From sawyered at earthlink.net Wed Jul 1 05:35:35 2015 From: sawyered at earthlink.net (Ed Sawyer) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 05:35:35 -0400 Subject: Topband: Top Hat Vertical Message-ID: <004901d0b3e1$484c5540$d8e4ffc0$@earthlink.net> ?Same here. My T vertical for 160 is 100 ft vertical and 82 ft horizontal. That makes the antenna resonant below the band, with a feedpoint Z of 50 ohms plus some inductive reactance on 160M. I add series C to tune out the L. The same idea will certainly work on 80M.? I believe that this antenna is functioning as a 3/8 wave vertical. Which is nice, but not necessary for good performance. I have a 70 ft high vertical portion with a total hat of about 45 ft (22.5 ft x 2). It resonates at 1.84Mhz with 20 Ohm impedance. It is fed against a ground rod and 45 radials ? mostly ? long. Works quite well. Ed From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com Wed Jul 1 11:39:50 2015 From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 08:39:50 -0700 Subject: Topband: Top Hat Vertical In-Reply-To: <004901d0b3e1$484c5540$d8e4ffc0$@earthlink.net> References: <004901d0b3e1$484c5540$d8e4ffc0$@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <559409C6.2010906@audiosystemsgroup.com> Hi Ed, The height of my Tee vertical was determined by the rigging points in trees to support the ends, with the design guideline that higher is better. :) The length of the top was then determined by what it took to get that 50 ohm match. 73, Jim K9YC On Wed,7/1/2015 2:35 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote: > ?Same here. My T vertical for 160 is 100 ft vertical and 82 ft horizontal. > That makes the antenna resonant below the band, with a feedpoint Z of 50 > ohms plus some inductive reactance on 160M. I add series C to tune out the > L. The same idea will certainly work on 80M.? > > > > I believe that this antenna is functioning as a 3/8 wave vertical. Which is > nice, but not necessary for good performance. > > > > I have a 70 ft high vertical portion with a total hat of about 45 ft (22.5 > ft x 2). It resonates at 1.84Mhz with 20 Ohm impedance. It is fed against > a ground rod and 45 radials ? mostly ? long. > > > > Works quite well. From rstealey at hotmail.com Wed Jul 1 12:02:08 2015 From: rstealey at hotmail.com (Rick Stealey) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 16:02:08 +0000 Subject: Topband: =?windows-1256?b?TG93IExvb3BzLCBUZWUncyBhbmQgLi4u/g==?= Message-ID: W8JI writes:good A-B test, so it really boils down to what makes us happy. If we are happy, it is like magic. It is as good as an extra 10 dB. This is true no matter how our antennas actually work. :) This may the most brilliant statement about antennas in the past 50 years. Rick K2XT From wa3mej at comcast.net Wed Jul 1 16:47:04 2015 From: wa3mej at comcast.net (Jim) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 20:47:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Topband: loops and half square antennas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1362617707.3992532.1435783624244.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Good afternoon to all, First I have never understood this fascination with loop antennas... full wave or not.? Unless they are put up vertically and even then they have to be feed at the correct spot (thanks for the education all those years ago Frank W3LPL) they just don't work DX very well.. in fact most loops I have ever used are cloud burners... again they have to be up pretty high and fed at the proper spot. ? Then the half square that I tried several years ago didn't work close to the "Inverted L" that? W3LPL talked me through in the very early 80's. In stead of all of this fancy stuff why not just get back to basics and go with what all the DXers have used for decades.? Now I gotta say the success that Guy Oliver (I think it was) with the FCP appears to work great.? I have heard several and I cant tell much difference from stations near them running the same power. ? Bottom line you cant cheat mother nature or said like Frank used to tell me ..."THERE IS NO SILVER BULLET" ? That's my story and I am sticking to it. ? Jim ? From k3ky at radioprism.com Wed Jul 1 18:17:15 2015 From: k3ky at radioprism.com (k3ky at radioprism.com) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 15:17:15 -0700 Subject: Topband: Low Power TX radio 1980 Message-ID: <20150701151715.767ec283a8137edf9501d1a9c178a72b.4efbc9d47d.wbe@email02.secureserver.net> My best guess, based on what little information you have given here, is that the radio contains a *Seiler* Oscillator. I've not run across any reference to a "Sillner" oscillator prior to yours. The Seiler is a variation on the basic Colpitts type. Unless you can provide additional info on your radio, I doubt you have given enough for anyone to be able to help you. How about at least a link to a photo of your radio? 73, David K3KY >I have that QRP radio and need to get it working. If you have a schematic >I would be more than happy to Pay for the copying and mailing of that Radio. >I Believe it has a VFO that was called a Sillner VFO. I can not find any >Information on it. I would like to have it working for the late summer. From mikewate at gmail.com Wed Jul 1 18:22:22 2015 From: mikewate at gmail.com (Mike Waters) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:22:22 -0500 Subject: Topband: loops and half square antennas In-Reply-To: <1362617707.3992532.1435783624244.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> References: <1362617707.3992532.1435783624244.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Message-ID: Well said, Jim. Over the years, I have heard countless hams on HF testify how "well" they work, and how "quiet" they are. I was almost convinced. When we first moved to this rural acreage, myself and another ham went back in the pasture with a 100' tape deciding where we might put one. We decided to investigate first, fortunately. I now think that *one* of the reasons "they're so quiet" is all of the earth loss. That loss reduces everything coming down the feedline, but does little to enhance S/N ratio. No matter what, people will always build low horizontal loops, double bazookas, and j-poles. And conversely, few people will understand the real worth of instant A-B comparison tests. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Jim wrote: > I have never understood this fascination with loop antennas... full wave > or not. Unless they are put up vertically and even then ... > From k6uj at pacbell.net Wed Jul 1 21:30:06 2015 From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Robert Harmon) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 18:30:06 -0700 Subject: Topband: loops and half square antennas In-Reply-To: References: <1362617707.3992532.1435783624244.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Message-ID: Mike, Interesting. Would you tell us how you conducted the A/B comparison tests. We hear a lot of conjecture like you said how "well' they work and how "quiet" they are. Please give us the facts on the test antennas and how the A/B tests were conducted and the data from the tests. This might be worthy of a QST article.............. Bob K6UJ > On Jul 1, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Mike Waters wrote: > > Well said, Jim. Over the years, I have heard countless hams on HF testify > how "well" they work, and how "quiet" they are. > > I was almost convinced. When we first moved to this rural acreage, myself > and another ham went back in the pasture with a 100' tape deciding where we > might put one. We decided to investigate first, fortunately. > > I now think that *one* of the reasons "they're so quiet" is all of the > earth loss. That loss reduces everything coming down the feedline, but does > little to enhance S/N ratio. > > No matter what, people will always build low horizontal loops, double > bazookas, and j-poles. And conversely, few people will understand the real > worth of instant A-B comparison tests. > > 73, Mike > www.w0btu.com > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Jim wrote: > >> I have never understood this fascination with loop antennas... full wave >> or not. Unless they are put up vertically and even then ... >> > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From w8ji at w8ji.com Wed Jul 1 21:32:49 2015 From: w8ji at w8ji.com (Tom W8JI) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 21:32:49 -0400 Subject: Topband: loops and half square antennas References: <1362617707.3992532.1435783624244.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Message-ID: > Good afternoon to all, > First I have never understood this fascination with loop antennas... full > wave or not. Unless they are put up vertically and even then they have to > be feed at the correct spot (thanks for the education all those years ago > Frank W3LPL) they just don't work DX very well.. in fact most loops I have > ever used are cloud burners... again they have to be up pretty high and > fed at the proper spot. > The only real advantage of large loops is the dip in impedance at all overtone frequencies. They go through an SWR dip at every harmonic of the base full-wave frequency. That can be a nice advantage for a two to four band antenna, if the SWR dips all happen to fall on useful frequencies. You can also melt ice off them, if the feedline conductor is large enough and you have a big high current supply. Myself, if I could only have one antenna, I'd probably have an open wire fed 80M dipole that I could load as a T on 160, and as a dipole on higher bands. From w7dra at juno.com Wed Jul 1 21:58:55 2015 From: w7dra at juno.com (w7dra at juno.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 18:58:55 -0700 Subject: Topband: loops and half square antennas Message-ID: Boy Tom, W8JI really hit the nail on the head, the antenna that works the best for you is the one you like. I finally after years of inverted Ls and other esoteric vertical mishaps I now have the antenna of my dreams - the one I have wished for since I was 14 - found on page 343, Fig. 14-26B of the 1954 ARRL handbook, called the 160 meter bent antenna. Now that it is up I won't have to worry about getting out on 160 any more. mike w7dra ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/55949b9a3eeaa1b9a20c4st03vuc From mikewate at gmail.com Wed Jul 1 23:05:59 2015 From: mikewate at gmail.com (Mike Waters) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 22:05:59 -0500 Subject: Topband: loops and half square antennas In-Reply-To: References: <1362617707.3992532.1435783624244.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Message-ID: Since I never had a low horizontal loop on 160 meters, I never did A/B tests. I just did extensive research (long story, I don't have time to explain). What I had in mind was that if people who sing the praises of horizontal loops --especially for 160m over ~500 miles-- did so, they might learn something useful. :-) 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Robert Harmon wrote: > Mike, > > Interesting. Would you tell us how you conducted the A/B comparison tests. > We hear a lot of conjecture like you said how "well' they work and how > "quiet" > they are. Please give us the facts on the test antennas and how the A/B > tests > were conducted and the data from the tests. This might be worthy of a QST > article.............. > > Bob > K6UJ > From kl7ra at ptialaska.net Wed Jul 1 23:14:58 2015 From: kl7ra at ptialaska.net (KL7RA) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 19:14:58 -0800 Subject: Topband: loops and half square antennas References: Message-ID: <005f01d0b475$48c640f0$6e49a8c0@40M> Hi mike, always fun to work you from Alaska as you slide by. Does the new antenna have a 1950's toilet bowl float on top? I assume the new plastic ones don't work as well but who am I to judge what others think works or not. I'm a stuck in the mud 1/4 wave vertical kid of guy for topband. Working on this past winter's moose damage of the receive antennas, never to early to get ready for the season. And the bears are not on this hill yet as the berries are not ready. 73 Rich KL7RA Kenai Alaska ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:58 PM Subject: Re: Topband: loops and half square antennas > Boy Tom, W8JI really hit the nail on the head, the antenna that works the > best for you is the one you like. > > I finally after years of inverted Ls and other esoteric vertical mishaps > I now have the antenna of my dreams - the one I have wished for since I > was 14 - found on page 343, Fig. 14-26B of the 1954 ARRL handbook, > called the 160 meter bent antenna. Now that it is up I won't have to > worry about getting out on 160 any more. > > mike w7dra > > ____________________________________________________________ > Want to place your ad here? > Advertise on United Online > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/55949b9a3eeaa1b9a20c4st03vuc > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From n1rj at roadrunner.com Sat Jul 4 17:47:43 2015 From: n1rj at roadrunner.com (Roger D Johnson) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 21:47:43 +0000 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching Message-ID: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> I've been looking for a way to switch multiple receiving antennas to multiple receivers. I know some hams are using video switchers but info on them is scarce. There is a Dynair SVA-100B for sale on eBay but no real description of it's functions. It seems obvious that you can, for instance, switch input 3 to output 7 but can you simultaneously switch input 5 to output 6? In other words, can you have more than one path through the switcher? Any other ideas on switching greatly appreciated! 73, Roger From herbert.schoenbohm at gmail.com Sat Jul 4 18:30:57 2015 From: herbert.schoenbohm at gmail.com (Herbert Schoenbohm) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:30:57 -0400 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: <1436046728815.897546112@boxbe> References: <1436046728815.897546112@boxbe> Message-ID: <55985EA1.4040105@gmail.com> Roger, as long as the switch is passive and not active it will work well for you as unused ports are terminate in 75 ohms. I use a 12X1 Dynairs here and they have excellent isolation plus it terminates the unused reversible Beverage feedline (which is recommended for greater rejection). I just cut the RG6 minus the VF to multiples of a half wave length so the termination at the switch appears on the unused port. I prefer this to running voltage out to relays which always seem to fail at some point. Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ On 7/4/2015 5:47 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: > Boxbe This message is eligible for > Automatic Cleanup! (n1rj at roadrunner.com) Add cleanup rule > > | More info > > > I've been looking for a way to switch multiple receiving antennas to > multiple receivers. I know some hams are > using video switchers but info on them is scarce. There is a Dynair > SVA-100B for sale on eBay but no real description > of it's functions. > > It seems obvious that you can, for instance, switch input 3 to output > 7 but can you simultaneously switch input > 5 to output 6? In other words, can you have more than one path through > the switcher? > > Any other ideas on switching greatly appreciated! > > 73, Roger > > > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From herbs at vitelcom.net Sat Jul 4 18:42:11 2015 From: herbs at vitelcom.net (Herbert Schoenbohm) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:42:11 -0400 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> References: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: <55986143.6030303@vitelcom.net> Roger, I took a look at this unit and it appears to be an active unit rather than a passive switcher that you need for Topband. You can call Dynair at 858-450-0504 and see if they can tell you where to download a schematic. Herb, KV4FZ On 7/4/2015 5:47 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: > I've been looking for a way to switch multiple receiving antennas to > multiple receivers. I know some hams are > using video switchers but info on them is scarce. There is a Dynair > SVA-100B for sale on eBay but no real description > of it's functions. > > It seems obvious that you can, for instance, switch input 3 to output > 7 but can you simultaneously switch input > 5 to output 6? In other words, can you have more than one path through > the switcher? > > Any other ideas on switching greatly appreciated! > > 73, Roger > > > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From jayt at arraysolutions.com Sun Jul 5 12:55:54 2015 From: jayt at arraysolutions.com (Jay Terleski) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 11:55:54 -0500 Subject: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How about this, there are other RX antenna switches here too. http://www.udcsys.com/RX-6ReceiveAntennaSwitch.html Jay, WX0B Jay Terleski Array Solutions 214 954 7140 On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 11:00 AM, wrote: > Send Topband mailing list submissions to > topband at contesting.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > topband-request at contesting.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > topband-owner at contesting.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching (Roger D Johnson) > 2. Re: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching > (Herbert Schoenbohm) > 3. Re: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching > (Herbert Schoenbohm) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 21:47:43 +0000 > From: Roger D Johnson > To: Top Band Reflector > Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching > Message-ID: <5598547F.4050503 at roadrunner.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I've been looking for a way to switch multiple receiving antennas to > multiple > receivers. I know some hams are > using video switchers but info on them is scarce. There is a Dynair > SVA-100B for > sale on eBay but no real description > of it's functions. > > It seems obvious that you can, for instance, switch input 3 to output 7 > but can > you simultaneously switch input > 5 to output 6? In other words, can you have more than one path through the > switcher? > > Any other ideas on switching greatly appreciated! > > 73, Roger > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:30:57 -0400 > From: Herbert Schoenbohm > To: topband at contesting.com, n1rj at roadrunner.com > Subject: Re: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching > Message-ID: <55985EA1.4040105 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Roger, as long as the switch is passive and not active it will work > well for you as unused ports are terminate in 75 ohms. I use a 12X1 > Dynairs here and they have excellent isolation plus it terminates the > unused reversible Beverage feedline (which is recommended for greater > rejection). I just cut the RG6 minus the VF to multiples of a half wave > length so the termination at the switch appears on the unused port. I > prefer this to running voltage out to relays which always seem to fail > at some point. > > > Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ > > On 7/4/2015 5:47 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: > > Boxbe This message is eligible for > > Automatic Cleanup! (n1rj at roadrunner.com) Add cleanup rule > > < > https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3Dnp%252Bsb5oLW0EM1MiGv38HJp5SUI58ppPRSOpvKCFUJoQ%252BC1b%252F%252Fd5cjSefau95xVXwxnFmSSwUatUl%252Fd%252BX4fby4vOtZvLohd1eJzWOO5EAZyS8V5GycsrS5GFxQEdl2XY62EXybK3klIQ%253D%26key%3DA7%252F34s4sBlm2aKuS%252BezNSB0IavmYLPaMHZ73KUHql5E%253D&tc_serial=21867422542&tc_rand=1661170955&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD&utm_content=001 > > > > | More info > > < > http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=21867422542&tc_rand=1661170955&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD&utm_content=001 > > > > > > I've been looking for a way to switch multiple receiving antennas to > > multiple receivers. I know some hams are > > using video switchers but info on them is scarce. There is a Dynair > > SVA-100B for sale on eBay but no real description > > of it's functions. > > > > It seems obvious that you can, for instance, switch input 3 to output > > 7 but can you simultaneously switch input > > 5 to output 6? In other words, can you have more than one path through > > the switcher? > > > > Any other ideas on switching greatly appreciated! > > > > 73, Roger > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:42:11 -0400 > From: Herbert Schoenbohm > To: topband at contesting.com > Subject: Re: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching > Message-ID: <55986143.6030303 at vitelcom.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Roger, I took a look at this unit and it appears to be an active unit > rather than a passive switcher that you need for Topband. You can call > Dynair at 858-450-0504 and see if they can tell you where to download a > schematic. > > Herb, KV4FZ > > On 7/4/2015 5:47 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: > > I've been looking for a way to switch multiple receiving antennas to > > multiple receivers. I know some hams are > > using video switchers but info on them is scarce. There is a Dynair > > SVA-100B for sale on eBay but no real description > > of it's functions. > > > > It seems obvious that you can, for instance, switch input 3 to output > > 7 but can you simultaneously switch input > > 5 to output 6? In other words, can you have more than one path through > > the switcher? > > > > Any other ideas on switching greatly appreciated! > > > > 73, Roger > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Topband mailing list > Topband at contesting.com > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 3 > *************************************** > From donovanf at starpower.net Sun Jul 5 15:17:50 2015 From: donovanf at starpower.net (donovanf at starpower.net) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 15:17:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: <282464071.12508053.1436123870922.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> As an alternative, in my opinion the receiving antenna switching capabilities of the K9AY 8x2 switch are far superior to any available alternative: - eight antenna input ports - two independently controlled receiver output ports - any antenna input switchable to either or both receiver output ports with no interaction and excellent isolation - two, three or more antenna input ports can be simultaneously switched to either or both receiver output ports http://www.aytechnologies.com/Products/RAS8x2data.htm 73 Frank W3LPL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger D Johnson" To: "Top Band Reflector" Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2015 9:47:43 PM Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching I've been looking for a way to switch multiple receiving antennas to multiple receivers. I know some hams are using video switchers but info on them is scarce. There is a Dynair SVA-100B for sale on eBay but no real description of it's functions. It seems obvious that you can, for instance, switch input 3 to output 7 but can you simultaneously switch input 5 to output 6? In other words, can you have more than one path through the switcher? Any other ideas on switching greatly appreciated! 73, Roger _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From mikewate at gmail.com Sun Jul 5 16:07:13 2015 From: mikewate at gmail.com (Mike Waters) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 15:07:13 -0500 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: <282464071.12508053.1436123870922.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> References: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> <282464071.12508053.1436123870922.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> Message-ID: I'm not sure that I would like pushbutton antenna switching. Especially in a contest. I use a 4-position rotary switch to select all four directions of the two Beverages. (The same principle would apply to more than four directions.) All four RX directions are within a 90 degree rotation of the switch; adjacent positions are just 22.5 degrees apart. (And rotary switches are available with less than 22.5 degrees between positions.) To its immediate right is a toggle switch that selects either the Beverage RX rotary switch or the TX antenna. Both the rotary and toggle can be operated conveniently with just my right hand, while tuning across the band, etc. with my left. It is a very ergonomic design; if it could be improved upon, I've never figured out a better way. (But I'm listening with an open mind. :-) A photo of the switching arrangement here can be viewed at www.w0btu.com/Beverage_antennas.html#more_than_one_way_to_build Click on the image to zoom. I think W8JI --and somebody else who copied his design-- has eight PB switches in a ~2" diameter circle, all barely protruding just past the panel. Maybe if I had one, I would prefer it over what I built, but I really don't think so. When my fingers are on that switch, I don't have to feel around for pushbuttons nor take my eyes off more important things. IMHO, a rotary switch is the way to go. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com From tshoppa at gmail.com Sun Jul 5 16:54:25 2015 From: tshoppa at gmail.com (Tim Shoppa) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 16:54:25 -0400 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: References: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> <282464071.12508053.1436123870922.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> Message-ID: I've used the K9AY pushbutton RX select switches at W3LPL and they are a very fine ergonomic solution. Definitely prefer the pushbuttons to rotary switches. At home I use footswitches for 1-of-4 RX direction selection on 160M. Very easy for me to cycle multiple directions after each CQ. Two feet gets me to 4 directions, I don't know that I'd be able to grow the last foot to help with an 8-circle, but that doesn't matter because I do not have room in the yard for an 8-circle :-) One mistake I've made a couple times is changing transmit direction switch, while transmitting. This was especially likely while I was trying to do 2 different receive antennas or having a conversation with others in the shack. Didn't blow anything up but maybe I was just lucky! A slight evolution would be a pushbutton transmit direction selector, that would lock out direction changes while transmitting (or the other way around). 160M in a big DX-only contest requires much less antenna switching, than a contest where there are many domestic callers worth points as well as the DX. Tim N3QE On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Mike Waters wrote: > I'm not sure that I would like pushbutton antenna switching. Especially in > a contest. > > I use a 4-position rotary switch to select all four directions of the two > Beverages. (The same principle would apply to more than four directions.) > All four RX directions are within a 90 degree rotation of the switch; > adjacent positions are just 22.5 degrees apart. (And rotary switches are > available with less than 22.5 degrees between positions.) > > To its immediate right is a toggle switch that selects either the Beverage > RX rotary switch or the TX antenna. Both the rotary and toggle can be > operated conveniently with just my right hand, while tuning across the > band, etc. with my left. It is a very ergonomic design; if it could be > improved upon, I've never figured out a better way. > (But I'm listening with an open mind. :-) > > A photo of the switching arrangement here can be viewed at > www.w0btu.com/Beverage_antennas.html#more_than_one_way_to_build > Click on the image to zoom. > > I think W8JI --and somebody else who copied his design-- has eight PB > switches in a ~2" diameter circle, all barely protruding just past the > panel. Maybe if I had one, I would prefer it over what I built, but I > really don't think so. When my fingers are on that switch, I don't have to > feel around for pushbuttons nor take my eyes off more important things. > > IMHO, a rotary switch is the way to go. > > 73, Mike > www.w0btu.com > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From mikewate at gmail.com Sun Jul 5 17:15:21 2015 From: mikewate at gmail.com (Mike Waters) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 16:15:21 -0500 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: References: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> <282464071.12508053.1436123870922.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> Message-ID: Do you? I didn't know Gary sold them. Where can we see them? BTW, besides having to rotate this switch only 22.5 degrees,it turns very smoothly. I fiddled with the spring tension and lubed it for just the right amount of torque without being sloppy. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote: > I've used the K9AY pushbutton RX select switches at W3LPL and they are a > very fine ergonomic solution. Definitely prefer the pushbuttons to rotary > switches. > From wb6rse1 at mac.com Sun Jul 5 17:29:15 2015 From: wb6rse1 at mac.com (wb6rse1 at mac.com) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 14:29:15 -0700 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: References: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> <282464071.12508053.1436123870922.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> Message-ID: <06DC7A1F-52D3-4746-98B0-B941BE524B74@mac.com> 4O3A sells a variety of products for station control and antenna switching: http://4o3a.com Steve WB6RSE From n1rj at roadrunner.com Sun Jul 5 18:17:58 2015 From: n1rj at roadrunner.com (Roger D Johnson) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 22:17:58 +0000 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> References: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: <5599AD16.8000004@roadrunner.com> It appears that the better video switches need a signal from the vertical blanking interval to switch. No signal, no switching. Probably explains why they are so cheap on eBay! I have 3 bi-directional Beverages, an 8 circle and 4 square receiving antennas. I would like to switch any one to my K3 main rx, K3 aux rx, R-388 or DX Engineering NCC-1 phasing box. That's 8 inputs and 4 outputs minimum. Ideally, some sort of matrix arrangement would do. I've looked far and wide for a commercial unit that would do the job but no luck. Virtually everything is designed for SO2R operation. At present, I'm using a switcher used in RV units. It has 5 inputs and 3 outputs. I use a separate switch for Beverage selection. Thanks for all the inputs! 73, Roger On 7/4/2015 21:47, Roger D Johnson wrote: > I've been looking for a way to switch multiple receiving antennas to multiple > receivers. I know some hams are > using video switchers but info on them is scarce. There is a Dynair SVA-100B > for sale on eBay but no real description > of it's functions. > > It seems obvious that you can, for instance, switch input 3 to output 7 but > can you simultaneously switch input > 5 to output 6? In other words, can you have more than one path through the > switcher? > > Any other ideas on switching greatly appreciated! > > 73, Roger > > > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From richard at karlquist.com Sun Jul 5 18:37:04 2015 From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 15:37:04 -0700 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: References: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> <282464071.12508053.1436123870922.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5599B190.4010201@karlquist.com> On 7/5/2015 1:54 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote: > I've used the K9AY pushbutton RX select switches at W3LPL and they are a > very fine ergonomic solution. Definitely prefer the pushbuttons to rotary > switches. Same here. I have a set of 6 pushbuttons in a circle with indicator lights to indicate which one is in use. They control beverages at 60 degree azimuth intervals. It is much more intuitive where I am pointing than a rotary switch. I also have random access, instead of sequential access. I have a 7th pushbutton in the center for an omni antenna. The advantage of this over a rotary switch in a contest is huge. Rick N6RK From w8ji at w8ji.com Sun Jul 5 19:09:26 2015 From: w8ji at w8ji.com (Tom W8JI) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:09:26 -0400 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching References: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com><282464071.12508053.1436123870922.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0B8EA96278E54A1A83E6FCD404C2D905@MAIN> > BTW, besides having to rotate this switch only 22.5 degrees,it turns very > smoothly. I fiddled with the spring tension and lubed it for just the > right > amount of torque without being sloppy. > In the 1970's, I started with a rotary switch, but didn't like it. I used push buttons from a telephone line switch. When the PB mechanical lock switches were wired with shielded wire, it worked good enough at least up through 40. In the 1980's, I built a push button box with the buttons like a key pad. I hated it. I changed to in line buttons. When we got seriously into contesting, I built boxes that buttons in a circle small enough to be worked with a thumb while resting a hand on the box, and a sloped front panel with no cabinet lip to get in the way. They have LED's by each button outside of the button circle so a thumb doesn't always block the lights. The actual antenna group selection is on a rotary, which puts any array into any ear in stereo, and can lock a primary direction like NE or NW. These switches run a matrix that is all passive components, allowing any antenna into up to four output channels, and also allows the same antenna to be used by all output channels. This is an expandable matrix that could do 1, 2, 4, or 8 output channels and as many input ports as anyone wants within reason (maybe 30 or 40 is the limit). I did this with strong push-pull low noise line amps, and it won't overload even with my own TX running. I don't (and won't) bridge across lines because of IMD and noise limitations. It is real quiet here in winter, so I have to be careful with dynamic range. I have field relay boxes that allow up to two directions to be picked from any antenna hub at the same time and the NE antennas are available completely independent with as many receivers as anyone wants at the same time. My boxes stay connected year in and year out, through thunderstorms and everything, and unless lightning actually hits an antenna (which has happened a few times in 15 years) they stay connected and working. From herbs at vitelcom.net Sun Jul 5 19:10:13 2015 From: herbs at vitelcom.net (Herbert Schoenbohm) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 19:10:13 -0400 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: <5599AD16.8000004@roadrunner.com> References: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> <5599AD16.8000004@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: <5599B955.5030902@vitelcom.net> The early Dynair switches are passive and they only require pushing in the old fashion PB snap switches. The only voltage they use (optional) is for switch illumination which was required to show with video monitor was connected to a particular source in a darkened control room. I removed all wiring and the 12v supply since it is easy to see in front of me which RX antenna is selected. My only complaint is that during a contest one hand (also the one I send CW with) is constantly changing antennas. The design by Gary with the momentary pad is a big improvement especially if it has a computer interface selection for remote operating. Right now I can only switch 6 antennas by the remote op on the mainland by using IP Power and a bunch of relays in conjunction with a DX-Engineering RTR-1 Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ On 7/5/2015 6:17 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: > It appears that the better video switches need a signal from the > vertical blanking interval to switch. No > signal, no switching. Probably explains why they are so cheap on eBay! > > I have 3 bi-directional Beverages, an 8 circle and 4 square receiving > antennas. I would like to switch > any one to my K3 main rx, K3 aux rx, R-388 or DX Engineering NCC-1 > phasing box. That's 8 inputs > and 4 outputs minimum. > > Ideally, some sort of matrix arrangement would do. I've looked far and > wide for a commercial unit that > would do the job but no luck. Virtually everything is designed for > SO2R operation. At present, I'm using > a switcher used in RV units. It has 5 inputs and 3 outputs. I use a > separate switch for Beverage selection. > > Thanks for all the inputs! > > 73, Roger > > > On 7/4/2015 21:47, Roger D Johnson wrote: >> I've been looking for a way to switch multiple receiving antennas to >> multiple receivers. I know some hams are >> using video switchers but info on them is scarce. There is a Dynair >> SVA-100B for sale on eBay but no real description >> of it's functions. >> >> It seems obvious that you can, for instance, switch input 3 to output >> 7 but can you simultaneously switch input >> 5 to output 6? In other words, can you have more than one path >> through the switcher? >> >> Any other ideas on switching greatly appreciated! >> >> 73, Roger >> >> >> >> >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From mikewate at gmail.com Sun Jul 5 19:24:28 2015 From: mikewate at gmail.com (Mike Waters) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 18:24:28 -0500 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: <5599B955.5030902@vitelcom.net> References: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> <5599AD16.8000004@roadrunner.com> <5599B955.5030902@vitelcom.net> Message-ID: What does Gary's design look like? Anybody have a URL? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote: > The design by Gary with the momentary pad is a big improvement > From tshoppa at gmail.com Sun Jul 5 21:20:16 2015 From: tshoppa at gmail.com (Tim Shoppa) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:20:16 -0400 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: References: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> <5599AD16.8000004@roadrunner.com> <5599B955.5030902@vitelcom.net> Message-ID: The base K9AY 8x2 switch box: http://www.aytechnologies.com/Products/RAS8x2data.htm If Gary came out with a similar latching pushbutton controller for remote relay switching of 8-circles then it would be a great match to the increasing popularity of 8-circles. I'm not sure electrically how to do multiple simultaneous directions in SO2R from the same 8-circle - that would be real handy for multiple receivers in domestic contests. Tim N3QE On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Mike Waters wrote: > What does Gary's design look like? Anybody have a URL? > > 73, Mike > www.w0btu.com > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm > wrote: > > > The design by Gary with the momentary pad is a big improvement > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From keepwalking188 at ac0c.com Sun Jul 5 22:18:02 2015 From: keepwalking188 at ac0c.com (Jeff AC0C) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:18:02 -0500 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: References: <5598547F.4050503@roadrunner.com> <5599AD16.8000004@roadrunner.com><5599B955.5030902@vitelcom.net> Message-ID: <59B21D76F28E483296F67790DE80BC11@w520> Tim - The HI-Z system supports feeding two rigs with independent direction selection in so2r. I think this is the right gadget for that system: http://www.hizantennas.com/asc.htm 73/jeff/ac0c www.ac0c.com alpha-charlie-zero-charlie -----Original Message----- From: Tim Shoppa Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 8:20 PM To: Mike Waters Cc: topband ; Herbert Schoenbohm Subject: Re: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching The base K9AY 8x2 switch box: http://www.aytechnologies.com/Products/RAS8x2data.htm If Gary came out with a similar latching pushbutton controller for remote relay switching of 8-circles then it would be a great match to the increasing popularity of 8-circles. I'm not sure electrically how to do multiple simultaneous directions in SO2R from the same 8-circle - that would be real handy for multiple receivers in domestic contests. Tim N3QE On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Mike Waters wrote: > What does Gary's design look like? Anybody have a URL? > > 73, Mike > www.w0btu.com > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm > wrote: > > > The design by Gary with the momentary pad is a big improvement > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From indians at xsmail.com Mon Jul 6 06:26:24 2015 From: indians at xsmail.com (Petr Ourednik) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:26:24 +0200 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching In-Reply-To: <282464071.12508053.1436123870922.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> References: <282464071.12508053.1436123870922.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1436178384.2860453.316154257.4937D1C0@webmail.messagingengine.com> Roger, I am using this remote 12 channels switch http://m.ebay.com/itm/281575028616?nav=SEARCH I equiped it with rf BNC connectors into the box and wired into required configuration. I am using it for years for my receiving antennas selection and it works perfectly. 73 - Petr, OK1RP http://ok1rp.blogspot.com On Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 09:17 PM, donovanf at starpower.net wrote: > As an alternative, in my opinion the receiving antenna switching > capabilities > of the K9AY 8x2 switch are far superior to any available alternative: > > > > - eight antenna input ports > - two independently controlled receiver output ports > - any antenna input switchable to either or both receiver output ports > with no interaction and excellent isolation > - two, three or more antenna input ports can be simultaneously switched > to either or both receiver output ports > > > http://www.aytechnologies.com/Products/RAS8x2data.htm > > > 73 > Frank > W3LPL > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Roger D Johnson" > To: "Top Band Reflector" > Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2015 9:47:43 PM > Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching > > I've been looking for a way to switch multiple receiving antennas to > multiple > receivers. I know some hams are > using video switchers but info on them is scarce. There is a Dynair > SVA-100B for > sale on eBay but no real description > of it's functions. > > It seems obvious that you can, for instance, switch input 3 to output 7 > but can > you simultaneously switch input > 5 to output 6? In other words, can you have more than one path through > the switcher? > > Any other ideas on switching greatly appreciated! > > 73, Roger > > > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From john at kk9a.com Mon Jul 6 08:59:25 2015 From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 07:59:25 -0500 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching Message-ID: I have several Array Solution StackMatches that came with rotatory switches. I found the rotatory switches to be very awkward for changing stack configurations and I quickly replaced them with MicroHam push button controllers. They may also cause less wrist strain. I have a K9AY 8X2 switch and it is awesome. Selecting RX antennas using the remote key pad could not be easier or quicker. The remote lays flat on the desk and it can be conveniently positioned. I would highly recommend this product. John KK9A To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching From: Mike Waters Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 15:07:13 -0500 I'm not sure that I would like pushbutton antenna switching. Especially in a contest. I use a 4-position rotary switch to select all four directions of the two Beverages. (The same principle would apply to more than four directions.) All four RX directions are within a 90 degree rotation of the switch; adjacent positions are just 22.5 degrees apart. (And rotary switches are available with less than 22.5 degrees between positions.) To its immediate right is a toggle switch that selects either the Beverage RX rotary switch or the TX antenna. Both the rotary and toggle can be operated conveniently with just my right hand, while tuning across the band, etc. with my left. It is a very ergonomic design; if it could be improved upon, I've never figured out a better way. (But I'm listening with an open mind. :-) A photo of the switching arrangement here can be viewed at www.w0btu.com/Beverage_antennas.html#more_than_one_way_to_build Click on the image to zoom. I think W8JI --and somebody else who copied his design-- has eight PB switches in a ~2" diameter circle, all barely protruding just past the panel. Maybe if I had one, I would prefer it over what I built, but I really don't think so. When my fingers are on that switch, I don't have to feel around for pushbuttons nor take my eyes off more important things. IMHO, a rotary switch is the way to go. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com From k9ay at k9ay.com Tue Jul 7 10:33:10 2015 From: k9ay at k9ay.com (K9AY) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:33:10 -0500 Subject: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching References: Message-ID: <740C742964714965AEF40793C3FCE64D@pcone> Since my RAS-8x2 has been mentioned prominently in this thread, I'll give everyone an update... Yes, I still make them! I don't keep any in stock, but usually have some preassembled boards and other components. The majority of recent work has been custom systems for M/S, M/2 & M/M with various arrangements of filters & preamps. The 8x4 configuration has been popular lately. Made a 4x4 for the upcoming VP8 DXpedition. Some of the other products I've made previously are available on request. None of them has much of a profit margin, and I mainly do them for past customers -- taking care of friends is a priority! Basic info is on www.aytechnologies.com, or e-mail me at my 'business' address: gary at aytechnologies.com 73, Gary K9AY From k1amf at live.com Fri Jul 10 10:09:55 2015 From: k1amf at live.com (Tony K1AMF) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:09:55 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or comments. Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. -------- Original message -------- From: ARRL Members Only Web site Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: k1amf at live.com Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Hello, Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. Thank you. 73 de Mike N2YBB -------------------------------------------------------------------- ARRL Hudson Division Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB n2ybb at arrl.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from messages, go to: http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 From charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com Fri Jul 10 15:54:40 2015 From: charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com (Charles Cu nningham) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:54:40 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Mike Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. Perhaps a special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of us over the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and antennas within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with remote Super Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am opposed to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! 73, Charlie, K4OTV -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony K1AMF Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM To: topband at contesting.com Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or comments. Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. -------- Original message -------- From: ARRL Members Only Web site Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: k1amf at live.com Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Hello, Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. Thank you. 73 de Mike N2YBB -------------------------------------------------------------------- ARRL Hudson Division Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB n2ybb at arrl.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from messages, go to: http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From k6uj at pacbell.net Fri Jul 10 20:42:26 2015 From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Robert Harmon) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:42:26 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> Mike, I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being acceptable for DXCC. (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the majority ! Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy and there would be a level playing field for each category, home station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue) 73, Bob K6UJ > On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham wrote: > > Hi, Mike > > Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my opinion > remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. Perhaps a > special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of us over > the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and antennas > within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with remote Super > Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages on certain DX > paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a > "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am opposed > to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! > > 73, > Charlie, K4OTV > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony > K1AMF > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM > To: topband at contesting.com > Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > > FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail > N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or comments. > Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. > > -------- Original message -------- > From: ARRL Members Only Web site > Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: k1amf at live.com > Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > > Hello, > > Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of > the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in DXCC > rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. > > I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about the > rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is > regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control > operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. > > I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated > remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. > > If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. > > Thank you. > > 73 de Mike N2YBB > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ARRL Hudson Division > Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB > n2ybb at arrl.org > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from messages, go to: > http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From ve5ra at sasktel.net Fri Jul 10 21:04:04 2015 From: ve5ra at sasktel.net (Doug Renwick) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:04:04 -0600 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> References: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <76DADD56C4E044B493D9AEAE15EB597B@DOUG8PC> I am in complete agreement with Bob and Charlie. The ARRL has dumbed down the DXCC award to the point where it is nearly meaningless. Doug I wasn't born in Saskatchewan, but I got here as soon as I could. -----Original Message----- Mike, I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being acceptable for DXCC. (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the majority ! Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy and there would be a level playing field for each category, home station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue) 73, Bob K6UJ > On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham wrote: > > Hi, Mike > > Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my opinion > remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. Perhaps a > special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of us over > the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and antennas > within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with remote Super > Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages on certain DX > paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a > "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am opposed > to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! > > 73, > Charlie, K4OTV > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony > K1AMF > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM > To: topband at contesting.com > Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > > FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail > N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or comments. > Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. > > -------- Original message -------- > From: ARRL Members Only Web site > Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: k1amf at live.com > Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > > Hello, > > Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of > the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in DXCC > rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. > > I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about the > rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is > regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control > operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. > > I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated > remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. > > If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. > > Thank you. > > 73 de Mike N2YBB > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ARRL Hudson Division > Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB > n2ybb at arrl.org > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from messages, go to: > http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From wi5a at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 10 21:09:54 2015 From: wi5a at sbcglobal.net (Larry Burke) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:09:54 -0500 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> References: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <038c01d0bb76$4c9591b0$e5c0b510$@sbcglobal.net> Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the Topband Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs to be received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your Director and his contact information here: http://www.arrl.org/divisions - Larry K5RK -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Harmon Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Mike, I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being acceptable for DXCC. (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the majority ! Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy and there would be a level playing field for each category, home station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue) 73, Bob K6UJ > On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham wrote: > > Hi, Mike > > Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my > opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for > DXCC. Perhaps a special NEW DXCC could be established for those > operations Most of us over the decades have worked diligently so > improve our stations and antennas within the bounds available to us! > To have to compete with remote Super Stations that are sited to > provide significant advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY > spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a "Sport for the > Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am opposed to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! > > 73, > Charlie, K4OTV > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of > Tony K1AMF > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM > To: topband at contesting.com > Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for > input > > FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please > e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or comments. > Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. > > -------- Original message -------- > From: ARRL Members Only Web site > Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: k1amf at live.com > Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > > Hello, > > Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting > of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change > in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. > > I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about > the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your > opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote > control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. > > I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated > remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. > > If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. > > Thank you. > > 73 de Mike N2YBB > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ARRL Hudson Division > Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB > n2ybb at arrl.org > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from messages, go to: > http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From n2gz at gregzenger.com Fri Jul 10 21:11:00 2015 From: n2gz at gregzenger.com (Greg Zenger) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:11:00 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> References: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> Message-ID: Bob and the others, I understand (and even agree with, at least to an extent) many of the arguments against remote operation. It seems like most of these arguments are against remote stations that are rented, or remote stations that are self owned but at a different location than the operators primary operating location (Other side of country, lower noise QTH, etc.) Do you have a problem with those of us who operate our own primary stations remotely? Sometimes I am sent out of the continental USA for business trips, and I can be away for months at a time. I'm likely to miss a good DXpedition or two during that time away. By operating remotely, it gives me something to do in the hotel room when the work for the day is complete, and it drives me to build a more robust and reliable station, because I dont have the luxury of making repairs until I return home. It sure is nice to have these 'remote' contacts that I make count towards my award. Afterall, every contact applied toward my award was made from the same antennas, connected to the same radios, in the same yard, regardless of where I was when I touched the paddles or PTT. Curious to hear your opinions on this particular angle. 73, Greg N2GZ On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Robert Harmon wrote: > Mike, > > I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being acceptable > for DXCC. > (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) > I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow remote > op to be granted > the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. Whether the > remote operation is > rented or self owned it makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have > the same thinking on this > but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I > believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this > way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the > majority ! > Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a separate > DXCC category for remote operation. Then > everyone is happy and there would be a level playing field for each > category, home station or remote. (After all that is the > crux of the issue) > > > 73, > Bob > K6UJ > > > > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham < > charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, Mike > > > > Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my opinion > > remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. > Perhaps a > > special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of us > over > > the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and antennas > > within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with remote Super > > Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages on certain DX > > paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as > a > > "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am > opposed > > to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! > > > > 73, > > Charlie, K4OTV > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony > > K1AMF > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM > > To: topband at contesting.com > > Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > > > > FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail > > N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or > comments. > > Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: ARRL Members Only Web site > > Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) > > To: k1amf at live.com > > Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > > > > Hello, > > > > Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of > > the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in > DXCC > > rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. > > > > I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about > the > > rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is > > regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control > > operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. > > > > I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated > > remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. > > > > If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. > > > > Thank you. > > > > 73 de Mike N2YBB > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ARRL Hudson Division > > Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB > > n2ybb at arrl.org > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe from messages, go to: > > http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From k6uj at pacbell.net Fri Jul 10 21:25:36 2015 From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Robert Harmon) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:25:36 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input References: <14e7a9fce07-5e2a-10adc@webstg-a04.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: Mike, Heres some more feedback from Don, W2MPK (below) I'm sure he meant it to go to the reflector mail too so you would get it Bob K6UJ > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Donald Moth > Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > Date: July 10, 2015 at 5:59:30 PM PDT > To: k6uj at pacbell.net > > It should not be allowed, It makes all my hard work since 1957 worth absolutely nothing. Might just as well burn my DXCC with 369 countries on it, > Damn I'm mad > Don W2MPK > > Donald Moth > dnemoth at aol.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Harmon > To: topband > Sent: Fri, Jul 10, 2015 8:42 pm > Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > > Mike, > > I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being > acceptable for DXCC. > (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed > in 1958 :-) > I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow > remote op to be granted > the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero > value. Whether the remote operation is > rented or self owned it makes no > difference. I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this > but haven't > had the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the majority of > ARRL DXers feel this > way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input > from the majority ! > Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to > have a separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then > everyone is happy and > there would be a level playing field for each category, home station or remote. > (After all that is the > crux of the issue) > > > 73, > Bob > K6UJ > > > > > On Jul > 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham > > wrote: > > > > Hi, Mike > > > > Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February > 1957. In my opinion > > remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable > for DXCC. Perhaps a > > special NEW DXCC could be established for those > operations Most of us over > > the decades have worked diligently so improve our > stations and antennas > > within the bounds available to us! To have to compete > with remote Super > > Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages > on certain DX > > paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and > establishes is as a > > "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our > society! I am opposed > > to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote > operations! > > > > 73, > > Charlie, K4OTV > > > > > > > > -----Original > Message----- > > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com ] On Behalf > Of Tony > > K1AMF > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM > > To: > topband at contesting.com > > Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - > I'm looking for input > > > > FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't > already. Please e-mail > > N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any > questions or comments. > > Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: ARRL Members Only Web site > > > > Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) > > To: > k1amf at live.com > > Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > > > > > Hello, > > > > Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second > meeting of > > the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent > change in DXCC > > rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for > DXCC credit. > > > > I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, > feel about the > > rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your > opinion is > > regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote > control > > operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. > > > > I > would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated > > remotely > in chasing DX for DXCC credit. > > > > If you have any other items of interest, > please also let me know. > > > > Thank you. > > > > 73 de Mike N2YBB > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ARRL > Hudson Division > > Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB > > n2ybb at arrl.org > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To > unsubscribe from messages, go to: > > > http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 > > _________________ > > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - > http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector > Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From ed.n5dg at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 21:33:57 2015 From: ed.n5dg at gmail.com (Ed Stallman) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:33:57 -0500 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <038c01d0bb76$4c9591b0$e5c0b510$@sbcglobal.net> References: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> <038c01d0bb76$4c9591b0$e5c0b510$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <55A07285.9040204@gmail.com> Please get an email off to your ARRL Division Director , they do want to hear from you ! The West Gulf Coast Director let me know that he is also receiving email's from op's that think RHR is the best thing since slice bread . Ed N5DG On 7/10/2015 8:09 PM, Larry Burke wrote: > Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the Topband > Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs to be > received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your Director and > his contact information here: http://www.arrl.org/divisions > > - Larry K5RK > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert > Harmon > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM > To: topband > Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for > input > > Mike, > > I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being acceptable for > DXCC. > (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) > I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow remote > op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. > Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it makes no difference. > I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this but haven't had the > opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the majority of > ARRL DXers feel this > way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the majority > ! > Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a separate > DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy and there would > be a level playing field for each category, home station or remote. (After > all that is the crux of the issue) > > > 73, > Bob > K6UJ > > > >> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham > wrote: >> Hi, Mike >> >> Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my >> opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for >> DXCC. Perhaps a special NEW DXCC could be established for those >> operations Most of us over the decades have worked diligently so >> improve our stations and antennas within the bounds available to us! >> To have to compete with remote Super Stations that are sited to >> provide significant advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY >> spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a "Sport for the >> Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am opposed to offering > conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! >> 73, >> Charlie, K4OTV >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of >> Tony K1AMF >> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM >> To: topband at contesting.com >> Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for >> input >> >> FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please >> e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or > comments. >> Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: ARRL Members Only Web site >> Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: k1amf at live.com >> Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >> >> Hello, >> >> Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting >> of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change >> in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC > credit. >> I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about >> the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your >> opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote >> control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. >> >> I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated >> remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. >> >> If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. >> >> Thank you. >> >> 73 de Mike N2YBB >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ARRL Hudson Division >> Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB >> n2ybb at arrl.org >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe from messages, go to: >> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From w5un at wt.net Fri Jul 10 21:34:05 2015 From: w5un at wt.net (Dave Blaschke, w5un) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 01:34:05 +0000 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: References: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <55A0728D.4060006@wt.net> Greg, I consider this type of operation totally legitimate. The station never moves around. Dave, W5UN p.s. guys, send your arguments for or against to your ARRL director before Wednesday p.p.s. lets get this resolved On 7/11/2015 1:11 AM, Greg Zenger wrote: > Bob and the others, > > I understand (and even agree with, at least to an extent) many of the > arguments against remote operation. It seems like most of these arguments > are against remote stations that are rented, or remote stations that are > self owned but at a different location than the operators primary operating > location (Other side of country, lower noise QTH, etc.) > > Do you have a problem with those of us who operate our own primary stations > remotely? Sometimes I am sent out of the continental USA for business > trips, and I can be away for months at a time. I'm likely to miss a good > DXpedition or two during that time away. By operating remotely, it gives me > something to do in the hotel room when the work for the day is complete, > and it drives me to build a more robust and reliable station, because I > dont have the luxury of making repairs until I return home. It sure is > nice to have these 'remote' contacts that I make count towards my award. > Afterall, every contact applied toward my award was made from the same > antennas, connected to the same radios, in the same yard, regardless of > where I was when I touched the paddles or PTT. > > Curious to hear your opinions on this particular angle. > > 73, > Greg N2GZ > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Robert Harmon wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being acceptable >> for DXCC. >> (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) >> I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow remote >> op to be granted >> the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. Whether the >> remote operation is >> rented or self owned it makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have >> the same thinking on this >> but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I >> believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this >> way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the >> majority ! >> Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a separate >> DXCC category for remote operation. Then >> everyone is happy and there would be a level playing field for each >> category, home station or remote. (After all that is the >> crux of the issue) >> >> >> 73, >> Bob >> K6UJ >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham < >> charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com> wrote: >>> Hi, Mike >>> >>> Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my opinion >>> remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. >> Perhaps a >>> special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of us >> over >>> the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and antennas >>> within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with remote Super >>> Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages on certain DX >>> paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as >> a >>> "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am >> opposed >>> to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! >>> >>> 73, >>> Charlie, K4OTV >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony >>> K1AMF >>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM >>> To: topband at contesting.com >>> Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >>> >>> FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail >>> N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or >> comments. >>> Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: ARRL Members Only Web site >>> Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: k1amf at live.com >>> Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of >>> the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in >> DXCC >>> rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. >>> >>> I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about >> the >>> rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is >>> regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control >>> operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. >>> >>> I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated >>> remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. >>> >>> If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> 73 de Mike N2YBB >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ARRL Hudson Division >>> Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB >>> n2ybb at arrl.org >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> To unsubscribe from messages, go to: >>> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From k6uj at pacbell.net Fri Jul 10 22:02:24 2015 From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Robert Harmon) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:02:24 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: References: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <769AC0CC-994E-401A-B69E-411943E6118D@pacbell.net> Hi Greg, I think we have a little misunderstanding. None of these arguments are against remote operation ! I am all for remote operation even from space, what ever floats your boat. The issue is DXCC award entitlement. A proposal was suggested to have separate DXCC award categories for home vs remote. That way everyone can pursue DXCC to their hearts content and in each category there is a level playing field. (that is the crux of the issue) 73, Bob K6UJ > On Jul 10, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Greg Zenger wrote: > > Bob and the others, > > I understand (and even agree with, at least to an extent) many of the > arguments against remote operation. It seems like most of these arguments > are against remote stations that are rented, or remote stations that are > self owned but at a different location than the operators primary operating > location (Other side of country, lower noise QTH, etc.) > > Do you have a problem with those of us who operate our own primary stations > remotely? Sometimes I am sent out of the continental USA for business > trips, and I can be away for months at a time. I'm likely to miss a good > DXpedition or two during that time away. By operating remotely, it gives me > something to do in the hotel room when the work for the day is complete, > and it drives me to build a more robust and reliable station, because I > dont have the luxury of making repairs until I return home. It sure is > nice to have these 'remote' contacts that I make count towards my award. > Afterall, every contact applied toward my award was made from the same > antennas, connected to the same radios, in the same yard, regardless of > where I was when I touched the paddles or PTT. > > Curious to hear your opinions on this particular angle. > > 73, > Greg N2GZ > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Robert Harmon wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being acceptable >> for DXCC. >> (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) >> I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow remote >> op to be granted >> the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. Whether the >> remote operation is >> rented or self owned it makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have >> the same thinking on this >> but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I >> believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this >> way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the >> majority ! >> Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a separate >> DXCC category for remote operation. Then >> everyone is happy and there would be a level playing field for each >> category, home station or remote. (After all that is the >> crux of the issue) >> >> >> 73, >> Bob >> K6UJ >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham < >> charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, Mike >>> >>> Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my opinion >>> remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. >> Perhaps a >>> special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of us >> over >>> the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and antennas >>> within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with remote Super >>> Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages on certain DX >>> paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as >> a >>> "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am >> opposed >>> to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! >>> >>> 73, >>> Charlie, K4OTV >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony >>> K1AMF >>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM >>> To: topband at contesting.com >>> Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >>> >>> FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail >>> N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or >> comments. >>> Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: ARRL Members Only Web site >>> Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: k1amf at live.com >>> Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of >>> the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in >> DXCC >>> rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. >>> >>> I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about >> the >>> rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is >>> regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control >>> operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. >>> >>> I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated >>> remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. >>> >>> If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> 73 de Mike N2YBB >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ARRL Hudson Division >>> Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB >>> n2ybb at arrl.org >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> To unsubscribe from messages, go to: >>> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com Fri Jul 10 22:10:54 2015 From: charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com (Charles Cu nningham) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:10:54 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: References: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> Message-ID: 'Scuze me, guys! I had to take a break for something to eat! Larry - important point! I'll forward my comments to ARRL. Greg, I don't have a problem at all if you are operating your own station remotely, using the same antennas, radios etc. What I would object to would be if you were operating "Super Station" in the Phillppines to gain some advantage into Asia, the Indian Ocean, VK/ZL etc. I do know of a JA that does exactly that with a "Super Station" in the Phillippines. I won't mention his JA or DU call here, but I have worked him from here in NC on 17m, when the band should NOT have been open into DU!! All good points guys - but, of course the ARRL willdo whatever they and the "Old Boys' Club" damn well pleases, just as they have always done! At this point I have worked all but P5 and I missed KH8,Swain's Island when it was active. But with work pressures etc., I was sort of haphazard with my QSLchoresover the years and now I'm trying to round up 4 more cards for CW DXCC Honor Roll and I need to submit some 80m cards for 8-band CWDXCC. Hope I get those last 4 soon! 73, Charlie, K4OTV -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg Zenger Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:11 PM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Bob and the others, I understand (and even agree with, at least to an extent) many of the arguments against remote operation. It seems like most of these arguments are against remote stations that are rented, or remote stations that are self owned but at a different location than the operators primary operating location (Other side of country, lower noise QTH, etc.) Do you have a problem with those of us who operate our own primary stations remotely? Sometimes I am sent out of the continental USA for business trips, and I can be away for months at a time. I'm likely to miss a good DXpedition or two during that time away. By operating remotely, it gives me something to do in the hotel room when the work for the day is complete, and it drives me to build a more robust and reliable station, because I dont have the luxury of making repairs until I return home. It sure is nice to have these 'remote' contacts that I make count towards my award. Afterall, every contact applied toward my award was made from the same antennas, connected to the same radios, in the same yard, regardless of where I was when I touched the paddles or PTT. Curious to hear your opinions on this particular angle. 73, Greg N2GZ On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Robert Harmon wrote: > Mike, > > I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being > acceptable for DXCC. > (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) > I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow > remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost > zero value. Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it > makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on > this but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. > Actually I believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this > way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the > majority ! > Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a > separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy > and there would be a level playing field for each category, home > station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue) > > > 73, > Bob > K6UJ > > > > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham < > charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, Mike > > > > Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my > > opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. > Perhaps a > > special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of > > us > over > > the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and > > antennas within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with > > remote Super Stations that are sited to provide significant > > advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many > > of us, and establishes is as > a > > "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am > opposed > > to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! > > > > 73, > > Charlie, K4OTV > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of > > Tony K1AMF > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM > > To: topband at contesting.com > > Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for > > input > > > > FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please > > e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions > > or > comments. > > Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: ARRL Members Only Web site > > Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) > > To: k1amf at live.com > > Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > > > > Hello, > > > > Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second > > meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the > > recent change in > DXCC > > rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. > > > > I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel > > about > the > > rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your > > opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by > > remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. > > > > I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have > > operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. > > > > If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. > > > > Thank you. > > > > 73 de Mike N2YBB > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ARRL Hudson Division > > Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB > > n2ybb at arrl.org > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe from messages, go to: > > http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From richard at karlquist.com Fri Jul 10 22:32:05 2015 From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:32:05 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: References: <14e7a9fce07-5e2a-10adc@webstg-a04.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: <55A08025.2020404@karlquist.com> It seems that many people don't understand the recent rules change. Remote operation has always been acceptable for DXCC ... as long as the control point is in the same DXCC entity as the physical station. All the rules change permitted was operations like Radio Arcala. The remote operations characterized as "abusive" by some are unaffected by the rules change. They don't have a problem with the rules change; they have a problem with the original rules dating back to 1945. Rick N6RK From k6uj at pacbell.net Fri Jul 10 22:41:59 2015 From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Robert Harmon) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:41:59 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <55A08025.2020404@karlquist.com> References: <14e7a9fce07-5e2a-10adc@webstg-a04.mail.aol.com> <55A08025.2020404@karlquist.com> Message-ID: <7478AB87-B363-4BDA-B439-9A863519C86E@pacbell.net> Hi Rick, Maybe that is the case. Please define control point and physical station a little bit. For example lets say I am a KH6 in Hawaii. My control point is at my home station in Hawaii and my remote operation can be on a mountain, lets say, as long as it is in the same entity of Hawaii ? Bob K6UJ > On Jul 10, 2015, at 7:32 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote: > > It seems that many people don't understand > the recent rules change. Remote operation > has always been acceptable for DXCC ... as > long as the control point is in the same > DXCC entity as the physical station. All > the rules change permitted was operations > like Radio Arcala. The remote operations > characterized as "abusive" by some are > unaffected by the rules change. They > don't have a problem with the rules change; > they have a problem with the original rules > dating back to 1945. > > Rick N6RK > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com Fri Jul 10 22:50:57 2015 From: charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com (Charles Cu nningham) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:50:57 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <55A07285.9040204@gmail.com> References: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> <038c01d0bb76$4c9591b0$e5c0b510$@sbcglobal.net> <55A07285.9040204@gmail.com> Message-ID: Excuse my ignorance, Ed, what's "RHR"? -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Stallman Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:34 PM To: topband at contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Please get an email off to your ARRL Division Director , they do want to hear from you ! The West Gulf Coast Director let me know that he is also receiving email's from op's that think RHR is the best thing since slice bread . Ed N5DG On 7/10/2015 8:09 PM, Larry Burke wrote: > Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the > Topband Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs > to be received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your > Director and his contact information here: > http://www.arrl.org/divisions > > - Larry K5RK > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of > Robert Harmon > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM > To: topband > Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking > for input > > Mike, > > I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being > acceptable for DXCC. > (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) > I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow > remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. > Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it makes no difference. > I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this but haven't had > the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the > majority of ARRL DXers feel this > way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the majority > ! > Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a > separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy > and there would be a level playing field for each category, home > station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue) > > > 73, > Bob > K6UJ > > > >> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham > wrote: >> Hi, Mike >> >> Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my >> opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for >> DXCC. Perhaps a special NEW DXCC could be established for those >> operations Most of us over the decades have worked diligently so >> improve our stations and antennas within the bounds available to us! >> To have to compete with remote Super Stations that are sited to >> provide significant advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY >> spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a "Sport for the >> Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am opposed to >> offering > conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! >> 73, >> Charlie, K4OTV >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of >> Tony K1AMF >> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM >> To: topband at contesting.com >> Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for >> input >> >> FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please >> e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions >> or > comments. >> Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: ARRL Members Only Web site >> Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: k1amf at live.com >> Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >> >> Hello, >> >> Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second >> meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the >> recent change in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote >> operations for DXCC > credit. >> I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel >> about the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what >> your opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by >> remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. >> >> I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have >> operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. >> >> If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. >> >> Thank you. >> >> 73 de Mike N2YBB >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ARRL Hudson Division >> Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB >> n2ybb at arrl.org >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe from messages, go to: >> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From ed.n5dg at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 22:56:58 2015 From: ed.n5dg at gmail.com (Ed Stallman) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:56:58 -0500 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: References: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> <038c01d0bb76$4c9591b0$e5c0b510$@sbcglobal.net> <55A07285.9040204@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55A085FA.3090200@gmail.com> Remote Ham Radio Ed N5DG On 7/10/2015 9:50 PM, Charles Cu nningham wrote: > Excuse my ignorance, Ed, what's "RHR"? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed > Stallman > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:34 PM > To: topband at contesting.com > Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for > input > > Please get an email off to your ARRL Division Director , they do want to > hear from you ! > The West Gulf Coast Director let me know that he is also receiving email's > from op's that think RHR is the best thing since slice bread . > > Ed N5DG > > > > On 7/10/2015 8:09 PM, Larry Burke wrote: >> Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the >> Topband Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs >> to be received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your >> Director and his contact information here: >> http://www.arrl.org/divisions >> >> - Larry K5RK >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of >> Robert Harmon >> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM >> To: topband >> Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking >> for input >> >> Mike, >> >> I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being >> acceptable for DXCC. >> (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) >> I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow >> remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero > value. >> Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it makes no > difference. >> I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this but haven't had >> the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the >> majority of ARRL DXers feel this >> way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the > majority >> ! >> Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a >> separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy >> and there would be a level playing field for each category, home >> station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue) >> >> >> 73, >> Bob >> K6UJ >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham >> wrote: >>> Hi, Mike >>> >>> Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my >>> opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for >>> DXCC. Perhaps a special NEW DXCC could be established for those >>> operations Most of us over the decades have worked diligently so >>> improve our stations and antennas within the bounds available to us! >>> To have to compete with remote Super Stations that are sited to >>> provide significant advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY >>> spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a "Sport for the >>> Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am opposed to >>> offering >> conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! >>> 73, >>> Charlie, K4OTV >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of >>> Tony K1AMF >>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM >>> To: topband at contesting.com >>> Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for >>> input >>> >>> FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please >>> e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions >>> or >> comments. >>> Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: ARRL Members Only Web site >>> Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: k1amf at live.com >>> Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second >>> meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the >>> recent change in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote >>> operations for DXCC >> credit. >>> I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel >>> about the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what >>> your opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by >>> remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. >>> >>> I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have >>> operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. >>> >>> If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> 73 de Mike N2YBB >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ARRL Hudson Division >>> Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB >>> n2ybb at arrl.org >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> To unsubscribe from messages, go to: >>> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From w8ji at w8ji.com Sat Jul 11 07:06:03 2015 From: w8ji at w8ji.com (Tom W8JI) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:06:03 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input References: <14e7a9fce07-5e2a-10adc@webstg-a04.mail.aol.com> <55A08025.2020404@karlquist.com> Message-ID: <2DEF05FB4D5044CCBEDFF9F24E42D271@MAIN> I don't understand the sudden hysteria, except it may be Internet driven. Around 52 years ago, my first or second 160 meter California contact was with remote W6YY. I can't remember if W6VSS Dale or W6YY was first, but that was when the band was split and the power limit was maybe 25 watts plate input power. In the 1970's, when it was actually very difficult to work DXCC, W2EQS (Charlie) had almost made 100 DXCC on 160. His age and health forced him to move to Indiana, and he lost all of those credits. Today (and for a long time now) anyone anywhere in the USA (remotely or locally) can operate anyone else's station in the USA under their call, or someone else can come in (remotely or physically) operate their station using the local call. People around here come in physically and operate my station, and they have for many years. It counts for their DXCC. This leads me to think the sudden recent wave of hysteria about DXCC is based on people actually wanting one of three things: 1.) In spite of being legal for over 50 years, all remotes to be banned 2.) In spite of being legal for around 35 years that I know of, they want the rules changed so a station has to sign callsign / district or say portable and then district when transmitting from any location other than the station owner and builder location, and so no guest op can ever use his call. This is the way it was before the FCC changed that rule, which I think happened in the 1980's. Since the FCC is unlikely to change rules because of an award that has not had that much meaning about being tied to any location, station, or operator since maybe 1980 or so, they want a new DXCC. They want a new DXCC that requires the contact to be made by the physical owner of the station at one location. To me, the real issue is people are unhappy either with the use of a remote of any type (which has been legal as long as I have been a Ham and has been used for DXCC and contests since I have been licensed) or they suddenly want DXCC to be tied to a station at a single location that the DXCC recipient owns. I think the mob got all worked up because they didn't think about the actual rules, they just dislike RHR (and not the dozens of free uncontrolled remotes all over the place). For years they have been competing against people who use other people's stations, move around, or have a remote. Now, out of the clear blue sky, DXCC is suddenly useless when the actual changes than made it useless were made over 30 years ago. I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or a new DXCC that requires the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving from one location all by himself with gear he assembled. From herbs at vitelcom.net Sat Jul 11 07:20:03 2015 From: herbs at vitelcom.net (Herbert Schoenbohm) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:20:03 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: References: <531BE0E4-A14D-42BF-9041-B3DA0441613D@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <55A0FBE3.2050606@vitelcom.net> Why should we be concerned where the operator of a remote station is actually located. The location of the actual station is all that really matters. Remote control of your station provides an amazing advance of our hobby. It provides an reliable escape to so many who are not able to construct antennas at their homes due to restrictions and restrictive covenants. Here in the Virgin Islands I have built and functional SO2R station (NP2P) which provides for the operator (N2TTA) to operate from his apartment in NYC. The ability to over come obstacles and have the interfaces that provide for automatic band switching of the Alpha 87A, rotor control, on screen monitoring of the amp(s), selection of direction RX Beverages for the low bands, antenna selection of seven different antennas such as quad, verticals and horizontal dipoles, all take our technology to a new level. The reliability by end to end fiber connectivity and the reduction of cost of most of the hardware cost at a more reasonable level. Let's face it that remote control operation is here to stay and it applications are advancing everyday. Restricting such operations by imposing old archaic rules is moving in the wrong direction. Hopefully those that make the rules will not preclude such wonderful advances to amateur radio. Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ On 7/10/2015 9:11 PM, Greg Zenger wrote: > Bob and the others, > > I understand (and even agree with, at least to an extent) many of the > arguments against remote operation. It seems like most of these arguments > are against remote stations that are rented, or remote stations that are > self owned but at a different location than the operators primary operating > location (Other side of country, lower noise QTH, etc.) > > Do you have a problem with those of us who operate our own primary stations > remotely? Sometimes I am sent out of the continental USA for business > trips, and I can be away for months at a time. I'm likely to miss a good > DXpedition or two during that time away. By operating remotely, it gives me > something to do in the hotel room when the work for the day is complete, > and it drives me to build a more robust and reliable station, because I > dont have the luxury of making repairs until I return home. It sure is > nice to have these 'remote' contacts that I make count towards my award. > Afterall, every contact applied toward my award was made from the same > antennas, connected to the same radios, in the same yard, regardless of > where I was when I touched the paddles or PTT. > > Curious to hear your opinions on this particular angle. > > 73, > Greg N2GZ > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Robert Harmon wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being acceptable >> for DXCC. >> (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) >> I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow remote >> op to be granted >> the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. Whether the >> remote operation is >> rented or self owned it makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have >> the same thinking on this >> but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I >> believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this >> way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the >> majority ! >> Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a separate >> DXCC category for remote operation. Then >> everyone is happy and there would be a level playing field for each >> category, home station or remote. (After all that is the >> crux of the issue) >> >> >> 73, >> Bob >> K6UJ >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham < >> charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com> wrote: >>> Hi, Mike >>> >>> Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my opinion >>> remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. >> Perhaps a >>> special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of us >> over >>> the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and antennas >>> within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with remote Super >>> Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages on certain DX >>> paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as >> a >>> "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am >> opposed >>> to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! >>> >>> 73, >>> Charlie, K4OTV >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony >>> K1AMF >>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM >>> To: topband at contesting.com >>> Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >>> >>> FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail >>> N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or >> comments. >>> Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: ARRL Members Only Web site >>> Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: k1amf at live.com >>> Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of >>> the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in >> DXCC >>> rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. >>> >>> I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about >> the >>> rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is >>> regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control >>> operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. >>> >>> I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated >>> remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. >>> >>> If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> 73 de Mike N2YBB >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ARRL Hudson Division >>> Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB >>> n2ybb at arrl.org >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> To unsubscribe from messages, go to: >>> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From wi5a at sbcglobal.net Sat Jul 11 07:48:17 2015 From: wi5a at sbcglobal.net (Larry Burke) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 06:48:17 -0500 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net> This issue is actually bigger than the farce it is making of the ARRL awards programs. When you write your Division Director you might also ask him "at what point will the League consider 'for rent' commercial remotes -- which are already in operation today -- an affront to the amateur spectrum?" At what point will these stations be indistinguishable from common carrier networks, which are highly regulated in the US? If Verizon Wireless wakes up one day and realizes they have much of the infrastructure in place (towers, internet connections, backup generators, billing systems) would the League be receptive to them dotting both coasts with remotes? At what point will the amateur community finally object? The barriers to entry into this game are really not that high for the right player. The more "commercial" the Amateur Service becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes at spectrum allocation time. You might also ask your Director how the League's support of commercial remotes is consistent with their very prominent push of HR 1301 and S 1685 (The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015). Why would lawmakers want to provide relief from antenna restrictions if all a ham has to do is sign up for RemoteHamRadio.com or similar to get on the air? Years of ARRL efforts in this arena can disappear pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take a very bright lobbyist for an association of HOAs to figure this out. All they'd have to do is point to the RemoteHamRadio.com ad on the page facing the April 2015 editorial in QST.... the editorial that announces the January Board decision and arguably supports commercial remotes. Larry K5RK From w0mu at w0mu.com Sat Jul 11 10:18:10 2015 From: w0mu at w0mu.com (W0MU) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 08:18:10 -0600 Subject: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <2DEF05FB4D5044CCBEDFF9F24E42D271@MAIN> References: <14e7a9fce07-5e2a-10adc@webstg-a04.mail.aol.com> <55A08025.2020404@karlquist.com> <2DEF05FB4D5044CCBEDFF9F24E42D271@MAIN> Message-ID: <55A125A2.4090401@w0mu.com> Instead of embracing ways to get and keep more people on the air they want to regulate a certificate into the ground just like the Gov't seems to do with everything it touches. Obviously remote ham radio is very popular as these stations are popping up all over the place, which is a good thing. A prolific W6 had or has a remote station in W1 land for over 30 years. These are individual awards. How you get them is your business, how I get mine is my business as long as we both follow the rules. The rules have allowed this for a very long time. Why would we change the rules now that a particular part of the hobby is picking up steam? I don't think we need any more meaningless endorsements for awards. Someone working DXCC from one location is no big deal. I can be done in a contest weekend. Honor role is a separate subject. How would you feel if you worked in an industry that required you to move every few years and you had to keep starting over because you moved X distance from the location you were in previously but you were still in the same DXCC country? Remote ham radio is going to let old timers continue with ham radio long after they might have been able to otherwise. Things change and the older people get the less and less they can handle change so they complain and create problems where none existed........These people tend to dominate home owners associations and create more harm than good. On 7/11/2015 5:06 AM, Tom W8JI wrote: > I don't understand the sudden hysteria, except it may be Internet driven. > > Around 52 years ago, my first or second 160 meter California contact > was with remote W6YY. I can't remember if W6VSS Dale or W6YY was > first, but that was when the band was split and the power limit was > maybe 25 watts plate input power. > > In the 1970's, when it was actually very difficult to work DXCC, W2EQS > (Charlie) had almost made 100 DXCC on 160. His age and health forced > him to move to Indiana, and he lost all of those credits. > > Today (and for a long time now) anyone anywhere in the USA (remotely > or locally) can operate anyone else's station in the USA under their > call, or someone else can come in (remotely or physically) operate > their station using the local call. People around here come in > physically and operate my station, and they have for many years. It > counts for their DXCC. > > This leads me to think the sudden recent wave of hysteria about DXCC > is based on people actually wanting one of three things: > > 1.) In spite of being legal for over 50 years, all remotes to be banned > > 2.) In spite of being legal for around 35 years that I know of, they > want the rules changed so a station has to sign callsign / district or > say portable and then district when transmitting from any location > other than the station owner and builder location, and so no guest op > can ever use his call. This is the way it was before the FCC changed > that rule, which I think happened in the 1980's. > > Since the FCC is unlikely to change rules because of an award that has > not had that much meaning about being tied to any location, station, > or operator since maybe 1980 or so, they want a new DXCC. They want a > new DXCC that requires the contact to be made by the physical owner of > the station at one location. > > To me, the real issue is people are unhappy either with the use of a > remote of any type (which has been legal as long as I have been a Ham > and has been used for DXCC and contests since I have been licensed) > or they suddenly want DXCC to be tied to a station at a single > location that the DXCC recipient owns. > > I think the mob got all worked up because they didn't think about the > actual rules, they just dislike RHR (and not the dozens of free > uncontrolled remotes all over the place). For years they have been > competing against people who use other people's stations, move around, > or have a remote. Now, out of the clear blue sky, DXCC is suddenly > useless when the actual changes than made it useless were made over 30 > years ago. > > I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or a new DXCC that > requires the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving > from one location all by himself with gear he assembled. > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From mort.g2jl at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 11 10:42:12 2015 From: mort.g2jl at ntlworld.com (T R Mortimer) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:42:12 -0000 Subject: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input References: <14e7a9fce07-5e2a-10adc@webstg-a04.mail.aol.com><55A08025.2020404@karlquist.com><2DEF05FB4D5044CCBEDFF9F24E42D271@MAIN> <55A125A2.4090401@w0mu.com> Message-ID: "...These are individual awards. How you get them is your business, how I get mine is my business..." Excellent ! May I inject 39 Cents'-worth ? [allowing for inflation] That seems to me to sum it up, totally, completely, utterly, and entirely. There must be 75 dB (give or take a few "S" points) of difference between the poorest penny-whistle [goober-whistle] rig and those of some of the mighty contesters whose rigs rival commercial & military installations. To worry about remote operation in view of this as rather like "straining at a gnat & swallowing a camel". If I can get away with a set of forgeries (or even fivegeries) it's between me, the ARRL & my conscience. It would be like cheating at patience [solitaire]. The ARRL refused a perfectly valid card with my first DXCC application - one from a nearby EU country [entity] which I'd worked dozens of times. I didn't ask why. It was all free in those days last century, so straining at gnats is nothing new. I still need 18 on 1.8 to reach 100; I'm not going to do it, but I'll try. All's fair in love and war, love it or hate it ! 73 de Mort, SV5/G2JL From chacuff at cableone.net Sat Jul 11 10:44:31 2015 From: chacuff at cableone.net (Cecil) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:44:31 -0500 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net> References: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net> All excellent points and very well stated Larry.... Cecil K5DL Sent using recycled electrons. > On Jul 11, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Larry Burke wrote: > > > > This issue is actually bigger than the farce it is making of the ARRL awards > programs. > > > > When you write your Division Director you might also ask him "at what point > will the League consider 'for rent' commercial remotes -- which are already > in operation today -- an affront to the amateur spectrum?" At what point > will these stations be indistinguishable from common carrier networks, which > are highly regulated in the US? If Verizon Wireless wakes up one day and > realizes they have much of the infrastructure in place (towers, internet > connections, backup generators, billing systems) would the League be > receptive to them dotting both coasts with remotes? At what point will the > amateur community finally object? The barriers to entry into this game are > really not that high for the right player. The more "commercial" the Amateur > Service becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes at spectrum allocation time. > > > > You might also ask your Director how the League's support of commercial > remotes is consistent with their very prominent push of HR 1301 and S 1685 > (The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015). Why would lawmakers want to provide > relief from antenna restrictions if all a ham has to do is sign up for > RemoteHamRadio.com or similar to get on the air? Years of ARRL efforts in > this arena can disappear pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take a very bright > lobbyist for an association of HOAs to figure this out. All they'd have to > do is point to the RemoteHamRadio.com ad on the page facing the April 2015 > editorial in QST.... the editorial that announces the January Board decision > and arguably supports commercial remotes. > > > > > > Larry K5RK > > > > > > > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From k6uj at pacbell.net Sat Jul 11 11:49:25 2015 From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Robert Harmon) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 08:49:25 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net> References: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net> <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net> Message-ID: <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net> Larry, I agree with Cecil. very good points. ! Bob K6UJ > On Jul 11, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Cecil wrote: > > All excellent points and very well stated Larry.... > > Cecil > K5DL > > Sent using recycled electrons. > >> On Jul 11, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Larry Burke wrote: >> >> >> >> This issue is actually bigger than the farce it is making of the ARRL awards >> programs. >> >> >> >> When you write your Division Director you might also ask him "at what point >> will the League consider 'for rent' commercial remotes -- which are already >> in operation today -- an affront to the amateur spectrum?" At what point >> will these stations be indistinguishable from common carrier networks, which >> are highly regulated in the US? If Verizon Wireless wakes up one day and >> realizes they have much of the infrastructure in place (towers, internet >> connections, backup generators, billing systems) would the League be >> receptive to them dotting both coasts with remotes? At what point will the >> amateur community finally object? The barriers to entry into this game are >> really not that high for the right player. The more "commercial" the Amateur >> Service becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes at spectrum allocation time. >> >> >> >> You might also ask your Director how the League's support of commercial >> remotes is consistent with their very prominent push of HR 1301 and S 1685 >> (The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015). Why would lawmakers want to provide >> relief from antenna restrictions if all a ham has to do is sign up for >> RemoteHamRadio.com or similar to get on the air? Years of ARRL efforts in >> this arena can disappear pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take a very bright >> lobbyist for an association of HOAs to figure this out. All they'd have to >> do is point to the RemoteHamRadio.com ad on the page facing the April 2015 >> editorial in QST.... the editorial that announces the January Board decision >> and arguably supports commercial remotes. >> >> >> >> >> >> Larry K5RK >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From n1rj at roadrunner.com Sat Jul 11 12:09:56 2015 From: n1rj at roadrunner.com (Roger D Johnson) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:09:56 +0000 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net> References: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net> <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net> <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <55A13FD4.4040208@roadrunner.com> I sat down to write an intelligent response to the remote question but realized I don't really care anymore. The Amateur Radio that I grew up with, and loved, is gone forever. Thanks to the ARRL and the FCC, it has been "dumbed down" and deregulated to the point where it's just another Citizens Band. 73, Roger From adkmurray at yahoo.com Sat Jul 11 12:10:32 2015 From: adkmurray at yahoo.com (Jim Murray) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:10:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week Message-ID: <309683917.387656.1436631032677.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> " Here in the Virgin Islands I have built and functional SO2R? station (NP2P) which provides for the operator (N2TTA) to operate from? his apartment in NYC. "Not sure I understand this correctly. ?Like the majority ?of amateurs I haven't gotten into remote operation at this point. ?Does the op in NYC using the equipment in the Virgin Islands allowed to accumulate DXCC credits? ?Can I remotely operate your station in the Virgin Islands for dxcc and contesting?Jimk2hn From Robert.Chortek at berliner.com Sat Jul 11 12:23:08 2015 From: Robert.Chortek at berliner.com (Chortek, Robert L) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:23:08 +0000 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <55A13FD4.4040208@roadrunner.com> References: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net> <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net> <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net>, <55A13FD4.4040208@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: People should be free to operate any way they please - within the rules. I understand this discussion is about what the rules "should" be. It's all about having fun! It's also about striking a reasonable balance between the many benefits of remote operation (discussed here multiple times) and the "disruption" caused by the rapid expansion of remote operation (also discussed here). To each his own I say and don't worry about the "other guy". Be satisfied with what you accomplished - in the way you chose to do it. Let's put this into perspective- People are dying out there. This issue is really not important. 73, Bob AA6VB > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From K4PI at BELLSOUTH.NET Sat Jul 11 12:26:26 2015 From: K4PI at BELLSOUTH.NET (Mike Greenway) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 12:26:26 -0400 Subject: Topband: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5A11B868A9074CC3A2D1D5C820245FEF@SHACK> 1. I don?t have any problem with remote use in the DXCC program, commercial or self owned, as long as they are in somewhat in general area of the FCC address. I can live with 200 Km diameter distance. Think that was a DXAC recommendation. I don?t care what people use remotes for outside the DXCC program. VUCC and WAS already have mileage limits. 2. Remotes in the 200 Km area of the FCC address can be operated from anywhere in the world. 3. When someone moves their FCC address their credits go with them and the 200 Km area is moved to that new address. 4, No FCC rules need changing in regard to this request for a remote mileage limit as it only involves the DXCC program for me. The fact that people been using remotes coast to coast for years doesn?t make it right or in the spirit of the DXCC program. Jumping coast to coast every 5 minutes to gain a propagation advantage does not represent what I believe the DXCC program is about. I am not saying you can enforce this but I would like to see the ruling in print so everyone knows what is expected of them. So when you sign your name to a DXCC application if your honor mean nothing, go ahead and sign even though you did something illegal to gain the credits. You can?t enforce honor. 73 Mike K4PI From: topband-request at contesting.com Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 11:49 AM To: topband at contesting.com Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 7 Send Topband mailing list submissions to topband at contesting.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to topband-request at contesting.com You can reach the person managing the list at topband-owner at contesting.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..." Today's Topics: Board meets next week - I'm looking for input 1. Re: Fwd: ARRL (Charles Cu nningham) 2. Re: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for inputRichard ( (Rick) Karlquist) 3. Re: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input (Robert Harmon) 4. Re: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input (Charles Cu nningham) 5. Re: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input (Ed Stallman) 6. Re: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input (Tom W8JI) 7. Re: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input (Herbert Schoenbohm) 8. Re: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input (Larry Burke) 9. Re: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input (W0MU) 10. Re: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input (T R Mortimer) 11. Re: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input (Cecil) 12. Re: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input (Robert Harmon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:10:54 -0400 From: "Charles Cu nningham" To: "'Greg Zenger'" , "'topband'" Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 'Scuze me, guys! I had to take a break for something to eat! Larry - important point! I'll forward my comments to ARRL. Greg, I don't have a problem at all if you are operating your own station remotely, using the same antennas, radios etc. What I would object to would be if you were operating "Super Station" in the Phillppines to gain some advantage into Asia, the Indian Ocean, VK/ZL etc. I do know of a JA that does exactly that with a "Super Station" in the Phillippines. I won't mention his JA or DU call here, but I have worked him from here in NC on 17m, when the band should NOT have been open into DU!! All good points guys - but, of course the ARRL willdo whatever they and the "Old Boys' Club" damn well pleases, just as they have always done! At this point I have worked all but P5 and I missed KH8,Swain's Island when it was active. But with work pressures etc., I was sort of haphazard with my QSLchoresover the years and now I'm trying to round up 4 more cards for CW DXCC Honor Roll and I need to submit some 80m cards for 8-band CWDXCC. Hope I get those last 4 soon! 73, Charlie, K4OTV -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg Zenger Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:11 PM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Bob and the others, I understand (and even agree with, at least to an extent) many of the arguments against remote operation. It seems like most of these arguments are against remote stations that are rented, or remote stations that are self owned but at a different location than the operators primary operating location (Other side of country, lower noise QTH, etc.) Do you have a problem with those of us who operate our own primary stations remotely? Sometimes I am sent out of the continental USA for business trips, and I can be away for months at a time. I'm likely to miss a good DXpedition or two during that time away. By operating remotely, it gives me something to do in the hotel room when the work for the day is complete, and it drives me to build a more robust and reliable station, because I dont have the luxury of making repairs until I return home. It sure is nice to have these 'remote' contacts that I make count towards my award. Afterall, every contact applied toward my award was made from the same antennas, connected to the same radios, in the same yard, regardless of where I was when I touched the paddles or PTT. Curious to hear your opinions on this particular angle. 73, Greg N2GZ On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Robert Harmon wrote: > Mike, > > I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being > acceptable for DXCC. > (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) > I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow > remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost > zero value. Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it > makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on > this but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. > Actually I believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this > way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the > majority ! > Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a > separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy > and there would be a level playing field for each category, home > station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue) > > > 73, > Bob > K6UJ > > > > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham < > charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, Mike > > > > Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my > > opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. > Perhaps a > > special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of > > us > over > > the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and > > antennas within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with > > remote Super Stations that are sited to provide significant > > advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many > > of us, and establishes is as > a > > "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am > opposed > > to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! > > > > 73, > > Charlie, K4OTV > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of > > Tony K1AMF > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM > > To: topband at contesting.com > > Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for > > input > > > > FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please > > e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions > > or > comments. > > Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: ARRL Members Only Web site > > Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) > > To: k1amf at live.com > > Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > > > > Hello, > > > > Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second > > meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the > > recent change in > DXCC > > rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. > > > > I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel > > about > the > > rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your > > opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by > > remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. > > > > I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have > > operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. > > > > If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. > > > > Thank you. > > > > 73 de Mike N2YBB > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ARRL Hudson Division > > Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB > > n2ybb at arrl.org > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe from messages, go to: > > http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:32:05 -0700 From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <55A08025.2020404 at karlquist.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed It seems that many people don't understand the recent rules change. Remote operation has always been acceptable for DXCC ... as long as the control point is in the same DXCC entity as the physical station. All the rules change permitted was operations like Radio Arcala. The remote operations characterized as "abusive" by some are unaffected by the rules change. They don't have a problem with the rules change; they have a problem with the original rules dating back to 1945. Rick N6RK ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:41:59 -0700 From: Robert Harmon To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <7478AB87-B363-4BDA-B439-9A863519C86E at pacbell.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Rick, Maybe that is the case. Please define control point and physical station a little bit. For example lets say I am a KH6 in Hawaii. My control point is at my home station in Hawaii and my remote operation can be on a mountain, lets say, as long as it is in the same entity of Hawaii ? Bob K6UJ > On Jul 10, 2015, at 7:32 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote: > > It seems that many people don't understand > the recent rules change. Remote operation > has always been acceptable for DXCC ... as > long as the control point is in the same > DXCC entity as the physical station. All > the rules change permitted was operations > like Radio Arcala. The remote operations > characterized as "abusive" by some are > unaffected by the rules change. They > don't have a problem with the rules change; > they have a problem with the original rules > dating back to 1945. > > Rick N6RK > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:50:57 -0400 From: "Charles Cu nningham" To: "'Ed Stallman'" , Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Excuse my ignorance, Ed, what's "RHR"? -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Stallman Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:34 PM To: topband at contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Please get an email off to your ARRL Division Director , they do want to hear from you ! The West Gulf Coast Director let me know that he is also receiving email's from op's that think RHR is the best thing since slice bread . Ed N5DG On 7/10/2015 8:09 PM, Larry Burke wrote: > Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the > Topband Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs > to be received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your > Director and his contact information here: > http://www.arrl.org/divisions > > - Larry K5RK > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of > Robert Harmon > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM > To: topband > Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking > for input > > Mike, > > I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being > acceptable for DXCC. > (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) > I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow > remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. > Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it makes no difference. > I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this but haven't had > the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the > majority of ARRL DXers feel this > way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the majority > ! > Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a > separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy > and there would be a level playing field for each category, home > station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue) > > > 73, > Bob > K6UJ > > > >> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham > wrote: >> Hi, Mike >> >> Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my >> opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for >> DXCC. Perhaps a special NEW DXCC could be established for those >> operations Most of us over the decades have worked diligently so >> improve our stations and antennas within the bounds available to us! >> To have to compete with remote Super Stations that are sited to >> provide significant advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY >> spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a "Sport for the >> Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am opposed to >> offering > conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! >> 73, >> Charlie, K4OTV >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of >> Tony K1AMF >> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM >> To: topband at contesting.com >> Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for >> input >> >> FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please >> e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions >> or > comments. >> Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: ARRL Members Only Web site >> Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: k1amf at live.com >> Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >> >> Hello, >> >> Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second >> meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the >> recent change in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote >> operations for DXCC > credit. >> I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel >> about the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what >> your opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by >> remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. >> >> I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have >> operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. >> >> If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. >> >> Thank you. >> >> 73 de Mike N2YBB >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ARRL Hudson Division >> Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB >> n2ybb at arrl.org >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe from messages, go to: >> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:56:58 -0500 From: Ed Stallman To: Charles Cu nningham , topband at contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <55A085FA.3090200 at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Remote Ham Radio Ed N5DG On 7/10/2015 9:50 PM, Charles Cu nningham wrote: > Excuse my ignorance, Ed, what's "RHR"? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed > Stallman > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:34 PM > To: topband at contesting.com > Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for > input > > Please get an email off to your ARRL Division Director , they do want to > hear from you ! > The West Gulf Coast Director let me know that he is also receiving email's > from op's that think RHR is the best thing since slice bread . > > Ed N5DG > > > > On 7/10/2015 8:09 PM, Larry Burke wrote: >> Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the >> Topband Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs >> to be received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your >> Director and his contact information here: >> http://www.arrl.org/divisions >> >> - Larry K5RK >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of >> Robert Harmon >> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM >> To: topband >> Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking >> for input >> >> Mike, >> >> I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being >> acceptable for DXCC. >> (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) >> I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow >> remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero > value. >> Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it makes no > difference. >> I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this but haven't had >> the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the >> majority of ARRL DXers feel this >> way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the > majority >> ! >> Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a >> separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy >> and there would be a level playing field for each category, home >> station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue) >> >> >> 73, >> Bob >> K6UJ >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham >> wrote: >>> Hi, Mike >>> >>> Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my >>> opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for >>> DXCC. Perhaps a special NEW DXCC could be established for those >>> operations Most of us over the decades have worked diligently so >>> improve our stations and antennas within the bounds available to us! >>> To have to compete with remote Super Stations that are sited to >>> provide significant advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY >>> spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a "Sport for the >>> Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am opposed to >>> offering >> conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! >>> 73, >>> Charlie, K4OTV >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of >>> Tony K1AMF >>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM >>> To: topband at contesting.com >>> Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for >>> input >>> >>> FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please >>> e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions >>> or >> comments. >>> Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: ARRL Members Only Web site >>> Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: k1amf at live.com >>> Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second >>> meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the >>> recent change in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote >>> operations for DXCC >> credit. >>> I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel >>> about the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what >>> your opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by >>> remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. >>> >>> I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have >>> operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. >>> >>> If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> 73 de Mike N2YBB >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ARRL Hudson Division >>> Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB >>> n2ybb at arrl.org >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> To unsubscribe from messages, go to: >>> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:06:03 -0400 From: "Tom W8JI" To: "topband" Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <2DEF05FB4D5044CCBEDFF9F24E42D271 at MAIN> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response I don't understand the sudden hysteria, except it may be Internet driven. Around 52 years ago, my first or second 160 meter California contact was with remote W6YY. I can't remember if W6VSS Dale or W6YY was first, but that was when the band was split and the power limit was maybe 25 watts plate input power. In the 1970's, when it was actually very difficult to work DXCC, W2EQS (Charlie) had almost made 100 DXCC on 160. His age and health forced him to move to Indiana, and he lost all of those credits. Today (and for a long time now) anyone anywhere in the USA (remotely or locally) can operate anyone else's station in the USA under their call, or someone else can come in (remotely or physically) operate their station using the local call. People around here come in physically and operate my station, and they have for many years. It counts for their DXCC. This leads me to think the sudden recent wave of hysteria about DXCC is based on people actually wanting one of three things: 1.) In spite of being legal for over 50 years, all remotes to be banned 2.) In spite of being legal for around 35 years that I know of, they want the rules changed so a station has to sign callsign / district or say portable and then district when transmitting from any location other than the station owner and builder location, and so no guest op can ever use his call. This is the way it was before the FCC changed that rule, which I think happened in the 1980's. Since the FCC is unlikely to change rules because of an award that has not had that much meaning about being tied to any location, station, or operator since maybe 1980 or so, they want a new DXCC. They want a new DXCC that requires the contact to be made by the physical owner of the station at one location. To me, the real issue is people are unhappy either with the use of a remote of any type (which has been legal as long as I have been a Ham and has been used for DXCC and contests since I have been licensed) or they suddenly want DXCC to be tied to a station at a single location that the DXCC recipient owns. I think the mob got all worked up because they didn't think about the actual rules, they just dislike RHR (and not the dozens of free uncontrolled remotes all over the place). For years they have been competing against people who use other people's stations, move around, or have a remote. Now, out of the clear blue sky, DXCC is suddenly useless when the actual changes than made it useless were made over 30 years ago. I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or a new DXCC that requires the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving from one location all by himself with gear he assembled. ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:20:03 -0400 From: Herbert Schoenbohm To: topband at contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <55A0FBE3.2050606 at vitelcom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Why should we be concerned where the operator of a remote station is actually located. The location of the actual station is all that really matters. Remote control of your station provides an amazing advance of our hobby. It provides an reliable escape to so many who are not able to construct antennas at their homes due to restrictions and restrictive covenants. Here in the Virgin Islands I have built and functional SO2R station (NP2P) which provides for the operator (N2TTA) to operate from his apartment in NYC. The ability to over come obstacles and have the interfaces that provide for automatic band switching of the Alpha 87A, rotor control, on screen monitoring of the amp(s), selection of direction RX Beverages for the low bands, antenna selection of seven different antennas such as quad, verticals and horizontal dipoles, all take our technology to a new level. The reliability by end to end fiber connectivity and the reduction of cost of most of the hardware cost at a more reasonable level. Let's face it that remote control operation is here to stay and it applications are advancing everyday. Restricting such operations by imposing old archaic rules is moving in the wrong direction. Hopefully those that make the rules will not preclude such wonderful advances to amateur radio. Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ On 7/10/2015 9:11 PM, Greg Zenger wrote: > Bob and the others, > > I understand (and even agree with, at least to an extent) many of the > arguments against remote operation. It seems like most of these arguments > are against remote stations that are rented, or remote stations that are > self owned but at a different location than the operators primary operating > location (Other side of country, lower noise QTH, etc.) > > Do you have a problem with those of us who operate our own primary stations > remotely? Sometimes I am sent out of the continental USA for business > trips, and I can be away for months at a time. I'm likely to miss a good > DXpedition or two during that time away. By operating remotely, it gives me > something to do in the hotel room when the work for the day is complete, > and it drives me to build a more robust and reliable station, because I > dont have the luxury of making repairs until I return home. It sure is > nice to have these 'remote' contacts that I make count towards my award. > Afterall, every contact applied toward my award was made from the same > antennas, connected to the same radios, in the same yard, regardless of > where I was when I touched the paddles or PTT. > > Curious to hear your opinions on this particular angle. > > 73, > Greg N2GZ > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Robert Harmon wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being acceptable >> for DXCC. >> (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) >> I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow remote >> op to be granted >> the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. Whether the >> remote operation is >> rented or self owned it makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have >> the same thinking on this >> but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I >> believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this >> way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the >> majority ! >> Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a separate >> DXCC category for remote operation. Then >> everyone is happy and there would be a level playing field for each >> category, home station or remote. (After all that is the >> crux of the issue) >> >> >> 73, >> Bob >> K6UJ >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham < >> charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com> wrote: >>> Hi, Mike >>> >>> Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my opinion >>> remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. >> Perhaps a >>> special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of us >> over >>> the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and antennas >>> within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with remote Super >>> Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages on certain DX >>> paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as >> a >>> "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am >> opposed >>> to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations! >>> >>> 73, >>> Charlie, K4OTV >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony >>> K1AMF >>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM >>> To: topband at contesting.com >>> Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >>> >>> FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail >>> N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or >> comments. >>> Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: ARRL Members Only Web site >>> Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: k1amf at live.com >>> Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of >>> the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in >> DXCC >>> rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. >>> >>> I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about >> the >>> rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is >>> regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control >>> operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. >>> >>> I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated >>> remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. >>> >>> If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> 73 de Mike N2YBB >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ARRL Hudson Division >>> Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB >>> n2ybb at arrl.org >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> To unsubscribe from messages, go to: >>> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 06:48:17 -0500 From: "Larry Burke" To: Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This issue is actually bigger than the farce it is making of the ARRL awards programs. When you write your Division Director you might also ask him "at what point will the League consider 'for rent' commercial remotes -- which are already in operation today -- an affront to the amateur spectrum?" At what point will these stations be indistinguishable from common carrier networks, which are highly regulated in the US? If Verizon Wireless wakes up one day and realizes they have much of the infrastructure in place (towers, internet connections, backup generators, billing systems) would the League be receptive to them dotting both coasts with remotes? At what point will the amateur community finally object? The barriers to entry into this game are really not that high for the right player. The more "commercial" the Amateur Service becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes at spectrum allocation time. You might also ask your Director how the League's support of commercial remotes is consistent with their very prominent push of HR 1301 and S 1685 (The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015). Why would lawmakers want to provide relief from antenna restrictions if all a ham has to do is sign up for RemoteHamRadio.com or similar to get on the air? Years of ARRL efforts in this arena can disappear pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take a very bright lobbyist for an association of HOAs to figure this out. All they'd have to do is point to the RemoteHamRadio.com ad on the page facing the April 2015 editorial in QST.... the editorial that announces the January Board decision and arguably supports commercial remotes. Larry K5RK ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 08:18:10 -0600 From: W0MU To: topband at contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <55A125A2.4090401 at w0mu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Instead of embracing ways to get and keep more people on the air they want to regulate a certificate into the ground just like the Gov't seems to do with everything it touches. Obviously remote ham radio is very popular as these stations are popping up all over the place, which is a good thing. A prolific W6 had or has a remote station in W1 land for over 30 years. These are individual awards. How you get them is your business, how I get mine is my business as long as we both follow the rules. The rules have allowed this for a very long time. Why would we change the rules now that a particular part of the hobby is picking up steam? I don't think we need any more meaningless endorsements for awards. Someone working DXCC from one location is no big deal. I can be done in a contest weekend. Honor role is a separate subject. How would you feel if you worked in an industry that required you to move every few years and you had to keep starting over because you moved X distance from the location you were in previously but you were still in the same DXCC country? Remote ham radio is going to let old timers continue with ham radio long after they might have been able to otherwise. Things change and the older people get the less and less they can handle change so they complain and create problems where none existed........These people tend to dominate home owners associations and create more harm than good. On 7/11/2015 5:06 AM, Tom W8JI wrote: > I don't understand the sudden hysteria, except it may be Internet driven. > > Around 52 years ago, my first or second 160 meter California contact > was with remote W6YY. I can't remember if W6VSS Dale or W6YY was > first, but that was when the band was split and the power limit was > maybe 25 watts plate input power. > > In the 1970's, when it was actually very difficult to work DXCC, W2EQS > (Charlie) had almost made 100 DXCC on 160. His age and health forced > him to move to Indiana, and he lost all of those credits. > > Today (and for a long time now) anyone anywhere in the USA (remotely > or locally) can operate anyone else's station in the USA under their > call, or someone else can come in (remotely or physically) operate > their station using the local call. People around here come in > physically and operate my station, and they have for many years. It > counts for their DXCC. > > This leads me to think the sudden recent wave of hysteria about DXCC > is based on people actually wanting one of three things: > > 1.) In spite of being legal for over 50 years, all remotes to be banned > > 2.) In spite of being legal for around 35 years that I know of, they > want the rules changed so a station has to sign callsign / district or > say portable and then district when transmitting from any location > other than the station owner and builder location, and so no guest op > can ever use his call. This is the way it was before the FCC changed > that rule, which I think happened in the 1980's. > > Since the FCC is unlikely to change rules because of an award that has > not had that much meaning about being tied to any location, station, > or operator since maybe 1980 or so, they want a new DXCC. They want a > new DXCC that requires the contact to be made by the physical owner of > the station at one location. > > To me, the real issue is people are unhappy either with the use of a > remote of any type (which has been legal as long as I have been a Ham > and has been used for DXCC and contests since I have been licensed) > or they suddenly want DXCC to be tied to a station at a single > location that the DXCC recipient owns. > > I think the mob got all worked up because they didn't think about the > actual rules, they just dislike RHR (and not the dozens of free > uncontrolled remotes all over the place). For years they have been > competing against people who use other people's stations, move around, > or have a remote. Now, out of the clear blue sky, DXCC is suddenly > useless when the actual changes than made it useless were made over 30 > years ago. > > I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or a new DXCC that > requires the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving > from one location all by himself with gear he assembled. > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:42:12 -0000 From: "T R Mortimer" To: , "W0MU" Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" "...These are individual awards. How you get them is your business, how I get mine is my business..." Excellent ! May I inject 39 Cents'-worth ? [allowing for inflation] That seems to me to sum it up, totally, completely, utterly, and entirely. There must be 75 dB (give or take a few "S" points) of difference between the poorest penny-whistle [goober-whistle] rig and those of some of the mighty contesters whose rigs rival commercial & military installations. To worry about remote operation in view of this as rather like "straining at a gnat & swallowing a camel". If I can get away with a set of forgeries (or even fivegeries) it's between me, the ARRL & my conscience. It would be like cheating at patience [solitaire]. The ARRL refused a perfectly valid card with my first DXCC application - one from a nearby EU country [entity] which I'd worked dozens of times. I didn't ask why. It was all free in those days last century, so straining at gnats is nothing new. I still need 18 on 1.8 to reach 100; I'm not going to do it, but I'll try. All's fair in love and war, love it or hate it ! 73 de Mort, SV5/G2JL ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:44:31 -0500 From: Cecil To: Larry Burke Cc: "" Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022 at cableone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii All excellent points and very well stated Larry.... Cecil K5DL Sent using recycled electrons. > On Jul 11, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Larry Burke wrote: > > > > This issue is actually bigger than the farce it is making of the ARRL awards > programs. > > > > When you write your Division Director you might also ask him "at what point > will the League consider 'for rent' commercial remotes -- which are already > in operation today -- an affront to the amateur spectrum?" At what point > will these stations be indistinguishable from common carrier networks, which > are highly regulated in the US? If Verizon Wireless wakes up one day and > realizes they have much of the infrastructure in place (towers, internet > connections, backup generators, billing systems) would the League be > receptive to them dotting both coasts with remotes? At what point will the > amateur community finally object? The barriers to entry into this game are > really not that high for the right player. The more "commercial" the Amateur > Service becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes at spectrum allocation time. > > > > You might also ask your Director how the League's support of commercial > remotes is consistent with their very prominent push of HR 1301 and S 1685 > (The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015). Why would lawmakers want to provide > relief from antenna restrictions if all a ham has to do is sign up for > RemoteHamRadio.com or similar to get on the air? Years of ARRL efforts in > this arena can disappear pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take a very bright > lobbyist for an association of HOAs to figure this out. All they'd have to > do is point to the RemoteHamRadio.com ad on the page facing the April 2015 > editorial in QST.... the editorial that announces the January Board decision > and arguably supports commercial remotes. > > > > > > Larry K5RK > > > > > > > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 08:49:25 -0700 From: Robert Harmon To: "" Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00 at pacbell.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Larry, I agree with Cecil. very good points. ! Bob K6UJ > On Jul 11, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Cecil wrote: > > All excellent points and very well stated Larry.... > > Cecil > K5DL > > Sent using recycled electrons. > >> On Jul 11, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Larry Burke wrote: >> >> >> >> This issue is actually bigger than the farce it is making of the ARRL awards >> programs. >> >> >> >> When you write your Division Director you might also ask him "at what point >> will the League consider 'for rent' commercial remotes -- which are already >> in operation today -- an affront to the amateur spectrum?" At what point >> will these stations be indistinguishable from common carrier networks, which >> are highly regulated in the US? If Verizon Wireless wakes up one day and >> realizes they have much of the infrastructure in place (towers, internet >> connections, backup generators, billing systems) would the League be >> receptive to them dotting both coasts with remotes? At what point will the >> amateur community finally object? The barriers to entry into this game are >> really not that high for the right player. The more "commercial" the Amateur >> Service becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes at spectrum allocation time. >> >> >> >> You might also ask your Director how the League's support of commercial >> remotes is consistent with their very prominent push of HR 1301 and S 1685 >> (The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015). Why would lawmakers want to provide >> relief from antenna restrictions if all a ham has to do is sign up for >> RemoteHamRadio.com or similar to get on the air? Years of ARRL efforts in >> this arena can disappear pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take a very bright >> lobbyist for an association of HOAs to figure this out. All they'd have to >> do is point to the RemoteHamRadio.com ad on the page facing the April 2015 >> editorial in QST.... the editorial that announces the January Board decision >> and arguably supports commercial remotes. >> >> >> >> >> >> Larry K5RK >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Topband mailing list Topband at contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband ------------------------------ End of Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 7 *************************************** From midnight18 at cox.net Sat Jul 11 12:29:56 2015 From: midnight18 at cox.net (W7RH) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:29:56 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <55A14484.4000500@cox.net> Many of you folks are too sensitive, especially to legitimate use of remotes. Yes, DX'ing and constesting on a competitive level can be challenging to the pocket book but, contrary to comments one does not have to be a "Rich" to compete in awards or competitions. Tom W8JI, made the most logical response. "I think the mob got all worked up because they didn't think about the actual rules, they just dislike RHR (and not the dozens of free uncontrolled remotes all over the place). For years they have been competing against people who use other people's stations, move around, or have a remote. Now, out of the clear blue sky, DXCC is suddenly useless when the actual changes than made it useless were made over 30 years ago." "I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or a new DXCC that requires the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving from one location all by himself with gear he assembled." One station, one control point. 73 W7RH -- W7RH DM35OS Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein From john at johnjeanantiqueradio.com Sat Jul 11 13:03:31 2015 From: john at johnjeanantiqueradio.com (John K9UWA) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:03:31 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net> References: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net>, <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net>, <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <55A14C63.21034.AFBF050@john.johnjeanantiqueradio.com> Although I agree with many who have posted to this thread I will only say this. The ARRL can not create a DXCC rule that they have no ability to enforce. Other than some He Said She Said that Joe Doe's signal was coming from the wrong direction so he wasn't transmitting from his home station. Even then who is to say that Joe Doe wasn't off visiting some ham buddy on the other side of the country? Then it is legal under current rules. And no one complains about that type of operation. John k9uwa John Goller, K9UWA & Jean Goller, N9PXF Antique Radio Restorations k9uwa at arrl.net Visit our Web Site at: http://www.JohnJeanAntiqueRadio.com 4836 Ranch Road Leo, IN 46765 USA 1-260-637-6426 From aa6yq at ambersoft.com Sat Jul 11 14:36:02 2015 From: aa6yq at ambersoft.com ( Dave AA6YQ) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:36:02 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <55A14C63.21034.AFBF050@john.johnjeanantiqueradio.com> References: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net>, <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net>, <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net> <55A14C63.21034.AFBF050@john.johnjeanantiqueradio.com> Message-ID: <074901d0bc08$722063f0$56612bd0$@ambersoft.com> What's the ethical difference between an NA east coast op who uses an NA west coast remote to work 160m Asian DX, and an NA east coast op who flies to a friend's NA west coast QTH for a week to work 160m Asian DX? What's the ethical difference between paying someone to assemble and maintain a station in your home QTH, and using a remote station ~5 miles away? A DXer can submit a QSL card or LoTW confirmation to the DXCC desk as evidence of a QSO, but there is no practical way for the DXer to prove that he or she was operating from a particular location when that QSO was made. So while a "single QTH" endorsement sounds appealing, it would be entirely based on the honor system. The ARRL has established DXCC rules it can (mostly) enforce. "Operator location" isn't one of those rules, so it's up to each DXer to choose how he or she will operate. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of John K9UWA Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 1:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Although I agree with many who have posted to this thread I will only say this. The ARRL can not create a DXCC rule that they have no ability to enforce. Other than some He Said She Said that Joe Doe's signal was coming from the wrong direction so he wasn't transmitting from his home station. Even then who is to say that Joe Doe wasn't off visiting some ham buddy on the other side of the country? Then it is legal under current rules. And no one complains about that type of operation. John k9uwa John Goller, K9UWA & Jean Goller, N9PXF Antique Radio Restorations k9uwa at arrl.net Visit our Web Site at: http://www.JohnJeanAntiqueRadio.com 4836 Ranch Road Leo, IN 46765 USA 1-260-637-6426 _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From wi5a at sbcglobal.net Sat Jul 11 15:01:07 2015 From: wi5a at sbcglobal.net (Larry Burke) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:01:07 -0500 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <55A14C63.21034.AFBF050@john.johnjeanantiqueradio.com> References: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net>, <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net>, <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net> <55A14C63.21034.AFBF050@john.johnjeanantiqueradio.com> Message-ID: <040301d0bc0b$f21b1e30$d6515a90$@sbcglobal.net> I am fascinated by the enforceability argument. There are a number unenforceable DXCC rules. And they JUST ADDED A NEW ONE in January ("For the purpose of DXCC credit, all transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle, excluding antennas"). At some point it really does come down to honor. Some folks have it, some folks don't. The recent rules "tweaking" was accompanied by lots of words about ethics, with little clarification of what that word means. While it seems simple, many are equating "ethics" with "rules". They are not usually the same thing. - Larry K5RK -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of John K9UWA Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 12:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Although I agree with many who have posted to this thread I will only say this. The ARRL can not create a DXCC rule that they have no ability to enforce. Other than some He Said She Said that Joe Doe's signal was coming from the wrong direction so he wasn't transmitting from his home station. Even then who is to say that Joe Doe wasn't off visiting some ham buddy on the other side of the country? Then it is legal under current rules. And no one complains about that type of operation. John k9uwa John Goller, K9UWA & Jean Goller, N9PXF Antique Radio Restorations k9uwa at arrl.net Visit our Web Site at: http://www.JohnJeanAntiqueRadio.com 4836 Ranch Road Leo, IN 46765 USA 1-260-637-6426 _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From lmecseri at cfl.rr.com Sat Jul 11 15:11:20 2015 From: lmecseri at cfl.rr.com (KE1F Lou) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:11:20 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <55A13FD4.4040208@roadrunner.com> References: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net> <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net> <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net> <55A13FD4.4040208@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: <55A16A58.5040200@cfl.rr.com> Cheer up. "dumbed down" way is the only way to increase the number of available customers for QST and the hardware manufacturer's products. Enjoy it while you still can. 73 Lou KE1F On 7/11/2015 12:09 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: > I sat down to write an intelligent response to the remote question but > realized > I don't really care anymore. The Amateur Radio that I grew up with, > and loved, > is gone forever. Thanks to the ARRL and the FCC, it has been "dumbed > down" > and deregulated to the point where it's just another Citizens Band. > > 73, Roger > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From btippett at alum.mit.edu Sat Jul 11 15:16:40 2015 From: btippett at alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:16:40 -0400 Subject: Topband: Maunder minimum solar cycle in 2030? Message-ID: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html From herbert.schoenbohm at gmail.com Sat Jul 11 15:29:04 2015 From: herbert.schoenbohm at gmail.com (Herbert Schoenbohm) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:29:04 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week In-Reply-To: <1436632540567.1704099904@boxbe> References: <1436632540567.1704099904@boxbe> Message-ID: <55A16E80.9070806@gmail.com> Jim, NP2P has never applied for DXCC but I upload the contacts made with the station here to LOTW since they are made with a station located in the U.S. Virgin Islands. I also provide some limited QSL returns when someone wishes a card as well. If you wish to operate the station for DXCC these contacts would only count for KP2/K2HN and be of no value to you for your home station. For contests this would require the investment of several thousand dollars for remote heads for the Icom IC-7100 and the Kenwood TS-2000 plus Remote Rig boxes for your end. Also for a contest weekend, with the amplifier, the cost on my electrical bill jumps up by about $220 since we have a .48 cent per KWh cost here which is the highest in North America. My station is not similar to the much discussed rental remotes but more of a labor of love by a couple of us who have done this setup. Herb, KV4FZ On 7/11/2015 12:10 PM, Jim Murray via Topband wrote: > Boxbe This message is eligible for > Automatic Cleanup! (topband at contesting.com) Add cleanup rule > > | More info > > > > > " Here in the Virgin Islands I have built and functional SO2R > station (NP2P) which provides for the operator (N2TTA) to operate from > his apartment in NYC. "Not sure I understand this correctly. Like the majority of amateurs I haven't gotten into remote operation at this point. Does the op in NYC using the equipment in the Virgin Islands allowed to accumulate DXCC credits? Can I remotely operate your station in the Virgin Islands for dxcc and contesting?Jimk2hn > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com Sat Jul 11 15:49:45 2015 From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 12:49:45 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A17359.6080901@audiosystemsgroup.com> On Fri,7/10/2015 7:09 AM, Tony K1AMF wrote: > Please e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or comments. Here's what I wrote to my Director, and to a few others who I know. My Subject line was "DXCC Rules and Remote Operation." = = = = = In advance of a meeting where I expect this issue to be discussed, I want to let you know how I feel about DXCC Rules and Remote Operation. I am strongly opposed to the use of a remote station to give the operator a geographical advantage over his licensed location for geographically based awards like DXCC, WAS, VUCC. I also object to the use of rented stations for this purpose, no matter where they are located. I have no objection to an operator using a remote station that he has built with or without the assistance of others within a few hundred miles of his home QTH. I am also strongly opposed to the current DXCC Rules that allow credit for QSOs made from a location anywhere in the continental United States. I favor instead a rule similar to that for VUCC, which allows credit for QSOs made no more than 200 km apart. For DXCC, 700 miles might be a more appropriate distance. The existing rule greatly cheapens the award. Having operated first from WV, then from Chicago, and now from Northern California, I can testify that working DX on any band is very different between W8/W9 and W6. I did not start over moving from WV to Chicago, but I did when moving to CA 9 years ago. I would have felt that I was cheating if I had not. I have 135 countries confirmed on 160M and 201 on 80M since moving to W6 nine years ago. Under the current rules, I could almost certainly add 50 countries to each of those bands by renting a station in W1 for any contest weekend. That stinks. 73, Jim Brown K9YC From mstangelo at comcast.net Sat Jul 11 16:00:15 2015 From: mstangelo at comcast.net (mstangelo at comcast.net) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 20:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <55A14484.4000500@cox.net> References: <55A14484.4000500@cox.net> Message-ID: <634236895.30458262.1436644815900.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Technology is always giving us new tools to work with. You cannot compare past accomplishments with present ones. As we age or downside our living conditions may force me to operate RHR. I'm fine with that and will acknowledge the fact during the QSO. The League should provide different classes of awards. Some examples are: - Local operation QRP 5 watts - Local operation 100 watts - Local operation QRO - RHR QRP 5 watts - RHR 100 watts - RHR QRO Mike N2MS ----- Original Message ----- From: W7RH To: topband Sent: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:29:56 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Many of you folks are too sensitive, especially to legitimate use of remotes. Yes, DX'ing and constesting on a competitive level can be challenging to the pocket book but, contrary to comments one does not have to be a "Rich" to compete in awards or competitions. Tom W8JI, made the most logical response. "I think the mob got all worked up because they didn't think about the actual rules, they just dislike RHR (and not the dozens of free uncontrolled remotes all over the place). For years they have been competing against people who use other people's stations, move around, or have a remote. Now, out of the clear blue sky, DXCC is suddenly useless when the actual changes than made it useless were made over 30 years ago." "I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or a new DXCC that requires the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving from one location all by himself with gear he assembled." One station, one control point. 73 W7RH -- W7RH DM35OS Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From w5un at wt.net Sat Jul 11 16:08:09 2015 From: w5un at wt.net (Dave Blaschke, w5un) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 20:08:09 +0000 Subject: Topband: Maunder minimum solar cycle in 2030? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A177A9.7060107@wt.net> Bill, Interesting stuff, tends well for 160, but I'll be gone by then :>( Dave, W5UN p.s. whatever happened to global warming On 7/11/2015 7:16 PM, Bill Tippett wrote: > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From donovanf at starpower.net Sat Jul 11 16:21:13 2015 From: donovanf at starpower.net (donovanf at starpower.net) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:21:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Topband: Maunder minimum solar cycle in 2030? In-Reply-To: <55A177A9.7060107@wt.net> Message-ID: <70388121.18501659.1436646073939.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> After hundreds of years of scientific research of sunspot cycles, no long range solar cycle forecasting model has ever been able to reliably forecast the intensity of a solar cycle until after the cycle begins to rise. Perhaps this will be the first model to reliably forecast the intensity of future sunspot cycle, but no one knows. 73 Frank W3LPL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Blaschke, w5un" To: "Bill Tippett" , "topband" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 8:08:09 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Maunder minimum solar cycle in 2030? Bill, Interesting stuff, tends well for 160, but I'll be gone by then :>( Dave, W5UN p.s. whatever happened to global warming On 7/11/2015 7:16 PM, Bill Tippett wrote: > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From wb6rse1 at mac.com Sat Jul 11 16:26:25 2015 From: wb6rse1 at mac.com (wb6rse1 at mac.com) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:26:25 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <01FE5DCE-9150-4AC6-AC85-805219B6633D@mac.com> It?s an easy problem to solve. Just change every country with districts into multiple DXCC entities. W?-W9. Ten new countries. VE1, VE2, VK1 etc. Move to another ?country,? start all over. And restart DXCC by band and mode from scratch. No grandfathered credits. How about on April 1, 2016? If you move from Phoenix to Seattle you keep your credits. Move a few hundred miles West to LA, too bad. From Pittsburgh to Cleveland, no dice. Great fun. Think of the possibilities. The pile ups, scheds, getting up in the wee hours of the night all over again just for an ?ATNO.? Think of the money that could be raised to fund DXpeditions to re-activate wet rocks or islands with no indigenous population. Now look in the mirror and ask yourself if your DXCC totals prove anything other than how old you are. Steve WB6RSE From n4is at comcast.net Sat Jul 11 16:34:50 2015 From: n4is at comcast.net (JC) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:34:50 -0400 Subject: Topband: Maunder minimum solar cycle in 2030? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003401d0bc19$099ec9f0$1cdc5dd0$@comcast.net> Thanks Bill There is another video about Maunder minimum coming fast. As you can hear on the video paid Scientist are paid to say so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MARk49q5FFY 73's JC N4IS -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Tippett Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 3:17 PM To: topband Subject: Topband: Maunder minimum solar cycle in 2030? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-S cientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From btippett at alum.mit.edu Sat Jul 11 16:40:17 2015 From: btippett at alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:40:17 -0400 Subject: Topband: Maunder minimum solar cycle in 2030? In-Reply-To: <70388121.18501659.1436646073939.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> References: <55A177A9.7060107@wt.net> <70388121.18501659.1436646073939.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> Message-ID: Hi Frank, Please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the conveyor belt theory was used to predict the weakness of the current cycle. Hathaway himself did not predict this weakness: "NASA's Hathaway, along with colleague Robert Wilson at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco last month, said that Solar Cycle 24 "looks like it's going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago." http://solarchaos.blogspot.com/2008/11/history-of-cycle-24-predictions.html 73, Bill W4ZV On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:21 PM, wrote: > After hundreds of years of scientific research of sunspot cycles, no long > range > solar cycle forecasting model has ever been able to reliably forecast the > intensity of a solar cycle until after the cycle begins to rise. > Perhaps this will > be the first model to reliably forecast the intensity of future sunspot > cycle, > but no one knows. > > 73 > Frank > W3LPL > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Dave Blaschke, w5un" > *To: *"Bill Tippett" , "topband" < > topband at contesting.com> > *Sent: *Saturday, July 11, 2015 8:08:09 PM > *Subject: *Re: Topband: Maunder minimum solar cycle in 2030? > > > Bill, > > Interesting stuff, tends well for 160, but I'll be gone by then :>( > > Dave, W5UN > p.s. whatever happened to global warming > > On 7/11/2015 7:16 PM, Bill Tippett wrote: > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > From k6uj at pacbell.net Sat Jul 11 16:40:49 2015 From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Robert Harmon) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:40:49 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <55A17359.6080901@audiosystemsgroup.com> References: <55A17359.6080901@audiosystemsgroup.com> Message-ID: <338B826C-B44D-4B0D-94DF-1DE22957027E@pacbell.net> Jim, Thanks, I have done the same. You can give your opinion on this subject by contacting your ARRL division director. Click on this webpage, select your director, and send an email ! http://www.arrl.org/divisions 73, Bob K6UJ > On Jul 11, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Jim Brown wrote: > > On Fri,7/10/2015 7:09 AM, Tony K1AMF wrote: >> Please e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or comments. > > Here's what I wrote to my Director, and to a few others who I know. My Subject line was "DXCC Rules and Remote Operation." > > = = = = = > > In advance of a meeting where I expect this issue to be discussed, I want to let you know how I feel about DXCC Rules and Remote Operation. > > I am strongly opposed to the use of a remote station to give the operator a geographical advantage over his licensed location for geographically based awards like DXCC, WAS, VUCC. I also object to the use of rented stations for this purpose, no matter where they are located. I have no objection to an operator using a remote station that he has built with or without the assistance of others within a few hundred miles of his home QTH. > > I am also strongly opposed to the current DXCC Rules that allow credit for QSOs made from a location anywhere in the continental United States. I favor instead a rule similar to that for VUCC, which allows credit for QSOs made no more than 200 km apart. For DXCC, 700 miles might be a more appropriate distance. The existing rule greatly cheapens the award. > > Having operated first from WV, then from Chicago, and now from Northern California, I can testify that working DX on any band is very different between W8/W9 and W6. I did not start over moving from WV to Chicago, but I did when moving to CA 9 years ago. I would have felt that I was cheating if I had not. > > I have 135 countries confirmed on 160M and 201 on 80M since moving to W6 nine years ago. Under the current rules, I could almost certainly add 50 countries to each of those bands by renting a station in W1 for any contest weekend. That stinks. > > 73, Jim Brown K9YC > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From k6uj at pacbell.net Sat Jul 11 16:51:13 2015 From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Robert Harmon) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:51:13 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <634236895.30458262.1436644815900.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> References: <55A14484.4000500@cox.net> <634236895.30458262.1436644815900.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Message-ID: <636DD7EB-C4E1-4ED7-9E6D-65091C848207@pacbell.net> Mike, I agree 120% !!!!!! The different classes make perfect sense. Bob K6UJ > On Jul 11, 2015, at 1:00 PM, mstangelo at comcast.net wrote: > > Technology is always giving us new tools to work with. You cannot compare past accomplishments with present ones. > > As we age or downside our living conditions may force me to operate RHR. I'm fine with that and will acknowledge the fact during the QSO. > > The League should provide different classes of awards. Some examples are: > > - Local operation QRP 5 watts > - Local operation 100 watts > - Local operation QRO > > - RHR QRP 5 watts > - RHR 100 watts > - RHR QRO > > Mike N2MS > ----- Original Message ----- > From: W7RH > To: topband > Sent: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:29:56 -0000 (UTC) > Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input > > Many of you folks are too sensitive, especially to legitimate use of > remotes. Yes, DX'ing and constesting on a competitive level can be > challenging to the pocket book but, contrary to comments one does not > have to be a "Rich" to compete in awards or competitions. > > Tom W8JI, made the most logical response. > > "I think the mob got all worked up because they didn't think about the actual > rules, they just dislike RHR (and not the dozens of free uncontrolled > remotes all over the place). For years they have been competing against > people who use other people's stations, move around, or have a remote. Now, > out of the clear blue sky, DXCC is suddenly useless when the actual changes > than made it useless were made over 30 years ago." > > "I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or a new DXCC that requires > the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving from one > location all by himself with gear he assembled." > > One station, one control point. > > 73 W7RH > > -- > W7RH DM35OS > > Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. > > Albert Einstein > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From n4is at comcast.net Sat Jul 11 16:59:15 2015 From: n4is at comcast.net (JC) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:59:15 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <040301d0bc0b$f21b1e30$d6515a90$@sbcglobal.net> References: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net>, <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net>, <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net> <55A14C63.21034.AFBF050@john.johnjeanantiqueradio.com> <040301d0bc0b$f21b1e30$d6515a90$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <003f01d0bc1c$73050780$590f1680$@comcast.net> Hi Larry You right, I sent my comments to the board. The main rule I would like to see implemented it the one in place, or almost in place I should say it. All 160m QSL cards are verified by a certified 160m DXCC holder. QSO's during day time are rejected. However LOTW does not have a simple software routine to check day time QSO's on 160m and validate them. I reported several day time QSO's on 160m from few PY's well know, but because the way LOTW works, if the QSO match on the files when those QSO's was uploaded. It mean's validated!! ... and as valid the DXCC credit was just few dollars away!! Without the same QSL verification on/for the paper QSL! I don't think the DXCC board will protect Ham Radio service when ARRL opened the door for commercial use of ham radio frequencies paid U$ per minute. I see nothing wrong with the love to implement a remote station or a DX club remote station. I really love the technology that we built , it is part of our DNA.... BUT !! and here is the BUT , when we welcome HRH to commercialize air time per dollar using our HAM RADIO privilege frequencies, we are in risk to lose our entire ham radio privilege. It has nothing to do with remote operation at all. It is about the nature of our service. We are allowing the change of the nature of our service! When we do so. It is just a matter of who pay more, it become a price negotiation of the air waves usage . No love or passion anymore , just pure money talk. Just to be aware there is real invasion of new HF services hungry for broadband digital communication. Some future discussion will be only about revenue and not about public safety, innovation, love for radio, all things we care and hold us together for the last century. Regards JC N4IS -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Larry Burke Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 3:01 PM To: topband at contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input I am fascinated by the enforceability argument. There are a number unenforceable DXCC rules. And they JUST ADDED A NEW ONE in January ("For the purpose of DXCC credit, all transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle, excluding antennas"). At some point it really does come down to honor. Some folks have it, some folks don't. The recent rules "tweaking" was accompanied by lots of words about ethics, with little clarification of what that word means. While it seems simple, many are equating "ethics" with "rules". They are not usually the same thing. - Larry K5RK -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of John K9UWA Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 12:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Although I agree with many who have posted to this thread I will only say this. The ARRL can not create a DXCC rule that they have no ability to enforce. Other than some He Said She Said that Joe Doe's signal was coming from the wrong direction so he wasn't transmitting from his home station. Even then who is to say that Joe Doe wasn't off visiting some ham buddy on the other side of the country? Then it is legal under current rules. And no one complains about that type of operation. John k9uwa John Goller, K9UWA & Jean Goller, N9PXF Antique Radio Restorations k9uwa at arrl.net Visit our Web Site at: http://www.JohnJeanAntiqueRadio.com 4836 Ranch Road Leo, IN 46765 USA 1-260-637-6426 _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From btippett at alum.mit.edu Sat Jul 11 17:43:10 2015 From: btippett at alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 17:43:10 -0400 Subject: Topband: Maunder minimum solar cycle in 2030? In-Reply-To: References: <55A177A9.7060107@wt.net> <70388121.18501659.1436646073939.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> Message-ID: I had to do a memory refresh but finally recalled that Leif Svalgaard, et.al. accurately predicted Cycle 24 in October 2004. He did not use conveyor belt theory but polar field measurements: "Using direct polar field measurements, now available for four solar cycles, we predict that the approaching solar cycle 24 (2011 maximum) will have a peak smoothed monthly sunspot number of 75 ? 8, making it potentially the smallest cycle in the last 100 years." http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf The actual smoothed sunspot peak for Cycle 24 was around 82 in early 2014 (blue line on the graph below). He missed the peak date because it occurred during the cycle's second peak. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression 73, Bill W4ZV On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Bill Tippett wrote: > Hi Frank, > > Please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the conveyor belt theory was > used to predict the weakness of the current cycle. Hathaway himself did > not predict this weakness: > > "NASA's Hathaway, along with colleague Robert Wilson at a meeting of the > American Geophysical Union in San Francisco last month, said that Solar > Cycle 24 "looks like it's going to be one of the most intense cycles since > record-keeping began almost 400 years ago." > > http://solarchaos.blogspot.com/2008/11/history-of-cycle-24-predictions.html > > 73, Bill W4ZV > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:21 PM, wrote: > >> After hundreds of years of scientific research of sunspot cycles, no long >> range >> solar cycle forecasting model has ever been able to reliably forecast >> the >> intensity of a solar cycle until after the cycle begins to rise. >> Perhaps this will >> be the first model to reliably forecast the intensity of future sunspot >> cycle, >> but no one knows. >> >> 73 >> Frank >> W3LPL >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Dave Blaschke, w5un" >> *To: *"Bill Tippett" , "topband" < >> topband at contesting.com> >> *Sent: *Saturday, July 11, 2015 8:08:09 PM >> *Subject: *Re: Topband: Maunder minimum solar cycle in 2030? >> >> >> Bill, >> >> Interesting stuff, tends well for 160, but I'll be gone by then :>( >> >> Dave, W5UN >> p.s. whatever happened to global warming >> >> On 7/11/2015 7:16 PM, Bill Tippett wrote: >> > >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html >> > _________________ >> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> > From adkmurray at yahoo.com Sat Jul 11 18:18:29 2015 From: adkmurray at yahoo.com (Jim Murray) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:18:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week In-Reply-To: <55A16E80.9070806@gmail.com> References: <55A16E80.9070806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <120334150.542705.1436653109668.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Herb. ?I got an education from all the posts re remote operation. ?Never really got into it. ?Licensed 35 years and still things to learn. ?This forum is certainly a wealth of information and many of the members are tops in the field. ?Regarding the issue, I've put many enjoyable hours into my dxcc with mostly meager stations. ?The only issue I have right now is all those deleted countries. ?I have seen a decline in various areas of the hobby and attribute that to gradually making things easier and easier. ?You'd think tougher would be a lot more rewarding as it was for me after 3 attempts at 20wpm. Well, that's progress I guess.Regards,jim/k2hn From: Herbert Schoenbohm To: Jim Murray ; "Topband at contesting.com" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 3:29 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week Jim,? NP2P has never applied for DXCC but I upload the contacts made with the station here to LOTW since they are made with a station located in the U.S. Virgin Islands. I also provide some limited QSL returns when someone wishes a card as well.? If you wish to operate the station for DXCC these contacts would only count for KP2/K2HN and be of no value to you for your home station.? For contests this would require the investment of several thousand dollars for remote heads for the Icom IC-7100 and the Kenwood TS-2000 plus? Remote Rig boxes for your end.? Also for a contest weekend, with the amplifier,? the cost on my electrical bill jumps up by about $220 since we have a .48 cent per KWh cost here which is the highest in North America. My station is not similar to the much discussed rental remotes but more of a labor of love by a couple of us who have done this setup. Herb, KV4FZ On 7/11/2015 12:10 PM, Jim Murray via Topband wrote: > Boxbe This message is eligible for > Automatic Cleanup! (topband at contesting.com) Add cleanup rule > > | More info > > > > > " Here in the Virgin Islands I have built and functional SO2R > station (NP2P) which provides for the operator (N2TTA) to operate from > his apartment in NYC. "Not sure I understand this correctly.? Like the majority? of amateurs I haven't gotten into remote operation at this point.? Does the op in NYC using the equipment in the Virgin Islands allowed to accumulate DXCC credits?? Can I remotely operate your station in the Virgin Islands for dxcc and contesting?Jimk2hn > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com Sat Jul 11 18:34:55 2015 From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:34:55 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <55A14484.4000500@cox.net> References: <55A14484.4000500@cox.net> Message-ID: <55A19A0F.3090408@audiosystemsgroup.com> On Sat,7/11/2015 9:29 AM, W7RH wrote: > Many of you folks are too sensitive, especially to legitimate use of > remotes. Yes, DX'ing and constesting on a competitive level can be > challenging to the pocket book but, contrary to comments one does not > have to be a "Rich" to compete in awards or competitions. I agree, Bob, and I also agree with W8JI. Building a remote station is NOT easy -- I've not done it myself, but as an EE and a designer of many complex professional sound systems, I appreciate the cross-disciplinary systems engineering that goes into doing it well. I've known about your remote station for years, and have nothing but the greatest respect for your accomplishment. K6TU, K6IE, and K6XX are three more guys I know who have done it. 73, Jim K9YC From dick.bingham at gmail.com Sat Jul 11 19:06:30 2015 From: dick.bingham at gmail.com (Dick Bingham) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:06:30 -0700 Subject: Topband: DXCC Issues ! Message-ID: Greetings All Where Tom - W8JI - says "I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or a new DXCC that requires the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving from one ? location all by himself with gear he assembled" I totally agree ! What good, really, is a QSO with someone you worked using your call at a QTH not your own and could not possibly work from your own FCC-licensed site. Internally, at least, one would have to acknowledge any awards achieved in this manner are dishonest. Personally, I would find it impossible to hang an award that included such QSO's on my wall of accomplishments. I am pretty certain I could accumulate sufficient QSO's using the Arecibo telescope to work multi-100 DXCC entities on 144MHz-and-up using 100-watts - maybe even 10-watts. Would an award under my call be worth anything to me as an operator at, say, CN98pi ? ANSWER: worth nothing and useless to the Grid-Square collector who needs CN98pi ! I long for the days when we were required to sign 'portable' when operating away from home. How disheartning it is to work a weak "W1-station" calling CQ on six meters only to find they are 1000's of miles from W1-land . 73 Dick/W7WKR CN98pi ps - I've sent my thoughts on to my Northwest Section Division Manager . . . db ========================================= Message: 6 Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:06:03 -0400 From: "Tom W8JI" To: "topband" Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: <2DEF05FB4D5044CCBEDFF9F24E42D271 at MAIN> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response I don't understand the sudden hysteria, except it may be Internet driven. Around 52 years ago, my first or second 160 meter California contact was with remote W6YY. I can't remember if W6VSS Dale or W6YY was first, but that was when the band was split and the power limit was maybe 25 watts plate input power. In the 1970's, when it was actually very difficult to work DXCC, W2EQS (Charlie) had almost made 100 DXCC on 160. His age and health forced him to move to Indiana, and he lost all of those credits. Today (and for a long time now) anyone anywhere in the USA (remotely or locally) can operate anyone else's station in the USA under their call, or someone else can come in (remotely or physically) operate their station using the local call. People around here come in physically and operate my station, and they have for many years. It counts for their DXCC. This leads me to think the sudden recent wave of hysteria about DXCC is based on people actually wanting one of three things: 1.) In spite of being legal for over 50 years, all remotes to be banned 2.) In spite of being legal for around 35 years that I know of, they want the rules changed so a station has to sign callsign / district or say portable and then district when transmitting from any location other than the station owner and builder location, and so no guest op can ever use his call. This is the way it was before the FCC changed that rule, which I think happened in the 1980's. Since the FCC is unlikely to change rules because of an award that has not had that much meaning about being tied to any location, station, or operator since maybe 1980 or so, they want a new DXCC. They want a new DXCC that requires the contact to be made by the physical owner of the station at one location. To me, the real issue is people are unhappy either with the use of a remote of any type (which has been legal as long as I have been a Ham and has been used for DXCC and contests since I have been licensed) or they suddenly want DXCC to be tied to a station at a single location that the DXCC recipient owns. I think the mob got all worked up because they didn't think about the actual rules, they just dislike RHR (and not the dozens of free uncontrolled remotes all over the place). For years they have been competing against people who use other people's stations, move around, or have a remote. Now, out of the clear blue sky, DXCC is suddenly useless when the actual changes than made it useless were made over 30 years ago. I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or a new DXCC that requires the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving from one location all by himself with gear he assembled. ========================================= From JAYB1943 at OPTONLINE.NET Sat Jul 11 19:36:28 2015 From: JAYB1943 at OPTONLINE.NET (JAYB1943 at OPTONLINE.NET) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 19:36:28 -0400 Subject: Topband: more on DXCC remotes Message-ID: I have sent the following to my ARRL Director: Hi Mike ? I don?t think we really can?t deny the advance of technology...in fact, traditionally, hams have always been in the forefront of new technical developments. Personal specific actions by the individual ham operator to accomplish the QSO has always been the gold standard of a valid QSO....I?ll explain that: it has always been acceptable to be a ?guest? operator at someone else?s shack and work a ?new one? for DXCC as long as the operator claiming the QSO was in control of the station at the time of the contact. It has also long been acceptable for a station owner/operator to control their station remotely via the telephone lines, VHF link or other means and claim DXCC credits from the fixed station?s country location. So logically, a remote-operated ?guest? station should probably be considered no more than a combination of 2 long-established acceptable practices. One can make the argument that operator of the rented-remote station has a major advantage over most of the rest of us because they can afford to pay the bill...but that has always been the case. Hams with extra $$ to spend on the hobby for new radios, higher towers and bigger antennas have always had an advantage over most of us and always will !! In the end, I see no objection to using remotely controlled stations (personal, loaned or rented) for DXCC credits as long as the station properly identifies its call letters and country location. I also don?t believe these stations should have to operate in a different class for DX contests...the ?guest? stations and the owned-remote stations always competed in the standard classes; why change it now ? As an aside, I did sign up for a 24 hour trial with one of the rental remote stations...worked a few DX stations but found it somewhat personally unsatisfying..was ?too easy? ? and ? I kept thinking about what is was COSTING me to just tune around the bands !! I would like to achieve DX Honor Roll one of these days but I will do it with my usual 100w and wire antennas or not at all....just have to live long enough !! 73, Jay NY2NY (ex-K2OVS) DXCC ? 335 countries + 9 Band DXCC + 1850 Challenge pts.....and... some QSOs were at ?guest? stations, I do admit !! Hello, Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. Thank you. 73 de Mike N2YBB From mda at n1en.org Sat Jul 11 22:17:15 2015 From: mda at n1en.org (Michael Adams) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 02:17:15 +0000 Subject: Topband: more on DXCC remotes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here's what I sent my director: For whatever it?s worth, I?m generally OK with leaving DXCC as-is as regards to remote operating. I don?t necessarily see remote operating as any more or less ?troubling? as going to a neighbor?s/buddy?s big gun station to grab a new one, or traveling across the country to have an easier shot at a desired continent, etc. That being said, I think it wouldn?t be a bad idea to have some kind of ?DXCC classic? (or some such augmented title), where in addition to the usual DXCC rules, there were two additional criteria: ? The station used to make a ?DXCC classic?-eligible QSO must be designed primarily for the use of the applicant (exception: husband/wife or parent/live-at-home-children teams); and ? All QSOs for a given award must have been made within a 250 mile circle, within a single DXCC entity ?and advance the ?QSOs made after? are eligible? date to the present time Those rules might need to be tweaked, but the intent is to not disallow remote operation (particularly for those hams who live away from their stations due to HOA restrictions, etc.), but instead foster individual amateurs? efforts at better station design and engineering. While I have no objections to operations like Remote Ham Radio, or those who may queue up at a big gun station from whence many different operators may seek to work a rare New One? I can empathize with those who might feel that such tactics are ?cheating?. -- Michael Adams | N1EN | mda at n1en.org From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com Sat Jul 11 23:05:18 2015 From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 20:05:18 -0700 Subject: Topband: DXCC Issues ! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A1D96E.9070206@audiosystemsgroup.com> On Sat,7/11/2015 4:06 PM, Dick Bingham wrote: > How disheartning it is to work a weak "W1-station" calling > CQ on six meters I almost never use /6 except occasionally on 6M during band openings. On SSB, if I'm calling CQ, I'll identify K9YC in California. The WSJT modes are great -- it's common practice to include you grid square in your CQ or as a report. For example, "CQ K9YC CM87" and in response, "K9YC W4ABC EM48" I think most of us who are active on Topband know the guys who operate out of their traditional call-area. We all know W8JI is in GA, most folks know I'm in CA, K1LT is in OH, N8OO is in LA, K5RC in in NV, K4XU and W2VJN are in OR, KD4POJ is in ND, W0AIH is in WI, K2AV is in NC, N3BB is in TX. 73, Jim K9YC From w0mu at w0mu.com Sun Jul 12 00:19:43 2015 From: w0mu at w0mu.com (W0MU) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:19:43 -0600 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <55A13FD4.4040208@roadrunner.com> References: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net> <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net> <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net> <55A13FD4.4040208@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: <55A1EADF.7070106@w0mu.com> While the horse and carriage still exist very few use them. I am sorry you feel badly about ham radio as we have had some very amazing advances....Weak signal programs are amazing. On 7/11/2015 10:09 AM, Roger D Johnson wrote: > I sat down to write an intelligent response to the remote question but > realized > I don't really care anymore. The Amateur Radio that I grew up with, > and loved, > is gone forever. Thanks to the ARRL and the FCC, it has been "dumbed > down" > and deregulated to the point where it's just another Citizens Band. > > 73, Roger > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From pearse at gci.net Sun Jul 12 00:43:34 2015 From: pearse at gci.net (Gary and Kathleen Pearse) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 20:43:34 -0800 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <55A1EADF.7070106@w0mu.com> References: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net> <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net> <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net> <55A13FD4.4040208@roadrunner.com> <55A1EADF.7070106@w0mu.com> Message-ID: <18A6588E-E2FB-4031-A9BF-CA203C0B925C@gci.net> I told myself when I started Amateur Radio I was going to be a Goose?where every day?s a new day. No awards, just work who you can, when you can, any way you can. So now when I hear DX or there?s a contest I try to make a contact if it?s of interest. As I say, that way every day and contact?s a new one. 73, Gary NL7Y From w7dra at juno.com Fri Jul 10 14:44:32 2015 From: w7dra at juno.com (w7dra at juno.com) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:44:32 -0700 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Message-ID: i started radio with WN7ZVY in 1955, and i use the same rules that were in vogue then. if it is in the 1954 ARRL handbook i do it when i operate at my dughters house 50 miles away from my house i sign W7DRA/7 field day still has a 30 watt input power regulation mike w7dra On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 20:43:34 -0800 Gary and Kathleen Pearse writes: > I told myself when I started Amateur Radio I was going to be a > Goose where every day?s a new day. No awards, just work who you can, > when you can, any way you can. > > So now when I hear DX or there?s a contest I try to make a contact > if it?s of interest. As I say, that way every day and contact?s a > new one. > > 73, Gary NL7Y > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/55a1feec1bfa37eeb4df8st03vuc From ron.e.spencer at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 08:10:52 2015 From: ron.e.spencer at gmail.com (Ron Spencer) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:10:52 -0400 Subject: Topband: DXCC for rented remote stations Message-ID: I will also send my feedback to my ARRL section manager. I see no issue with giving DXCC credit to stations that work DX via a remote and/ or rented station. I see it being the same as someone that has a QTH on both coasts. They can travel between them and work DX which counts towards their DXCC. To make it even a more direct comparison say one of the stations is remote controlled. DXCC is an award for personal achievement. Why do I care how someone else got theirs? I care about how I got mine. I moved from the west coast to the east and decided to start my country count over knowing that, according to the DXCC rules, I didn't need to. I wanted the country count to reflect my efforts from each location. It was a personal choice. Ron N4XD From herbert.schoenbohm at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 08:12:21 2015 From: herbert.schoenbohm at gmail.com (Herbert Schoenbohm) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:12:21 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <1436675040907.1831081870@boxbe> References: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net><6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net><63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net><55A13FD4.4040208@roadrunner.com> <1436675040907.1831081870@boxbe> Message-ID: <55A259A5.3000700@gmail.com> Do you get the impression that the ARRL has always been lagging behind dragging their feet and slow to grasp the many advances in our hobby that lie ahead? This is evidenced by their collective inability to make needed upgrades to programs and contest rules. A perfect example is the ARRL 160 meter contest which clearly punishes stations located in the U.S. Territories by counting them as ARRL states rather than DX like they really are. Many have begged and pleaded for change by following the suggested procedures of writing the CAC and Directors for nearly two decades. All attempts are ignored and everything remains the same. Why does this not surprise you? Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ On 7/12/2015 12:19 AM, W0MU wrote: > Boxbe This message is eligible for > Automatic Cleanup! (w0mu at w0mu.com) Add cleanup rule > > | More info > > > While the horse and carriage still exist very few use them. > > I am sorry you feel badly about ham radio as we have had some very > amazing advances....Weak signal programs are amazing. > > On 7/11/2015 10:09 AM, Roger D Johnson wrote: >> I sat down to write an intelligent response to the remote question >> but realized >> I don't really care anymore. The Amateur Radio that I grew up with, >> and loved, >> is gone forever. Thanks to the ARRL and the FCC, it has been "dumbed >> down" >> and deregulated to the point where it's just another Citizens Band. >> >> 73, Roger >> >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From nn4t at comcast.net Sun Jul 12 09:32:30 2015 From: nn4t at comcast.net (nn4t at comcast.net) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:32:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <581678217.9884026.1436706476219.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Message-ID: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that. I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC rules change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree. Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list? I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T From wi5a at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 12 10:27:10 2015 From: wi5a at sbcglobal.net (Larry Burke) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 09:27:10 -0500 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> References: <581678217.9884026.1436706476219.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Message-ID: <048501d0bcae$d7b37c60$871a7520$@sbcglobal.net> Will the last guy who actually emits RF from his station please remember to turn off the rig. K5RK From K4PI at BELLSOUTH.NET Sun Jul 12 10:37:11 2015 From: K4PI at BELLSOUTH.NET (Mike Greenway) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:37:11 -0400 Subject: Topband: The Remote Question.. Message-ID: Sad indeed to see the post this morning. The idiom ?the means justify the end? is true in this case for sure. I guess eventually the rules will say lets just call them on the phone and exchange reports, as we are near that with remotes now. That makes it easier and I guess that is what everyone wants as in school, if too many students are failing lets make the test easier. I will not take the easy way out to increase my Challenge totals although that is my primary goal in radio these days. The spirit and challenge of what DXCC was meant to be has eroded for sure. If that makes you feel good jumping coast to coast for the best prop, go for it. I always wondered why I was being beat out on 160 and 6 by certain 4 land stations and I can ignore their Challenge totals now that I know they don?t really believe it is a true Challenge. Don?t use technology as part of the argument. 73 Mike K4PI From wrcromwell at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 10:43:37 2015 From: wrcromwell at gmail.com (Bill Cromwell) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:43:37 -0400 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> References: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Message-ID: <55A27D19.8040404@gmail.com> Hi Steve, Thanks for your comments. I may seem like a true heretic being on this list. I'm not a *real* contester and even less a *real* DXer. I do have QSOs with DX stations on several bands. But I don't reject QSOs with U.S. or Canadian stations (Canada is only a small handful of miles from here). I have looked at the "two" sides of this same issue and I can see both sides, too. I also observed a scarcity of smoke and flames. That is appreciated here, too. About heresy (or not). I no longer have the resources - including the space - to install the large antennas required for DX contesting or challenges. At this point in my life I am *not* going to have those resources. So I use 160 meters more casually. In fact, I'm having technical difficulty with the radios but I'll work my way through that. So maybe being on a list named "TopBand" is not really heresy. The other part of the list name involves the host - "Contesting.com". I have the same 'casual' approach to contesting. For me it is more of "participating in on-air events. On Top Band my 'contest' would be the Stew Perry. Or maybe some of the QSO parties and "sprints" with activity on Top Band. It's all good. I'll see you on the air. 73, Bill KU8H On 07/12/2015 09:32 AM, nn4t at comcast.net wrote: > Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that. > I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC rules > change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree. > Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list? > I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T > _________________ > From wrcromwell at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 11:00:43 2015 From: wrcromwell at gmail.com (Bill Cromwell) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:00:43 -0400 Subject: Topband: The Remote Question.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A2811B.1010604@gmail.com> Hi Mike, There really is a difference among all the people who walked to school and back every school day for 12 years or so. Some of them lived across the street and others lived ten miles away, uphill both ways . I do see that somebody who did all of a DX challenge from their home location has more bragging rights than somebody who did parts of it over the internet. This message was done in part with the internet. Doing it all by radio would be *more* fun. 73, Bill KU8H On 07/12/2015 10:37 AM, Mike Greenway wrote: > Sad indeed to see the post this morning. The idiom ?the means justify the end? is true in this case for sure. I guess eventually the rules will say lets just call them on the phone and exchange reports, as we are near that with remotes now. That makes it easier and I guess that is what everyone wants as in school, if too many students are failing lets make the test easier. > > I will not take the easy way out to increase my Challenge totals although that is my primary goal in radio these days. The spirit and challenge of what DXCC was meant to be has eroded for sure. If that makes you feel good jumping coast to coast for the best prop, go for it. I always wondered why I was being beat out on 160 and 6 by certain 4 land stations and I can ignore their Challenge totals now that I know they don?t really believe it is a true Challenge. Don?t use technology as part of the argument. 73 Mike K4PI > From mort.g2jl at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 12 11:56:44 2015 From: mort.g2jl at ntlworld.com (T R Mortimer) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 15:56:44 -0000 Subject: Topband: The Remote question References: <581678217.9884026.1436706476219.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net><14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <048501d0bcae$d7b37c60$871a7520$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: "...Will the last guy who actually emits RF from his station please remember to turn off the rig..". Why bother ? There'll be nobody listening ! 73 de Mort, SV5/G2JL From weeksmgr at hotmail.com Sun Jul 12 12:01:29 2015 From: weeksmgr at hotmail.com (Charlie) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:01:29 -0500 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> References: <581678217.9884026.1436706476219.