Greetings Fellow Topband Contesters:
During the last week of January the topic of remote RX systems was extensively
discussed on the TB reflector. I was on my way to K1N and didn't have the time
nor opportunity to pay proper attention.
This week CQ160 Contest Director N2NT suggested I take a look at the discussion
and offer an opinion. So....I went back and read ALL of your posts.
As a long-time 160 meter contester (spanning some four decades) it was quite
interesting to read what others thought important to them in terms contest
rules, station design, things that impact scores, and what they felt it took to
have 'fun' in a 160 meter contest. Thanks for sharing.
My thoughts here are on the overall 160 meter contesting scene and specifically
about how remote RX systems would impact contest results. I'll leave it to
others to sort out what some clearly see as a parallel theme - how remote
stations and systems impact DXCC country chasing. To me the DXCC subject is not
aligned with contesting and is best treated separately.
I've long believed the multi-op competition between a select group of serious
N.A. entrants in the CQ160 CW is the most rigorous (and exciting) competition
in all of amateur radio contesting. One need only look at how amazingly close
the results have been over the years to realize how well matched the stations
and operating teams have been. This high level of parity did not happen by
accident.
Teams and stations have come and gone over the past 30 years. The most
successful players in 160 meter multi-op include such notables as WW2Y, W1KM,
K1ZM, KC1XX, VY2ZM, K1LZ, W8JI, W2FU, VE3EJ, W4RM, WB9Z, N0NI and my own 160
team operating from various locations in NJ as W2GD since ~1985. Yes, this is
an exclusive group, almost all located east of the Mississippi River. There is
little question location maters, but that doesn't diminish the amount of work
and technical innovation these teams have exhibited on their path to success.
Generally speaking, success in the 160 multi game requires teamwork,
dedication, a flare for innovation, advanced antenna and station design,
careful construction practices, regular station maintenance, and expert on the
air execution. There is no free ride.....you snooze you loose. Year after year
incremental station improvements are the norm.
For the record I'm OPPOSED to the use of receiving systems located somewhere
other than on station property. It's my belief that once you alter what
amounts to a common or similar RF environment found present at a typical
contest station location, the playing field changes, and event results become a
function of something much more complex and unpredictable. If you introduce a
remote element to the technical mix, serious teams are forced to deal with a
new set of technical solutoins which seemingly have few boundaries. Allowing
use of a remotely located RX antenna systems would be a HUGE GAME CHANGER, just
as SO2R techniques have forever changed the single op category The ability to
compare accomplishments is no longer 'apples to apples' when remote station
technologies creep into the rules.
The ability to accomplish near duplex reception on 160 meters is the holy grail
which most successful 160 teams have long worked to achieve....using on-site
solutions. Over the past 20 years my team has spent literally hundreds of
hours experimenting with numerous antenna systems and noise cancelling
techniques to accomplish something close to duplex capability. It is
particularly difficult on topband as anyone who has gone down this road
knows...and we've never enjoyed total success despite our best efforts.
The most successful M/S, M/2 and M/M stations world-wide have found a variety
of solutions to the on-site duplex reception issue, most notably on the higher
frequency bands where the technical solutions are somewhat less difficult but
also on 160, 80 and 40 where physical separation of radiators and receptors is
a greater challenge to overcome. Having two (or more) stations on the same band
has almost become a baseline requirement to ensure a competitive and maybe
winning entry, esp. in M/S. This all took technical innovation, advanced
design work, and undoubtedly great patience while doing hours and hours of
trial and error testing......and then more revision and more testing to
maintain. Those who have successfully conquered these technical problems of
duplex reception should be held in high esteem by us all ... they earned an
operational advantage few have achieved. If this were easy, everyone would be
doing it....from experience it's NOT easy at all.
Other than the Stew Perry TBDC, no major international contest currently allows
the use of TX or RX systems physically located beyond station boundaries. This
has more or less kept everyone on a common footing but not necessarily an equal
playing field. Other than what is found in WRTC rules, there is not now nor
has there ever been an expectation of 'equality' between stations. Station
locations and resources are left to the individual station owner to resolve.
"Location location location" is vitally important in many aspects of radiosport
as it is in real estate. There is nothing in contest rules (nor in life) that
suggests there should be some common standard of opportunity.
It's unfortunate that some station locations are plagued by power line noise
and other interference issues which inhibit reception. But that does not mean
the rules need to be adjusted for parity of all entrants.
At all three of our 160 locations the last 25 years, we've faced these same
reception challenges, and out of necessity were forced to work very hard to
find solutions. Difficult to do but still achievable with perseverance and
some technical know how.
Permitting remote reception systems invites an even greater temptation to
circumvent the rules for one's own purposes. I applaud VO1HP for his public
admission, and for doing the right thing (sending in a check log entry) for
having used a remote RX system. But given human nature, and the strong type-A
behaviors that are so common in the contesting ranks....the possibility of the
rules being abused is out there.....and it goes without saying there is no
reasonable way to enforce strict compliance.
In summary, it is certain a relatively small percentage of 160 meter contest
enthusiasts would take advantage of any proposed rule change to enhance there
station capabilities using remote RX systems. For some, it will simply make
their already technically superior stations just that more formidable, and for
others it could open new doors. But I simply don't see an overwhelming and
compelling NEED for this change, which will benefit relatively few, and change
the competitive dynamic in ways that cannot be predicted.
73,
John, W2GD a.k.a P40W
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|