Re: Topband: Cheating etc

[Fred Moeves]

Roger,

I agree 100%.

If it's easy enough to get the card I'll send off for it.

I don't chase for the ARRL's certificate.

I have a couple from the 80's and 90's couple DXCC's WAS WAZ...

Truthfully I can't even remember...I don't think I even have 160 DXCC 
from ARRL.


I know I have worked enough ...but it got too expensive...I would rather 
spend the cash on my station.


Like Mike said you are only cheating yourself.


Nick we hear you and understand but I think you have to present your 
evidence to the proper authorities.


To be Top Dog on Topband must be a big deal to some??


As far as I'm concerned I'm Top Dog on Topband ...well in my 
neighborhood anyway.maybe just on my street    ;)



73

Fred KB4QZH


On 2/14/2020 6:43 AM, Roger Kennedy wrote:

Personally, I don't really care what anyone else does !

I achieved DXCC on 160m many years ago . . . and stopped even counting new
countries once I had worked over 200.  (it used to be really hard, as so few
Countries were licensed for Top Band, but these days almost everyone is)

I KNOW I worked those stations . . . but never bothered collecting QSL cards
or applying for some piece of paper to put on the wall. To me it's about the
SATISFACTION of having achieved something.

In fact - as I've stated before on here - I'm really not bothered about
working somebody in a rare country . . . it's working ANY distant station on
Top Band that gives me a buzz . . . and regardless of how many times I've
worked that station before.

The same goes for Contests . . . decades ago I used to actually enter Top
Band contests . . . but it really holds no interest for me having hundreds
of quite easy contacts hour after hour . . . I now just come on to try and
pick out the DX stations in-between all the strong Europeans (again, a
unique problem on 160m, as there is no Skip) - THAT to me is an achievement.

Again, I am not bothered about the people using their Computer to have
contacts . . . it would never interest me in a million years, as I feel
there is no operator or equipment skill involved, so zero satisfaction.  But
hey, if it floats some people's boats, that's up to them.

The only thing that DOES bother me is when people stop coming on Human-based
modes on 160m because they think the only activity is on the Computer modes
!

If more people make an effort to come on the band (instead of complaining)
there WILL be more CW & SSB DX activity on Top Band !

Anyway . . . hope to work some of you in the Contest this weekend. (Had to
put my antenna back up yesterday, as it came down in the Gales we had over
here !)

73 Roger G3YRO

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

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

Re: Topband: Cheating etc

[Michael Walker]

To put it simply

You are only cheating yourself.

It is not up to me to control other adults.

Mike va3mw


On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 6:43 AM Roger Kennedy 
wrote:

>
> Personally, I don't really care what anyone else does !
>
> I achieved DXCC on 160m many years ago . . . and stopped even counting new
> countries once I had worked over 200.  (it used to be really hard, as so
> few
> Countries were licensed for Top Band, but these days almost everyone is)
>
> I KNOW I worked those stations . . . but never bothered collecting QSL
> cards
> or applying for some piece of paper to put on the wall. To me it's about
> the
> SATISFACTION of having achieved something.
>
> In fact - as I've stated before on here - I'm really not bothered about
> working somebody in a rare country . . . it's working ANY distant station
> on
> Top Band that gives me a buzz . . . and regardless of how many times I've
> worked that station before.
>
> The same goes for Contests . . . decades ago I used to actually enter Top
> Band contests . . . but it really holds no interest for me having hundreds
> of quite easy contacts hour after hour . . . I now just come on to try and
> pick out the DX stations in-between all the strong Europeans (again, a
> unique problem on 160m, as there is no Skip) - THAT to me is an
> achievement.
>
> Again, I am not bothered about the people using their Computer to have
> contacts . . . it would never interest me in a million years, as I feel
> there is no operator or equipment skill involved, so zero satisfaction.
> But
> hey, if it floats some people's boats, that's up to them.
>
> The only thing that DOES bother me is when people stop coming on
> Human-based
> modes on 160m because they think the only activity is on the Computer modes
> !
>
> If more people make an effort to come on the band (instead of complaining)
> there WILL be more CW & SSB DX activity on Top Band !
>
> Anyway . . . hope to work some of you in the Contest this weekend. (Had to
> put my antenna back up yesterday, as it came down in the Gales we had over
> here !)
>
> 73 Roger G3YRO
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Cheating etc

[Roger Kennedy]

Personally, I don't really care what anyone else does !

