge by the minute like ATT. Verizon or any other carrier that provide communication per dollar amount. That is not Ham Radio, it is a trade from VALUE to COST. For all the guys using RHR the pride is measured in dollar per minute, it means the cost of a QSO matters. Next step would be to set up a call center in India to provide you with all services at once. Select the DX you what you and pay at the end. All about money and commercial interest to transform what is bounding un together . the value and proud to make it. Why bother is it is getting to QSL / QSL cost for minute? Share what ? you r wallet? Nobody is helping Ham with restriction to get into de air. It just about money! When you look at your wall you can see the value of your work. Does not matter what it cost. Don't let it change! My two cents JC N4IS _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Could someone in the future, set up a internet controlled remote in an extremely rare country? Then make a contact with himself for a new one? How far will all this stretch to ? (((:)) As the Lone Ranger said whoa silver, steady big fellow ! 73 Bruce-k1fz On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:44:26 -0500, JC n...@comcast.net wrote: It will be soon enough that we will be having the conversation about not only remote operation but robotic QSO making software. Is is really and truly a RADIO CONTEST if you cannot possibly make a radio QSO without using the Internet? I know some people who I actually think believe what we are doing in these reflectors is radio... (I already know all the justifications comparing the WWW communications system to a six foot headphone cable located at your own station.). What do you think? Enjoy it while you can. Stan You are right!. The sadness is causing the emotion Tom mentioned, however the real issue is the trade we are facing with RHR, the trade between value and cost! Work hard to setup a remote station and work a rare DX has a lot of value, You can be proud of it and the technology is always welcome and part of our DNA. What is not acceptable is to transform HAM Radio into a business and charge by the minute like ATT. Verizon or any other carrier that provide communication per dollar amount. That is not Ham Radio, it is a trade from VALUE to COST. For all the guys using RHR the pride is measured in dollar per minute, it means the cost of a QSO matters. Next step would be to set up a call center in India to provide you with all services at once. Select the DX you what you and pay at the end. All about money and commercial interest to transform what is bounding un together . the value and proud to make it. Why bother is it is getting to QSL / QSL cost for minute? Share what ? you r wallet? Nobody is helping Ham with restriction to get into de air. It just about money! When you look at your wall you can see the value of your work. Does not matter what it cost. Don't let it change! My two cents JC N4IS _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
On Fri,1/30/2015 6:23 AM, john wrote: but,,if they make it that simple, they no longer have job security... Most every award , etc developed is with the idea of more activity and more income/members for them--follow the money Job security? Most work on contest administration and contest log checking is done by VOLUNTEERS. This is also true of most awards, with the exception of those awards administered by ARRL. N6TR does log checking for a lot of major contests. As with politics, them is US. We (ARRL Members) elect ARRL Directors and Section Managers -- at least those of us who bother to vote -- and these folks appoint a Contest Advisory Committee. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Amen@ but,,if they make it that simple, they no longer have job security... Most every award , etc developed is with the idea of more activity and more income/members for them--follow the money Back in the day, when I would work a new country, and was sure of it, I did not try to work it again, every band , every mode, every operator--kind of like hunting, I never took more game, than I could eat or give to some one else.. I just think that this award stuff has gotten silly and stupid, and a lot us , including me, has(had) bought in to it... At 73 I should worry a lot more about other things other than about reaching 2000 band countries...in total that should mean very little, and certainly does not indicate that I am such a hot shot op... Bring on k1n!! I need them on 160--but that is now a personal goal,,,some where along the line,, we(I) need to get a grip--since 15 yrs of age, ham radio has been and still is my life,, but golly, there are surely other things..(I have a dog) Tom, thanks for your comments and giving me a reality check 73 john On 1/30/2015 12:50 PM, Tom W8JI wrote: Now, consider this: We keep talking about remote RX, and the attendant problems of getting full SDR data back to the main station where the operator is located. Lets flip this around. Lets move the operator to the receive site, and move the transmitter 100 miles away. That way, we only need low bandwidth - keying data, TX audio, and perhaps TX antenna switching. Does THIS change things at all? In other words - use the full receiving capabilities of your current station, and take away transmitter hash. Poof! No longer an issue, because the TX is now 100 miles away... This is a serious game changer in my books, and needs a serious rethink before we say hmmm - OK - old guys need this - no problem - sounds fine... People are putting far too much emotion in this. It is a technical issue. The technology to do this at one site is not all that difficult. Get a K3 and a reasonable amplifier, and you have minimal composite noise on site. Phase-null the TX antenna out of the RX antenna ahead of any RX amplification, and you can get down to noise floor at 1500 watts with reasonable spacing. Even if the transmitter is nulled, the contact advantage is minimal in a 160 contest. The reason is any good station will run the band nearly dry of contacts. You pick up far more contacts with the operator going slow at slow times to get slow stations than someone would ever get by duplex. The primary advantage to duplex is in multi-op, where an operator can be dedicated to moving up and down the band picking people off. Successful multi-ops already have space to duplex, at least to some reasonable extent. The real advantage to remote or split site is a better noise or antenna environment. What we should be debating are the real facts and effects, not what we want to be the facts. As for DXCC, since sometime in the 1990's (as I recall), we could legally move anywhere or operate anywhere and collect DXCC. Prior to that, it was not unheard of for people to call people on the phone to help them get a new country. 160 meters for many years had a phone-a-friend list. I recall that going on in various forms since the 1970's, at least. Suddenly, it is a major problem that will ruin radio as we know it! The most tragic thing I recall in Ham radio was hearing W8UDN, Ed, (a person I rarely spoke to) actually crying on the radio when he was losing his 160 station. Listening to Ed's open distress and sadness at no longer being able to enjoy something he loved for most of his life turned a page for me. If letting someone who loves radio operate a radio, however he can manage to do it, without unfairly taking away from other's ability to enjoy what they want, I'm all for it. I think anyone who bases their success or value in life by how they rank in something as silly as a national DXCC list, or worrying about someone making 50 more contacts in a contest, deserves all the angst and distress worrying about others creates for them. I hope the people who write rules eventually let people like VO1HP enjoy radio, instead of false concerns. Radio is all the better when we help each other, instead of holding someone like Ed back. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
DXCC is a joke for many. At one time it was fun to chase DX, listen for hours to work a new one and perhaps compare with locals in a friendly competition. With Internet spotting and the ability to operate from anywhere in the country using a remote site, it has long since become meaningless on 160m. I would have appreciated the dedication if K7TJR, for example, worked the EP6T station from his own station in Oregon and thought so what if I heard that WB6XXX had worked him using RHR's W8JI site. However, I disagree regarding contests. To say that you should not worry about someone making 50 more contacts in a contest is to say that the competition (the very essence of a contest) is unimportant and that it is also a joke. Regarding working the band out...that is true for USA contacts. It's absolutely not true for working the important stuff (Europe) during the available openings. It will be soon enough that we will be having the conversation about not only remote operation but robotic QSO making software. In the meantime, if the only way someone can get on at all (in a rest home, for example) is to operate a remote site, I'm all for it. The impact on contest results would be minimal, if there even is an impact. At the point in time when the only way one could possibly compete would be to have multiple sites and an Internet connection, the thrill is gone for me. Is is really and truly a RADIO CONTEST if you cannot possibly make a radio QSO without using the Internet? I know some people who I actually think believe what we are doing in these reflectors is radio... (I already know all the justifications comparing the WWW communications system to a six foot headphone cable located at your own station.). What do you think? Enjoy it while you can. 73...Stan, K5GO _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
As for DXCC, since sometime in the 1990's (as I recall), we could legally move anywhere or operate anywhere and collect DXCC. Prior to that, it was not unheard of for people to call people on the phone to help them get a new country. 160 meters for many years had a phone-a-friend list. I recall that going on in various forms since the 1970's, at least. Suddenly, it is a major problem that will ruin radio as we know it! There were ethically-challenged individuals in DXCC then, just as there are now. Commercial remotes just take it to a new level. I think anyone who bases their success or value in life by how they rank in something as silly as a national DXCC list, or worrying about someone making 50 more contacts in a contest, deserves all the angst and distress worrying about others creates for them I don't see any angst, distress or worry being expressed here -- only a passion for trying to trying to make DXCC the premier operating award that the ARRL claims it to be. And I certainly don't see anyone here basing their success in life on DXCC rankings. I do agree with K5GO though -- in its current state DXCC has become a joke. The most tragic thing I recall in Ham radio was hearing W8UDN, Ed, (a person I rarely spoke to) actually crying on the radio when he was losing his 160 station. Listening to Ed's open distress and sadness at no longer being able to enjoy something he loved for most of his life turned a page for me. No one is proposing taking access to a radio (or a remote) from anyone. - Larry K5RK _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Now, consider this: We keep talking about remote RX, and the attendant problems of getting full SDR data back to the main station where the operator is located. Lets flip this around. Lets move the operator to the receive site, and move the transmitter 100 miles away. That way, we only need low bandwidth - keying data, TX audio, and perhaps TX antenna switching. Does THIS change things at all? In other words - use the full receiving capabilities of your current station, and take away transmitter hash. Poof! No longer an issue, because the TX is now 100 miles away... This is a serious game changer in my books, and needs a serious rethink before we say hmmm - OK - old guys need this - no problem - sounds fine... People are putting far too much emotion in this. It is a technical issue. The technology to do this at one site is not all that difficult. Get a K3 and a reasonable amplifier, and you have minimal composite noise on site. Phase-null the TX antenna out of the RX antenna ahead of any RX amplification, and you can get down to noise floor at 1500 watts with reasonable spacing. Even if the transmitter is nulled, the contact advantage is minimal in a 160 contest. The reason is any good station will run the band nearly dry of contacts. You pick up far more contacts with the operator going slow at slow times to get slow stations than someone would ever get by duplex. The primary advantage to duplex is in multi-op, where an operator can be dedicated to moving up and down the band picking people off. Successful multi-ops already have space to duplex, at least to some reasonable extent. The real advantage to remote or split site is a better noise or antenna environment. What we should be debating are the real facts and effects, not what we want to be the facts. As for DXCC, since sometime in the 1990's (as I recall), we could legally move anywhere or operate anywhere and collect DXCC. Prior to that, it was not unheard of for people to call people on the phone to help them get a new country. 160 meters for many years had a phone-a-friend list. I recall that going on in various forms since the 1970's, at least. Suddenly, it is a major problem that will ruin radio as we know it! The most tragic thing I recall in Ham radio was hearing W8UDN, Ed, (a person I rarely spoke to) actually crying on the radio when he was losing his 160 station. Listening to Ed's open distress and sadness at no longer being able to enjoy something he loved for most of his life turned a page for me. If letting someone who loves radio operate a radio, however he can manage to do it, without unfairly taking away from other's ability to enjoy what they want, I'm all for it. I think anyone who bases their success or value in life by how they rank in something as silly as a national DXCC list, or worrying about someone making 50 more contacts in a contest, deserves all the angst and distress worrying about others creates for them. I hope the people who write rules eventually let people like VO1HP enjoy radio, instead of false concerns. Radio is all the better when we help each other, instead of holding someone like Ed back. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
