Bob, W5OV, wrote:
> Regardless, aside from some of these guys having the initiative, and
> financial resources to do it, what's unfair about using a remote station?
I find this thread most interesting, since I've already pushed beyond the
CC&R limits here with my A3 (painted green to match the tree'd hillside) at
33ft on a slip up mast. This is precisely why I'm delving into the
'remote' possibilities out here...one just down the road away from this
valley, actually. The real bummer at the moment for serious contesting
appears to be the latency issue ;-(
I think the possibilities involved in all of this are pretty cool. Just
think...one of the Space Shuttle hams could operate a DX contest with the
qualifying transmitter/receiver in, umh, maybe "P5". Well, I guess that's
a "remote" possibility :-)
Dave, K1TTT, wrote:
> My opinion is that remote base operators should be given bonus points to
> offset the difficulties in operating where you can't actually touch the
> equipment. The technical challenges and overcoming the operating problems
> that this must introduce due to extra delays and retraining to not grab the
> big knob should be recognized as a handicap to being competitive and be
> rewarded, not hindered! I say give them an extra 10% bonus for added level
> of difficulty!
I hate using a Mouse, but fortunately there are USB widgets available with
BIG KNOBS and buttons to push (I love pushing buttons :-) Therefore, I
can't support the 10% bonus for knobs, but now latency problems, that's a
different story!
FYI, for a short-hop scenario, one of the local computer whiz hams
suggested the possibility of an 802.11 link (I think that's it) as a way to
possibly get the latency factor down to 20ms or less. For 35wpm+
contesting, methinks that is still a problem. Any more info from the
tech-guru folks would be appreciated.
73...
Rick, K6VVA
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|