It seems to me that we are talking about two very similar issues. Packet
involves the use of stations in other locations letting us know about
stations that we might want to work. Having remote receiving station gives
us access to that same information. Packet has the advantage of locating the
station for us; remote receiving stations have the advantage of locating and
hearing these stations (that we otherwise might not be able to hear) for
ourselves.
We are on a very slippery slope in saying that it is OK if the receiving
antenna or station is in our own section or state or country. I can't find a
way to interpret the rules to provide for this. Frankly, how are we going
to catch someone doing any of these anyway...and even if we do, do we have
the will to do something about it?
I am tempted to say that it is unfair to use remote stations because it
gives an unfair advantage but then I think of all the other unfair
advantages that we have built into our contests. Although I have absolutely
no evidence of this, I bet there are a few...some...one station already
using or certainly experimenting with using remote receiving stations. I'm
told that the latency time keeps us from operating effectively at distant
locations. I suppose that it depends on what kind of networking system you
have.
Fortunately I sleep well at night, regardless.
Bill, W5VX
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
>bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tree
>Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 12:34 PM
>To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] Packet debate
>
>
>Glad to see we finally have some traction on finally resolving the long
>running assisted versus un-assisted debate.
>
>Okay - tongue back out of my cheek.
>
>I have a very concrete example of the difference using packet can make.
>
>In the SS CW contest - I ended up missing the top ten by a score difference
>that would have mostly been made up if I had worked a clean sweep. I
>missed
>VO1.
>
>As it turns out, I was on the right band to work one, but was CQing most
>of the time and wasn't able to tune on the same band while transmitting.
>
>Note that there is a rule against using a remote receiver that is
>physically
>removed from my QTH by more than 500 meters:
>
>3.7. All transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500-meter
>diameter circle, excluding antennas.
>
>Most people would think it unfair if I was using a receiver in a far away
>place in order to hear stations better than I can at my transmit location.
>
>I am sure if I had a computer looking at packet during the contest, I would
>have seen this:
>
>W6IYS 21021.6 VO1HE NL freq correction 1658 05 Nov
>2006
>KB4GYT 21041.0 VO1TA 1715 05 Nov
>2006
>N9LJX 21042.2 VO1TA 1730 05 Nov
>2006
>KT0R 21011.9 VO1HP NL FOR THE SWEEP ! 1745 05 Nov
>2006
>W6EU 21012.0 VO1HP NL 1757 05 Nov
>2006
>K1KO 21012.0 VO1HP -- my 1st sweep!!! 1810 05 Nov
>2006
>K6VVA 21012.0 VO1HP NL 59 Mins but a Clean Sweep! 1819 05 Nov
>2006
>AA9DY 21012.0 VO1HP 1828 05 Nov
>2006
>VO1MP 21011.8 VO1HP 1844 05 Nov
>2006
>K6EU 21012.0 VO1HP 1904 05 Nov
>2006
>W6OAT 21012.0 VO1HP NL 1907 05 Nov
>2006
>WY3X 21012.0 VO1HP NL 1929 05 Nov
>2006
>N3AD 21011.9 VO1HP SWEEP NW I CAN GO HOME 1933 05 Nov
>2006
>K4EC 21011.9 VO1HP 1941 05 Nov
>2006
>
>It would have been simple to keep an ear on 21012 and worked VO1HP sometime
>during the morning.
>
>I think this is a case that shows that having assistance would have clearly
>had an impact to my score. Also - as other "fresh meat" is located on
>Sunday, I could improve my second radio tuning technique.
>
>True - this isn't a DX contest and the packet pileup issue isn't as big of
>a problem - but it seems we are talking about general concepts here that
>are
>not specific to DX contests.
>
>As a final point - if it is illegal for me to use a remote receiver - why
>would it be okay for me to get information from remote receivers that have
>people in front of them?
>
>I think this all gets down to trying to perserve the contest in ways that
>we personally have come to value them. We will always have this difference
>of opinion about what makes sense - but I think it is fair to say there are
>a LOT of people who want to see the two categories remain apart.
>
>Now - back to trying to get the mental picture of N6TJ shuddering out of my
>head. :-)
>
>Tree N6TR
>tree@kkn.net
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|