Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule

[Tom W8JI]

Bob,

Respectfully, it isn't that big of a game changer. Many people can already 
duplex, and they can duplex quite close in frequency.

It's possible for me, at one site, to null my own transmitter enough to hear 
stations on my own frequency while I transmit. The return is not worth the 
effort to do that.

I can run 1500 watts steady carrier and hear a reasonable signal on the same 
exact frequency as I am on. It gets better as they move off my frequency.

The argument it allows duplex is really pretty lame. Now if the argument is 
a remote receiver  makes a technically challenged person able to duplex, 
then I'll buy that. But.... the advantage of doing that is not that great. 
Duplexing is probably worth about 50 contacts or less in a busy 160 contest 
with ~2000 contacts.

Having low noise floor or  good antennas is worth hundreds of contacts, or 
more.

The advantage really being ruled against, despite what people might think, 
is someone obtaining a low noise floor or better antennas. What banning 
remote RX (within a reasonable distance boundary) primarily does is prevent 
people in challenged locations from hearing better, no matter what we want 
to pretend it does.

73 Tom





> Here we go again with a discussion of technology verses tradition. As we 
> all know it is already possible to log on line to a remote RX site. 
> Skimmers are all over the place. Should we allow remote RX sites in 
> competition? I think not unless extremely limited in distance from the 
> main site. The full duplex operability and capability is as quoted by Tom 
> VE3CX "a serious game changer".
>
> I have operated a remote TX/RX site for ten years now and it is a totally 
> different situation.. The remote function is used for Dx'ing from home as 
> sufficient bandwidth, latency issues and battery power storage limit 
> contesting to casual operation. I clearly list on QRZ that _all_ operation 
> is from the remote site and not from my home address 200 miles away. All 
> contest operation is from on site and if weather and travel conditions 
> prohibit getting there I either don't operate or operate with someone else 
> at their station.
>
> If I operated that remote as directional RX for home operation using a 
> single vertical with high power that would put me in a better than average 
> position in SOHP category. Expand the remote RX to multiple locations with 
> with a good directional High Power station and it would become a super 
> station. This just isn't right. I realize that all stations are not 
> created equal, one may have acreage with multiple antennas in an array 
> combined with low noise levels. It was planned and built that way within 
> the rules.
>
> I agree with Tree it is another sticky issue. However, I do believe that 
> allowing separate RX sites during contests depreciates the spirit, time, 
> effort, and cost of maintaining a well designed competitive station.
> Otherwise pick up a cell phone and call "ur 599 in AZ".
>
> sincerely,
>
> Bob W7RH
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus Database: 4257/9022 - Release Date: 01/29/15
>