CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Blind Mode for N1MM Bandmap

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Blind Mode for N1MM Bandmap
From: RT Clay <rt_clay@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

--- On Thu, 10/21/10, BobK8IA@aol.com <BobK8IA@aol.com> wrote:

> From: BobK8IA@aol.com <BobK8IA@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Blind Mode for N1MM Bandmap
> To: xdavid@cis-broadband.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
> Date: Thursday, October 21, 2010, 6:49 AM
> Dave, 
>  
> >From a "assisted vs unassisted query", why would this
> be any different than 
>  getting info of a stations presence from a bandscope,
> panadapter etc?   
> You're substituting a blip on a bansdscope vs an asterisk
> on a bandmap.
>  
> Granted, with some radios it is easier to change to the
> proper freq via a  
> bandmap, but not all.
>  
> Seems perfectly legal for unassisted operation to me.
>  
>

Does not seem legal to me with current rules if you take the frequencies from a 
remote source (telnet). Blips on a bandscope are fundamentally different from 
frequencies taken from telnet: For example, with what you suggest, you could 
take DX spots from a skimmer in Europe during a 160m contest. That way you 
would know where the EU DX stations  are on the band even before the band 
opened to you in North America. In such a contest that would be a huge 
advantage even if it didn't include callsign information. 

On the other, just marking signals on the bandmap from your local receiver 
(with no cw decoding) is fine, I currently do that.

Tor
N4OGW

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>