> >It's an interesting thought but color me a skeptic. I simply
> >don't know that two or three receivers per continent would give
> >enough coverage to be useful. ...
> >In addition to the propagation differences, at 80 KHz per
> >receiver is would take at least three receivers per band to
> >do the job on phone.
> This assumes that the objective is to record every single QSO
> that takes place, which would be a little like having constant
> speed monitoring of every vehicle on every mile of the interstate.
> Maybe 90 percent of the desired impact would be achieved if the
> cheaters knew the capability existed, and was being used, but
> did not know where the monitors were located for any given
> contest. Again, the state police and their radars isn't a bad
I'm afraid it will be like "red light cameras" that are beginning
to be popular in this area. They are obvious enough and there is
enough discussion of their locations that the possibility is
routinely ignored in less heavily traveled intersections. For
maximum benefit the receivers are going to be located in areas of
maximum activity - someone on the edge of Europe or the US "Black
Hole" can probably ignore the possibility of broadband receivers.
Someone intent on using a second operator/remote station for
multipliers could potentially use the "sparse" receiver network
to locate the second station in a "hole" (e.g., North/South Carolina
in the US or in an Eastern Europe "skip zone" area).
> By the way, I strongly endorse the wishlist just posted by
> KR2Q. The very best way to cut down on cheating is to tell
> the sponsors what you know, and let them follow up.
Agreed. If those who know would tell, there would be no need to
debate open logs, monitoring receivers or self-recording.
Perhaps entry statements need something like the military academy
"honor codes" that every entrant must sign. Then knowing about
but ailing to report cheating would also be a disqualifying offense.
CQ-Contest mailing list