[CQ-Contest] Remote - my 2 centavos worth
SGT Korey Chandler
korey.chandler at us.army.mil
Sun Apr 1 21:51:25 EDT 2007
Why should anyone who has a purposely short callsign (1x1 or 1x2) for
contesting use be made to append anything that makes it longer? That's just
unfair in itself.
Remote stations are not "locationless". They are just like your station
except the microphone cord is extremely long in some cases. If a transmitter
is located in Egypt then you worked a station with its RF origin in Egypt.
Plain and simple.
Current regulations find no issue with remote bases. To play devil's
advocate though--instead of making stations add an identifier to their
callsign the contest scoring could be modified to include a "remote" overlay
similar to the Rookie and TB-Wires overlays. Callsigns stay unchanged.
Times are a changin'.
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Paul J. Piercey
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 6:52 AM
To: 'Gerry Hull'; cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote - my 2 centavos worth
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Hull
> Sent: March 30, 2007 03:34
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote - my 2 centavos worth
> That's just plain wrong. That would make remotely-operated stations
> second-class citizens.
Not necessarily. Remotely operated stations could be in their own category ,
as are mult-op stations with no stiputulation as to power output or
assistance useage, but they could also be multipliers unto themselves,
thereby generating a new point source.
In contesting, rules could be devised that would state that any station
under the control of an operator who is not physically located within the
boundaries of the multiplier area of the transmitter's 500m radius location
(ie. grid, county, section, state, etc) for the purposes of the contest
would be classified as Remote Control and append /RC to the call, so as not
to claim a particular location. The logging software would read the /RC and
trigger a new mult.
For DXCC, remote stations could be treated the same as /AM or /MM stations
and, in essence, be locationless. You could operate a remote station and
work DXCC but not be worked as a DXCC entity.
I'm just firing out ideas here. If I'm going to be force-fed progress, I'd
like to have a say in how it tastes.
73 -- Paul VO1HE
> > On 3/29/07, Tony Rogozinski < trogo at telegraphy.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Simple idea - let the folks who want to operate remote
> from wherever
> > > and however do their thing in a "remote category" and the
> rest of us
> > > will continue to operate contests as we've done for the
> past 50 or
> > > 60 years. End of problem. Otherwise we're dealing with
> apples and
> > > oranges IMHO and the
> > > discussion will never end. I don't have a problem with remote
> > > operation I just don't think those
> > > folks who chose to or must do should be competing with
> those of us
> > > who are doing it the old fashioned way.
> > >
> > > Tony W4OI/HK1AR (I even still use a keyer to send my
> exchanges during
> > > contests)
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > >
> > --
> > Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
> > Explore real-time competition in ham radio - post your score to
> > http://www.getscores.org!
> Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
> Explore real-time competition in ham radio - post your score
> to http://www.getscores.org!
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest