[CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

[Edward Sawyer]

I think that the rule has some merit for the people who need it.  As long as it stays out of the unassisted categories, its fine with me.  Others who compete assisted may have a different opinion.

I don't think its any more advantage than filling up the band map with world wide skimmer nodes.  All the meat with none of the "hiss".

Ed  N1UR

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+edwards=sbelectronics.com at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mark Bailey
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 1:43 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

Hi Scott:

I do SO2R in the CQ 160 test, unassisted.  This is completely legsl in this conyrst for a single operator.

I am not in favor of allowing remote receivers in single operator categories.

It is a huge advantage - enabling both SO2R easily and improved diversity reception.

If allowed, anyone who wants to be competitive would be driven to implement this.

73,

Mark, KD4D

73,

Matk 



On February 3, 2020 11:30:49 PM EST, K9MA <k9ma at sdellington.us> wrote:
>I would like to see other contests adopt that rule, just for the sake
>of 
>mitigating urban noise. 100 km may be a bit far, though.
>
>I suppose one reason to classify it as assisted is that in SO2V 
>operation, with a remote receiver one can tune around not just between 
>CQ's, but DURING them, a considerable advantage. If there were a way to
>
>prohibit that, I'd favor allowing such remote receivers in the 
>unassisted category, but there's probably no way to enforce that.
>
>73,
>Scott K9MA
>
>
>On 2/3/2020 20:55, David Siddall wrote:
>> Use of a remote receiver by a contestant in the CQWW 160 contest is
>very
>> restricted. It must be within 62.2 miles (100 km) of the transmitter,
>and
>> the contestant is limited to entering the single-operator-assisted
>category
>> (or submitting a checklog, which cover operations outside the rules
>as
>> well).  Single operator and multi-operator categories do not permit
>use of
>> a remote receiver.  And since operators in all categories are
>prohibited
>> from CQing (running) on two discrete frequencies within the same time
>> period, that SO2R technique is prohibited. Tuning around between CQs
>--
>> which I consider SO2V -- is permitted.  One could view it as
>equivalent to
>> "assistance" and appropriately categorized.
>>
>> The reason for accommodating remote receivers in the SOA category is
>> explicit in the rules:  *“The rule is designed to accommodate new
>> technology, and for those who experience high noise levels at the
>> transmitting site.” *
>>
>> Questions, comments, and suggestions would be appropriately addressed
>to:
>> director at cq160.com.
>>
>> 73,  Dave K3ZJ
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 5:54 PM <john at kk9a.com> wrote:
>>   <      >
>>
>>>   SO2R on 160m is normally pretty tough to do. Imagine how
>>> wonderful it would be to tune for new stations and/or multipliers
>>> while you're running on the same band and have no interference from
>>> your transmissions.
>>>
>>> John KK9A
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>-- 
>Scott  K9MA
>
>k9ma at sdellington.us
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest