[CQ-Contest] Interperetation of CQ rule

Richard Thorne rthorne at tcac.net
Mon Feb 7 13:37:53 EST 2000

Hi Joe:

This one hits close to home.

I run my kachina via remote control since I can't have antennas at my house.
As long as the antennas are hooked directly to my rig I don't think it matters
where I am, physically, either way my antennas/reciever are at the same
location.  No real advantage, other than I've spent the extra $$'s so I can
operate with decent antennas.

Now, if I set up a second site about 10 miles away for 2 radio contesting or
multi-oping, then I believe I would be going against the spirit of the rule.
But if I setup the second rig and antennas on the same roof top, I would be
ok.  The only difference between me and a home station is the physical
location of the operator, not the equipment.

Just my twist.

Joseph B. Fitzgerald wrote:

> The folks running CQ WPX and WW contests have included a curious phrase in
> their contest rules.  Several of us in YCCC land have been discussing
> this, but cannot come to consensus.
> "All antennas used by the entrant must be physically connected by wires to
> the transmitters and receivers used by the entrant"
> Some  say that this is intended to disallow multiple remote sites (i.e.
> transmitters/receivers on different continents, etc), however these
> scenarios seem to be already disallowed by "Transmitters and receivers
> must be located within a 500 meter diameter circle or within the property
> limits of the station licensee, whichever is greater".   In any event
> wouldn't the antennas need to be physically connected to the
> transmitters/recievers?
> Also, does this rule disallow capacitive/magnetic coupling of antennas?
> Reading the letter of the rule, certain baluns, filters as well as the
> transformers in beverage systems are not allowed.  Certainly this is not
> the intent of the rule.
> Curiously, CQ-RTTY has a similar rule, but it only applies to Multi/Multi
> stations.  CQ-VHF does not have a similar rule, so I guess waveguide is
> OK, but niether does CQ-160.  Anyone using waveguide on 160?
> Why was this phrase included and why was it worded the way it is?
> -Joe KM1P
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


Richard Thorne
Remote Control Airplanes:  AMA# 657062

CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list