The difference is simple! You call CQ on-air and you get spotted by the RBN - no exceptions (assuming you are heard by at least one RBN receiver). In this context, calling CQ and self-spotting are on
There are a couple of simple, unambiguous tests (with Yes or No answers) which, together, determine the difference between Single-Op and everything else, and are independent of present and future tec
it should be a question of what the "Single Operator Assisted" ENTRY CLASS means or implies. I think it means A single operator who uses other communications modes and/or communications technologies
In the ARRL Contest Update for 5th January, Ward N0AX presented "From Parallel to Series and Back Again" In the early 1960s, Eddystone Radio (England) offered a panadaptor for their amateur radio rec
Agreed - all relevant technology assists. Computer loggers assist, SCP assists .... I suggest 1) Single Operator SO 2) Single Operator Hybrid SOH (uses other comms technologies or multi-channel decod
It's simple. Without the internet, you could not have a single "QSO". You are 100% dependent on the internet, a commercial wired communications technology - how could it be anything other than a kind
Microphone/key and phones are necessary parts of station equipment, and they all belong within the 500-metre circle. There are other things that are perfectly legal, and yet have no place in amateur
It has no place in amateur radio contesting because !. It makes a mockery of the 500-metre rule for equipment and antennas. 2. It tends to involve the replacement, by the internet, of amateur-band RF
This is the "I'm special" argument all over again. I'm poor, I'm old, I'm sick, I can't learn morse, my QTH is too small, therefore I deserve to be treated differently from other contesters. We could
Then, let's try a reality check. There is a huge difference In either scenario, there can be no QSO without the internet. Amateur radio is independent of the internet. Otherwise, we would call it som
Hans has taken the liberty of publicly quoting and commenting on what I said to him in a personal email. Regardless, here is my rationale. In any competitive sporting event there are starting and end
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 contes
This attitude is typical of those, whether individuals or organisations, who believe that they, alone, are the custodians of truth and the paragons of reason. They simply cannot imagine that anyone c
<snip> I have - several times. And without reply, other than in terms of "this is ridiculously over the top and wishful thinking". http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2011-February/09366
It seems to me that trying to prevent cheating in contests is a reasonable thing for contest organisers to do. It looks like they are simply making it harder for cheaters to get away with cheating. W
That would work. It's a good idea, and can be refined in the light of experience. Another option for major events, combined with the requirement for logging exact frequencies, might be to require ser
That's one opinion - others differ. If no one ever cheated, there would be no need to submit logs - results would be based solely on claimed scores. The trouble with written logs is that discrepancie
Thank goodness for the internet - it's just what we all needed for putting the fun back into radio and the wires back into wireless. 73, Paul EI5DI _______________________________________________ CQ-
Amateur radio contesting, by its nature, uses amateur radio as the communications medium. The use of other communications technologies for the purpose of increasing scores may be "fun" to some, but i
That's my point - when you do something to change the nature of an activity, it becomes a different activity with a different name. Why then do so many use the internet while contesting, a fundamenta