ISDN, remote stations
K8DO at aol.com
K8DO at aol.com
Wed Apr 5 13:28:59 EDT 1995
I suspect that the initial useage of ISDN, et. al., remote control/operation
of a contest station will center around allowing 'top gun ops' who cannot
travel to the super station for the duration of a contest, to operate their
shift(s). It is most likely to be done in conjunction with an operating crew
present at the site, especially in a multi/multi-multi effort, who can
trouble shoot, provide back up, rig/antenna change, etc. and generally assure
a smooth interface between the local and remote ops.
An analogous structure would be for the remote op(s) to run the multiplier
search(s), feeding the at-site 'top guns' via a private packet cluster...
I also suspect that the generic phone line, audio bandwidth limitation
mentioned by K3NA is a minimal inhibition, if at all...Technology only needs
a problem towards which it can be directed...Certainly fiber optic and/or
microwave/satellite telemetry links have more than adequate bandwidth for the
information transfer and can be leased for a job (this is done daily by
corporate america).. And, 32 and 64 bit hardware exists, if a bit pricy...
But, if I were undertaking this project, I would consider breaking the
received audio bandpass into two or more separate slices and feeding each
slice to its own 16 bit ( less expensive) AD / DA. For arguments sake, 2 or
3 MFJ DSP units in band pass mode, feeding an equal number of AD units should
work (? or given enough bandwidth, pick the digital sigs out of the MFJ's and
reinsert directly into MFJ's at the remote site and skip the external AD/DA
converters?)...The digital bit strings can be multiplexed onto 1 phone line
(or a phone line for each 'sub audio band' , if necessary) - {Ma Bell does
this all day long and there must be 'surplus' ;-) hardware available to
those in the know} - and squirted to the remote site, demultiplexed and fed
to the DA unit...It is an intriguing problem...
The fact that we are discussing it on this forum means that
a. It is technologically feasible
b. It is within the means of some contesters
c. Who says that some parts of it are not being quietly done already?
Cheers ... Denny - K8DO at aol.com
>From Wayne Mills <0006509309 at mcimail.com> Wed Apr 5 17:47:00 1995
From: Wayne Mills <0006509309 at mcimail.com> (Wayne Mills)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 95 11:47 EST
Subject: WPX SSB at P40V
Message-ID: <90950405164709/0006509309NA1EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
With relatively poor propagation and limited activity, the WPX SSB at P40V
yielded a M/S effort of 5720 Qs for a score of just under 21.5 meg.
Ops were AI6V and N7NG. Most of my time in Aruba was AFTER the contest, so
it was a nice vacation. Everything was still up in the air!
Wayne, n7ng at mcimail.com
>From slp9m at cc.usu.edu (Scott E. Parker) Wed Apr 5 18:27:40 1995
From: slp9m at cc.usu.edu (Scott E. Parker) (Scott E. Parker)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 11:27:40 -0600
Subject: Will this technology change anything?
Message-ID: <9504051727.AA03778 at paradise.declab.usu.edu>
Wayne, W5XD <w5xd at delphi.com> writes...
[stuff deleted]
>ISDN is dial up--i.e. the station has a telephone number. Could air
>time be sold? That is, I buy the rig front panel and an ISDN connection,
>Joe SuperstationOwner takes my credit card and gives me the station
>phone number, and I'm on the air....
[paragraph deleted]
>OK, OK. So selling air time is clearly against the current rules in the
>USA.
[more stuff deleted]
I'm not so sure. Communications for hire on the ham bands certainly is,
and not just in the USA, but by the definition of amateur radio in
international law. But is the scenario you describe above really
communications for hire? I think not. It sounds more to me like equipment
rental. In essence, I see no difference between what you are describing
and the guy who rents out his ham station equipped vacation home. Thus, I
think the issue of selling air time, in this context which is quite
different from the meaning of the phrase "selling air time" in the
broadcasting sense needs to be part of the discussion.
73, -SEP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott E. Parker WA7VYJ
Center for Atmospheric and Space Sciences
Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-4405
Internet: sparker at coquina.cass.usu.edu sparker at cedar.hao.ucar.edu
Twisted pair: 801-797-2975 (USU) 801-797-2992 (FAX) 801-753-3924 (home)
>From Celia Tony Becker <becker at shell.portal.com> Wed Apr 5 18:39:05 1995
From: Celia Tony Becker <becker at shell.portal.com> (Celia Tony Becker)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 10:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: DX Sprint (was CQ CQ CQ)
Message-ID: <199504051739.KAA11981 at jobe.shell.portal.com>
an anonymous emailer complained:
> 18 hours of a sprint? We'd all lose a dozen years from our lifespan,
> Tony!
>
OK, so your not able to do all 18 hrs. How about a Multi-Single category,
or a Team-relay category?
AE0M, Tony Becker - becker at shell.portal.com - Silicon Valley, U.S.A.
>From aa6tt at frontier.net (William H. Hein) Wed Apr 5 19:39:27 1995
From: aa6tt at frontier.net (William H. Hein) (William H. Hein)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 12:39:27 -0600
Subject: ISDN, remote stations
Message-ID: <v02110102aba831e1b7db@[199.45.201.9]>
Over the past few months, I have busy putting my business -- a record
(music) label -- on the Internet (email gateway, Web page, etc.). A few
weeks ago, I heard a demonstration of MPEG-2-compressed audio sent in
near-real time over an ISDN <---> Internet connection. The sound was VERY
close to CD-quality stereo audio. I therefore don't think hearing
high-quality SSB and CW signals over ISDN or T1 telephone link will present
much of a technological hurdle.