On your last example, which straddles the line of pirate operation (one foot - you were really there. other foot - no valid license), the organizers will sometimes disallow credit for obvious pirate operations without penalty to those who logged him. e.g. PZ1AA in CQ 160 CW last year. This sort of no credit for working this guy exception is very very rare (good thing that it's rare). Tim N3QE On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Niko Cimbur via Topband topband@contesting.com wrote: K2AV wrote: When I send in a checklog, that does not invalidate QSOs where other stations were working me. They get credit. If I checklog, I'm just saying that *I* am not submitting a log to put *my* call into the competition. The opinion about the NF multiplier not counting was first brought up by VO1HP in his message: The CQWW 160 CW rules say NO remote receiver setups allowed so I will submit my log as a checklog only. Too bad because I think i was the only VO1 on the band giving out the NF mult. In my interpretation of the rules if an operation is not permitted, sending in a check log by that station would not make it count. Just like someone operating from an entity without a permit and giving out a multiplier. In example I drive to C31 where CEPT does not apply, I work the contest and send in a check log. Would that count as a C31 multiplier? Niko AC6DD _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
The more I think about this, I have come to realize the FULL impact of what is being proposed. Now, consider this: We keep talking about remote RX, and the attendant problems of getting full SDR data back to the main station where the operator is located. Lets flip this around. Lets move the operator to the receive site, and move the transmitter 100 miles away. That way, we only need low bandwidth - keying data, TX audio, and perhaps TX antenna switching. Does THIS change things at all? In other words - use the full receiving capabilities of your current station, and take away transmitter hash. Poof! No longer an issue, because the TX is now 100 miles away... This is a serious game changer in my books, and needs a serious rethink before we say hmmm - OK - old guys need this - no problem - sounds fine... Tom - VE3CX On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Milt -- N5IA n...@zia-connection.com wrote: Tom, Thank you for a very well thought out and expressed opinion that mirrors my thinking on the subject. As tom has expressed re his station, I also have constructed the NI5T/N5BG station for full duplex operation on 160 M. We are able to use the mult stations within approximately 15 kHz of the run station with full legal power in most RX azimuth selections. With LP the spread drops to about +- 7 kHz. At QRP it is down to just a bit more than a kHz; similar to a BIG GUN station within a couple of hundred miles. I have run full duplex many years when operating QRP in the SPDC. So, the concept is not new; it is just now readily available with a different set of tools. I am in agreement that remote listening sites for 160 M contests, ala SPDC, is the correct direction to go. It will enhance the capability of many stations who will put out the effort to do so. Result; more activity and more stations to work. And that is what it is all about. I suggest a 100 km radius as the limit for deployment of a RX site which would be legal in the 160 M contests. Grid Squares are rectangular, vary in size according to latitude, and limits the capability if your TX location is near the edge of a GS. The 200 km diameter circle drawn around the TX location IMHO would be a very good selection. Mis dos centavos. Milt, N5IA, and sometimes operator of fully remoted N7GP -Original Message- From: Tom W8JI Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:52 AM To: TopBand List Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule Organized RR sites are not an issue. Remote Radio does not allow new DX members, although a few are grandfathered in before that policy started. Those few who are members are watched, and any operating without signing W? / DXcall, or using a receiver in a contest (which costs $.49 per minute), are banned from future use of RR. You have to be in the 48, or you have to use portable, or you are banned. This is absolutely no different than anything that ever went on since the ARRL and others began allowing DX contacts to count no matter where you operate or where you move in the USA. Many people have operated here as a guest, for example, and worked new countries or worked contests under their calls, and counted the countries. The ONLY difference between them logging in via link and operating, or driving here and operating, is the physical transportation time. If we don't like that as a collective group, the thing that needs changed is taking DXCC and other credits with us when we move or when we operate at another site. As for duplex, I can pretty much duplex here on 160 in most directions and in any direction at any signal spacing on higher bands. For example, I can receive noise floor Europeans on 40 meters just 10 kHz below or 5 kHz above the SSB transmitter with virtually no interference. Allowing remote receivers within a small distance would not affect large stations at all. It would only let some limited resource stations have more fun. In my view, complaining about letting someone work around local noise with a remote local receiver is nothing but sour grapes. DXCC and other things (like ANY contest) will never be fair or level between stations. It always has been that way, it always will be that way. No matter what the rules, a few with a disadvantage will not like the way it is, and a few with an advantage will not want a change. One example is keeping DXCC when someone moves from one coast to another. I remember when W2EQS/W9NFC had to start his 160 DXCC over from zero from Indiana because he moved from NJ to Indiana. Today, he could move from California to Maine and keep his totals. The important thing is to not make imaginary problems where none exist, and to understand how things really work before suggesting changes. 73 Tom - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4273/9020 - Release
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
This is certainly a complex issue. I see two worlds colliding here: 160 meter DXing - and Radiosporting. I have myself seriously considered using a remote receiving location to get rid of local noise. I had a severe QRN issue with 500KV power lines when I first appeared on the band in Oregon back in 1985. When it was wet outside - my S-meter was sitting around S9+40 db when on AM mode. However, Tom's point about enabling full duplex operation is a game changer from a radio sporting perspective. Some stations have enough real estate to implement full duplex for contest operation (including mine) and it is a significant competitive advantage. Certainly - implementing a remote station for RX purposes that is not too far away ( 100 miles) can achieve similar results. I guess the question is - should having enough acreage to implement full duplex operation be considered the same as using a remote receiver for radios porting purposes? This is obviously one of those gray area issues - where your perspective will have a lot to do with your feelings on the subject. Part of the process of hashing this out is the discussion in places like this mail list. The Stew Perry contest enjoys a certain amount of freedom as it is administered by a small group of people (about two) - and isn't considered a serious contest. More like a pleasant operating event. We have voted in this matter by allowing remote receivers as long as they are within 100 km of your transmit location. This enabled at least one Southern Hemisphere station to take part in the event and felt like the right thing to do. However, I can see that the answer might be different for the CQ 160 contest - or even in the CQ WW contest. These are more serious sporting events. Tree N6TR On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Tom Haavisto kamha...@gmail.com wrote: So one can use their favorite SDR remote to enjoy the contest, and you can submit the score it to 3830. The downside is that the contest sponsor does not have a contest class that accepts the remote RX arrangement. The real issue is to persuade the contest organizers to allow that in some contest class. Good luck on that. Organizers have always been WAY behind the technological possibilities, most likely because certain advancements give such a large advantage to someone who is able to construct them. On 160 meters, the MAJORITY of contest entrants would describe their location as noisy. 73, Guy. I would urge caution before we start asking contest sponsors to allow remote RX sites. There are some lucky folks where noise is not a huge issue. Consider what I could do with a remote RX site - aways from the TX hash, essentially being able to run full duplex. To me, this is a pretty serious game changer. I do understand the advantages, and how it could help someone who lives in a noisy location. But - be careful of granting an advantage to folks who are blessed without that issue. Tom - VE3CX _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Assuming that someone could easily travel to a remote site , without actually discussing this matter with them , seems wrong. In NF the WX can get very nasty in a big hurray. 60 mph winds and blowing snow is common. Since many of us are over 65 or approaching the big senior status plateau , there are restrictions that would prevent us from driving out to the RX site. If you cant think of any, then you must be under 50 At least Frank gets on and provides the Mult... having the RX capabilities most likely prompts him to make more qsos vs a bare minimum effort. I know that if I could hear better on TB, I would certainly give a larger effort ... Perhaps the remote RX should be located within your GRID or a maximum of 50 miles from your qth , whatever... I am sure there will be many suggestions here. Glenn VA3DX Subject: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule VO1HP writes: In my view I don't see anything wrong with using the SDR in the contest to increase my participation and satisfaction and provide the NF mult. ...but the rules are the rules ...so be it for now. My remote station has been in operation for several years. It is about 10 miles from my house. It is setup for transmitting and receiving. What I found out from participating remotely in a Stew Perry or two is that it just wasn't the same experience for me, and I would still go to the site to operate CQ160. When the site receive capabilities were degraded, I found a new place 75 km away. I go there for the weekend and set it all up for the Contest. The Receive capabilities are better, but not the TX. Many times I wished that I could use my remote to call a multiplier and increase my score, but the rules are the rules. It does not seem to me that it would be too difficult for you to drive to your RX site only 50km away, put up an Inverted L antenna and actually give out multipliers that count. 73, Niko AC6DD _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
As Tree pointed out that the Stew Perry event was produced by a small group of people and thus bypasses the bureaucratic conflagrations inherent to to committees that lack vision. However Tree forgot to add that the Stew Perry probably the best topband contest existing today and is increasing in vast popularity giving even fine opportunities to low power and QRP stations. My point is since as proven such a setup can produce such an excellent event that it would seem to be relatively easy for a contest be formed with wide latitude of inclusion to those who have used the advance technology of a remote SDR receiver away from the local killer noises and other QRM and QRN could be a real success story and thus would advance certain tecnological aspects of the hobby. Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ On 1/29/2015 12:30 PM, Tree wrote: This is certainly a complex issue. I see two worlds colliding here: 160 meter DXing - and Radiosporting. I have myself seriously considered using a remote receiving location to get rid of local noise. I had a severe QRN issue with 500KV power lines when I first appeared on the band in Oregon back in 1985. When it was wet outside - my S-meter was sitting around S9+40 db when on AM mode. However, Tom's point about enabling full duplex operation is a game changer from a radio sporting perspective. Some stations have enough real estate to implement full duplex for contest operation (including mine) and it is a significant competitive advantage. Certainly - implementing a remote station for RX purposes that is not too far away ( 100 miles) can achieve similar results. I guess the question is - should having enough acreage to implement full duplex operation be considered the same as using a remote receiver for radios porting purposes? This is obviously one of those gray area issues - where your perspective will have a lot to do with your feelings on the subject. Part of the process of hashing this out is the discussion in places like this mail list. The Stew Perry contest enjoys a certain amount of freedom as it is administered by a small group of people (about two) - and isn't considered a serious contest. More like a pleasant operating event. We have voted in this matter by allowing remote receivers as long as they are within 100 km of your transmit location. This enabled at least one Southern Hemisphere station to take part in the event and felt like the right thing to do. However, I can see that the answer might be different for the CQ 160 contest - or even in the CQ WW contest. These are more serious sporting events. Tree N6TR On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Tom Haavisto kamha...@gmail.com wrote: So one can use their favorite SDR remote to enjoy the contest, and you can submit the score it to 3830. The downside is that the contest sponsor does not have a contest class that accepts the remote RX arrangement. The real issue is to persuade the contest organizers to allow that in some contest class. Good luck on that. Organizers have always been WAY behind the technological possibilities, most likely because certain advancements give such a large advantage to someone who is able to construct them. On 160 meters, the MAJORITY of contest entrants would describe their location as noisy. 73, Guy. I would urge caution before we start asking contest sponsors to allow remote RX sites. There are some lucky folks where noise is not a huge issue. Consider what I could do with a remote RX site - aways from the TX hash, essentially being able to run full duplex. To me, this is a pretty serious game changer. I do understand the advantages, and how it could help someone who lives in a noisy location. But - be careful of granting an advantage to folks who are blessed without that issue. Tom - VE3CX _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Remote stations are a complex issue and as Tree says, obviously, a game changer. That said, the further you get into it, the worse it gets. We know stations are obviously using very distant remote sites for DXCC purposes (as witnessed with EP6T, and others). No doubt there will be EU stations using NA remotes for K1N (if the control operators permit). I think many, if not most of us believe this is out and out cheating. Clearly there needs to be a category for remote operation, maybe of any kind. Of course, getting people to report it that way is another matter. However, in the case of our beloved SP contest, if a remote station 100 km was used for example just for receive and it is in a different grid, which grid square would one report? It's a sticky wicket any way you figure it. 73. . . Dave, W0FLS - Original Message - From: Tree t...@kkn.net To: Tom Haavisto kamha...@gmail.com Cc: Niko Cimbur ac...@yahoo.com; TopBand List topband@contesting.com; Guy Olinger K2AV k2av@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule This is certainly a complex issue. I see two worlds colliding here: 160 meter DXing - and Radiosporting. I have myself seriously considered using a remote receiving location to get rid of local noise. I had a severe QRN issue with 500KV power lines when I first appeared on the band in Oregon back in 1985. When it was wet outside - my S-meter was sitting around S9+40 db when on AM mode. However, Tom's point about enabling full duplex operation is a game changer from a radio sporting perspective. Some stations have enough real estate to implement full duplex for contest operation (including mine) and it is a significant competitive advantage. Certainly - implementing a remote station for RX purposes that is not too far away ( 100 miles) can achieve similar results. I guess the question is - should having enough acreage to implement full duplex operation be considered the same as using a remote receiver for radios porting purposes? This is obviously one of those gray area issues - where your perspective will have a lot to do with your feelings on the subject. Part of the process of hashing this out is the discussion in places like this mail list. The Stew Perry contest enjoys a certain amount of freedom as it is administered by a small group of people (about two) - and isn't considered a serious contest. More like a pleasant operating event. We have voted in this matter by allowing remote receivers as long as they are within 100 km of your transmit location. This enabled at least one Southern Hemisphere station to take part in the event and felt like the right thing to do. However, I can see that the answer might be different for the CQ 160 contest - or even in the CQ WW contest. These are more serious sporting events. Tree N6TR On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Tom Haavisto kamha...@gmail.com wrote: So one can use their favorite SDR remote to enjoy the contest, and you can submit the score it to 3830. The downside is that the contest sponsor does not have a contest class that accepts the remote RX arrangement. The real issue is to persuade the contest organizers to allow that in some contest class. Good luck on that. Organizers have always been WAY behind the technological possibilities, most likely because certain advancements give such a large advantage to someone who is able to construct them. On 160 meters, the MAJORITY of contest entrants would describe their location as noisy. 73, Guy. I would urge caution before we start asking contest sponsors to allow remote RX sites. There are some lucky folks where noise is not a huge issue. Consider what I could do with a remote RX site - aways from the TX hash, essentially being able to run full duplex. To me, this is a pretty serious game changer. I do understand the advantages, and how it could help someone who lives in a noisy location. But - be careful of granting an advantage to folks who are blessed without that issue. Tom - VE3CX _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
On Thu,1/29/2015 9:22 AM, David Raymond wrote: Remote stations are a complex issue and as Tree says, obviously, a game changer. That said, the further you get into it, the worse it gets. We know stations are obviously using very distant remote sites for DXCC purposes (as witnessed with EP6T, and others). No doubt there will be EU stations using NA remotes for K1N (if the control operators permit). I think many, if not most of us believe this is out and out cheating. Yes, it is cheating. So is starting topband DXCC at one QTH, then moving 2,000 miles and keeping those DXCC countries from the old QTH. But the League re-wrote their rules to make it legit. BAD call. Clearly there needs to be a category for remote operation, maybe of any kind. The noise issue is the real game-changer here. We are all getting older, the places where we can afford to live are getting noisier. There are states I can't work QRP on the east coast because of their local noise -- indeed, there are lots of guys in TX I can't work, even though I could work W4CB, NO3M, WD5R, WQ5L, and a station in FL whose call I've forgotten. So I DO favor a rule that permits remote RX within some reasonable distance for at least some classes of operation, and in most contests. The distance should not be enough that it gives you an advantage for propagation, nor allows you to escape the trash that your own transmitter puts out. How about this? An SDR on the internet that can be accessed by multiple stations, in the same manner as a Skimmer? If YOU can use it, any other station within the mileage limit can use it. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Glenn Wyant va...@sympatico.ca wrote: Assuming that someone could easily travel to a remote site , without actually discussing this matter with them , seems wrong. In NF the WX can get very nasty in a big hurray. 60 mph winds and blowing snow is common. Since many of us are over 65 or approaching the big senior status plateau , there are restrictions that would prevent us from driving out to the RX site. If you cant think of any, then you must be under 50 I think you have missed the point I tried to make, so here goes: I get it - travelling to a remote site is hard. Age plays a part in this. However, once you get there, you are faced with the same limitations as everyone else with all their equipment in one location. However, consider this for a moment: At a multi-multi contest station, they can and do operate two radios in the same band. Its hard, but its being done. With current technology and some good engineering, you can get your second radio within about 10 khz of your transmitter. Imagine for a moment that problem goes away. You can listen at the same time as you are transmitting. Call CQ, and hunt for multipliers.. Imagine you can look for multipliers 100 hz away from your run frequency - while transmitting. In theory, you could run your transmitter *continuously* - ie QSK, and still keep working folks, because you can hear them as soon as they call you.. Now - imagine opening up this style of operation on a wide scale. Some will be able to do it right away, other will follow in their footsteps, and others will be left to suffer with their (current) noisy sites. This is the point I am trying to make. I am not saying it is a good or bad thing, but before we go helping out some old timers, we need to be careful of unintended consequences of what *else* becomes possible, It IS a game changer on a pretty large scale. I am urging caution, and we need to think about this... Tom - VE3CX _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
So one can use their favorite SDR remote to enjoy the contest, and you can submit the score it to 3830. The downside is that the contest sponsor does not have a contest class that accepts the remote RX arrangement. The real issue is to persuade the contest organizers to allow that in some contest class. Good luck on that. Organizers have always been WAY behind the technological possibilities, most likely because certain advancements give such a large advantage to someone who is able to construct them. On 160 meters, the MAJORITY of contest entrants would describe their location as noisy. 73, Guy. I would urge caution before we start asking contest sponsors to allow remote RX sites. There are some lucky folks where noise is not a huge issue. Consider what I could do with a remote RX site - aways from the TX hash, essentially being able to run full duplex. To me, this is a pretty serious game changer. I do understand the advantages, and how it could help someone who lives in a noisy location. But - be careful of granting an advantage to folks who are blessed without that issue. Tom - VE3CX _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Niko Cimbur via Topband topband@contesting.com wrote: It does not seem to me that it would be too difficult for you to drive to your RX site only 50km away, put up an Inverted L antenna and actually give out multipliers that count. When I send in a checklog, that does not invalidate QSOs where other stations were working me. They get credit. If I checklog, I'm just saying that *I* am not submitting a log to put *my* call into the competition. For that matter, if I don't submit a log at all, the fact that I am not a unique call, and clearly was giving out Q's, the other stations will still get credit. A lot of stations get on for a half hour, have some fun, and then never send in a log. The only difference between a checklog, and no log is that the contest sponsor won't be able to throw out not-in-log contacts, people who say they worked me, but are not in my log. So one can use their favorite SDR remote to enjoy the contest, and you can submit the score it to 3830. The downside is that the contest sponsor does not have a contest class that accepts the remote RX arrangement. The real issue is to persuade the contest organizers to allow that in some contest class. Good luck on that. Organizers have always been WAY behind the technological possibilities, most likely because certain advancements give such a large advantage to someone who is able to construct them. On 160 meters, the MAJORITY of contest entrants would describe their location as noisy. 73, Guy. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Organized RR sites are not an issue. Remote Radio does not allow new DX members, although a few are grandfathered in before that policy started. Those few who are members are watched, and any operating without signing W? / DXcall, or using a receiver in a contest (which costs $.49 per minute), are banned from future use of RR. You have to be in the 48, or you have to use portable, or you are banned. This is absolutely no different than anything that ever went on since the ARRL and others began allowing DX contacts to count no matter where you operate or where you move in the USA. Many people have operated here as a guest, for example, and worked new countries or worked contests under their calls, and counted the countries. The ONLY difference between them logging in via link and operating, or driving here and operating, is the physical transportation time. If we don't like that as a collective group, the thing that needs changed is taking DXCC and other credits with us when we move or when we operate at another site. As for duplex, I can pretty much duplex here on 160 in most directions and in any direction at any signal spacing on higher bands. For example, I can receive noise floor Europeans on 40 meters just 10 kHz below or 5 kHz above the SSB transmitter with virtually no interference. Allowing remote receivers within a small distance would not affect large stations at all. It would only let some limited resource stations have more fun. In my view, complaining about letting someone work around local noise with a remote local receiver is nothing but sour grapes. DXCC and other things (like ANY contest) will never be fair or level between stations. It always has been that way, it always will be that way. No matter what the rules, a few with a disadvantage will not like the way it is, and a few with an advantage will not want a change. One example is keeping DXCC when someone moves from one coast to another. I remember when W2EQS/W9NFC had to start his 160 DXCC over from zero from Indiana because he moved from NJ to Indiana. Today, he could move from California to Maine and keep his totals. The important thing is to not make imaginary problems where none exist, and to understand how things really work before suggesting changes. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
K2AV wrote: When I send in a checklog, that does not invalidate QSOs where other stations were working me. They get credit. If I checklog, I'm just saying that *I* am not submitting a log to put *my* call into the competition. The opinion about the NF multiplier not counting was first brought up by VO1HP in his message: The CQWW 160 CW rules say NO remote receiver setups allowed so I will submit my log as a checklog only. Too bad because I think i was the only VO1 on the band giving out the NF mult. In my interpretation of the rules if an operation is not permitted, sending in a check log by that station would not make it count. Just like someone operating from an entity without a permit and giving out a multiplier. In example I drive to C31 where CEPT does not apply, I work the contest and send in a check log. Would that count as a C31 multiplier? Niko AC6DD _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Here is rule # 11 11. Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the ethical limits that he/she will accept for his/her DXCC and other operating awards. As the premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there will be increased attention given to these achievements and the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players it is more important than ever to 'play the game' ethically. ethical limits that he/she will accept ; more important than ever to play the game ethically Which is why I never have worried about awards, and when someone tells me they worked YYY of this or that, I care less. This is not new. The first WAZ 160, or one of the first WAZ's, was someone who never operated 160 ( at least who I never heard on 160, despite being a few miles from me). It would appear to me that the ARRL has given up and now relies on, or pleads with the operators to have 'ethical limits'. Yes it is more important than ever because the ARRL has little control over ethical limits. So the ARRL is aware of the cheating that goes on and will continue to go on. That coupled with the decline in ethical values in our society seriously affects the DXCC award. People have different ethical limits. Some could feel that breaking an 'unreasonable' rule falls within their ethical limits. Yes it is left up to the individual to decide. But when all DXCC chasers are put in the same game, i.e. posted standings, it only encourages the bending of the rules. This is one of the reasons why drag racing changed from heads up or index to bracket racing. Ham radio is no different, and this is not a recent thing. It is impossible to make it a level playing field without major complaints. People should just be happy with what they do, and not worry about the other guy. In about 20-30 years most of us will be dead and forgotten anyway. Why ruin our lives worrying about the other guy, instead of having fun? 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Here is rule # 11 11. Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the ethical limits that he/she will accept for his/her DXCC and other operating awards. As the premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there will be increased attention given to these achievements and the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players it is more important than ever to 'play the game' ethically. ethical limits that he/she will accept ; more important than ever to play the game ethically It would appear to me that the ARRL has given up and now relies on, or pleads with the operators to have 'ethical limits'. Yes it is more important than ever because the ARRL has little control over ethical limits. So the ARRL is aware of the cheating that goes on and will continue to go on. That coupled with the decline in ethical values in our society seriously affects the DXCC award. People have different ethical limits. Some could feel that breaking an 'unreasonable' rule falls within their ethical limits. Yes it is left up to the individual to decide. But when all DXCC chasers are put in the same game, i.e. posted standings, it only encourages the bending of the rules. Doug --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Well I guess it's time for me to say something on this discussion, since I am the culprit that actually wrote the rule. There have been many good comments made, and I am especially sympathetic to those such as Frank VO1HP with whom I have had some correspondence directly. To be clear, the remote receiver rule is for the CQ160 Contest only. I make no rule or opinion about normal DXing on topband or award chasing. The intention of the rule is to create a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD for the contest. It is not intended to limit technology by any stretch. The response by Tom VE3CX was right on the money. Using a receiver away from your transmitter creates an enormous advantage in many ways. This is a radio contest. Let's take an extreme example. Remote rx is allowed anywhere with no restriction.You are a W6 and work a station in EU. Both you and the other station are using remote rx on the other continent. You log each other, but there is no path open by radio. Did you actually have a QSO? Not by 2 way radio you didn't. It is no longer a 160M contest. It's something else. Now back to VE3CX's point. Full Duplex. This is big. If you are able to hear while transmitting, you will have a big advantage. When I originally wrote the rule, there were only a few stations able to achieve this by conventional methods. We wanted to reward radio methods of engineering over internet methods. Also, it was considered how far your receive antenna should be from your transmit antenna. We came up with 1500 meters. Nobody has complained. As far as the discussion of Check Logs go, there seems to be some misunderstanding. Anyone can operate the CQ160 Contest, you are not required to send in a log. If you want to be considered for an award, or be listed in the results you must follow the rules of the contest. It doesn't mean you cannot operate. Anyone can work you and get credit. We do not remove contacts because someone has not submitted a log. The point of operating illegally is not valid. If you are illegal, you report to local authorities, not to the CQ160 Contest Committee. Using a remote rx is not illegal in any event, and your operation is perfectly valid. It just is not eligible to compete in the contest under the present rules. Having said all that, I have been considering relaxing the remote rx rule in the future. However, it must have restrictions. Originally grid squares were considered, but that is not practical. It must be a defined radius. Milt N5IA had a good idea with 100KM. I would like to hear from the community what they think a fair distance would be. It needs to be close enough to the transmit antenna as to not create a situation where you are out hearing your transmit signal. The purpose should be to eliminate local noise, not to place a receiver in another skip zone. Also, we must have a means to prevent the already prolific use of web based SDR's.The honor system is important as most of our contesting is today. It will be tested, as is power cheating which seems to be a big problem in 160M contesting, but that is a topic for another day. The unfortunate result of this change will be the full duplex aspect. I am not comfortable with that, but if the community feels it's OK so be it. Please feel free to discuss the receiver question or send your comments directly to me. 73, Andy N2NT Director CQ160 Contest On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Cecil chac...@cableone.net wrote: On Jan 29, 2015, at 12:52 PM, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com One example is keeping DXCC when someone moves from one coast to another. I remember when W2EQS/W9NFC had to start his 160 DXCC over from zero from Indiana because he moved from NJ to Indiana. Today, he could move from California to Maine and keep his totals. It's one thing for your place of residence to change over a career or lifetime...it's totally another to, based on the contest or location of the desired DX, be able to selectively choose your receive system location to minimize or eliminate the geographical and/or propagational challenges that anyone operating in your same geographical area are faced with. And to take it a step further...why spend the time and money to develop your station to modestly competitive levels when you can pay 50 cents per minute to operate one someone else built in a much more desirable location...such as a few hundred miles from the counters instead of several thousand... Incentive gone! The important thing is to not make imaginary problems where none exist Really... Cecil K5DL _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
On Jan 29, 2015, at 12:52 PM, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com One example is keeping DXCC when someone moves from one coast to another. I remember when W2EQS/W9NFC had to start his 160 DXCC over from zero from Indiana because he moved from NJ to Indiana. Today, he could move from California to Maine and keep his totals. It's one thing for your place of residence to change over a career or lifetime...it's totally another to, based on the contest or location of the desired DX, be able to selectively choose your receive system location to minimize or eliminate the geographical and/or propagational challenges that anyone operating in your same geographical area are faced with. And to take it a step further...why spend the time and money to develop your station to modestly competitive levels when you can pay 50 cents per minute to operate one someone else built in a much more desirable location...such as a few hundred miles from the counters instead of several thousand... Incentive gone! The important thing is to not make imaginary problems where none exist Really... Cecil K5DL _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
It's one thing for your place of residence to change over a career or lifetime...it's totally another to, based on the contest or location of the desired DX, be able to selectively choose your receive system location to minimize or eliminate the geographical and/or propagational challenges that anyone operating in your same geographical area are faced with. And to take it a step further...why spend the time and money to develop your station to modestly competitive levels when you can pay 50 cents per minute to operate one someone else built in a much more desirable location...such as a few hundred miles from the counters instead of several thousand... Incentive gone! Then you should get the rules changed so none can count any contacts made with a move, other than a job move or lifetime change, for awards. Unless you feel driving five or ten miles somehow makes someone a better operator than using Internet with a radio on his desk. The ARRL says it is the operator who earns the contact awards, not the station. You need to lobby to get that changed so it is the station, or the operator-station combo, that earns the contacts for awards. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Tom, Thank you for a very well thought out and expressed opinion that mirrors my thinking on the subject. As tom has expressed re his station, I also have constructed the NI5T/N5BG station for full duplex operation on 160 M. We are able to use the mult stations within approximately 15 kHz of the run station with full legal power in most RX azimuth selections. With LP the spread drops to about +- 7 kHz. At QRP it is down to just a bit more than a kHz; similar to a BIG GUN station within a couple of hundred miles. I have run full duplex many years when operating QRP in the SPDC. So, the concept is not new; it is just now readily available with a different set of tools. I am in agreement that remote listening sites for 160 M contests, ala SPDC, is the correct direction to go. It will enhance the capability of many stations who will put out the effort to do so. Result; more activity and more stations to work. And that is what it is all about. I suggest a 100 km radius as the limit for deployment of a RX site which would be legal in the 160 M contests. Grid Squares are rectangular, vary in size according to latitude, and limits the capability if your TX location is near the edge of a GS. The 200 km diameter circle drawn around the TX location IMHO would be a very good selection. Mis dos centavos. Milt, N5IA, and sometimes operator of fully remoted N7GP -Original Message- From: Tom W8JI Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:52 AM To: TopBand List Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule Organized RR sites are not an issue. Remote Radio does not allow new DX members, although a few are grandfathered in before that policy started. Those few who are members are watched, and any operating without signing W? / DXcall, or using a receiver in a contest (which costs $.49 per minute), are banned from future use of RR. You have to be in the 48, or you have to use portable, or you are banned. This is absolutely no different than anything that ever went on since the ARRL and others began allowing DX contacts to count no matter where you operate or where you move in the USA. Many people have operated here as a guest, for example, and worked new countries or worked contests under their calls, and counted the countries. The ONLY difference between them logging in via link and operating, or driving here and operating, is the physical transportation time. If we don't like that as a collective group, the thing that needs changed is taking DXCC and other credits with us when we move or when we operate at another site. As for duplex, I can pretty much duplex here on 160 in most directions and in any direction at any signal spacing on higher bands. For example, I can receive noise floor Europeans on 40 meters just 10 kHz below or 5 kHz above the SSB transmitter with virtually no interference. Allowing remote receivers within a small distance would not affect large stations at all. It would only let some limited resource stations have more fun. In my view, complaining about letting someone work around local noise with a remote local receiver is nothing but sour grapes. DXCC and other things (like ANY contest) will never be fair or level between stations. It always has been that way, it always will be that way. No matter what the rules, a few with a disadvantage will not like the way it is, and a few with an advantage will not want a change. One example is keeping DXCC when someone moves from one coast to another. I remember when W2EQS/W9NFC had to start his 160 DXCC over from zero from Indiana because he moved from NJ to Indiana. Today, he could move from California to Maine and keep his totals. The important thing is to not make imaginary problems where none exist, and to understand how things really work before suggesting changes. 73 Tom - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4273/9020 - Release Date: 01/29/15 _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Bob, Respectfully, it isn't that big of a game changer. Many people can already duplex, and they can duplex quite close in frequency. It's possible for me, at one site, to null my own transmitter enough to hear stations on my own frequency while I transmit. The return is not worth the effort to do that. I can run 1500 watts steady carrier and hear a reasonable signal on the same exact frequency as I am on. It gets better as they move off my frequency. The argument it allows duplex is really pretty lame. Now if the argument is a remote receiver makes a technically challenged person able to duplex, then I'll buy that. But the advantage of doing that is not that great. Duplexing is probably worth about 50 contacts or less in a busy 160 contest with ~2000 contacts. Having low noise floor or good antennas is worth hundreds of contacts, or more. The advantage really being ruled against, despite what people might think, is someone obtaining a low noise floor or better antennas. What banning remote RX (within a reasonable distance boundary) primarily does is prevent people in challenged locations from hearing better, no matter what we want to pretend it does. 73 Tom Here we go again with a discussion of technology verses tradition. As we all know it is already possible to log on line to a remote RX site. Skimmers are all over the place. Should we allow remote RX sites in competition? I think not unless extremely limited in distance from the main site. The full duplex operability and capability is as quoted by Tom VE3CX a serious game changer. I have operated a remote TX/RX site for ten years now and it is a totally different situation.. The remote function is used for Dx'ing from home as sufficient bandwidth, latency issues and battery power storage limit contesting to casual operation. I clearly list on QRZ that _all_ operation is from the remote site and not from my home address 200 miles away. All contest operation is from on site and if weather and travel conditions prohibit getting there I either don't operate or operate with someone else at their station. If I operated that remote as directional RX for home operation using a single vertical with high power that would put me in a better than average position in SOHP category. Expand the remote RX to multiple locations with with a good directional High Power station and it would become a super station. This just isn't right. I realize that all stations are not created equal, one may have acreage with multiple antennas in an array combined with low noise levels. It was planned and built that way within the rules. I agree with Tree it is another sticky issue. However, I do believe that allowing separate RX sites during contests depreciates the spirit, time, effort, and cost of maintaining a well designed competitive station. Otherwise pick up a cell phone and call ur 599 in AZ. sincerely, Bob W7RH _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus Database: 4257/9022 - Release Date: 01/29/15 _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Technically that is all true. In the beginning, as rule ten says, all contacts were to be made by the the same licensee. That was the intent at the time. But primarily because of multi-op _contesting,_ the practical outcome was that when other operators come to your station to do a contest, no one knows exactly who made the contact, So, that meant that others could make QSOs for your DXCC, from your station.At the same time, since it is perfectly legal to use another's station, it became general practice to allow QSOs that you make from another station. The current rule was written to reflect what had become accepted practice over many years: That you had to be involved in each QSO in one way or the other. Rule 10 might not be written with that same intent today, especially considering the recent move to burden DXers with -- moral or ethical considerations. 73, Wayne, N7NG/6 - Original Message - From: Tom W8JI To:Roger D Johnson , TopBand List Cc: Sent:Thu, 29 Jan 2015 19:13:03 -0500 Subject:Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver ru Where does it say this? 73, Roger Rule ten of DXCC makes it all about the operator's call signs (multiple). It doesn't have to be his equipment or station. If it is his equipment, he doesn't even have to be the operator as long as it is with (one of) his call(s). The ARRL apparently doesn't have a problem with people using someone else's station to work DXCC. Following the rules, someone can earn DXCC and never have personally made a single contact, or a person could have DXCC and never have made a contact using his own station. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Yep. All you need nowadays is a credit card. You can be on Honor Roll without ever seeing a radio or antenna. Gotta be a little like kissing your sister. ARRL is going to stand for American Remote Radio League before too much longer. DXCC's best days are behind us. Larry K5RK -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom W8JI Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 6:13 PM To: Roger D Johnson; TopBand List Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule Where does it say this? 73, Roger Rule ten of DXCC makes it all about the operator's call signs (multiple). It doesn't have to be his equipment or station. If it is his equipment, he doesn't even have to be the operator as long as it is with (one of) his call(s). The ARRL apparently doesn't have a problem with people using someone else's station to work DXCC. Following the rules, someone can earn DXCC and never have personally made a single contact, or a person could have DXCC and never have made a contact using his own station. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Agree... let's cut out the middleman and just pay for a QSL directly. Tom's suggestion was a valid one. If we don't like the direction the ARRL has been heading with this we should let our DXAC rep, Programs Services Committee rep, and Division Director know. The commercial remote businesses encouraged their customers to lobby their ARRL reps and look how the rule turned out. As I understand it, the treatment of remotes for DXCC credit is a work in progress. Make your voice heard -- loudly and often. BTW, the minutes from the ARRL January Board meeting shows only two Directors went on record as opposing the recent DXCC rule changes -- K5UZ and K7CEX. - Larry K5RK -Original Message- From: Doug Renwick [mailto:ve...@sasktel.net] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 6:54 PM To: 'Larry Burke'; 'TopBand List' Subject: RE: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule When you see full page ads in QST for commercial remote operation, then you know the rules have really changed. It advertises 185 antennas, 50 towers, 18 stations, 15 amplifiers, 9 states, 2 continents and then says What are you waiting for? Why don't we just quit all this foolishness and cut through a 'minor' point. Why not just send the dxpedition a few hundred dollar bills and get confirmation on all bands, all modes. Against the rules you say. So who says there are any ethics left when operators now set their own ethical limits. I see little difference between buying contacts and using a commercial remote station. This also has the benefit leaving the bands open for 'smaller' home stations to have some fun and actually work the dx. Doug _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
My point exactly. Several years ago I asked the ARRL if DXCC was an operator award or a station award. Never did get a coherent answer! On 1/29/2015 7:13 PM, Tom W8JI wrote: Where does it say this? 73, Roger Rule ten of DXCC makes it all about the operator's call signs (multiple). It doesn't have to be his equipment or station. If it is his equipment, he doesn't even have to be the operator as long as it is with (one of) his call(s). The ARRL apparently doesn't have a problem with people using someone else's station to work DXCC. Following the rules, someone can earn DXCC and never have personally made a single contact, or a person could have DXCC and never have made a contact using his own station. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Where does it say this? 73, Roger The ARRL says it is the operator who earns the contact awards, not the station. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Guys, Here we go again with a discussion of technology verses tradition. As we all know it is already possible to log on line to a remote RX site. Skimmers are all over the place. Should we allow remote RX sites in competition? I think not unless extremely limited in distance from the main site. The full duplex operability and capability is as quoted by Tom VE3CX a serious game changer. I have operated a remote TX/RX site for ten years now and it is a totally different situation.. The remote function is used for Dx'ing from home as sufficient bandwidth, latency issues and battery power storage limit contesting to casual operation. I clearly list on QRZ that _all_ operation is from the remote site and not from my home address 200 miles away. All contest operation is from on site and if weather and travel conditions prohibit getting there I either don't operate or operate with someone else at their station. If I operated that remote as directional RX for home operation using a single vertical with high power that would put me in a better than average position in SOHP category. Expand the remote RX to multiple locations with with a good directional High Power station and it would become a super station. This just isn't right. I realize that all stations are not created equal, one may have acreage with multiple antennas in an array combined with low noise levels. It was planned and built that way within the rules. I agree with Tree it is another sticky issue. However, I do believe that allowing separate RX sites during contests depreciates the spirit, time, effort, and cost of maintaining a well designed competitive station. Otherwise pick up a cell phone and call ur 599 in AZ. sincerely, Bob W7RH _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Where does it say this? 73, Roger Rule ten of DXCC makes it all about the operator's call signs (multiple). It doesn't have to be his equipment or station. If it is his equipment, he doesn't even have to be the operator as long as it is with (one of) his call(s). The ARRL apparently doesn't have a problem with people using someone else's station to work DXCC. Following the rules, someone can earn DXCC and never have personally made a single contact, or a person could have DXCC and never have made a contact using his own station. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
On Thu, 1/29/15, Guy Olinger K2AV k2av@gmail.com wrote: When you say would not make it count, do you mean doesn't count for the guy who sent in the check log? No one here is saying he should get credit or be in the standings. Or do you mean BOTH the guy who sent in the check log AND all the people who worked him get penalized? Here are the rules: http://www.cq160.com/rules.htm The use of any receiver located away from the main site is strictly prohibited. I gave you my interpretation, and my opinion is that all stations which worked him should lose the multiplier. (I worked him too by the way). As far as your unrelated transmit power issue I say that I really don't care. If VO1HP didn't come out himself and made his post and decided to enter himself as a checklog no one would even know that he operated a remote receiver. There might be others with less integrity that operated in the Contest against the rules and will submit their logs. VO1HP only made 150 QSO in 8 hours of operating from the Atlantic Coast. His station is clearly unbalanced with the TX antenna the weaker part. Hopefully he has the ability to add a good TX antenna to his nice remote site. Niko AC6DD _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
My question is why penalize the bloke on the innocent end of the QSO. He didn't do anything wrong. Would your rule apply to a station running 1600 watts instead of 1500. Or 1500 watts instead of 100? When you say would not make it count, do you mean doesn't count for the guy who sent in the check log? No one here is saying he should get credit or be in the standings. Or do you mean BOTH the guy who sent in the check log AND all the people who worked him get penalized? If the latter, I would say that instead of sending in a check log, just send no log at all. The outcome is a kinder thing. People routinely run HP in the NAQP, and just don't bother to send in logs. Here's NAQP's rule 6: 6. Output Power: No greater than 100 W. Use of external amplifiers capable of more than 100 W output is not allowed. QRP (5 W) entries will be recognized in the results. Entries from stations choosing to use more than 100 W will be classified as check logs. It's clear they have no intention of penalizing stations who QSO'd a station submitting a check log, or no log at all. The station submitting a checklog just doesn't go in the standings, or get a plaque or certificate. 73, Guy. On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Niko Cimbur ac...@yahoo.com wrote: K2AV wrote: When I send in a checklog, that does not invalidate QSOs where other stations were working me. They get credit. If I checklog, I'm just saying that *I* am not submitting a log to put *my* call into the competition. The opinion about the NF multiplier not counting was first brought up by VO1HP in his message: The CQWW 160 CW rules say NO remote receiver setups allowed so I will submit my log as a checklog only. Too bad because I think i was the only VO1 on the band giving out the NF mult. In my interpretation of the rules if an operation is not permitted, sending in a check log by that station would not make it count. Just like someone operating from an entity without a permit and giving out a multiplier. In example I drive to C31 where CEPT does not apply, I work the contest and send in a check log. Would that count as a C31 multiplier? Niko AC6DD _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Call: VO1HP Operator(s): VO1HP Station: VO1HP Class: Single Op Assisted HP QTH: St.John's Operating Time (hrs): 8 Summary: Total: QSOs = 150 State/Prov = 35 Countries = 25 Total Score = 52,560 Club: East Coast Canada Contest Club Comments: The band seemed to be in good condition but I could tell I was not being heard well. Could not get a run going that lasted more then a dozen Q'salmost all SP both nights. At 0230 local on Sunday morning I had to crank down my tower due to forecasted heavy wind rain storm appoaching. The gusts started at 04:30 local and exceeded 110 kmph in the city for most of Sunday. I spent a long time both nights calling HV0A on 1832.8khz but no luck ...could not get by the Eu and NE coast callers. I am using an ethernet remote SDR site 50kms away on the ocean with two antennas and the SDR backhauled to the home QTH via fibre based access at both ends. Once the s/w is configured properly I can operate seamlessly with N1MM+; SDR Console V2 for the remote SDR and my K3. Using the N1MM function keys and the K3 memories it is possible to tx without muting the SDR return audio and listen to the transmitted signal...like full duplex operation. The CQWW 160 CW rules say NO remote receiver setups allowed so I will submit my log as a checklog only. Too bad because I think i was the only VO1 on the band giving out the NF mult. My SDR near the ocean is the only way that I can hear weak signals on 160. At the home QTH all but the strongest signals are masked by local noise etc even though I have a K9AY loop system. This SDR is for my personal use and is located within my grid square and approx 50kms direct line away from the home station. The effectiveness of the SDR and Pixel loop can be experienced by going to www.vo1hp.ca DXCLIPS page and listen to the signal from EP6T on Jan 22. Here is a viewpoint: could one argue that an SDR is useless without the signal processing software which runs on the PC in front of the operator...so where is the actual receiver located?? ... could one argue that the SDR is just part of the antenna system since the actual receive signal processing is done adjacent to the operator. In my view I don't see anything wrong with using the SDR in the contest to increase my participation and satisfaction and provide the NF mult. ...but the rules are the rules ...so be it for now. Transmitter K3 + ACOM1010 Inv L + FCP (local rx K9AY) Remote SDR: Afedri NET Pixel Magnetic Loop 80-10M OCF _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
VO1HP writes: In my view I don't see anything wrong with using the SDR in the contest to increase my participation and satisfaction and provide the NF mult. ...but the rules are the rules ...so be it for now. My remote station has been in operation for several years. It is about 10 miles from my house. It is setup for transmitting and receiving. What I found out from participating remotely in a Stew Perry or two is that it just wasn't the same experience for me, and I would still go to the site to operate CQ160. When the site receive capabilities were degraded, I found a new place 75 km away. I go there for the weekend and set it all up for the Contest. The Receive capabilities are better, but not the TX. Many times I wished that I could use my remote to call a multiplier and increase my score, but the rules are the rules. It does not seem to me that it would be too difficult for you to drive to your RX site only 50km away, put up an Inverted L antenna and actually give out multipliers that count. 73, Niko AC6DD _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Dado and brethren concerned, You are right about the qso definition. And you are right again narrowing the subject to what would be commonly accepted as a QTH. As I remember from contesting back in 80´s, the station including all its antennas must be located within 500 meters circle. (I may be be mistaken since I didn´t like math and geometry at school and still confuse diameter and perimeter LOL). Then as I recall the QTH definition shifted to the property limits. Now you are pushing it to 1 geographical degree. As for innovations and conservatism in their acceptance by the majority, IMHO when an innovation becomes available to the majority then it is time to accomodate rules to it. As for the learning curve. A guy builds a 10KW amplifier and learns a lot while constructing it. Is he exempted from the rules? N1EN (?) expressed a brilliant idea to create an entry for those who succumbed to the classic understanding of contesting - boy and his radio. The entry concept can be clearly defined if necessary. To summarize... Let's read Wayne's, N7NG immortal lines If the rules are not enforced 73 Alex HC2AO Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:00:20 +0100 от Dragoslav Balaban d...@prijedor.com: Hi all, QSO is information exchange between 2 station, not two OP, and each station has Geographic LOCATION, my Locator is JN84IX... RST is how I hear Al HC2AO TX/TX Antenna from HC2AO location with my/E74AW RX/RX Antenna on my location , and other wayhow Al hear my TX/Antenna with his RX on his Location It s completely irrelevant where OP sitting, at radio, next room remote, his home remote, or other continent As I say before, QSO is exchange between TWO STATION, not TWO OP, I don't know why is this so hard to understand and accept... Otherwise, we need not station, antennas, radio, two OP can talk phone, skype or any other way So if we accept that, then only important question is how far can/should RX system be from TX system, I think there are some rules abt that. It can be 1 mile radius, same Locator, or so, its matter of agreement, anything reasonable , but for sure, cant be TX in NY and RX in LA , this make no sense or TX in EU and RX on other continent... IMHO, 1 degrees Longitude/latitude, or 2, or whatever agreed, would be decent , 1 degree latitude would be 4 minutes in time , or 4 KM/360 = 111.111 Km at Equator/0 degrees latitude and that mean approximately same propagation... 73 all GL ctest dado E74AW -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of ALEXEY OGORODOV Sent: Tuesday, 20 January, 2015 19:55 To: Wayne; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule Wayne, true but we pretend that we live in a perfect world. =) Ham Radio is one of the easiest ways to feel acomplished. But that´s another topic and rather of psychological and social field. =) Seriousely now, then if we know that it is a mostly a gypsie circus (no disrespect to gypsies - I love you, guys, ever since you taught me the fortune-telling), why do we still bother? 73 Alex HC2AO P.S. I tried on several ocasions to be heard by some contests organizers about severe violations of the rules - yet, it was the voice of the crier in desert. (just in case I have a pesonal lake to jump into )) ) Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:46:17 -0700 от Wayne mailto: n...@bresnan.net n...@bresnan.net : Alex, Rules that cannot be enforced are not rules. Further they make the sponsor look foolish. Do you really believe that rules are always followed? (If you do, I have a bridge you might be interested in...) Wayne, N7NG/6 - Original Message - From: ALEXEY OGORODOV mailto: ua4...@mail.ru ua4...@mail.ru To: mailto: topband@contesting.com topband@contesting.com Cc: Sent: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:37:21 +0300 Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule Brethren, why are there rules? In our case they were cset in order to create a reasonable fair playground limits for the MAJORITY of participants. The majority still falls into the conditions described in the rules. To the remote RX/TX site owner - fellows, why don't you ask the rule-makers to create a special entry for you. That sounds more logical. With all due respect to all parties involved. 73 Alex HC2AO Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:30:02 -0500 от Chester Latawiec : gt; gt; gt;Frank. I'm with you 100%. gt;I have accomplished the same as you. Set up a remote listening site in a friends back yard (he has several acres) specifically for 160M.I found this to be a much cheaper alternative to buying a farm and leaving my spouse behind (she is not leaving our present domicile). My remote station build has been the most rewarding both technically and personally. I have had to learn stuff I never had any intention of learning in the first
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
But what if I order up a dry pair from the telephone company for an RX a mile away. here his costs only $11 per month per mile and would provide remote audio back to the shack with tranformer center tap to ground used for limited frequency control. Is that in accordance with the rules? Amile would probably get me out of the induction zone of a near by QRO station that cleans out the band on 160 here, Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ On 1/20/2015 1:01 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote: On 1/20/2015 7:20 AM, Frank Davis wrote: The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest. st that I have avoided this far. Maybe if enough of us push for it we can have the rules modified to permit remote receivers within the same grid square as the home station. 73 Frank VO1HP This certainly deserves further consideration. I have a problem with the grid square criterion. Grid squares are an artificial construct, and I think it would be better to choose a specified distance, such as 100 km in the Stew Perry. Personally, I would like to see this increased to 100 miles (160 km). Also, you might happen to be in the corner of a grid square, which would limit your options for no good reason. This is IMHO entirely different from using an internet remote on the East coast to hear EU better (or in your case, a west coast remote to hear AS better), which is what the contest sponsors are trying to prevent (and rightly so). The proliferation of internet remotes for hire has now poisoned the well for conventional remote receive sites. Remote bases are now banned from DXCC as well. This is the familiar pattern of things that were OK for the elite, suddenly being banned once the great unwashed obtain access. One idea I have toyed with would be to setup up some sort of SDR that would record the entire 160 meter band for the duration of a contest. I could install this at a quiet site, and then, after the contest, dtermine what I couldn't hear. It might be very enlightening and doesn't violate the contest rules. Maybe you should try this initially as a proof of concept. What would be needed is a system that could run on batteries for the duration of the contest. Rick N6RK _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
