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
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
; 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
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
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 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
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
) 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
.
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
...@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
.
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
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
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)
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
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
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
55 matches
Mail list logo
