Sitting south of the house looking over the pond
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 11:00 AM, topband-request@contesting.com wrote:
>
> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
> topband@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> topband-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> topband-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: cheating (Cecil Acuff)
> 2. Re: Topband Digest, Vol 181, Issue 20 (Pete Rimmel N8PR)
> 3. sdrWEB not going in my log (terry burge)
> 4. Cheating the system (John Randall)
> 5. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Peter Voelpel)
> 6. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Peter Sundberg)
> 7. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Jeff Blaine)
> 8. "use" of webSDR (Johann Bruinier)
> 9. Fwd: Re: VU2GSM webSDR use: A Clarification
> (Joe Giacobello, K2XX)
> 10. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (StellarCAT)
> 11. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Jeff Blaine)
> 12. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Nick Hall-Patch)
> 13. Sunrise and Signals (aa0rs)
> 14. E31A on Topband (Tim Shoppa)
> 15. Re: E31A on Topband (k8gg@voyager.net)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:29:17 -0600
> From: Cecil Acuff <chacuff@cableone.net>
> To: STEVE DANIEL <nn4t@comcast.net>
> Cc: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: cheating
> Message-ID: <E93D78A1-06A5-48DA-82EB-EED16A5D1A35@cableone.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Well that was a lot of help Steve....
>
> You can crawl back under your rock now...
>
> Cecil
> K5DL
>
> Sent using recycled electrons.
>
>> On Jan 15, 2018, at 9:23 PM, STEVE DANIEL <nn4t@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Guy. You did it the "hard" way did you? I have been a ham and DXer since
>> 1973 and have always encountered people like you. "You don't know how hard
>> it was when I was your age. You have no idea how hard it was to work DX back
>> then" Blah Blah Blah. It was BS then and it is BS now. The only thing that
>> matters is if one works within the rules of the award or contest in which
>> they compete. Technology evolves; rules evolve. Perhaps you and your ilk
>> need to do the same. Look backward if you must. I choose to look in the
>> other direction. Steve Daniel, NN4T
>>> On January 15, 2018 at 6:28 PM Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> With apologies to Tree, who has asked that this subject be dropped...
>>>
>>> The question of the effect of a remote receiver or receivers has
>>> already been dealt with by some contest organizers needing clarity and
>>> consistency using current actual technical possibilities while
>>> retaining the flavor and character of a contest. Probably the best
>>> (IMHO) adjustment on remotes is that from Tree and Lew and the
>>> inimitable BARC in the Stew Perry TBDC.
>>>
>>> The first part of their answer simply says remote RX *and* TX is fine,
>>> and is treated like a very long electronic line from key and headset
>>> to the station wherever it is. Grid square and possible required
>>> xxn/callsign signing are from the remote location, which is the point
>>> of record for scoring, standing, awards, etc.
>>>
>>> The second part is that using a local TX the receiver(s) may be
>>> *entirely* co-located with the TX, or the RX facility may be
>>> *entirely* sited at a single location 75 km or less from the TX
>>> location. Using this provision, listening on the TX antenna is not
>>> permitted during the contest. Although the rule uses the word
>>> "receiver" in the singular, in their mind it does not preclude use of
>>> a remote diversity RX, eg, K3 equipped with phase-locked diversity
>>> subRX.
>>>
>>> Please remember that "cheating" with respect to ARRL DXCC has to do
>>> with *ARRL* rules for same. Arguably some DXCC rules are so lax as to
>>> be meaningless, but they are the ARRL's rules. It has nothing to do
>>> with our being irritated or angered by someone who using modern
>>> technical extensions claims the same status as ourselves when we have
>>> gotten those numbers the HARD way, digging out countries through the
>>> urban noise never heard up on those mountain or off-continent remotes.
>>>
>>> In the end someone whose status self-image depends on what others do
>>> is inevitably doomed to anger. There will always, always be a cheat
>>> among us somewhere. If we must compare, compare ourselves only to the
>>> most noble examples. Or better yet BE that most noble example, knowing
>>> God knows even if no one else does, and sleep well at night.
>>>
>>> 73, Guy K2AV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Steve Daniel <nn4t@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don?t
>>>> believe it is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word ?cheating?
>>>> suggests that it is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 15, 2018, at 12:31 PM, John Randall via Topband
>>>>> <topband@contesting.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has
>>>>> become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system
>>>>> ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps
>>>>> what we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps
>>>>> a DIY written document on how to to do this and what to look out for.
>>>>> This would be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also
>>>>> us old fogeys who have been around for a long time.Technology is a
>>>>> blessing and also a curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some
>>>>> control is force all websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its
>>>>> subscribers and then to make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat
>>>>> the logs can be compared to say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a
>>>>> thought and worth chewing over or other methods used.
>>>>> Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain
>>>>> has been absent on the bands incl topband.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73John - M0ELS
>>>>> _________________
>>>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>>>
>>>> _________________
>>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 23:50:52 -0500
> From: "Pete Rimmel N8PR" <n8pr@bellsouth.net>
> To: <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 181, Issue 20
> Message-ID: <1366909770F84062A4490AF72A2D7DC0@PeteRGateway>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> John (and others)
>
> I would not like to see the below suggestion carried out for the following
> reason:
>
> There have been times that I have used a WebSDR receiver in Europe to help
> me decide where to transmit from here in Florida. An example was the
> 3C0/3C1 operations.
>
> I am pretty sure that the pileups from Europe were louder in those locations
> than my signal from Florida. HOWEVER, I used the WebSDR to find holes in
> the EU pileups and successfully worked both stations on TB.
>
> I could not hear most of those whom I saw on the SDR here in Florida, and my
> Waller Flag was not pointed at EU to look for them.
>
> At the same time, I was hearing the 3C stations here on my receiver in
> Florida, and NOT on the webSDR receivers in Europe.
>
> Should I be penalized for using a TOOL to figure out where to transmit? I
> think not. This is not "Cheating" as some would suggest.
>
> If you saw a report of me listening on a webSDR, you would falsely conclude
> I was hearing a 3C by using that means.
>
> This tool is the same as using Reverse beacon networks or telnet reporting
> to find the DX.
>
> I agree that making QSOs where the receiver is not located where the
> transmitter is located is against the rules of DXing and fair play, but
> don't penalize those who would use a tool that is available for getting into
> the DX station's log.
>
> 73, PeteR N8PR
>
>
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:31:38 +0000 (UTC)
> From: John Randall <m0els@yahoo.co.uk>
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: cheating
> Message-ID: <978842185.6183458.1516041098817@mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has
> become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system
> ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what
> we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY
> written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would
> be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old fogeys
> who have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and also a
> curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force all
> websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then to
> make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be compared to
> say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth chewing over or
> other methods used.
> Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain has
> been absent on the bands incl topband.
>
> 73John - M0ELS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:44:04 -0800 (PST)
> From: terry burge <ki7m@comcast.net>
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <1280616464.435768.1516085044694@connect.xfinity.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went on line
> and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ and YT1AA. Also
> heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish in the barrel. At least
> when you plug into the right SDR over there. They are not going in my log but
> I did find out it is easy to do. And I believe it would get so easy the
> fascination with working the world would be gone for me. It works but the
> most of what I got out of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there'
> and how poor my reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!
>
>
> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those
> webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens, maybe
> hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham Radio geeks
> think.
>
>
> Terry
>
> KI7M
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 07:11:06 +0000 (UTC)
> From: John Randall <m0els@yahoo.co.uk>
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: Cheating the system
> Message-ID: <818261985.6582749.1516086666671@mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> My final thoughts on this is that perhaps one way around this problem is to
> allow websdr qso's via designated websdr sites only for the award chasers and
> then to penalize them to "try and even the scorecard".Any qso made via other
> websdr's will not be validated. Maybe its a start !
> Anyway or either way, I prefer to opt out of awards and contests.
>
> 73 allJohn - M0ELS
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:45:06 +0100
> From: "Peter Voelpel" <dj7ww@t-online.de>
> To: "'terry burge'" <ki7m@comcast.net>
> Cc: <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <5932B3341666433BA9BB1F1EDA86934D@SHACK>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Yes, there are several hundred sdr receivers online and reachable via the
> internet.
>
> http://sdr.hu/?top=kiwi
> http://websdr.org/
>
> And when EA3JE takes over the dx portion of 80m with his wide signal and
> illegal power he doesn?t even bother to listen that loud to the websdr he is
> using, that from time time his vox is responding to it and you hear it via
> his transmissions as well.
>
> 73
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of terry
> burge
> Sent: Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018 07:44
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
>
> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went on line
> and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ and YT1AA. Also
> heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish in the barrel. At least
> when you plug into the right SDR over there. They are not going in my log
> but I did find out it is easy to do. And I believe it would get so easy the
> fascination with working the world would be gone for me. It works but the
> most of what I got out of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there'
> and how poor my reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!
>
>
> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those
> webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens, maybe
> hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham Radio geeks
> think.
>
>
> Terry
>
> KI7M
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:09:23 +0000
> From: Peter Sundberg <sm2cew@telia.com>
> To: terry burge <ki7m@comcast.net>,topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <20180116080928.B8B27AC802A@mx.contesting.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> So..
>
> - Station A in North America is calling CQ on 1827.0 and is heard by
> Station B in Europe via a webSDR located 50 km away from Station A in
> North America.
>
> - Station B in Europe is calling Station A - who is listening via a
> webSDR in Europe located 50 km away from Station B
>
> - Both stations exchange 599+ reports and greetings for a fine QSO.
>
> Wow, their signal made it 50 km via the airwaves at both ends and was
> then "carried" across the world via the Internet.
>
> What a wonderful Top Band QSO, carried out "the modern way",
> embracing new technology.
>
> OMG.
>
> 73
> Peter SM2CEW
>
>
>
> At 06:44 2018-01-16, terry burge wrote:
>> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went
>> on line and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ
>> and YT1AA. Also heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish
>> in the barrel. At least when you plug into the right SDR over there.
>> They are not going in my log but I did find out it is easy to do.
>> And I believe it would get so easy the fascination with working the
>> world would be gone for me. It works but the most of what I got out
>> of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' and how poor my
>> reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!
>>
>>
>> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those
>> webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens,
>> maybe hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham
>> Radio geeks think.
>>
>>
>> Terry
>>
>> KI7M
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:34:29 +0800
> From: Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188@ac0c.com>
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <1b24d5d0-290c-30a0-7928-196364e52289@ac0c.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> There is no way to supervise this behavior globally.? It's ultimately up
> to each op to decide on what falls under ethical conduct.? And opinions
> vary as to what is proper and what's not, even among peoples of a single
> country with similar cultural view.
>
> I personally don't use receivers or antennas that are not located at my
> QTH - even though ARRL DXCC regulations make the use of an east-coast
> USA remote receiver point perfectly acceptable. However that's my choice
> and of course, compared to someone using that sort of arrangement is
> going to have a few more guys in the log that I may never hear which is
> part of the price I pay for the choice I have made.? However if another
> guy wants to take advantage of the rules allowing for a US-based remote
> receiver that is much closer to the other station, I really can't
> complaint because it's allowed explicitly by the rules and it's within
> their set of choices.? The example Peter lists of the webSDR pair is
> certainly possible in the modern world but that kind of QSO is not going
> to go into my log because I've decided that is not my personal sort of
> ham radio QSO.
>
> Each of us has an obligation is to manage our own personal behavior
> within the scope of the official rules - what the rest of the ham world
> does is up to them.? In the end, each ham who looks at a prized QSL from
> a rare one, or who looks at the DXCC plaque on the wall with a count
> higher than their local competition, will know well what decisions they
> have made to get there.? And if they can live with the choices they have
> made, then I'm happy for them.
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
> www.ac0c.com
>
>> On 16-Jan-18 4:09 PM, Peter Sundberg wrote:
>> So..
>>
>> - Station A in North America is calling CQ on 1827.0 and is heard by
>> Station B in Europe via a webSDR located 50 km away from Station A in
>> North America.
>>
>> - Station B in Europe is calling Station A - who is listening via a
>> webSDR in Europe located 50 km away from Station B
>>
>> - Both stations exchange 599+ reports and greetings for a fine QSO.
>>
>> Wow, their signal made it 50 km via the airwaves at both ends and was
>> then "carried" across the world via the Internet.
>>
>> What a wonderful Top Band QSO, carried out "the modern way", embracing
>> new technology.
>>
>> OMG.
>>
>> 73
>> Peter SM2CEW
>>
>>
>>
>> At 06:44 2018-01-16, terry burge wrote:
>>> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went
>>> on line and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ
>>> and YT1AA. Also heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish in
>>> the barrel. At least when you plug into the right SDR over there.
>>> They are not going in my log but I did find out it is easy to do. And
>>> I believe it would get so easy the fascination with working the world
>>> would be gone for me. It works but the most of what I got out of it
>>> was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' and how poor my
>>> reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!
>>>
>>>
>>> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those
>>> webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens,
>>> maybe hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham
>>> Radio geeks think.
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry
>>>
>>> KI7M
>>>
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:57:44 +0100
> From: "Johann Bruinier" <Bruinier@t-online.de>
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: "use" of webSDR
> Message-ID: <1e2dfcac-ad1f-2496-4263-ca3b81a1b7bc@t-online.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Peter SM2CEW: Kudos on a great summery! I'm with you and many others
> (like VE6WZ et al.)
>
> 73, Jan DL9KR.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:17:41 -0500
> From: "Joe Giacobello, K2XX" <k2xx@swva.net>
> To: a Topband COL <topband@contesting.com>
> Cc: VE6WZ_Steve <ve6wz@shaw.ca>, Ron Spencer
> <ron.e.spencer@gmail.com>, k7ja@dxer.com
> Subject: Topband: Fwd: Re: VU2GSM webSDR use: A Clarification
> Message-ID: <5A5DFB75.80902@swva.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Several members of this forum rightfully objected to my post "doubting"
> VU2GSM's use of remote RX in QSOs since he had openly admitted to same
> in his correspondence. Since I view my e-mail in reverse chronological
> order, I had read Paul's post and responded before seeing the posts by
> VE6WZ with the links to his correspondence with VU2GSM. I apologize for
> my hasty response and resultant ambiguity.
>
> Nevertheless, I have worked Kanti a couple of times on each of 30, 40
> and 80M. The 30M QSOs took place generally around his SR and early
> evening here, and I have heard him many times in that time frame on that
> band. I use a two element quad and either 100 or 200W output on that
> band, and his reports of my signal, 559, are consistent with those
> conditions. When I worked him on 80M, I began a correspondence with
> him. His response to that initial e-mail was "Yes i got you clearly and
> you were overriding QSB." That sure sounds like he was copying me
> directly. Further, for some reason when I had QSLed him directly, I had
> omitted our 80M QSO and had to request a second QSL from him via
> e-mail. In that exchange there was not the slightest hint of his using
> remote RX. Subsequently, because he knew I had an Expert 2K amp here,
> we had several detailed e-mail exchanges to discuss the set-up of his
> newly acquired 1.3K amp. Again, there was absolutely no hint of using
> remote RX.
>
> It appears that he does use remote RX at times, but a review of the
> times and signal reports for all our QSOs strongly support direct, long
> haul reception.
>
> Again, I apologize for any ambiguity in my previous post.
>
> 73, Joe
> K2XX
>
>> *From:* "Joe Giacobello, K2XX" <k2xx@swva.net>
>> *Date:* Monday, January 15, 2018 10:37 AM
>> *To:* Paul Christensen <w9ac@arrl.net>
>> *CC:* 'Steve Babcock' <ve6wz@shaw.ca>, 'topband' <topband@contesting.com>
>> *Subject:* Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use
>> Like Paul, I seriously doubt that Kanti is using a remote receiver. I
>> have worked him on 30, 40 and 80M and have had occasional
>> correspondence with him regarding his relatively recently acquired
>> Expert 1.3K amp. The signal reports he has given me seem appropriate
>> for the times and band conditions at the time of the QSOs. I'm
>> confident that had he been using a remote RX, it would have come up in
>> our correspondence.
>>
>> 73, Joe
>> K2XX
>>
>> *From:* Paul Christensen <w9ac@arrl.net>
>> *Date:* Sunday, January 14, 2018 12:29 PM
>> *To:* "'Steve Babcock'" <ve6wz@shaw.ca>, "'topband'"
>> <topband@contesting.com>
>> *Subject:* Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use
>> No doubt some ops are using WebSDR on receive, but in this case, I am
>> skeptical of the skepticism. Here's why:
>>
>> I routinely work VU2GSM on 40m GL-LP in the early morning hours on a
>> 210-degree bearing from FL to VU. He is consistently S9, peaking +10
>> dB on my Elecraft K3. The remote station I share with N4CC is in
>> Hilliard, FL just east of the St. Mary's River. Our antenna is a
>> full-size 4 el. M2 40m OWA at 140 ft AGL.
>>
>> On the 210 deg. bearing, the land slopes almost immediately into the
>> river valley. VU2GSM's solid signals aren't an isolated event; he is
>> that strong most of the LP season. VU2GSM cannot be detected on my
>> backyard dipole at my home QTH 30 miles to the south in Jacksonville.
>> The dipole is up 35 ft. AGL. When I say he can't be detected, I mean
>> there's no trace on the dipole whatsoever, not even a blip that rises
>> above the SDR noise floor. That's to be expected on a low dipole if
>> the arriving angle is skimming the horizon.
>>
>> According to HFTA, the statistical mode from FL to VU is 1 degree
>> above the horizon. The sloping terrain accounts for much of VU2GSM's
>> solid signals into the station. Forget 4-square arrays over good soil,
>> Forget stacked arrays up to 200 ft AGL. Apart from verticals on salt
>> water, nothing else compares with high horizonal antennas into sloping
>> terrain when the statistical mode is 1 degree above the horizon. When
>> VU2GSM is +10/S9 here, I am certain he is hearing me on his dipole and
>> he doesn't need WebSDR.
>>
>> When I hear other NA stations calling VU2GSM on 40m, he cannot hear
>> many, if not most of them. Of those he picks out, he struggles to copy
>> unless they're from stations with excellent antenna systems - like
>> those in the RHR group. So, if VU2GSM is routinely using WebSDR on 40m
>> receive, his operating habits are not reflective of such claims.
>>
>> Paul, W9AC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Steve Babcock
>> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:03 AM
>> To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
>> Cc: Larry D Brailean <ve5ua@mcsnet.ca>; Don Moman VE6JY
>> <ve6jy.1@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use
>>
>> I have been "sitting" on this for a few weeks wondering if I should
>> share this information, but after seeing some spots yesterday for
>> VU2GSM on 160m, I decided that others may appreciate it.
>> I know I would.
>>
>> If you have worked Kanti, VU2GSM recently on the low bands...40, 80 or
>> 160 you should be aware that he was most likely RX using a NA webSDR.
>> The links below are PDF copies of email correspondence with Kanti
>> confirming that this is routine for him.The emails are between both
>> VE5UA, myself and VU2GSM. (Please read the email threads from the
>> "bottom up" to be chronological.)
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing>
>>
>> To be clear, I do not judge Kanti for his desire to augment his rx,
>> and do not think it is wrong. If he chooses to use Ham radio this way
>> that is his choice. However, I myself do not wish to include a "half"
>> QSO toward my own (personal) DXCC count, and perhaps others will feel
>> the same hence this email. I also don't judge others that are good
>> with such webSDR QSOs since each has his own goals and objectives.
>>
>> Here is some background. I have been working VU2GSM frequently and
>> with ease on 40m in the morning and evening. He would respond almost
>> immediately to my calls which seemed odd. More typical is Rakash
>> VU2RAK who has a great signal but usually can't copy me, though we
>> have QSOd a few times when conditions are exceptional.
>> While at a local ham lunch, I mentioned this, and Don VE6JY said that
>> Kanti is often logged into his webSDR. The following week I copied
>> VU2GSM on 80m in the evening with very light copy with my 2el Yagi and
>> 1000' beverage (diversity rx with K3). He answered immediately and we
>> had a QSO. I was suspicious. I emailed Don VE6JY and he confirmed that
>> at that time Kanti was indeed logged into his SDR.
>> I deleted the QSO from my log.
>> This then precipitated the e-mail correspondence which I share on the
>> attached links.
>>
>> There is little doubt this is going on all the time, and we will never
>> know. We can't undo the technology that makes webSDR possible.
>> There are those who who feel that this destroys the ?integrity? of the
>> DXCC. However, not everyone cares about DXCC.
>> Kanti is not a villan. He is doing nothing wrong. He is not
>> ?cheating?. In his email correspondence he is very open and
>> transparent and makes it clear he doesn't chase DXCC, and could care
>> less about it. Why should he?
>> From Kanti's perspective, using a webSDR enhances his enjoyment of the
>> hobby living in RFI polluted Bangalore. For others, a "half-VU" QSO is
>> better than none and they are happy.
>>
>> Like others, I spend a great deal of effort optimizing both rx and tx
>> and someday when I do make the QSO with VU on 80 and hopefully 160, it
>> will be a true two-way contact. The ?buzz? for me is not getting the
>> country counter in the log, its about knowing that my station made the
>> contact via radio?.both ways?all the way.
>>
>> The purpose of this email is simply to inform those who have worked
>> Kanti recently that it is possible/likely that your TX signal was not
>> actually heard in VU.
>>
>> 73, de Steve ve6wz
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> *From:* Steve Babcock <ve6wz@shaw.ca>
>> *Date:* Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:03 AM
>> *To:* topband <topband@contesting.com>
>> *CC:* Larry D Brailean <ve5ua@mcsnet.ca>, Don Moman VE6JY
>> <ve6jy.1@gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use
>> I have been "sitting" on this for a few weeks wondering if I should share
>> this information, but after seeing some spots yesterday for VU2GSM on 160m,
>> I decided that others may appreciate it.
>> I know I would.
>>
>> If you have worked Kanti, VU2GSM recently on the low bands...40, 80 or 160
>> you should be aware that he was most likely RX using a NA webSDR. The links
>> below are PDF copies of email correspondence with Kanti confirming that this
>> is routine for him.The emails are between both VE5UA, myself and VU2GSM.
>> (Please read the email threads from the "bottom up" to be chronological.)
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing<https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing>
>>
>> To be clear, I do not judge Kanti for his desire to augment his rx, and do
>> not think it is wrong. If he chooses to use Ham radio this way that is his
>> choice. However, I myself do not wish to include a "half" QSO toward my own
>> (personal) DXCC count, and perhaps others will feel the same hence this
>> email. I also don't judge others that are good with such webSDR QSOs since
>> each has his own goals and objectives.
>>
>> Here is some background. I have been working VU2GSM frequently and with ease
>> on 40m in the morning and evening. He would respond almost immediately to my
>> calls which seemed odd. More typical is Rakash VU2RAK who has a great signal
>> but usually can't copy me, though we have QSOd a few times when conditions
>> are exceptional.
>> While at a local ham lunch, I mentioned this, and Don VE6JY said that Kanti
>> is often logged into his webSDR. The following week I copied VU2GSM on 80m
>> in the evening with very light copy with my 2el Yagi and 1000' beverage
>> (diversity rx with K3). He answered immediately and we had a QSO. I was
>> suspicious. I emailed Don VE6JY and he confirmed that at that time Kanti was
>> indeed logged into his SDR.
>> I deleted the QSO from my log.
>> This then precipitated the e-mail correspondence which I share on the
>> attached links.
>>
>> There is little doubt this is going on all the time, and we will never know.
>> We can't undo the technology that makes webSDR possible.
>> There are those who who feel that this destroys the ?integrity? of the DXCC.
>> However, not everyone cares about DXCC.
>> Kanti is not a villan. He is doing nothing wrong. He is not ?cheating?. In
>> his email correspondence he is very open and transparent and makes it clear
>> he doesn't chase DXCC, and could care less about it. Why should he?
>> From Kanti's perspective, using a webSDR enhances his enjoyment of the hobby
>> living in RFI polluted Bangalore. For others, a "half-VU" QSO is better than
>> none and they are happy.
>>
>> Like others, I spend a great deal of effort optimizing both rx and tx and
>> someday when I do make the QSO with VU on 80 and hopefully 160, it will be a
>> true two-way contact. The ?buzz? for me is not getting the country counter
>> in the log, its about knowing that my station made the contact via
>> radio?.both ways?all the way.
>>
>> The purpose of this email is simply to inform those who have worked Kanti
>> recently that it is possible/likely that your TX signal was not actually
>> heard in VU.
>>
>> 73, de Steve ve6wz
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:30:52 -0500
> From: "StellarCAT" <rxdesign@ssvecnet.com>
> To: <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <14C2970AA59F4085813F2C2C7F7A950C@RXDesignDell>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> Jeff wrote:
> ?There is no way to supervise this behavior globally. .....................-
> even though ARRL DXCC regulations make the use of an east-coast USA remote
> receiver point perfectly acceptable. .......................I really can't
> complaint because it's allowed explicitly by the rules and it's within their
> set of choices. ?
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
> www.ac0c.com This is the second post I?ve seen that states this ... did I
> miss something in the rules for DXCC? It seems like it does NOT allow for a
> remote receiver! It ONLY allows for a remote STATION, see rule 9b. It says, I
> thought, that BOTH RX and TX antennas must be within 500M of each other ...
> so one that chooses to receive on the right coast when they?re on the left
> (or vice versa) ISN?T complying with the rules. I recently heard a station
> that is often high on the CL leaderboard ? calling the 6O group in the middle
> of the day on 40 meters when it was being spotted only by W6?s. This guy is
> on the EAST coast (LP) ... weird propagation? personally I would not count
> such a contact ? and would like to see the agreed to if not required use of
> something like a /s in the call for SDR RX. This would only apply to those
> that are using remote RX? which would then allow stations to decide on what
> to do with it. But again unless I misread it, and if so my apologies, it doe
sn
> ?t allow for remote RX for DXCC! Gary K9RX
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:41:05 +0800
> From: Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188@ac0c.com>
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <0f938ef7-cfab-e08f-1da7-ab1ae0d4c2e5@ac0c.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Hi gary,
>
> I thought that was the rule.? But I've not dug into it because I don't
> use the remotes.? So just now I looked and you are 100% right.? Here's
> what the ARRL web page says from Section 1...
>
> *9.? Station Location and Boundary:*
>
> *a)*All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be
> located within the same DXCC entity.
> *b)*All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a
> specific contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle.
> *c)*QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are
> allowed to be used for DXCC credit.
>
> Thanks for setting me straight!
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
> www.ac0c.com
>
>> On 16-Jan-18 10:30 PM, StellarCAT wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>> ?There is no way to supervise this behavior globally.
>> .....................- even though ARRL DXCC regulations make the use of an
>> east-coast USA remote receiver point perfectly acceptable.
>> .......................I really can't complaint because it's allowed
>> explicitly by the rules and it's within their set of choices. ?
>> 73/jeff/ac0c
>> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>> www.ac0c.com This is the second post I?ve seen that states this ... did I
>> miss something in the rules for DXCC? It seems like it does NOT allow for a
>> remote receiver! It ONLY allows for a remote STATION, see rule 9b. It says,
>> I thought, that BOTH RX and TX antennas must be within 500M of each other
>> ... so one that chooses to receive on the right coast when they?re on the
>> left (or vice versa) ISN?T complying with the rules. I recently heard a
>> station that is often high on the CL leaderboard ? calling the 6O group in
>> the middle of the day on 40 meters when it was being spotted only by W6?s.
>> This guy is on the EAST coast (LP) ... weird propagation? personally I
>> would not count such a contact ? and would like to see the agreed to if not
>> required use of something like a /s in the call for SDR RX. This would only
>> apply to those that are using remote RX? which would then allow stations to
>> decide on what to do with it. But again unless I misread it, and if so my
>> apologies, it do
e
> sn?t allow for remote RX for DXCC! Gary K9RX
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:17:55 +0000
> From: Nick Hall-Patch <nhp@ieee.org>
> To: terry burge <ki7m@comcast.net>,topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <9ae492c76093d86a9e50a12f54b38936@mtlp000085>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Did the Europeans hear your barefoot transmission, but you were not
> able to hear their barefoot transmission Terry? Or were you both
> using webSDRs in each others' localities?
>
> (and was this on 160m?)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Nick
> VE7DXR
>
> At 06:44 2018-01-16, terry burge wrote:
>> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went
>> on line and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ
>> and YT1AA. Also heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish
>> in the barrel. At least when you plug into the right SDR over there.
>> They are not going in my log but I did find out it is easy to do.
>> And I believe it would get so easy the fascination with working the
>> world would be gone for me. It works but the most of what I got out
>> of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' and how poor my
>> reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!
>>
>>
>> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those
>> webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens,
>> maybe hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham
>> Radio geeks think.
>>
>>
>> Terry
>>
>> KI7M
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
> Nick Hall-Patch
> Victoria, BC
> Canada
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:58:29 -0700
> From: "aa0rs" <aa0rs@freng.com>
> To: <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: Sunrise and Signals
> Message-ID: <003701d38ee2$dea73710$9bf5a530$@freng.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Colorado: This morning I started calling CQ around 0550 local (12:50Z) time
> and managed to work a few JA stations, HL5IVL was also around, all signals
> were 4x5, rapid QSB was again prevalent.
>
> I opened up the DXMaps website to see what others were hearing and saw that
> JA1LZR had logged my signals over a period of nearly an hour as follows:
>
> 3dB @ 1320 Z
>
> 6dB @ 1332
>
> 5dB @ 1346
>
> 16dB @ 1359
>
> 17dB @ 0712
>
> The very rapid signal rise at his end shows there was significant signal
> enhancement which was not reciprocated at my end, what few stations were
> audible were well down in the noise. Unfortunately I did not see any further
> spots despite continuing to call CQ for another 30 minutes into broad
> daylight, I would have liked to have seen how quickly signals decreased, the
> signal path was shown as just over 9km.
>
> Interestingly, KH6LC had also provided spots over the same period which
> showed a signal variation of 6,8,7,6dB on a path length of 5km , he is just
> South of West from here, JA is NW. Several spots from W6/W7 stations showed
> a decrease of 1 to 3 dB over the same period.
>
>
>
> 73 to all.
>
> Dave AA0RS
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:04:21 -0500
> From: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa@gmail.com>
> To: topBand List <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: E31A on Topband
> Message-ID:
> <CAJ_qRvZoTLfr4-Ep+inkmC0N8D+zOFAx5NKCyccP729fPJFkpg@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> E31A was up and down for a while last night, sometimes OK copy for me and
> sometimes not.
>
> But in the hour before his sunrise he really peaked up A LOT. My logger
> tells me his sunrise at at 3:53Z and my QSO was about 40 minutes before
> that.
>
> Tim N3QE
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:12:47 -0500 (EST)
> From: k8gg@voyager.net
> To: "Tim Shoppa" <tshoppa@gmail.com>
> Cc: "topBand List" <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: E31A on Topband
> Message-ID:
> <10539.174.230.142.253.1516119167.squirrel@webmail.core.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> E31A was workable until about 0405Z, then faded quickly in Michigan.
>
> Heard Tim's QSO and many other US 1's and 2's and some 3's, and some
> others in MS, TX, IN, OH, IL, MI. Also some I's, an SP5, an RN3, OH7,
> etc. (Only the E31A end, too much Aurora absorption to copy Europe from
> Michigan)
>
> GL all, George, K8GG
>
>
>
>> E31A was up and down for a while last night, sometimes OK copy for me and
>> sometimes not.
>>
>> But in the hour before his sunrise he really peaked up A LOT. My logger
>> tells me his sunrise at at 3:53Z and my QSO was about 40 minutes before
>> that.
>>
>> Tim N3QE
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Topband mailing list
> Topband@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Topband Digest, Vol 181, Issue 21
> ****************************************
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|