FWIW,
My 2cents. The continuing threads about DXCC rules bother me. At what
point does a rule need to be changed? Regarding remote receive I suppose
I accept a private remote with say 10km radius. Group or Club rent a RX,
No way! There is no value in anything unless you make an effort
Dear TopBanders,
I think the League's rules have not caught up with the digital age.
Four things have changed since the "analog age":
1. Noise is up
2. 160 meter DXCC (and up) is one of the last remaining HF DX challenges
3. Shared low-noise RX sites have become easy to build and for many may
Bill, Lloyd
You can overcome the audio mute on TX issue with the SDR Radio Console and
Server software from Simon Brown. The Console software syncs with my rig
(TS590S) using Omnirig so can mute the RX audio on TX so you don't hear
your transmitted signal. Some rewiring of the headphone cable
Hi Lloyd,
What you have described is pretty much what I have envisioned.
Personally I am still receiving at my home with occasional QRM from
industrial sources. DSP is easing the problems for me. The problems with
the gee-whiz approaches are centered around "latency". Tap your Morse
key and
[mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd -
N9LB
Sent: 23 November 2018 22:49
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
A shared Receive Only site can be used by many operators simultaneously.
However a shared RX-TX
: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
gotta chip in my $0.02 on this, for what little it may be worth..
i have access to some remote rural property, here in texas, and in
oklahoma..but k5rk and w7rh pointed out 'its not legal for dxcc if an Rx only
site'but
Let's just institute the rules for WAS for DXCC.
Wes N7WS
On 11/23/2018 10:44 AM, Dan Edward Dba East edwards wrote:
gotta chip in my $0.02 on this, for what little it may be worth..
i have access to some remote rural property, here in texas, and in
oklahoma..but k5rk and w7rh pointed out
An additional wrinkle concerning a remote RX site at
a distance within 100 km: I used to have such a
setup. The non obvious advantage of it is that it
allows for FULL DUPLEX operation ON THE SAME FREQUENCY.
This is like QSK on steroids.
Depending on the circumstances, this can be a huge
gotta chip in my $0.02 on this, for what little it may be worth..
i have access to some remote rural property, here in texas, and in
oklahoma..but k5rk and w7rh pointed out 'its not legal for dxcc if an Rx only
site'but RHR is ok ( ? )
the league's requirement that my transmit antenna
Hi Joe,
I would have never assumed that you have acreage whether 5 acres or
something the size of the King Ranch. All of those electrical belches
are difficult to escape. Moving your receiver out into the swamp,
forest, desert, craggy mountaintop or anywhere besides your desktop can
help.
On 2018-11-22 2:08 AM, kol...@rcn.com wrote:
And this is easy to say when you have 5 acres in a semi-rural area, hi hi.
With no antennas. I have not been seriously active on low bands in the
20 years I've been here precisely because of the increasing prevalence
of the multiple remote
Message -
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV"
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 10:28:45 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
On 2018-11-21 2:39 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote:
>
> Maintaining a club project &q
On 2018-11-21 2:39 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote:
>
> Maintaining a club project "remote" receiver is something I would
> support with some money and some work. It's a lot more worthwhile than
> yet another two meter FM repeater. I don't really care about using it
> for 160 meter DXCC but I would
Hi Joe,
I live in a small village. Even so, 500 meters isn't going to buy
anything. If we were overwhelmed by noise we would still be overwhelmed
by exactly the same noise. So this is going to be yet another thread
about whose ox is being gored. All those noises don't bother anybody's
:48 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
> I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid
> square" or "within 100 KM" and of co
I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid
square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC
Entity.
I think 500 meters is more than enough of a "circle" to contain both
transmit and receive
rvice."
-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd -
N9LB
Sent: 21 November 2018 17:37
To: 'TopBand List'
Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
I'd like to see the ARRL change part mailto:topband-boun...@cont
ean-Paul Albert'" ,
Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters
<9. Station Location and Boundary:
http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
18 matches
Mail list logo
