Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Contesting\s+using\s+remote\s+stations\s*$/: 47 ]

Total 47 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:58:11 -0400
So you would have no problem if I operated a station on Sable or St. Paul without ever being licensed in Canada (put aside US/Canadian reciprocity for this discussion)? How about PJ4, PJ2, FJ, etc. w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00421.html (11,320 bytes)

22. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Yuri VE3DZ" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:05:14 -0400
Joe, is there any station available on Sable or St. Paul that you are aware of? If so, I am licensed in Canada and would have no problem even to go there in person to operate, if station is available
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00422.html (9,813 bytes)

23. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: <k8gt@mi.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:23:06 -0400
Joe, I don't know where you ever got such an idea. Of course you would have to be licensed in the country where the TX is. It is, after all just remote control, not magic, nor ultra national. If I wa
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00423.html (12,431 bytes)

24. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:57:40 -0700
If you think "the ability to build antennas that would not be available in normal residential areas" is an unfair advantage, then W0AIH, K3LR, KC1XX, etc. are all "unfair". What is a "normal resident
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00424.html (14,050 bytes)

25. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Steve Harrisonusa" <k0xp@dandy.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:53:33 -0400 (EDT)
As a matter of fact, there used to be V/UHF propagation beacons on one or the other, I forget which one. They were maintained by a priest whom I believe retired some years ago and the beacons were t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00427.html (9,159 bytes)

26. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: Jimk8mr@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:13:37 EDT
Equipment without an operator is not a "station." Similarly, an operator without equipment is not a "station" When the rules say that all parts of the station must be within a 500 meter circle, that
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00428.html (10,321 bytes)

27. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: Jimk8mr@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:22:01 EDT
The potential of using multiple remote locations is a valid concern and one that contest sponsors need to make sure is prohibited and communicated to the contest community through rules clarification
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00429.html (9,518 bytes)

28. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:31:18 -0700
"Using multiple remote stations for the same contest operation" I guess would be a more specific summary of my point. If a contest permits you to operate from station A for 24 hours and then station
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00430.html (10,492 bytes)

29. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:51:12 -0500
Do you operate the same call from multiple stations during a contest or do you use varying callsigns at these different locations? 73 -- Paul VO1HE _______________________________________________ CQ
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00432.html (10,369 bytes)

30. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: Richard Detweiler <rdetweil@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:57:12 -0500
The contests are run by the people offering and judging the contest. It is their contest and their rules. The can set it up how ever they want. We play by their rules. If we can't then we don't compe
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00435.html (9,283 bytes)

31. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:57:45 -0400
Denis has a point about the latency issue. Of those concerned about the issue, let me ask... how many have actually operated a remote station? KQ3DX set up one of his rigs (I believe his Omni VI) via
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00436.html (16,111 bytes)

32. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 05:32:03 -0700
In the telephony world, there are various ITU standards regarding latency on voice calls. The most commonly cited sets a goal of 150 ms or less for "satisfactory" delay, under 400 ms for "tolerating"
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00437.html (18,747 bytes)

33. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Gerry Hull" <gerry@w1ve.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:43:01 -0400
These are very interesting discussions! On the (technical) possibility of Sable and St. Paul remoting: (I've operated from both) St Paul: No (useful) infrastructure at all. If one was to build a remo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00441.html (11,780 bytes)

34. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:13:43 -0400
Gerry, Allow me to use your post to explain my reasons for arguing that the operator must be within the 500 meter circle ... It would probably be to my financial advantage to be one of the biggest su
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00444.html (15,684 bytes)

35. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Gerry Hull" <gerry@w1ve.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:47:02 -0400
Hi Joe, I appreciate your very thoughtful response. I can see where your worry comes from. I just think it is misplaced. In the ham radio world, I guess I'm a relatively young pup -- I've been a ham
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00445.html (19,513 bytes)

36. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:52:20 -0400
I certainly respectfully disagree! I've said it before, and I'll say it again. All rules are meant to be interpreted, because there is no such thing as a completely unambiguous rule. While we can arm
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00446.html (14,254 bytes)

37. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Colleen Brakob" <cbrakob@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:44:55 -0600
You and Diana Moon Glompers, the Handicapper General, might feel that way but I don't. The rule snippet talks only about >antennas< connected by wires to >the transmitters and receivers< . It doesn'
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00447.html (10,121 bytes)

38. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:48:09 -0400
Gerry, I don't disagree with anything you have said. I would even agree that remote technology is "forward progress" but I do not believe that it is "amateur radio" or that it belongs in either conte
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00448.html (17,897 bytes)

39. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:08:10 -0500
Hi Mike, You're reading a whole lot into this based on your own perceptions. I choose to read only what is there. If that's not good enough for the sponsor, they can clarify. The "address" bit was in
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00449.html (16,215 bytes)

40. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:16:52 -0400
Don't know why your thinking that I am advocating handicapping good Ops, Hans. Did you read the rest of my post? That part of the rule is pretty funny anyhow. Just what do they EXPECT the transmitter
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00450.html (10,695 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu