I was at a multi-multi this weekend, and one of the ops asked this question: I know that I can't use a remote receiver, even from a multi-multi, for example to catch weak Europeans on 160, But what a
No. It is using a receiver outside the circle. Technology is good but it sure can make things much more complicated! Mike W0MU W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net:23 or w0mu-1.dnsdynamic.com Http://www.w0mu.c
What would make this use of a *remote receiver* legal if their use is illegal? Of course, it is illegal to use a remote receiver "to check my frequency". Bob W5OV P.S. This is my personal opinion and
"Transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle or within the property limits of the station licensee, whichever is greater." Seems pretty clear to me, too.... using a
A single op unassisted wants to use a remote receiver to assist his operating, by learning what is on his frequency. I can't imagine that is OK, for several reasons. First, the operator would see cal
Yes, I think that is against the rules. If your frequency turns out to be busy, what keeps you from "accidentally" copying the call of the station there? So I am going up the band doing S&P and hear
Pete & All, These are some of the profound questions, below the obvious ones. This discussion adds a good value to interpreting the rules. outside the 500m circle. Thus not allowed in CQ WW. If you w
It seems to me that when you use the internet to find, facilitate or make contest QSOs, then what you're not is single-op unassisted. A separate issue - local skimmers don't need the internet, but th
The rules in CQ WW state as "call sign alerting assistance of any kind" and "remote receivers" are not allowed. The rules of ARRL DX state as "use of spotting assistance or automated, multi-channel d
I'm sorry, I had to go back and read this several times in case I was missing something. The I went and checked the calendar to make sure it was not April 1st. This, to me, is so self-evidently a "no
Sorry I'm late to the party. Pete, if I'm not mistaken, the contest rules require that all of the station's equipment must be within a finite area, right? If that is correct, then a remote receiver o
I'm no longer on the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee, and certainly don't speak for ARRL, but since I led the CAC's deliberations on Remote Operating and CW Skimmer, maybe I can shed some light on th
Just a quick reply to Dick's question - very early on, Alex added a filter explicitly to prevent self-spotting, based on a match between the spotted callsign and the spotter's call, as entered in the
Dick, Thanks for the explanation of what the CAC recommended contrasted with what we ended up with in the ARRL rules. I truly appreciate the efforts you put in, and know how thankless a job it is. Th
If we leave it alone, the precedent was set to allow SO the ability to check propagation numbers via WWV. Do those number really mean anything? Obviously the op can check them right up to the contest
Single operators have always been able to check WWV since before we were born. This is nothing new. There is nothing to suggest that checking the WWV numbers is "assistance". This notion of WWV being
Checking solar conditions (SFI, A/K) via WWV or other means is of little direct use. I find it mostly to be useful as a confirmation of why conditions seem bad. If conditions seem good I'm too busy t
I agree. But where do you draw the line if a boy and his radio is SO, which obviously it is not. Obviously the advent of certain aids has been allowed for Single ops and will these aids will continue
Where you draw the line is where it involves: 1) other operators 2) remote systems beyond the physical limits of the station 3) local hardware that replaces the operator in locating, decoding and ide
Well, Bob, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Not surprising: this subject is unlikely to every result in unanimous agreement. I do want to correct one impression you got from my email. I shou