Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule

[john]

Amen@!!!!   but,,if" they" make it that simple, "they" no longer have 
job security...
Most every award , etc developed is with the idea of more activity and 
more income/members for "them"--follow the money....
Back in the day,  when I would work a new country, and was sure of it, I 
did not try to work it again, every band , every mode, every 
operator--kind of like hunting,   I never took more game, than I could 
eat or give to some one else..   I just think that this award stuff has 
gotten silly and stupid, and a lot us , including me, has(had) bought in 
to it...
At 73 I should worry a lot more about other things other than about 
reaching  2000 band countries...in total that should mean very little, 
and certainly does not indicate that I am such a hot shot op...
Bring on k1n!! I need them on 160--but that is now a personal 
goal,,,some where along the line,, we(I) need to get a grip--since 15 
yrs of age, ham radio has been and still  is my life,, but golly, there 
are surely other things..(I have a dog)
Tom, thanks for your comments and giving me a reality   check
73 john
On 1/30/2015 12:50 PM, Tom W8JI wrote:
>> Now, consider this:  We keep talking about remote RX, and the attendant
>> problems of getting full SDR data back to the main station where the
>> operator is located.  Lets flip this around.  Lets move the operator 
>> to the
>> receive site, and move the transmitter 100 miles away.  That way, we 
>> only
>> need low bandwidth - keying data, TX audio, and perhaps TX antenna
>> switching.  Does THIS change things at all?
>>
>> In other words - use the full receiving capabilities of your current
>> station, and take away transmitter hash.  Poof!  No longer an issue,
>> because the TX is now 100 miles away...
>>
>> This is a serious game changer in my books, and needs a serious rethink
>> before we say "hmmm - OK - old guys need this - no problem - sounds 
>> fine..."
>
> People are putting far too much emotion in this. It is a technical 
> issue. The technology to do this at one site is not all that difficult.
>
> Get a K3 and a reasonable amplifier, and you have minimal composite 
> noise on site. Phase-null the TX antenna out of the RX antenna ahead 
> of any RX amplification, and you can get down to noise floor at 1500 
> watts with reasonable spacing.
>
> Even if the transmitter is nulled, the contact advantage is minimal in 
> a 160 contest. The reason is any good station will run the band nearly 
> dry of contacts. You pick up far more contacts with the operator going 
> slow at slow times to get slow stations than someone would ever get by 
> duplex.  The primary advantage to duplex is in multi-op, where an 
> operator can be dedicated to moving up and down the band picking 
> people off. Successful multi-ops already have space to duplex, at 
> least to some reasonable extent.
>
> The real advantage to remote or split site is a better noise or 
> antenna environment. What we should be debating are the real facts and 
> effects, not what we want to be the facts.
>
> As for DXCC, since sometime in the 1990's (as I recall), we could 
> legally move anywhere or operate anywhere and collect DXCC. Prior to 
> that, it was not unheard of for people to call people on the phone to 
> "help" them get a new country. 160 meters for many years had a 
> phone-a-friend list. I recall that going on in various forms since the 
> 1970's, at least. Suddenly, it is a major problem that will ruin radio 
> as we know it!
>
> The most tragic thing I recall in Ham radio was hearing W8UDN, Ed,  (a 
> person I rarely spoke to) actually crying on the radio when he was 
> losing his 160 station. Listening to Ed's open distress and sadness at 
> no longer being able to enjoy something he loved for most of his life 
> turned a page for me.
>
> If letting someone who loves radio operate a radio, however he can 
> manage to do it, without unfairly taking away from other's ability to 
> enjoy what they want, I'm all for it.
>
> I think anyone who bases their success or value in life by how they 
> rank in something as silly as a national DXCC list, or worrying about 
> someone making 50 more contacts in a contest, deserves all the angst 
> and distress worrying about others creates for them.
>
> I hope the people who write rules eventually let people like VO1HP 
> enjoy radio, instead of false concerns. Radio is all the better when 
> we help each other, instead of holding someone like Ed back.
>
>
> 73 Tom
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>