Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule

[David Raymond]

Remote stations are a complex issue and as Tree says, obviously, a game 
changer.  That said, the further you get into it, the worse it gets.  We 
know stations are obviously using very distant remote sites for DXCC 
purposes (as witnessed with EP6T, and others).  No doubt there will be EU 
stations using NA remotes for K1N (if the control operators permit).  I 
think many, if not most of us believe this is out and out cheating.  Clearly 
there needs to be a category for remote operation, maybe of any kind.  Of 
course, getting people to report it that way is another matter.  However, in 
the case of our beloved SP contest, if a remote station 100 km was used for 
example just for receive and it is in a different grid, which grid square 
would one report?  It's a sticky wicket any way you figure it.

73. . . Dave, W0FLS
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tree" <tree at kkn.net>
To: "Tom Haavisto" <kamham69 at gmail.com>
Cc: "Niko Cimbur" <ac6dd at yahoo.com>; "TopBand List" 
<topband at contesting.com>; "Guy Olinger K2AV" <k2av.guy at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule


> This is certainly a complex issue.  I see two worlds colliding here:
> 160 meter DXing - and Radiosporting.
>
> I have myself seriously considered using a remote receiving location
> to get rid of local noise.  I had a severe QRN issue with 500KV power
> lines when I first appeared on the band in Oregon back in 1985.  When
> it was wet outside - my S-meter was sitting around S9+40 db when on AM
> mode.
>
> However, Tom's point about enabling full duplex operation is a game
> changer from a radio sporting perspective.
>
> Some stations have enough real estate to implement full duplex for
> contest operation (including mine) and it is a significant competitive
> advantage.  Certainly - implementing a remote station for RX purposes
> that is not too far away (< 100 miles) can achieve similar results.  I
> guess the question is - should having enough acreage to implement full
> duplex operation be considered the same as using a remote receiver for
> radios porting purposes?   This is obviously one of those gray area
> issues - where your perspective will have a lot to do with your
> feelings on the subject.  Part of the process of hashing this out is
> the discussion in places like this mail list.
>
> The Stew Perry contest enjoys a certain amount of freedom as it is
> administered by a small group of people (about two) - and isn't
> considered a "serious" contest.  More like a pleasant operating event.
> We have voted in this matter by allowing remote receivers as long as
> they are within 100 km of your transmit location.  This enabled at
> least one Southern Hemisphere station to take part in the event and
> felt like the right thing to do.
>
> However, I can see that the answer might be different for the CQ 160
> contest - or even in the CQ WW contest.  These are more serious
> sporting events.
>
> Tree N6TR
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Tom Haavisto <kamham69 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So one can use their favorite SDR remote to enjoy the contest, and you 
>>> can
>>> submit the score it to 3830. The downside is that the contest sponsor 
>>> does
>>> not have a contest class that accepts the remote RX arrangement.
>>>
>>> The real issue is to persuade the contest organizers to allow that in 
>>> some
>>> contest class. Good luck on that. Organizers have always been WAY behind
>>> the technological possibilities, most likely because certain 
>>> advancements
>>> give such a large advantage to someone who is able to construct them. On
>>> 160 meters, the MAJORITY of contest entrants would describe their 
>>> location
>>> as noisy.
>>>
>>> 73, Guy.
>>>
>>
>> I would urge caution before we start asking contest sponsors to allow
>> remote RX sites.  There are some lucky folks where noise is not a huge
>> issue.  Consider what I could do with a remote RX site - aways from the 
>> TX
>> hash, essentially being able to run full duplex.  To me, this is a pretty
>> serious game changer.  I do understand the advantages, and how it could
>> help someone who lives in a noisy location.  But - be careful of granting
>> an advantage to folks who are blessed without that issue.
>>
>> Tom - VE3CX
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband