Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CQ\s+160m\s+contest\-vs\-DXCC\s+rule\s+problem\s*$/: 43 ]

Total 43 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: <contesting@w2irt.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 18:10:51 -0500
Hi all, Something I read on the CQ site has been gnawing at me since the 160 CW contest last weekend. Per the rules, remote RX is allowed in certain Assisted categories for contest QSOs under contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00003.html (8,400 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 20:51:48 -0500
Contest and DXCC rules are not always in sync, and they don't have to be. I am fine with that. All part of the game. 73 Ria, N2RJ _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing li
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00006.html (9,072 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: "Yuri" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 22:56:18 -0500
And I'm not fine with that. They ought to be. Yuri VE3DZ Contest and DXCC rules are not always in sync, and they don't have to be. I am fine with that. All part of the game. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Sun, 2 Fe
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00007.html (9,157 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 21:48:21 -0800
But the most ludicrous conflict with this is that QSOs made from QTHs within the lower 48 US states can be combined for DXCC. We can work EU from Maine, AS from WA, AF from FL, and count all of them
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00008.html (8,639 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: <contesting@w2irt.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 01:04:27 -0500
I don't mind the fact that SO(A) contacts made with remote receivers in the prescribed 100 mile range are valid Qs in the contest, nor do I mind that the ARRL prohibits remote-RX QSOs from participat
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00009.html (12,444 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: Ron Notarius W3WN via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 23:20:53 -0500
Why should they be? Where is it written that they ought to be? That's like saying, for example, that ALL (US) State QSO Parties must use the Canadian Provinces, or the Canadian Call Districts; and US
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00012.html (11,672 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: "Yuri" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:02:05 -0500
" Why should they be?" - Because multipliers in the contests like CQ WW and ARRL are based on DXCC. And a lot of people participate in these contests just to collect more countries for this prestigio
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00014.html (12,842 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: David Siddall <hhamwv@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:20:41 -0500
The CQWW 160 rule is 100 km (~ 62 miles). 73, Dave K3ZJ *< > * _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/li
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00015.html (9,187 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: David Siddall <hhamwv@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:29:25 -0500
The country multipliers for the CQWW 160 contest (and DX contest) are based on DXCC *+ WAE *countries. 73, Dave K3ZJ " Why should they be?" - Because multipliers in the contests like CQ WW and < > __
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00016.html (9,223 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:36:37 -0500
Did you know that there is more than one DX awards program? Its true. CQ has its own DX awards program - CQ DX. http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/cq_awards/cq_dx_awards/cq_dx_award/cq_dx_award.html CQ
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00018.html (16,486 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Smith VE9AA" <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 10:48:25 -0400
Contests from various sponsors, (CQ, ARRL, NCJ, RAC, DARC, RDXC etc) and Awards from the ARRL/CQ are 2 different kettles of fish. You know who really cares what plaques you have on your wall? You! I
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00019.html (10,434 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: cosson-dimitri <cosson-dimitri@bbox.fr>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 15:48:32 +0100
<<<Same way as how ARRL nowadays recognizes "automated" FT8 QSO's? :-) Or when LOTW validates certicates for single man operation who are/announces operating 24/7 in FT8...  73 de Dimitri F4DSK  Envo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00020.html (14,399 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: "Yuri" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 11:08:36 -0500
« +WAE»- So? Does DARC allow remote receivers within 100 km to be used? And allows such QSO to be claimed towards achieving WAE award? What if the operator used remote receiver to make a QSO on 80 or
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00022.html (10,993 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: Ron Notarius W3WN via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 16:55:21 +0000 (UTC)
Ah, but there's the rub, Yuri. Multipliers in SOME contests are based on DXCC entities.  But not all.  Mults can be based on DXCC entity.  Or WAE entity.  Or CQ Zone.  Or ITU Zone.  Or Maidenhead Gri
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00023.html (15,998 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 14:57:42 -0500
ARRL declared this type of remote operation OK for DXCC some years ago - you can operate from W6, work Macau, minami torishima, Philippines etc then hop on a remote on the east coast and work Europe
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00026.html (12,738 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 14:58:03 -0500
The fundamental problem is the slippery downward slope of rules in contest (allowing a remote receiver is a bad idea in my opinion - completely trashes decades of engineering and best practice in the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00027.html (18,184 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:06:14 -0800
This statement is seriously flawed -- it is equivalent to saying that because it is well known that SOME contesters cheat on power that ALL contesters cheat on power. I'm a long time member of NCCC,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00028.html (9,639 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 20:43:17 +0000
On 03/02/2020 19:57, N2RJ wrote: ARRL declared this type of remote operation OK for DXCC some years ago - you can operate from W6, work Macau, minami torishima, Philippines etc then hop on a remote o
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00030.html (10,985 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:51:54 -0800
On 2/3/2020 11:58 AM, Edward Sawyer wrote: The fundamental problem is the slippery downward slope of rules in contest (allowing a remote receiver is a bad idea in my opinion - completely trashes deca
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00032.html (12,189 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem (score: 1)
Author: john@kk9a.com
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 15:05:48 -0600
I have not been a DXer in decades. I had a small station at my parents home and I would spend many hours a week tuning the bands and calling new countries on CW and Phone hoping to work them. I guess
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00034.html (9,202 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu