On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:30 -0700, Tom Osborne wrote:
> One thing I have never understood yet, If I have a receiver in G land on 75,
> and that receiver is hearing I stations 10 over 9, I still have to be able
> to transmit and be able to reach G (which ain't gonna happen with my setup)
> on 75 meters.
>Yep, and this is why I think there's no need to restrict use of remote
>receivers.
I disagree. Haven't you ever tried to pull out weak ones that you knew were in
there, but couldnt? There are often many people calling you that you never
hear.
Real example:
At N6RO's a number of years ago, K3EST and I were manning 20mSSB. We had a
clear frequency, and we heard nothing but hiss between our CQ's. K1DG called
in and wondered why we weren't answering the huge pileup of EU stations?
What EU stations we asked?...
Frankly, I thought DG was pulling our leg, so I called him on the phone, and
sure enough there was a HUGE pile of EU's that were calling N6RO, and we didnt
even have a hint that anyone was calling us.
We would have done a whole lot better if we had a remote RX on the East coast.
I do beleive that complete remote operation, where the TX and RX are in the
same 500m circle is perfectly reasonable. There is no gained operating
advantage compared to other stations in the area of the remote station, and it
incorporates today's technology and operating need for many urban hams.
Remote RX's can give someone a big advantage. Don't only think about trying to
hear more stations calling you on your TX freq. Just think about how hard it
is to find a good QSX freq on 40m SSB in EU (or any quiet freq in your target
area). Wouldn't it be great to have a remote RX in EU to find a good QSX freq
on the low end of 40 SSB? The productivity increase of finding a good running
freq in your target area is a big advantage many people don't often consider.
73, Kenny K2KW
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|