Hi Mal:
In your email you state "That gives him an unfair, very unfair,
advantage over everyone else."
I'm glad you mentioned this and I'm not picking on you. But this seems
to be the common thread I have heard as I explain my remote setup to
others.
Having a station installed in a favorable location is nothing new and
shouldn't be tied to a remote station as an unfair advantage. For
example look at the large stations around the country that have a great
advantage over others due to location and station hardware. Is it
unfair for KC1XX to live in the north east with several towers and
multiple antennas for each band just a hop or two from Europe. Nope,
sure isn't. For the CQWW and ARRL dx contests I travel to K5NA's place
to operate in Richard and Susans multi-ops. I'm always amazed at their
antenna system and available equipment. My station could never go head
to head with Richards, wether I operated my station via remote or in
person. I could go on with several stations around the country that
have set up great stations that 'most' others can not compete against.
Its a matter of resources and how we apply them. I decided to live in a
neighborhood that does not allow antennas. I solved that problem but
installing a remote station so I can operate with a decent antenna
system. In my case a C3 tribander at 75' and some wires for the low
bands. Those were the resources available to me and I put them to use.
As long as the remote station itself operates within the rules of the
specific contest there shouldn't be a problem. And your right, the NAQP
does not specifically address remote hf stations. But it looks like
Bruce will be adding some lines to the rules to address this.
The major contest rules address remotes (ARRL General rules
specifically) which already do a nice job of addressing remote stations.
They just need to be adopted by other contests.
I'm looking forward to being competitive as a remote contest station
this fall. I've been working very hard over the years getting
everything interfaced properly. I have a few more issues to resolve but
hope to do so before October. The single biggest advancement for my
remote setup is the availability of high speed internet. It solved my
audio problem. I'm also to a point where a computer at the remote
location is not even needed thanks to serial/ip servers.
73,
Rich - N5ZC
----- Original Message -----
From: "N7MAL" <N7MAL@CITLINK.NET>
To: "Bob Naumann - W5OV" <W5OV@W5OV.com>; "'W2RU - Bud Hippisley'"
<W2RU@frontiernet.net>; "'Richard Thorne'" <rmthorne@cox.net>;
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Remote Base
For many years now I have been amazed at the way a subject, any subject,
can get so twisted that it loses its original meaning.
Bob I'm not picking on you but you said:""I felt that the comments were
made in a more general sense than just towards
the NAQP. For example, his reference to W6RJ running "outrageous
power". ""
In my original posting I was referring specifically to NAQP and
mentioned nothing else. My subsequent reply was to WA7BNM referencing
his remarks regarding updating the NAQP rules. I don't know how my
remarks could have been considered general. As for my comments about
Bob, W6RJ, I used W6RJ as an example of remotes that can be and are
being used today. I have nothing but respect for Bob and everything Bob
has accomplished. He has been for many, many, years a proven DX'er and
contester. I believe he has earned everyone's respect. That being said
today, in time, he is using a remote base located at one of the highest
points in the State of California. In addition he is running at least a
KW. That gives him an unfair, very unfair, advantage over everyone else.
It his right to use his remote base and is legal in every respect. He
can, and does, compete with the east coast hams on 80/75m openings to
Europe not to mention crushing those of us out here in the west on any
opening. If he lived up on the mountain it would be different, but he
doesn't. Saturday a friend of my was giving out points during NAQP from
his house, on the east coast, via a remote TS2000 on a hilltop in
Southern CA. I want guys w/remote stations to be able to contest, I want
technology to move forward. But, at the same time, I think remotes need
to be defined and some way segregated from the overwhelming majority who
don't have remote capability.
WA7BNM has said they are aware of the remotes and will be working on
rules changes. I have every confidence Bruce will get it right and am
willing to wait for the new/modified rules.
Best 73
MAL N7MAL
BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
http://geocities.com/n7mal/
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Naumann - W5OV
To: 'W2RU - Bud Hippisley' ; n7mal@CITLINK.NET ; 'Richard Thorne'
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 1:13
Subject: RE: Remote Base
Bud,
I felt that the comments were made in a more general sense than just
towards
the NAQP. For example, his reference to W6RJ running "outrageous
power".
I also think that the rules I quoted convey a basic understanding that
I
think most would presume would apply in all contests. Specifically,
for
something as fundamental as a station definition and limits. If we
don't
all agree on something that basic, something is seriously wrong.
The NAQP, you have to remember, and I know you do, was originally the
CD
Party sponsored by ARRL. I suspect that not including such rules were
an
oversight when the NAQP was established independently, rather than
intentionally opening the door to allowing for remote receiver sites
in
multiple time zones in the NAQP for example. I do think it would do
the
NAQP good to adopt the ARRL general rules as applying to the NAQP as
well in
order to help avoid this sort of "it's not specifically mentioned in
the
rules" stuff.
I also don't see any harm in the use of remote stations, as long as
they
abide by the rules (CQ and/or ARRL).
73,
Bob W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: W2RU - Bud Hippisley [mailto:W2RU@frontiernet.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 7:30 PM
To: 'Bob Naumann - W5OV'; n7mal@CITLINK.NET; 'Richard Thorne'
Subject: RE: Remote Base
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob
> Naumann - W5OV
> What Bruce says is correct. On what basis are you challenging his
> statement?
>
> Contest rules do not allow for remote receiver sites.
Not to be obtuse, Bob, but the contest rules you quoted are for ARRL
and CQ
contests. I find nothing in the four web pages of NAQP rules that
tackles
the topic or ties NAQP rules in any way to ARRL's rules. I think
Mal's
point is well-taken for NAQP, which is what the original question
pertained
to.
Bud, W2RU
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|