This year at Dayton, the new CQWW Xtreme categories were announced. These new categories (single-operator and multi-operator) have been established to allow amateurs to participate in the CQ WW Conte
I personally think this is a very bold and interesting new category, but I also think it is a mistake to allow those scores to be added to the club scores. The way Rule 10 is currently stated, a smal
Hi, Dave - This was added during the review of the rules, when a member of the CQWW Committee noted that many of the possible entrants in the new categories are members of contest clubs, and might be
Hi, Doug. Thanks for the reply, and please understand that I am not against the use of such technology, or the establishment of the Xtreme category. It just seems to me that including the Xtreme scor
I like the new categories except for the remote receiver part. Guys using remote receivers are going to effect the scores and fun of people not in the extreme categories. For instance, if I am SOSB16
Mike, That is a very interesting way of looking at this new Xtreme category. I first took part in CQWW CW 1987 to try and work some new countries for DXCC - ultimately worked all of 30 QSOs in 48 hou
Doug, I think this new unlimited-unlimited category is a great idea for several reasons, but these two come to mind. 1) Most importantly it validates the notion that experimentation and stretching t
That is right. Your signal could be received in a complete other part of the world. Say, a JA has a remote RX in Europe, what kind of contact are you doing then. I can work him with my tuned FD4. Sor
I totally share the fears of Mike, I find the Xtreme category a very good idea, EXCEPT for the REMOTE RECEIVERS OUT OF THE COUNTRY rule. 1) This rule WILL DRIVE THE CQWW STRAIGHT AHEAD TO A VIRTUAL I
He can hear you, but you can only hear him if *he* has a strong enough signal to reach you! 73s Tim EI8IC http://www.mapability.com/ei8ic/ Ham Map Heaven. Free contester and newbie resources. The hom
I support the idea of innovations and advancement of the radiosport, and amateur radio in general. The new Xtreme category triggered a different thought while I was reading the discussion. All the VH
I guess I'll have to go back and read the CQ Magazine announcement again. When it was announced at the contest forum in Dayton, I understood that remote receiver sites would be limited to the same CQ
Quoting from the official rules: 1. Entry categories: <excerpt> A single operator may submit multiple entries using different remote sites in different countries. Each entry will be scored separately
http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/XtremeCQ_WW_Experimenter_June.pdf 3. The entrant's transmitting sites must be located in a single country, as defined by the applicable licencing authority, and a sing
At first I thought this was all rather academic, since I never seriously compete in CQWW and other DX contests due to my 100W and temporary stealth wire antennas due to HOA restrictions. But I do usu
I hope so. Somehow it just doesn't seem right to me. I could set up a remote receiving site for 160 meters in Europe and be able to hear hundreds of stations I might never hear in the USA. People in
Gents, I am not against any technical progress, any new operating techniques, but I can not feel real Amateur Spirit in announcing category, sorry... Some are right - major contests for many people i
I'm with Zack on this. If it doesn't seem right, you can bet it's not right. As for DXCC validity, let's take an example. EI0DX, just down the road, lets Zack control his receiver. That way, Zack "wo
What you do not anticipate Tim is that soon, everybody will have access to a free remote RX close to his QTH and nobody will be longer able to know what kind of contact he is making. Gilles VE2TZT _
JT1XYZZ runs 1 militate in Ulan Bator on 1840 KHz which is heard by his "remote receiver" and is accessible to the public on the Internet. JT1XYZZ can also be heard real time on the Internet on his w