Bill AA6TT
>It is difficult to provide the dynamic range that a receiver "should" deliver
>to the headphones over a narrow-band telephone circuit. I suspect (but
>haven't done the mathematics to prove) that one will not hear as effectively
>on a crowded band like 40m during a contest, if the audio is digitized and
>run over a 64 kbit/s connection.
>-- Eric K3NA
>k3na at aol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Hein, PO Bx 579, Ignacio, Colorado 81137-0579 USA
fone 970/883-2415 fax 970/883-2408 Internet aa6tt at frontier.net
AA6TT is in Tiffany, Colorado, grid square DM67fb
*** To subscribe to the 160m DX Internet mailing list, email the message
"subscribe" to topband-request at lists.frontier.net ***
>From mbarts at vt.edu (Michael Barts) Wed Apr 5 09:50:03 1995
From: mbarts at vt.edu (Michael Barts) (Michael Barts)
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 1995 14:50:03 +0600
Subject: Remote controlled radios
I've been thinking about remote controlled contest stations for quite a
while now, but that came about as an offshoot of thinking about what the
next application for computer technology in contesting would be. And what's
that you ask? Virtual reality. With a VR headset the CT screen can take the
form of a HUD or be positioned at your "optimal eye level". Likewise you can
position your virtual radio(s), rotors, etc wherever you want, even stack
them as overlapping screens. Quite naturally this would require a totaly
computer controlled radio (and VR sensing glove so you can grab the
controlls and adjust them) which would also mean that you can "roll your
own" front panel for your Yaecomwood ICFTS-10,000 (which is probably what
it'll cost!). Also computer controlled rotors, antenna switches, etc would
also be required. Once you can create this virtual contest station, the
physical location of the radios and antennas are arbitrary - IF you assume
that you can get your digital pipeline hooked up.
There are lots of technical challanges (i.e. problems) with trying to do
this but I wouldn't be surprised if we saw something along these lines
before the next sunspot peak. Would this take a lot of the fun out of
contesting? For many (most?) it probably would. Part of the fun of operating
from a non-home station location is the fun of going there. It might be fun
to listen to the pileups as I sign /P40 on the bands but it'd be a lot more
fun if I could look out the window at the beach while I'm doing it.
Mutli-ops could also run this way, but again, a large part of the fun of
multi-op'ing is the companionship, which doesn't translate as well
digitally. Personally I expect to be manually tuning my real radio and
dreaming of big antennas at exotic QTHs for a long time to come.
Mike
KB4NT
Michael Barts mbarts at vt.edu
Research Engineer Amateur Radio: KB4NT
Litton Systems Poly-Scientific
It's better to be quotable than to be honest. Tom Stoppard
>From John Pescatore <jpescato at CapAccess.org> Wed Apr 5 20:18:23 1995
From: John Pescatore <jpescato at CapAccess.org> (John Pescatore)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 15:18:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: CQ CQ etc.
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9504051522.B28139-b100000 at cap1.capaccess.org>
On Tue, 4 Apr 1995, Field, Don wrote:
> I just love following the threads on here. So many of them are:
>
> a) US-centred
>
> b) CQWW-centred
>
> c) big-gun centred
>
> Please remember, there ARE other countries, and there ARE other contests,
> and there ARE casual operators - lots of them, on whom we rely for points-
> fodder. And some of the proposals I read on here are utter nonesense when
> translated to non-US, non-CQWW, and non-big-gun.
>
> Just as a for instance, how's about the proposition that no contester can
> stay on a single frequency for more than "x" QSOs or "y" minutes. I'm looking
> forward to your reaction when that 3Y0 or A51 QSYs just as you thought you
> were in with a chance, because he has filled his quota!
>
> And all this debate about the balance between QSOs and mults should also bear
> in mind that the relative mix varies dramatically from contest to contest
> and, indeed, between categories within a single contest (a single-bander on,
> say, 80 in CQWW can expect to make only 140 mults at max. but will still be
> spending lots of time CQing, even though every mult is a big deal).
>
> And as for the little pistols. Many of them want to come on and have fun,
> whether its hopping from band to band chasing spots, or to have an occasional
> run when conditions peak, or whatever. Making the rules too complex will just
> put them off altogther.
>
> Do keep up the debate. It's very stimulating. But do remember the other 90%
> or whatever, of countries, contests, and ops.
>
> 73 Don G3XTT
>
> field at btq2ec.igw.bt.co.uk
Yeah, interesting to talk about but let's leave things like they are
for a while. The evolution of 2-radio contesting has been getting
pretty interesting anyway.
(Rich Boyd KE3Q)
>From Hodge Thorgerson David Cameron-INBA <hodge at servidor.unam.mx> Wed Apr 5 21:23:22 1995
From: Hodge Thorgerson David Cameron-INBA <hodge at servidor.unam.mx> (Hodge Thorgerson David Cameron-INBA)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 14:23:22 -0600 (CST)
Subject: CQ CQ CQ
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950405142101.8270B-100000 at servidor>
On Sat, 1 Apr 1995, Larry Tyree wrote:
> One idea that always goes through my mind is to be able to listen to
> someone CQing, and if they have called 10 or 20 CQs in a row without working
> someone, be able to call them on it and they have to give you the frequency.
>
> Perhaps a new Q signal:
>
> QCQ #? : You have called # CQs in a row without an answer and I would
> like a shot at trying some CQs. Would you please QSY so I can have your
> frequency?
Sounds like a great idea to me! This will make some ops take notice of how
they call CQ and possibly listen more, hi! I get really frustrated with the
ops who will only work someone with an S5 signal or greater. David 'RX
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list