The skimmer spots aren't of much use if you can't hear the stations. In
any case, I think remote receivers should be limited to assisted
categories, in spite of the fact that I'm usually unassisted. I might go
assisted, if I could hear better.
One problem, as Mark points out, is that remote receiving results in
more advantages than just noise reduction. Of course, the truly
competitive operators are already driven to large plots of land on
hilltops, so I'm not sure remote receiving is that big a deal in that
respect. If the goal is to encourage more contest participation by urban
dwelling hams, which is most of us, I think helping them hear better
could help.
Here's one example: I only put 11 hours into the CQ 160 CW contest,
largely because things just got too slow to be interesting. After the
contest, I got an email from my friends at OH5Z telling me that they
heard me well, and called many times. I never heard them, though I
worked a bunch of other Europeans. I'll never know how many others were
calling. If I'd heard more of them, I'd have put in more time. Some of
the stateside big guns might even have gotten another contact. Some of
those Europeans might have put in more time, too.
73,
Scott K9MA
On 2/4/2020 13:39, Edward Sawyer wrote:
I think that the rule has some merit for the people who need it. As long as it
stays out of the unassisted categories, its fine with me. Others who compete
assisted may have a different opinion.
I don't think its any more advantage than filling up the band map with world wide skimmer
nodes. All the meat with none of the "hiss".
Ed N1UR
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces+edwards=sbelectronics.com@contesting.com] On Behalf
Of Mark Bailey
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 1:43 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem
Hi Scott:
I do SO2R in the CQ 160 test, unassisted. This is completely legsl in this
conyrst for a single operator.
I am not in favor of allowing remote receivers in single operator categories.
It is a huge advantage - enabling both SO2R easily and improved diversity
reception.
If allowed, anyone who wants to be competitive would be driven to implement
this.
73,
Mark, KD4D
73,
Matk
On February 3, 2020 11:30:49 PM EST, K9MA <k9ma@sdellington.us> wrote:
I would like to see other contests adopt that rule, just for the sake
of
mitigating urban noise. 100 km may be a bit far, though.
I suppose one reason to classify it as assisted is that in SO2V
operation, with a remote receiver one can tune around not just between
CQ's, but DURING them, a considerable advantage. If there were a way to
prohibit that, I'd favor allowing such remote receivers in the
unassisted category, but there's probably no way to enforce that.
73,
Scott K9MA
On 2/3/2020 20:55, David Siddall wrote:
Use of a remote receiver by a contestant in the CQWW 160 contest is
very
restricted. It must be within 62.2 miles (100 km) of the transmitter,
and
the contestant is limited to entering the single-operator-assisted
category
(or submitting a checklog, which cover operations outside the rules
as
well). Single operator and multi-operator categories do not permit
use of
a remote receiver. And since operators in all categories are
prohibited
from CQing (running) on two discrete frequencies within the same time
period, that SO2R technique is prohibited. Tuning around between CQs
--
which I consider SO2V -- is permitted. One could view it as
equivalent to
"assistance" and appropriately categorized.
The reason for accommodating remote receivers in the SOA category is
explicit in the rules: *“The rule is designed to accommodate new
technology, and for those who experience high noise levels at the
transmitting site.” *
Questions, comments, and suggestions would be appropriately addressed
to:
director@cq160.com.
73, Dave K3ZJ
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 5:54 PM <john@kk9a.com> wrote:
< >
SO2R on 160m is normally pretty tough to do. Imagine how
wonderful it would be to tune for new stations and/or multipliers
while you're running on the same band and have no interference from
your transmissions.
John KK9A
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
--
Scott K9MA
k9ma@sdellington.us
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
--
Scott K9MA
k9ma@sdellington.us
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|