On 1/20/2015 7:20 AM, Frank Davis wrote: The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest. st that I have avoided this far. Maybe if enough of us push for it we can have the rules modified to permit remote receivers within the same grid square as the home station. 73 Frank VO1HP This certainly deserves further consideration. I have a problem with the grid square criterion. Grid squares are an artificial construct, and I think it would be better to choose a specified distance, such as 100 km in the Stew Perry. Personally, I would like to see this increased to 100 miles (160 km). Also, you might happen to be in the corner of a grid square, which would limit your options for no good reason. This is IMHO entirely different from using an internet remote on the East coast to hear EU better (or in your case, a west coast remote to hear AS better), which is what the contest sponsors are trying to prevent (and rightly so). The proliferation of internet remotes for hire has now poisoned the well for conventional remote receive sites. Remote bases are now banned from DXCC as well. This is the familiar pattern of things that were OK for the elite, suddenly being banned once the great unwashed obtain access. One idea I have toyed with would be to setup up some sort of SDR that would record the entire 160 meter band for the duration of a contest. I could install this at a quiet site, and then, after the contest, dtermine what I couldn't hear. It might be very enlightening and doesn't violate the contest rules. Maybe you should try this initially as a proof of concept. What would be needed is a system that could run on batteries for the duration of the contest. Rick N6RK _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest. I have deployed a remote SDR at a seaside location within my home grid square GN37. I did this specifically to improve my listening capability for 160M. The setup and refinement of this remote SDR has taken two years of learning about IP networking; remote access via PC issues; how to switch antennas remotely; and how to restart the system when it stops working and to avoid driving to the site during winter. Its been a great learning experience. My home QTH in the city is not a good lowband receiving site due to the local electrical and RF noise that obilterates all but the strongest signals on 160 and 80M. I live on a standard suburban lot with a tower in close proximity to my K9AY system even though I have the K9AY feedline well choked and by passed the noise it picks up overrides the weak signals. For my remote rx system in the same grid square as my home is really the only way for me to hear anything during the event. Over the past number of years with the proliferation of plasma TV's; wifi routers; cheap swiching PS wall warts etc. the noise level in the local area has grown to be extreme. At the remote SDR site, that I am fortunate enough to own, the environment is very quiet ...the ocean is 100ft away from my antenna, I can almost hear a pindrop in Eu!. During contest days when the band is good I can hear Eu signals during the early afternoon on the SDR and a Pixel mag loop I intend to play in the 160m contest, which is one of my favorite outings, but cannot submit a log other then for checking purposes. Its time for the contest managers to review the rules pertaining to cases such as mine which I am sure is the case for many of you. What is wrong with improving my station and to be able to use in this manner?. It is located within my home grid square. Yes I can setup a full rx/tx site there with tx antenna and operate remotely - that is OK it appears - but that adds a whole new level of complexity and cost that I have avoided this far. Maybe if enough of us push for it we can have the rules modified to permit remote receivers within the same grid square as the home station. 73 Frank VO1HP _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
This rule --while a good idea with the best of intentions-- was almost certainly intended to help prevent cheating by using a remote receiver FAR from a contest station's QTH. Much farther than 100 miles. And owned by someone else. So, how could using one's own, private remote receiving setup like this be labeled cheating? I have an underground LAN cable that extends out to a point where I very well might erect an RX-only antenna someday. If I decide to use that in such a way that it uses a VPN (for example) over the Internet in lieu of coax, does that disqualify me? I think not. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Frank Davis fda...@nfld.net wrote: The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest. I have deployed a remote SDR at a seaside location within my home grid square ... _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Remote bases are now banned from DXCC as well. Unfortunately, remotes are allowed by DXCC including the ones you access with a credit card (e.g., RemoteHamRadio.com). In fact, you don't even need a radio these days to get on Honor Roll. Not sure what satisfaction a guy receives in getting DXCC this way it's kinda like kissing your sister. It wasn't too long ago that an ARRL award hanging on your shack wall meant something. Those days are behind us. - Larry K5RK -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Richard (Rick) Karlquist Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:02 AM To: Frank Davis; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule On 1/20/2015 7:20 AM, Frank Davis wrote: The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest. st that I have avoided this far. Maybe if enough of us push for it we can have the rules modified to permit remote receivers within the same grid square as the home station. 73 Frank VO1HP This certainly deserves further consideration. I have a problem with the grid square criterion. Grid squares are an artificial construct, and I think it would be better to choose a specified distance, such as 100 km in the Stew Perry. Personally, I would like to see this increased to 100 miles (160 km). Also, you might happen to be in the corner of a grid square, which would limit your options for no good reason. This is IMHO entirely different from using an internet remote on the East coast to hear EU better (or in your case, a west coast remote to hear AS better), which is what the contest sponsors are trying to prevent (and rightly so). The proliferation of internet remotes for hire has now poisoned the well for conventional remote receive sites. Remote bases are now banned from DXCC as well. This is the familiar pattern of things that were OK for the elite, suddenly being banned once the great unwashed obtain access. One idea I have toyed with would be to setup up some sort of SDR that would record the entire 160 meter band for the duration of a contest. I could install this at a quiet site, and then, after the contest, dtermine what I couldn't hear. It might be very enlightening and doesn't violate the contest rules. Maybe you should try this initially as a proof of concept. What would be needed is a system that could run on batteries for the duration of the contest. Rick N6RK _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Frank. I'm with you 100%. I have accomplished the same as you. Set up a remote listening site in a friends back yard (he has several acres) specifically for 160M.I found this to be a much cheaper alternative to buying a farm and leaving my spouse behind (she is not leaving our present domicile). My remote station build has been the most rewarding both technically and personally. I have had to learn stuff I never had any intention of learning in the first place. But it did get me DXCC on 160M. So why should you and I be punished because we do not want to spend dollars buying a farm and installing yet another station with towers, antennas, hardline, CQ and Stew Perry allow remote receive sites at least, within a 60 mile or so radius. My site is 15 miles away. The first time I worked a JA, I was like a 16 year old kid. And when I worked Amsterdam Is. last year on 160, I believed I had achieved my best accomplishment in this marvelous hobby of ours over a 46 year time span. Maybe others out there will write ARRL and ask for consideration of rule change.For this weekend, it's back to my 10M vertical and mag loop for receive. There's just no comparison. 73 Chet VE3CFK Message: 12 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:50:57 -0330 From: Frank Davis fda...@nfld.net To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule Message-ID: 65fe178b-307c-43f6-b425-25ab95b31...@nfld.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest. I have deployed a remote SDR at a seaside location within my home grid square GN37. I did this specifically to improve my listening capability for 160M. The setup and refinement of this remote SDR has taken two years of learning about IP networking; remote access via PC issues; how to switch antennas remotely; and how to restart the system when it stops working and to avoid driving to the site during winter. Its been a great learning experience. My home QTH in the city is not a good lowband receiving site due to the local electrical and RF noise that obilterates all but the strongest signals on 160 and 80M. I live on a standard suburban lot with a tower in close proximity to my K9AY system even though I have the K9AY feedline well choked and by passed the noise it picks up overrides the weak signals. For my remote rx system in the same grid square as my home is really the only way for me to hear anything during the event. Over the past number of years with the proliferation of plasma TV's; wifi routers; cheap swiching PS wall warts etc. the noise level in the local area has grown to be extreme. At the remote SDR site, that I am fortunate enough to own, the environment is very quiet ...the ocean is 100ft away from my antenna, I can almost hear a pindrop in Eu!. During contest days when the band is good I can hear Eu signals during the early afternoon on the SDR and a Pixel mag loop I intend to play in the 160m contest, which is one of my favorite outings, but cannot submit a log other then for checking purposes. Its time for the contest managers to review the rules pertaining to cases such as mine which I am sure is the case for many of you. What is wrong with improving my station and to be able to use in this manner?. It is located within my home grid square. Yes I can setup a full rx/tx site there with tx antenna and operate remotely - that is OK it appears - but that adds a whole new level of complexity and cost that I have avoided this far. Maybe if enough of us push for it we can have the rules modified to permit remote receivers within the same grid square as the home station. 73 Frank VO1HP -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ Topband mailing list Topband@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband -- End of Topband Digest, Vol 145, Issue 20 _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Brethren, why are there rules? In our case they were cset in order to create a reasonable fair playground limits for the MAJORITY of participants. The majority still falls into the conditions described in the rules. To the remote RX/TX site owner - fellows, why don't you ask the rule-makers to create a special entry for you. That sounds more logical. With all due respect to all parties involved. 73 Alex HC2AO Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:30:02 -0500 от Chester Latawiec chet...@hotmail.com: Frank. I'm with you 100%. I have accomplished the same as you. Set up a remote listening site in a friends back yard (he has several acres) specifically for 160M.I found this to be a much cheaper alternative to buying a farm and leaving my spouse behind (she is not leaving our present domicile). My remote station build has been the most rewarding both technically and personally. I have had to learn stuff I never had any intention of learning in the first place. But it did get me DXCC on 160M. So why should you and I be punished because we do not want to spend dollars buying a farm and installing yet another station with towers, antennas, hardline, CQ and Stew Perry allow remote receive sites at least, within a 60 mile or so radius. My site is 15 miles away. The first time I worked a JA, I was like a 16 year old kid. And when I worked Amsterdam Is. last year on 160, I believed I had achieved my best accomplishment in this marvelous hobby of ours over a 46 year time span. Maybe others out there will write ARRL and ask for consideration of rule change.For this weekend, it's back to my 10M vertical and mag loop for receive. There's just no comparison. 73 Chet VE3CFK Message: 12 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:50:57 -0330 From: Frank Davis fda...@nfld.net To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule Message-ID: 65fe178b-307c-43f6-b425-25ab95b31...@nfld.net Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest. I have deployed a remote SDR at a seaside location within my home grid square GN37. I did this specifically to improve my listening capability for 160M. The setup and refinement of this remote SDR has taken two years of learning about IP networking; remote access via PC issues; how to switch antennas remotely; and how to restart the system when it stops working and to avoid driving to the site during winter. Its been a great learning experience. My home QTH in the city is not a good lowband receiving site due to the local electrical and RF noise that obilterates all but the strongest signals on 160 and 80M. I live on a standard suburban lot with a tower in close proximity to my K9AY system even though I have the K9AY feedline well choked and by passed the noise it picks up overrides the weak signals. For my remote rx system in the same grid square as my home is really the only way for me to hear anything during the event. Over the past number of years with the proliferation of plasma TV's; wifi routers; cheap swiching PS wall warts etc. the noise level in the local area has grown to be extreme. At the remote SDR site, that I am fortunate enough to own, the environment is very quiet ...the ocean is 100ft away from my antenna, I can almost hear a pindrop in Eu!. During contest days when the band is good I can hear Eu signals during the early afternoon on the SDR and a Pixel mag loop I intend to play in the 160m contest, which is one of my favorite outings, but cannot submit a log other then for checking purposes. Its time for the contest managers to review the rules pertaining to cases such as mine which I am sure is the case for many of you. What is wrong with improving my station and to be able to use in this manner?. It is located within my home grid square. Yes I can setup a full rx/tx site there with tx antenna and operate remotely - that is OK it appears - but that adds a whole new level of complexity and cost that I have avoided this far. Maybe if enough of us push for it we can have the rules modified to permit remote receivers within the same grid square as the home station. 73 Frank VO1HP -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ Topband mailing list Topband@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband -- End of Topband Digest, Vol 145, Issue 20 _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
With a remote receiver it is easy to listen on the band while you are transmitting. It is much more difficult to run SO2R on a single band when the transmit and receive antennas are on the same property. This gives stations with remote receivers, even in the same geographical area, a big advantage. John KK9A To: topband@contesting.com Subject:Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule From: Frank Davis fda...@nfld.net Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:50:57 -0330 The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest. I have deployed a remote SDR at a seaside location within my home grid square GN37. I did this specifically to improve my listening capability for 160M. The setup and refinement of this remote SDR has taken two years of learning about IP networking; remote access via PC issues; how to switch antennas remotely; and how to restart the system when it stops working and to avoid driving to the site during winter. Its been a great learning experience. My home QTH in the city is not a good lowband receiving site due to the local electrical and RF noise that obilterates all but the strongest signals on 160 and 80M. I live on a standard suburban lot with a tower in close proximity to my K9AY system even though I have the K9AY feedline well choked and by passed the noise it picks up overrides the weak signals. For my remote rx system in the same grid square as my home is really the only way for me to hear anything during the event. Over the past number of years with the proliferation of plasma TV's; wifi routers; cheap swiching PS wall warts etc. the noise level in the local area has grown to be extreme. At the remote SDR site, that I am fortunate enough to own, the environment is very quiet ...the ocean is 100ft away from my antenna, I can almost hear a pindrop in Eu!. During contest days when the band is good I can hear Eu signals during the early afternoon on the SDR and a Pixel mag loop I intend to play in the 160m contest, which is one of my favorite outings, but cannot submit a log other then for checking purposes. Its time for the contest managers to review the rules pertaining to cases such as mine which I am sure is the case for many of you. What is wrong with improving my station and to be able to use in this manner?. It is located within my home grid square. Yes I can setup a full rx/tx site there with tx antenna and operate remotely - that is OK it appears - but that adds a whole new level of complexity and cost that I have avoided this far. Maybe if enough of us push for it we can have the rules modified to permit remote receivers within the same grid square as the home station. 73 Frank VO1HP _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Hello brethren, I´m one of those who lives and operates from a noise-infested location. It is within my abilities to build a remote station a few miles away. Yet, I ask you and myself 'will it be of the same value? If I'm not happy with either TX or RX, I can operate portable or rent a station WITHOUT bending rules. RHR is already ruining the hobby at least its what-I-can-do-with-what-I-have-and-where-I-am point. FWIW 73 Alex HC2AO Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:29:07 -0400 от Herbert Schoenbohm herbert.schoenb...@gmail.com: But what if I order up a dry pair from the telephone company for an RX a mile away. here his costs only $11 per month per mile and would provide remote audio back to the shack with tranformer center tap to ground used for limited frequency control. Is that in accordance with the rules? Amile would probably get me out of the induction zone of a near by QRO station that cleans out the band on 160 here, Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ On 1/20/2015 1:01 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote: On 1/20/2015 7:20 AM, Frank Davis wrote: The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest. st that I have avoided this far. Maybe if enough of us push for it we can have the rules modified to permit remote receivers within the same grid square as the home station. 73 Frank VO1HP This certainly deserves further consideration. I have a problem with the grid square criterion. Grid squares are an artificial construct, and I think it would be better to choose a specified distance, such as 100 km in the Stew Perry. Personally, I would like to see this increased to 100 miles (160 km). Also, you might happen to be in the corner of a grid square, which would limit your options for no good reason. This is IMHO entirely different from using an internet remote on the East coast to hear EU better (or in your case, a west coast remote to hear AS better), which is what the contest sponsors are trying to prevent (and rightly so). The proliferation of internet remotes for hire has now poisoned the well for conventional remote receive sites. Remote bases are now banned from DXCC as well. This is the familiar pattern of things that were OK for the elite, suddenly being banned once the great unwashed obtain access. One idea I have toyed with would be to setup up some sort of SDR that would record the entire 160 meter band for the duration of a contest. I could install this at a quiet site, and then, after the contest, dtermine what I couldn't hear. It might be very enlightening and doesn't violate the contest rules. Maybe you should try this initially as a proof of concept. What would be needed is a system that could run on batteries for the duration of the contest. Rick N6RK _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
What's the simplest way of setting up a remote RX site via the Internet? Below is part of a question that I posted awhile back on an eham.net forum. I was considering sharing my 580' long Beverage receiving antennas via a Web SDR page, which can cover 360 degrees of the compass (on 160, at least) in four steps. They should be remotely selectable over the Internet, rather than just one antenna and a remotely controllable receiver like everyone else does. The full post is at www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?action=printpage;topic=91114.0 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Doug! Agree 100% !!! Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:46:00 -0600 от Doug Renwick ve...@sasktel.net: This is what contesting is becoming. Based on comments made, why don't we just get rid of the ham station, the towers, the antennas and work the contest with the computer. Load all the DX, stations, and frequencies into a program and run the contest over the internet. Every body then has the same opportunity to achieve 'top of the honor roll' in a contest weekend. Geography is not a factor. That is the perfect 'level playing' field. So there you go, lots of stations to work. Hope you have fun. It's like today's school ... no body fails; everybody passes, some without trying. Doug I wasn't born in Saskatchewan, but I got here as soon as I could. -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael Adams Alternatively, perhaps this is a reason to create a classic category, to differentiate the boy and his radio contesters from the folks embracing newer techniques and technology. In general, I'm of the mind that if a proposed change increases fun / increases participation, it ought to be considered. It goes without saying that contests are a lot more fun if you can hear other stations to work. -- Michael Adams | N1EN | m...@n1en.org --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Regarding Rick Karlquist's commentary === where he says *. . . . Remote bases are now banned from DXCC as well. This is the familiar pattern of things that were OK for the elite, suddenly being banned once the great unwashed obtain access. . . . .* Back around 1978 I sent in a proposed article to the QST folks describing a RTTY (CW too) contest keyer based on a Rockwell KIM-1 development tool. The software I wrote would allow timekeeping, contact-number, contest message contents, etc (plus controlling my 50MHz beacon.) The user still needed to have a RTTY machine for copy but the KIM-1 and SW did the big job during slow periods. The ARRL/QST folks rejected the article proposal saying it would give too much of an advantage to users in a contest. So, getting contest tools and rules changed/modified is a sticky-wicket in competitive events. Being ahead of the curve or behind it is often frustrating . . . . 73 to all . . . Dick/w7wkr CN97uj and wd2xsh-26 CN98pi = Message: 1 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:01:42 -0800 From: Richard (Rick) Karlquist rich...@karlquist.com To: Frank Davis fda...@nfld.net, topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule Message-ID: 54be89f6.9060...@karlquist.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed On 1/20/2015 7:20 AM, Frank Davis wrote: The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest. st that I have avoided this far. Maybe if enough of us push for it we can have the rules modified to permit remote receivers within the same grid square as the home station. 73 Frank VO1HP This certainly deserves further consideration. I have a problem with the grid square criterion. Grid squares are an artificial construct, and I think it would be better to choose a specified distance, such as 100 km in the Stew Perry. Personally, I would like to see this increased to 100 miles (160 km). Also, you might happen to be in the corner of a grid square, which would limit your options for no good reason. This is IMHO entirely different from using an internet remote on the East coast to hear EU better (or in your case, a west coast remote to hear AS better), which is what the contest sponsors are trying to prevent (and rightly so). The proliferation of internet remotes for hire has now poisoned the well for conventional remote receive sites. Remote bases are now banned from DXCC as well. *This is the familiar pattern of things that were OK for the elite, suddenly being banned once the great unwashed obtain access.* One idea I have toyed with would be to setup up some sort of SDR that would record the entire 160 meter band for the duration of a contest. I could install this at a quiet site, and then, after the contest, dtermine what I couldn't hear. It might be very enlightening and doesn't violate the contest rules. Maybe you should try this initially as a proof of concept. What would be needed is a system that could run on batteries for the duration of the contest. Rick N6RK _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
Alternatively, perhaps this is a reason to create a classic category, to differentiate the boy and his radio contesters from the folks embracing newer techniques and technology. In general, I'm of the mind that if a proposed change increases fun / increases participation, it ought to be considered. It goes without saying that contests are a lot more fun if you can hear other stations to work. -- Michael Adams | N1EN | m...@n1en.org -Original Message de HC2AO- why are there rules? In our case they were cset in order to create a reasonable fair playground limits for the MAJORITY of participants. The majority still falls into the conditions described in the rules. To the remote RX/TX site owner - fellows, why don't you ask the rule-makers to create a special entry for you. That sounds more logical. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
