[CQ-Contest] Remote Base

Mon Aug 22 07:15:40 EDT 2005

OK Mal,

I see you added the reflector back into this discussion.  That's fine.

Your non-NAQP point about W6RJ is what seemed to open the door to a more
generalized discussion since he was not in the NAQP, as well as the
reference to others "There are at least 3 of those W6 stations on the air
daily".  I thought that you were now talking about contesting in general
related to remote sites, not only for the NAQP.  

I think your characterization now of "at least a KW" does not constitute
"outrageous power" as you said before.  You owe W6RJ an apology for making
that statement.

Regardless, aside from some of these guys having the initiative, and
financial resources to do it, what's unfair about using a remote station?
If one of them was running 20Kw from up there, and a remote station was
through some loophole not subject to the FCC rules, then I could agree that
it was unfair.  

I think that you need to re-think your perspective on this issue.  If remote
stations are "unfair", then what about stations who are built on 10 acres,
and have several towers?  That seems most unfair to me, living in North
Dallas "urban sprawl" where I can't figure out how to put one tower up.
What about the guy who has a pair of Icom 7800's with Acom amplifiers, and
two rotating towers?  That seems extremely unfair to me.

73,

Bob W5OV

  _____  

From: N7MAL [mailto:N7MAL at CITLINK.NET] 
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:42 PM
To: Bob Naumann - W5OV; 'W2RU - Bud Hippisley'; 'Richard Thorne';
cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: Remote Base

For many years now I have been amazed at the way a subject, any subject, can
get so twisted that it loses its original meaning.
Bob I'm not picking on you but you said:""I felt that the comments were made
in a more general sense than just towards
the NAQP.  For example, his reference to W6RJ running "outrageous power".
""
In my original posting I was referring specifically to NAQP and mentioned
nothing else. My subsequent reply was to WA7BNM referencing his remarks
regarding updating the NAQP rules. I don't know how my remarks could have
been considered general. As for my comments about Bob, W6RJ, I used W6RJ as
an example of remotes that can be and are being used today. I have nothing
but respect for Bob and everything Bob has accomplished. He has been for
many, many, years a proven DX'er and contester. I believe he has earned
everyone's respect. That being said today, in time, he is using a remote
base located at one of the highest points in the State of California. In
addition he is running at least a KW. That gives him an unfair, very unfair,
advantage over everyone else. It his right to use his remote base and is
legal in every respect. He can, and does, compete with the east coast hams
on 80/75m openings to Europe not to mention crushing those of us out here in
the west on any opening. If he lived up on the mountain it would be
different, but he doesn't. Saturday a friend of my was giving out points
during NAQP from his house, on the east coast, via a remote TS2000 on a
hilltop in Southern CA. I want guys w/remote stations to be able to contest,
I want technology to move forward. But, at the same time, I think remotes
need to be defined and some way segregated from the overwhelming majority
who don't have remote capability.
WA7BNM has said they are aware of the remotes and will be working on rules
changes. I have every confidence Bruce will get it right and am willing to
wait for the new/modified rules. 
Best 73

MAL         N7MAL
BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
 <http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm> http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
 <http://geocities.com/n7mal/> http://geocities.com/n7mal/
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in Australia

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bob Naumann - W5OV <mailto:W5OV at W5OV.com>  
To: 'W2RU - Bud Hippisley' <mailto:W2RU at frontiernet.net>  ;
n7mal at CITLINK.NET ; 'Richard  <mailto:rmthorne at cox.net> Thorne' 
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 1:13
Subject: RE: Remote Base

Bud,

I felt that the comments were made in a more general sense than just towards
the NAQP.  For example, his reference to W6RJ running "outrageous power".  

I also think that the rules I quoted convey a basic understanding that I
think most would presume would apply in all contests.  Specifically, for
something as fundamental as a station definition and limits.  If we don't
all agree on something that basic, something is seriously wrong.

The NAQP, you have to remember, and I know you do, was originally the CD
Party sponsored by ARRL.  I suspect that not including such rules were an
oversight when the NAQP was established independently, rather than
intentionally opening the door to allowing for remote receiver sites in
multiple time zones in the NAQP for example.  I do think it would do the
NAQP good to adopt the ARRL general rules as applying to the NAQP as well in
order to help avoid this sort of "it's not specifically mentioned in the
rules" stuff.  

I also don't see any harm in the use of remote stations, as long as they
abide by the rules (CQ and/or ARRL).

73,
Bob W5OV

-----Original Message-----
From: W2RU - Bud Hippisley [mailto:W2RU at frontiernet.net] 
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 7:30 PM
To: 'Bob Naumann - W5OV'; n7mal at CITLINK.NET; 'Richard Thorne'
Subject: RE: Remote Base

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob
> Naumann - W5OV

> What Bruce says is correct.  On what basis are you challenging his 
> statement?
> 
> Contest rules do not allow for remote receiver sites.

Not to be obtuse, Bob, but the contest rules you quoted are for ARRL and CQ
contests.  I find nothing in the four web pages of NAQP rules that tackles
the topic or ties NAQP rules in any way to ARRL's rules.  I think Mal's
point is well-taken for NAQP, which is what the original question pertained
to.

Bud, W2RU 