I achieved DXCC on 160m many years ago . . . and stopped even counting new
countries once I had worked over 200.  (it used to be really hard, as so few
Countries were licensed for Top Band, but these days almost everyone is)

I KNOW I worked those stations . . . but never bothered collecting QSL cards
or applying for some piece of paper to put on the wall. To me it's about the
SATISFACTION of having achieved something.  

In fact - as I've stated before on here - I'm really not bothered about
working somebody in a rare country . . . it's working ANY distant station on
Top Band that gives me a buzz . . . and regardless of how many times I've
worked that station before.

The same goes for Contests . . . decades ago I used to actually enter Top
Band contests . . . but it really holds no interest for me having hundreds
of quite easy contacts hour after hour . . . I now just come on to try and
pick out the DX stations in-between all the strong Europeans (again, a
unique problem on 160m, as there is no Skip) - THAT to me is an achievement.

Again, I am not bothered about the people using their Computer to have
contacts . . . it would never interest me in a million years, as I feel
there is no operator or equipment skill involved, so zero satisfaction.  But
hey, if it floats some people's boats, that's up to them.

The only thing that DOES bother me is when people stop coming on Human-based
modes on 160m because they think the only activity is on the Computer modes
!  

If more people make an effort to come on the band (instead of complaining)
there WILL be more CW & SSB DX activity on Top Band !

Anyway . . . hope to work some of you in the Contest this weekend. (Had to
put my antenna back up yesterday, as it came down in the Gales we had over
here !)

73 Roger G3YRO

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

Re: Topband: Cheating the system

[Radio KH6O]

John wrote:


Just for being nosey, I ran the ft8 software last night before bed to see
what I could see and boy, there were stations from all over the world on
topband, happily working each other.
73John - M0ELS
=

John -- were those hams happily working each other, or were their computers
happily working each other?

73, Jeff KH6O
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: cheating the system

[John Randall via Topband]

Well, I had to have a last last say did'nt I. In the latest February Edition of 
Practical Wireless magazine is an article on a diversity adapter, whereby one 
can connect your receiver to one ant port and say a websdtr or another receiver 
at your 2nd home to the other port and than adjust the convergence pot so that 
the two signals blend into one stable good signal. How would this pan out in 
the ARRL rules. I think that there must be a serious discussion among the 
various telecom regions to try and iron out a plan of action, if they even dare 
to.
Just for being nosey, I ran the ft8 software last night before bed to see what 
I could see and boy, there were stations from all over the world on topband, 
happily working each other. Twenty minutes later I went back to my flex 3000 
and heard some german and italians on the QRO section and bliss returned. 
73John - M0ELS

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

Topband: Cheating the system

[John Randall via Topband]

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

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

Re: Topband: cheating

[Cecil Acuff]

Well that was a lot of help Steve

You can crawl back under your rock now...

Cecil
K5DL

Sent using recycled electrons.

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

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

Re: Topband: cheating

[STEVE DANIEL]

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

Re: Topband: cheating

[JL PFIRMAN]

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

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

Re: Topband: cheating

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

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

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

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

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

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

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

73, Guy K2AV



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

Re: Topband: cheating

[Peter Voelpel]

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

73, Peter

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

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

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

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

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

73

Lloyd - N9LB

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone

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

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

Topband: cheating

[DXer]

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

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

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

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

73 de Vince, VA3VF





===

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

9.  Station Location and Boundary:

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

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

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

73

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

Re: Topband: cheating

[terry burge]

  
>   * 
>   
> o 
>   
>   + 
>   
> # 
>   
>   * 
>   
>   
>   o 
>   
>   
> + 
>   
>   
>   # -
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com 
> mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com ] On Behalf Of Steve Daniel
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 1:32 PM
> To: topband@contesting.com mailto:topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: cheating
> 
> John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don’t 
> believe it is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word “cheating” 
> suggests that it is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: cheating

[Lloyd - N9LB]

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

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

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

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

73

Lloyd - N9LB

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone

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

Re: Topband: cheating

[Steve Daniel]

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

Sent from my iPhone

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

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

Topband: cheating

[John Randall via Topband]

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

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