[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC updated FAQ - Remote operation

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC updated FAQ - Remote operation
From: Mike Fatchett W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:35:18 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
You would feel cheated if he told you he was remote but you would be 
fine if he did not?  Ultimately you just said there is no difference.

Why do you care where the operator is located?  You get credit for where 
the station is located.

The internet is a bunch of long wires unless you are on a sat connection 
and then is is done oddly enough with RF.........So it is ok to have a 
500m mic cord but not one that 7000 miles?

Nobody is forcing you to operate remote, create a remote station or even 
talk to remote stations.  Just like SO2R I don't think Remote c 
ontesting and operating is going to be doing anything other than growing 
in a big way.

On 2/28/2011 11:52 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> On 28/02/2011 15:36, Paul Mackanos - K2DB wrote:
>> Answers to Paul EI5DI's comments:
>> 1) No it doesn't, if the remote station is set up and all antennas, etc. are
>> within the 500-meter rule, then it  is OK.
> In my experience, it's normal to use a mike, or key,
> or keyboard, or computer when transmitting, and phones
> or a speaker when receiving.  If others think these
> are non-essential components of a contest station,
> I'd like to know why.  If you claim to be an amateur
> radio contester, then these components must be part
> of the station. If they are located remotely from the
> remainder of the station, then it's likely you're
> breaking the 500m rule.  If, nevertheless, contest
> organisers are happy to accept remote control entries,
> I'd suggest there is no point in having a 500m rule
> in the first place.
> ) No it doesn't, all RF is "ON THE AIR" using real RF and radio spectrum
>> between the two communicating stations.
> Stations do not communicate with one another.
> Contesters communicate with one another - using
> stations.  When contesters choose to use something
> other than amateur-band RF, or are dependent
> on another communications technology to make
> contact, chances are what they're doing is
> something not quite the same as an amateur-radio
> QSO.
>> 3) It is nice to see your definition of amateur radio,
> I didn't give a definition of amateur radio in the
> sense that you have.  I'm happy to accept yours,
> which clearly states that hams use radio equipment
> to communicate with other hams.  In my limted
> experience, I have found amateur radio to be
> independent of all other communications modes and
> communications technologies.  When, by choice, you
> build in a dependence on these other modes and
> technologies, it's no longer amateur radio in the
> sense that might reasonably be expected.  It's
> partly amateur radio and partly something else.
> I can't help thinking that if CBers were to use
> the internet to communicate, we would laugh at
> them.  There must be something special about
> radio amateurs that lets them use other
> technologies to communicate, and still claim
> it's amateur radio.
>>    Amateur radio, often called ham radio, is both a hobby and a service in
>> which participants, called "hams," use various types of radio communications
>> equipment to communicate with other radio amateurs
> Would this definition include hams communicating,
> using wireless, via CQ100?  If not, why not?  What
> is the difference?  At what stage does amateur
> radio become something else, because CQ100 is
> undoubtedly something else.  What about something
> in-between, such as EchoLink or remote control.
> Are there degrees of amateur radio, or is it all
> or nothing.
> It would be good to get some constructive replies.
>> Paul K2DB (99.9%) remote operation. If you work K2DB, you most likely worked
>> a "remote" station, and you never even knew it.
> I have no way of knowing I'm working a remote operator
> unless I'm told.
>> and you don't believe it is a valid QSO,
> I didn't say that - it's a perfectly valid QSO for me.
> However, I would feel cheated were you to tell me.
>> as I am antenna restricted here,
>> severely restricted.
> We have that much in common.  However, when I want to
> be competitive while contesting, I go to where I can
> be competitive. When I want to experience a DXpedition,
> I go on a DXpedition.
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>