Paul:
I can't resist.
I just checked my 2006 Nov. SS CW log, and you were in it! Did you
realize that you worked a remote station for a WTX multiplier? And
don't worry I worked another NL station for my sweep.
:-\
Rich - N5ZC
Paul J. Piercey wrote:
> I thought I was out....... but they pull me back in!!
>
>
> My thoughts on the subject are this.
>
> 1. I like technology. I use it every day. I'm using it now to talk to
> you.
>
> 2. The "radio apparatus" must be defined as per contests and general
> awards rules. For example, considering the 500m rule, does the thing you
> talk into or manipulate in your home in order to remotely control a distant
> station count as part of the station equipment? I think it should as the
> remote station is pretty well useless with out it unless.... see #3.
>
> 3. The operator MUST (and I can't stress this enough) MUST be included
> in the definition of "station" or it all becomes moot. Otherwise is to
> concede that amateur radio equipment can be operated in a totally self
> reliant manner to the exclusion of the human operator. That is not to say
> that an operator has to be in the exact location of the transmitting
> equipment (see #4) but must be physically in control at all times. In other
> words... no robots. I think the contest sponsors dropped the ball big time
> on this one by not including the operator in the definition of "station".
> Must have been a good lobby group who pushed for that.
>
> 4. There must be a definition of "relativity" when it comes to the
> distance one can use remote stations. I don't want to hamstring the guys who
> have restrictions place on them for the setting up of in-home stations but
> there's a difference between the guy who has neighbours who dictate how he
> utilizes his own property and the guy who just wants to do it out of
> boredom. Setting up a station a few miles down the road, at least in the
> same "multiplier" area of the address on your licence, is fine. Setting up a
> station in Ulaan Baatar and operating it from sunny SoCal is not.
>
> I would like to see these contest sponsors define these things in a way that
> can leave no doubt as to what is meant. Perhaps I wish for too much.
>
> That's it.
>
>
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Eric Hilding
>> Sent: March 27, 2007 02:28
>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Cc: nccc@contesting.com; w4tv@subich.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING
>>
>> Joe, W4TV, posted a very interesting quite salient "little
>> legal" question:
>>
>>
>>> When one starts to split the transceiver (one part at the
>>>
>> remote site
>>
>>> another part at the control point) as is being proposed with the
>>> TS-480 control heads how does that impact the rules that all
>>> transmitters, receivers and antennas must be located within the 500
>>> foot circle?
>>>
>> Some remote control software options I've evaluated reside on
>> the HOST (remote station QTH), and some on the CLIENT
>> (operator point QTH) end.
>>
>> I would say the Control Head is similar to a piece of remote
>> control software (except that it has buttons and knobs on it
>> :-) The main (rig body) transmitter/receiver unit itself
>> would be still within the overall "remote" station boundaries
>> which I think is a 500 meter vs. 500 foot circle, and can
>> actually be operated remotely *without* the Control Head in
>> the food chain at all (and is not essential to
>> "transmitting/receiving" if one chooses to use software
>> control). In fact, the return audio from the remote site
>> will come via the computer and NOT the Control Head if the
>> latter is used on the CLIENT end.
>>
>> However, "in an abundance of caution" I personally want to
>> get a firm, iron-clad answer to this from the Contest Sponsors.
>>
>> Tnx for posting, Joe.
>>
>> 73...
>>
>> Rick, K6VVA
>>
>> P.S. I can hardly wait to hear what Paul, VO1HE, will have
>> to say about this (as you know, Paul, I have discovered via
>> our recent emails, that you do have a sense of "humour" :-)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|