The more I think about this, I have come to realize the FULL impact of what
is being proposed.
Now, consider this: We keep talking about remote RX, and the attendant
problems of getting full SDR data back to the main station where the
operator is located. Lets flip this around. Lets move the operator to the
receive site, and move the transmitter 100 miles away. That way, we only
need low bandwidth - keying data, TX audio, and perhaps TX antenna
switching. Does THIS change things at all?
In other words - use the full receiving capabilities of your current
station, and take away transmitter hash. Poof! No longer an issue,
because the TX is now 100 miles away...
This is a serious game changer in my books, and needs a serious rethink
before we say "hmmm - OK - old guys need this - no problem - sounds fine..."
Tom - VE3CX
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Milt -- N5IA <n5ia@zia-connection.com>
wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Thank you for a very well thought out and expressed opinion that mirrors
> my thinking on the subject.
>
> As tom has expressed re his station, I also have constructed the NI5T/N5BG
> station for full duplex operation on 160 M. We are able to use the mult
> stations within approximately 15 kHz of the run station with full legal
> power in most RX azimuth selections. With LP the spread drops to about +-
> 7 kHz. At QRP it is down to just a bit more than a kHz; similar to a BIG
> GUN station within a couple of hundred miles.
>
> I have run full duplex many years when operating QRP in the SPDC.
>
> So, the concept is not new; it is just now readily available with a
> different set of tools.
>
> I am in agreement that remote listening sites for 160 M contests, ala
> SPDC, is the correct direction to go. It will enhance the capability of
> many stations who will put out the effort to do so. Result; more activity
> and more stations to work. And that is what it is all about.
>
> I suggest a 100 km radius as the limit for deployment of a RX site which
> would be legal in the 160 M contests. Grid Squares are rectangular, vary
> in size according to latitude, and limits the capability if your TX
> location is near the edge of a GS. The 200 km diameter circle drawn around
> the TX location IMHO would be a very good selection.
>
> Mis dos centavos.
>
> Milt, N5IA, and sometimes operator of fully remoted N7GP
> ====================================================
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Tom W8JI
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:52 AM
> To: TopBand List
> Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
>
> Organized RR sites are not an issue.
>
> Remote Radio does not allow new DX members, although a few are
> grandfathered
> in before that policy started. Those few who are members are watched, and
> any operating without signing W? / DXcall, or using a receiver in a contest
> (which costs $.49 per minute), are banned from future use of RR.
>
> You have to be in the 48, or you have to use portable, or you are banned.
>
> This is absolutely no different than anything that ever went on since the
> ARRL and others began allowing DX contacts to count no matter where you
> operate or where you move in the USA. Many people have operated here as a
> guest, for example, and worked new countries or worked contests under their
> calls, and counted the countries. The ONLY difference between them logging
> in via link and operating, or driving here and operating, is the physical
> transportation time.
>
> If we don't like that as a collective group, the thing that needs changed
> is
> taking DXCC and other credits with us when we move or when we operate at
> another site.
>
> As for duplex, I can pretty much duplex here on 160 in most directions and
> in any direction at any signal spacing on higher bands. For example, I can
> receive noise floor Europeans on 40 meters just 10 kHz below or 5 kHz above
> the SSB transmitter with virtually no interference. Allowing remote
> receivers within a small distance would not affect large stations at all.
> It
> would only let some limited resource stations have more fun. In my view,
> complaining about letting someone work around local noise with a remote
> local receiver is nothing but sour grapes.
>
> DXCC and other things (like ANY contest) will never be fair or level
> between
> stations. It always has been that way, it always will be that way. No
> matter
> what the rules, a few with a "disadvantage" will not like the way it is,
> and
> a few with an advantage will not want a change.
>
> One example is keeping DXCC when someone moves from one coast to another. I
> remember when W2EQS/W9NFC had to start his 160 DXCC over from zero from
> Indiana because he moved from NJ to Indiana. Today, he could move from
> California to Maine and keep his totals.
>
> The important thing is to not make imaginary problems where none exist, and
> to understand how things really work before suggesting changes.
>
> 73 Tom
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4273/9020 - Release Date: 01/29/15
>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|