Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule

To: "W7RH" <midnight18@cox.net>, "topband" <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Reply-to: Tom W8JI <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 19:31:48 -0500
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Bob,

Respectfully, it isn't that big of a game changer. Many people can already duplex, and they can duplex quite close in frequency.

It's possible for me, at one site, to null my own transmitter enough to hear stations on my own frequency while I transmit. The return is not worth the effort to do that.

I can run 1500 watts steady carrier and hear a reasonable signal on the same exact frequency as I am on. It gets better as they move off my frequency.

The argument it allows duplex is really pretty lame. Now if the argument is a remote receiver makes a technically challenged person able to duplex, then I'll buy that. But.... the advantage of doing that is not that great. Duplexing is probably worth about 50 contacts or less in a busy 160 contest with ~2000 contacts.

Having low noise floor or good antennas is worth hundreds of contacts, or more.

The advantage really being ruled against, despite what people might think, is someone obtaining a low noise floor or better antennas. What banning remote RX (within a reasonable distance boundary) primarily does is prevent people in challenged locations from hearing better, no matter what we want to pretend it does.

73 Tom





Here we go again with a discussion of technology verses tradition. As we all know it is already possible to log on line to a remote RX site. Skimmers are all over the place. Should we allow remote RX sites in competition? I think not unless extremely limited in distance from the main site. The full duplex operability and capability is as quoted by Tom VE3CX "a serious game changer".

I have operated a remote TX/RX site for ten years now and it is a totally different situation.. The remote function is used for Dx'ing from home as sufficient bandwidth, latency issues and battery power storage limit contesting to casual operation. I clearly list on QRZ that _all_ operation is from the remote site and not from my home address 200 miles away. All contest operation is from on site and if weather and travel conditions prohibit getting there I either don't operate or operate with someone else at their station.

If I operated that remote as directional RX for home operation using a single vertical with high power that would put me in a better than average position in SOHP category. Expand the remote RX to multiple locations with with a good directional High Power station and it would become a super station. This just isn't right. I realize that all stations are not created equal, one may have acreage with multiple antennas in an array combined with low noise levels. It was planned and built that way within the rules.

I agree with Tree it is another sticky issue. However, I do believe that allowing separate RX sites during contests depreciates the spirit, time, effort, and cost of maintaining a well designed competitive station.
Otherwise pick up a cell phone and call "ur 599 in AZ".

sincerely,

Bob W7RH
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus Database: 4257/9022 - Release Date: 01/29/15


_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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