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>, <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Message-ID: Steve, the perspective of an award chasing RHR user who also has a well equipped home station has been missing from the discussion. Thanks for providing it. There are others who share your views. The availability of the paid remotes, either in geographically advantageous locations and or using super stations, has made it possible to instantly change transmitting/receiving location to suit the prop. Some folks have already had this ability, either through their own remote QTH or arrangements with friends. The paid remotes have opened favorable propagation selection of station location to the masses. DX chasing is not a life or death situation, as someone else pointed out. I have been licensed since 1962 but was only a casual DXer until retirement in 2008. I rarely sent of a DX QSL and did not apply for my first formal DXCC award until 2009. At retirement, I did set some DX operating and award chasing goals: 160M DXCC, 6M DXCC, DXCC on 10 bands, Honor Roll, Challenge 3000 and 160 WAZ. Better late than never. My perspective on the awards is that their value would be cheapened for me if shortcuts were taken to earn them. Cheapened to the point of: why bother? I could have achieved 6M DXCC long before now by logging into a W6 west coast station to work the Pacific Islands/Asia or logging into a Maine station to work EU more often and more easily. The award would just not be meaningful to me if earned in that manner. Ditto the other awards mentioned. There are many folks who feel as I do. I understand there are many folks who don't feel as I do. I generally don't care what others do if they don't affect me. The prop window on Topband is sometimes short. When I have to stand in line behind a long list of east cost remote users to break a rare DX pileup from western WV, I might have to rethink my Topband participation. So far it has not come to that. So far, most of my goals have been achieved without what, to me, are shortcuts. The last was 6M DXCC, with the application currently pending with ARRL. Still to go, 160 WAZ (2 more zones needed) and Challenge 3000 (2700 plus and counting). Interesting discussion. I appreciate the civility of it. 73 Charlie N8RR > Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:32:30 +0000 > From: nn4t at comcast.net > To: topband at contesting.com > Subject: Topband: The Remote question > > Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that. > I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC rules > change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree. > Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list? > I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From aa6yq at ambersoft.com Sun Jul 12 12:49:30 2015 From: aa6yq at ambersoft.com ( Dave AA6YQ) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 12:49:30 -0400 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> References: <581678217.9884026.1436706476219.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Message-ID: <019101d0bcc2$b9a303d0$2ce90b70$@ambersoft.com> The reaction of the DXing community to new technology over the years has been extremely interesting to observe. Some ops are early adopters, applying every bleeding-edge technology available that isn't explicitly prohibited by "the rules". At the other extreme are ops who effectively camp on the technology available at the time they became DXers, and argue that any use of subsequently-developed new technology would diminish the value of DXCC awards. Vigorous (and sometimes nasty) debates across this spectrum are as old as DXing, and will likely never end. The ARRL is in the unenviable position of having to keep the DXCC program "attractive" in the face of relentless technical change and the broad range of DXer "attitudes" described above. To make things more interesting, they are human, and thus occasionally make mistakes. It is the nature of DXing award programs that some mistakes cannot be corrected, at least not until time machines become available. At the root of all of this is our nature to compete. If DXCC were purely a set of personal achievement awards, then each op would choose his or her "technology ground rules", and sally forth accordingly. Some DXers do just that. However, < http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-standings> isn't entitled "DXCC Standings" for no reason. Some of us compete, and compete hard, fueling demands for a "level playing field". The bottom line, in my opinion, is that competitive DXers will never be happy. Someone else will always have an unfair advantage, because short of requiring *all* DXers to live within the same flat 200 km circle and use identical rigs/ants/apps, the DXCC playing field can never be leveled. My advice? Don't suffer in silence, convey constructive suggestions to your ARRL representatives. But when the DXCC rules change or don't change, recognize that you are one of a large, diverse community that cannot possibly all be simultaneously pleased. DX Is! 73, Dave, AA6YQ From wi5a at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 12 14:13:17 2015 From: wi5a at sbcglobal.net (Larry Burke) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:13:17 -0500 Subject: Topband: New Commercial Remote Service Message-ID: <04ce01d0bcce$6ea5f840$4bf1e8c0$@sbcglobal.net> VERIZON WIRELESS TO OFFER REMOTE AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE BASKING RIDGE, NJ (Roytours) - The nation's largest wireless company announced today that it plans to enter the remote ham radio station business to serve amateur radio operators. Verizon Wireless, a wholly owned subsidiary of Verizon Communications, Inc. [VZ, -4.25%] indicated that the stations are a natural fit with their existing infrastructure and require little additional investment. Customers will be able to talk all over the world using only their cell phone. The service will be available via subscription to existing Verizon customers. Coverage is expected to be the same as Verizon's current 4G coverage area, with all calls routed to high powered stations located on the east and west coasts of the United States. "At first we really didn't understand why this service was needed" said company spokesperson Ben Dover. "We had a misconception that ham radio operators built their own stations and advanced technology. Then we learned that there was a subculture in the hobby that tried to talk to as many countries as possible using any means available and many were already using a personal computer to talk to those countries. Some didn't even own a radio. Often they were using a service that offers complete anonymity" When asked how the new service is different from how Verizon customers currently call other countries, Dover hesitated. "Well it IS another revenue stream", he replied. Software developers have been quick to respond to the announcement. One such developer, who prefers to go by the name SchrockRock, is working on iPhone applications called DXCodeReadR and ThisisHowIHonorRoll (THIHR for short). SchrockRock explained that THIHR continuously monitors a notification system called the "cluster" and checks to see if the ham needs a country that has been "spotted" there. If the ham needs it, THIHR automatically works in concert with DXCodeReadR to generate what hams call a "QSO" to snag that new country, even while the ham sleeps. "It's all about convincing users that they are advancing technology", SchrockRock added in a recent post to reddit. Markets also reacted quickly, sending Verizon stock down as much as 6% in early trading. Reached on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, trader Larry Burke summed up the market's reaction, "There was a going-in concern about the ethics associated with this type of service as applied to what hams call the DXCC program. But when brokers are able to explain that not even the national association of amateur radio operators, the ARRL, is able to define 'ethics', most concerns evaporate". Currently, there are few players in the commercial remote business. The largest, RemoteHamRadio.com or RHR for short, operates a network of remotes, many of which are located in New York state. Verizon spokesperson Dover said his company realized the potential "when the FCC chose to look the other way with enforcement of Part 97 and common carrier regulations as they applied to this type of service". Users of existing services seem to enjoy them. One California ham, who goes by the callsign NJ6YOY, had this to say: "These remotes are fantastic. Just yesterday I had a PL-259 fail on the coax going into the back of my radio. The technician told me it would be three weeks before he could come out and fix it. Three weeks! What was I supposed to do in the meantime? I thought to myself, 'now this is a case for remote stations'. I whipped out my MasterCard and signed up for RHR. I didn't even need one of those K3/0 doohickeys. I just did my DXing with my computer. Things were going great and then my internets stopped working. Fortunately for me there was another RHR subscriber nearby. I used his internets to work four new ones in one day. The guy I talked to in Ireland was really happy to work California on six meters, too. He said he thought the band was only open to New York, but when I confirmed our QSO on LoTW he was tickled shirtless to see he had worked a new state". It is not clear to the uninitiated what all of this means, but NJ6YOY sounded very excited about his new conquests. With Verizon's new service he won't have to worry about his 'internets' going down either. All he will have to do is keep his iPhone charged. [yes, it's satire] From mikewate at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 14:24:53 2015 From: mikewate at gmail.com (Mike Waters) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:24:53 -0500 Subject: Topband: New Commercial Remote Service In-Reply-To: <04ce01d0bcce$6ea5f840$4bf1e8c0$@sbcglobal.net> References: <04ce01d0bcce$6ea5f840$4bf1e8c0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: You had me going for a few minutes! Are you going to send this again on April 1, 2016? ;-) 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Larry Burke wrote: > VERIZON WIRELESS TO OFFER REMOTE AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE > > > > BASKING RIDGE, NJ (Roytours) - The nation's largest wireless company > announced today that it plans to enter the remote ham radio station > business > to serve amateur radio operators. Verizon Wireless, a wholly owned > subsidiary of Verizon Communications, Inc. [VZ, -4.25%] indicated that the > stations are a natural fit with their existing infrastructure and require > little additional investment. Customers will be able to talk all over the > world using only their cell phone. The service will be available via > subscription to existing Verizon customers. Coverage is expected to be the > same as Verizon's current 4G coverage area, with all calls routed to high > powered stations located on the east and west coasts of the United States. > > > > "At first we really didn't understand why this service was needed" said > company spokesperson Ben Dover. "We had a misconception that ham radio > operators built their own stations and advanced technology. Then we learned > that there was a subculture in the hobby that tried to talk to as many > countries as possible using any means available and many were already using > a personal computer to talk to those countries. Some didn't even own a > radio. Often they were using a service that offers complete anonymity" > > > > When asked how the new service is different from how Verizon customers > currently call other countries, Dover hesitated. "Well it IS another > revenue > stream", he replied. > > > > Software developers have been quick to respond to the announcement. One > such > developer, who prefers to go by the name SchrockRock, is working on iPhone > applications called DXCodeReadR and ThisisHowIHonorRoll (THIHR for short). > SchrockRock explained that THIHR continuously monitors a notification > system > called the "cluster" and checks to see if the ham needs a country that has > been "spotted" there. If the ham needs it, THIHR automatically works in > concert with DXCodeReadR to generate what hams call a "QSO" to snag that > new > country, even while the ham sleeps. "It's all about convincing users that > they are advancing technology", SchrockRock added in a recent post to > reddit. > > > > Markets also reacted quickly, sending Verizon stock down as much as 6% in > early trading. Reached on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, trader > Larry Burke summed up the market's reaction, "There was a going-in concern > about the ethics associated with this type of service as applied to what > hams call the DXCC program. But when brokers are able to explain that not > even the national association of amateur radio operators, the ARRL, is able > to define 'ethics', most concerns evaporate". > > > > Currently, there are few players in the commercial remote business. The > largest, RemoteHamRadio.com or RHR for short, operates a network of > remotes, > many of which are located in New York state. Verizon spokesperson Dover > said > his company realized the potential "when the FCC chose to look the other > way > with enforcement of Part 97 and common carrier regulations as they applied > to this type of service". > > > > Users of existing services seem to enjoy them. One California ham, who goes > by the callsign NJ6YOY, had this to say: "These remotes are fantastic. Just > yesterday I had a PL-259 fail on the coax going into the back of my radio. > The technician told me it would be three weeks before he could come out and > fix it. Three weeks! What was I supposed to do in the meantime? I thought > to > myself, 'now this is a case for remote stations'. I whipped out my > MasterCard and signed up for RHR. I didn't even need one of those K3/0 > doohickeys. I just did my DXing with my computer. Things were going great > and then my internets stopped working. Fortunately for me there was another > RHR subscriber nearby. I used his internets to work four new ones in one > day. The guy I talked to in Ireland was really happy to work California on > six meters, too. He said he thought the band was only open to New York, but > when I confirmed our QSO on LoTW he was tickled shirtless to see he had > worked a new state". It is not clear to the uninitiated what all of this > means, but NJ6YOY sounded very excited about his new conquests. With > Verizon's new service he won't have to worry about his 'internets' going > down either. All he will have to do is keep his iPhone charged. > > > > > > [yes, it's satire] > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From w0mu at w0mu.com Sun Jul 12 15:04:08 2015 From: w0mu at w0mu.com (W0MU) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:04:08 -0600 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <019101d0bcc2$b9a303d0$2ce90b70$@ambersoft.com> References: <581678217.9884026.1436706476219.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <019101d0bcc2$b9a303d0$2ce90b70$@ambersoft.com> Message-ID: <55A2BA28.6040608@w0mu.com> Well said Dave! On 7/12/2015 10:49 AM, Dave AA6YQ wrote: > The reaction of the DXing community to new technology over the years has been extremely interesting to observe. Some ops are early > adopters, applying every bleeding-edge technology available that isn't explicitly prohibited by "the rules". At the other extreme > are ops who effectively camp on the technology available at the time they became DXers, and argue that any use of > subsequently-developed new technology would diminish the value of DXCC awards. Vigorous (and sometimes nasty) debates across this > spectrum are as old as DXing, and will likely never end. > > The ARRL is in the unenviable position of having to keep the DXCC program "attractive" in the face of relentless technical change > and the broad range of DXer "attitudes" described above. To make things more interesting, they are human, and thus occasionally make > mistakes. It is the nature of DXing award programs that some mistakes cannot be corrected, at least not until time machines become > available. > > At the root of all of this is our nature to compete. If DXCC were purely a set of personal achievement awards, then each op would > choose his or her "technology ground rules", and sally forth accordingly. Some DXers do just that. However, > > < http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-standings> > > isn't entitled "DXCC Standings" for no reason. Some of us compete, and compete hard, fueling demands for a "level playing field". > > The bottom line, in my opinion, is that competitive DXers will never be happy. Someone else will always have an unfair advantage, > because short of requiring *all* DXers to live within the same flat 200 km circle and use identical rigs/ants/apps, the DXCC playing > field can never be leveled. > > My advice? Don't suffer in silence, convey constructive suggestions to your ARRL representatives. But when the DXCC rules change or > don't change, recognize that you are one of a large, diverse community that cannot possibly all be simultaneously pleased. > > DX Is! > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From n1rj at roadrunner.com Sun Jul 12 15:08:52 2015 From: n1rj at roadrunner.com (Roger D Johnson) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:08:52 +0000 Subject: Topband: DXCC etc Message-ID: <55A2BB44.4090606@roadrunner.com> I just did a quick perusal of the current DXCC rules. If I understand them correctly: 1. Another ham can operate my station, using my call, and the contacts count towards my DXCC. 2. I can go to his station, sign my call, and the contacts count towards my DXCC. So...the station doesn't matter and the operator doesn't matter. What the heck matters anymore? 73, Roger From w0mu at w0mu.com Sun Jul 12 15:16:28 2015 From: w0mu at w0mu.com (W0MU) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:16:28 -0600 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> References: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Message-ID: <55A2BD0C.90007@w0mu.com> I think much of the issue with RHR is people are bent out of shape that a group of people have jumped on this and appear to be doing quite well. Business must be booming as they are adding new stations constantly. Personally I have a decent station and am not interested in renting station time. In the end the challenge is personal. The award is whatever you make it. DXCC is DXCC. If you feel better that you worked it from the same location using wet noodles more power to you. If you are chasing DX to impress other people I think you are doing it wrong. When you focus on yourself and what you are doing then these little "issues" become non issues. My Dad told me a long time ago in business was to quit paying so much about the other guy and start focusing on my business and what my strength were. I have been a ham since 1978. Honor roll number 1 mean very little to me. What it says is that you have either been doing this longer than me, spend more time on the radio, have a better setup, etc. It doesn't mean that you are a better DXer. I hear so called big DXers in pileups calling endlessly with no clue about how pileups work etc. Lots of great DXers are in and out of a pileup before you know it. Many of those guys may or may not have DXCC. I waited for over 20 years to apply for DXCC and the award is still in the tube.......... Be proud of yourself and what you have done. The watering down of the award is in your head. On 7/12/2015 7:32 AM, nn4t at comcast.net wrote: > Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that. > I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC rules > change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree. > Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list? > I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From chacuff at cableone.net Sun Jul 12 15:22:42 2015 From: chacuff at cableone.net (Cecil) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:22:42 -0500 Subject: Topband: New Commercial Remote Service In-Reply-To: References: <04ce01d0bcce$6ea5f840$4bf1e8c0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <310CF8C1-C94D-4098-B72E-7DBDA10B2C49@cableone.net> Maybe a new licensing incentive is in order to get the numbers up... Pass your General and get your DXCC thrown in (first 100). Pass your Extra and you go at the bottom of the Honor Roll. Incentive still remains...work your way to Honor Roll as a General or upgrade and then work your way up the Honor Roll... I mean DXCC and Honor Roll shouldn't be any harder than it is to get a license today huh? Levity... Cecil K5DL Sent using recycled electrons. > On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:24 PM, Mike Waters wrote: > > You had me going for a few minutes! > Are you going to send this again on April 1, 2016? ;-) > > 73, Mike > www.w0btu.com > >> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Larry Burke wrote: >> >> VERIZON WIRELESS TO OFFER REMOTE AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE >> >> >> >> BASKING RIDGE, NJ (Roytours) - The nation's largest wireless company >> announced today that it plans to enter the remote ham radio station >> business >> to serve amateur radio operators. Verizon Wireless, a wholly owned >> subsidiary of Verizon Communications, Inc. [VZ, -4.25%] indicated that the >> stations are a natural fit with their existing infrastructure and require >> little additional investment. Customers will be able to talk all over the >> world using only their cell phone. The service will be available via >> subscription to existing Verizon customers. Coverage is expected to be the >> same as Verizon's current 4G coverage area, with all calls routed to high >> powered stations located on the east and west coasts of the United States. >> >> >> >> "At first we really didn't understand why this service was needed" said >> company spokesperson Ben Dover. "We had a misconception that ham radio >> operators built their own stations and advanced technology. Then we learned >> that there was a subculture in the hobby that tried to talk to as many >> countries as possible using any means available and many were already using >> a personal computer to talk to those countries. Some didn't even own a >> radio. Often they were using a service that offers complete anonymity" >> >> >> >> When asked how the new service is different from how Verizon customers >> currently call other countries, Dover hesitated. "Well it IS another >> revenue >> stream", he replied. >> >> >> >> Software developers have been quick to respond to the announcement. One >> such >> developer, who prefers to go by the name SchrockRock, is working on iPhone >> applications called DXCodeReadR and ThisisHowIHonorRoll (THIHR for short). >> SchrockRock explained that THIHR continuously monitors a notification >> system >> called the "cluster" and checks to see if the ham needs a country that has >> been "spotted" there. If the ham needs it, THIHR automatically works in >> concert with DXCodeReadR to generate what hams call a "QSO" to snag that >> new >> country, even while the ham sleeps. "It's all about convincing users that >> they are advancing technology", SchrockRock added in a recent post to >> reddit. >> >> >> >> Markets also reacted quickly, sending Verizon stock down as much as 6% in >> early trading. Reached on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, trader >> Larry Burke summed up the market's reaction, "There was a going-in concern >> about the ethics associated with this type of service as applied to what >> hams call the DXCC program. But when brokers are able to explain that not >> even the national association of amateur radio operators, the ARRL, is able >> to define 'ethics', most concerns evaporate". >> >> >> >> Currently, there are few players in the commercial remote business. The >> largest, RemoteHamRadio.com or RHR for short, operates a network of >> remotes, >> many of which are located in New York state. Verizon spokesperson Dover >> said >> his company realized the potential "when the FCC chose to look the other >> way >> with enforcement of Part 97 and common carrier regulations as they applied >> to this type of service". >> >> >> >> Users of existing services seem to enjoy them. One California ham, who goes >> by the callsign NJ6YOY, had this to say: "These remotes are fantastic. Just >> yesterday I had a PL-259 fail on the coax going into the back of my radio. >> The technician told me it would be three weeks before he could come out and >> fix it. Three weeks! What was I supposed to do in the meantime? I thought >> to >> myself, 'now this is a case for remote stations'. I whipped out my >> MasterCard and signed up for RHR. I didn't even need one of those K3/0 >> doohickeys. I just did my DXing with my computer. Things were going great >> and then my internets stopped working. Fortunately for me there was another >> RHR subscriber nearby. I used his internets to work four new ones in one >> day. The guy I talked to in Ireland was really happy to work California on >> six meters, too. He said he thought the band was only open to New York, but >> when I confirmed our QSO on LoTW he was tickled shirtless to see he had >> worked a new state". It is not clear to the uninitiated what all of this >> means, but NJ6YOY sounded very excited about his new conquests. With >> Verizon's new service he won't have to worry about his 'internets' going >> down either. All he will have to do is keep his iPhone charged. >> >> >> >> >> >> [yes, it's satire] >> >> >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From jh-mty at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 12 15:51:32 2015 From: jh-mty at sbcglobal.net (jh-mty at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:51:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Topband: RemoteHams Android Client In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1003954864.696742.1436730692795.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Folks: "Commercial Remote?" ?Far from it. ?I am a traditional Top Band DX chaser since 2007, formerly operating with very good success from an apartment with a 600W station and a full-sized inverted L. ?I have been an HF and above DX chaser over nearly 40 years of hamming, and more recently an avid /M op, mostly CW (270 or so worked since 2004). ?All those operations have had nothing to do with remotes with the exception of a single 30M CW contact I made last year using a remote in Central CA.? Nonetheless, remotes are a highly valuable resource, and might be the only way for hams to achieve worthy objectives, and the only way for some to get on the air. ?In my case, I run a weekly net on 2 Meters in CA using resources available to me on RemoteHams.com, and that's the only viable, no-cost way I could do that from Nevada or wherever else I might be at the time. The folks who authored and developed this resource are not only my good friends, they are accomplished hams who have designed the remote application with genius and insight. Think that celphone remote ops are a satirical dream? ?Think again! ?? https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.remotehams.rcforb.client Fellow hams, I urge you to re-examine your attitudes concerning remote operations, what they mean to the hobby, and whether there's any appreciable difference between an op visiting a station and picking up a mic or key, and the same op sending audio via VOIP to the same station and being broadcast from it in that manner, with appropriate (courtesy) "/" identification. ?As a Topband DXer, I completely understand the objections to claiming a DX "contact" on 160 using an RX (or even TX) ?remote close to the DX in place of distant ears and station resources, but the objections are less valid if the remote is in the same country or even the same state or county as the ham using it, and the contact would otherwise be completely valid if the ham traveled to and was present at the remote site to make the contact. ?? Best 73 de John, W6UQZ From: Mike Waters To: Larry Burke Cc: topband Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 11:24 AM Subject: Re: Topband: New Commercial Remote Service You had me going for a few minutes! Are you going to send this again on April 1, 2016? ;-) 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Larry Burke wrote: > VERIZON WIRELESS TO OFFER REMOTE AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE > > > > BASKING RIDGE, NJ (Roytours) - The nation's largest wireless company > announced today that it plans to enter the remote ham radio station > business > to serve amateur radio operators. Verizon Wireless, a wholly owned > subsidiary of Verizon Communications, Inc. [VZ, -4.25%] indicated that the > stations are a natural fit with their existing infrastructure and require > little additional investment. Customers will be able to talk all over the > world using only their cell phone. The service will be available via > subscription to existing Verizon customers. Coverage is expected to be the > same as Verizon's current 4G coverage area, with all calls routed to high > powered stations located on the east and west coasts of the United States. > > > > "At first we really didn't understand why this service was needed" said > company spokesperson Ben Dover. "We had a misconception that ham radio > operators built their own stations and advanced technology. Then we learned > that there was a subculture in the hobby that tried to talk to as many > countries as possible using any means available and many were already using > a personal computer to talk to those countries. Some didn't even own a > radio. Often they were using a service that offers complete anonymity" > > > > When asked how the new service is different from how Verizon customers > currently call other countries, Dover hesitated. "Well it IS another > revenue > stream", he replied. > > > > Software developers have been quick to respond to the announcement. One > such > developer, who prefers to go by the name SchrockRock, is working on iPhone > applications called DXCodeReadR and ThisisHowIHonorRoll (THIHR for short). > SchrockRock explained that THIHR continuously monitors a notification > system > called the "cluster" and checks to see if the ham needs a country that has > been "spotted" there. If the ham needs it, THIHR automatically works in > concert with DXCodeReadR to generate what hams call a "QSO" to snag that > new > country, even while the ham sleeps. "It's all about convincing users that > they are advancing technology", SchrockRock added in a recent post to > reddit. > > > > Markets also reacted quickly, sending Verizon stock down as much as 6% in > early trading. Reached on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, trader > Larry Burke summed up the market's reaction, "There was a going-in concern > about the ethics associated with this type of service as applied to what > hams call the DXCC program. But when brokers are able to explain that not > even the national association of amateur radio operators, the ARRL, is able > to define 'ethics', most concerns evaporate". > > > > Currently, there are few players in the commercial remote business. The > largest, RemoteHamRadio.com or RHR for short, operates a network of > remotes, > many of which are located in New York state. Verizon spokesperson Dover > said > his company realized the potential "when the FCC chose to look the other > way > with enforcement of Part 97 and common carrier regulations as they applied > to this type of service". > > > > Users of existing services seem to enjoy them. One California ham, who goes > by the callsign NJ6YOY, had this to say: "These remotes are fantastic. Just > yesterday I had a PL-259 fail on the coax going into the back of my radio. > The technician told me it would be three weeks before he could come out and > fix it. Three weeks! What was I supposed to do in the meantime? I thought > to > myself, 'now this is a case for remote stations'. I whipped out my > MasterCard and signed up for RHR. I didn't even need one of those K3/0 > doohickeys. I just did my DXing with my computer. Things were going great > and then my internets stopped working. Fortunately for me there was another > RHR subscriber nearby. I used his internets to work four new ones in one > day. The guy I talked to in Ireland was really happy to work California on > six meters, too. He said he thought the band was only open to New York, but > when I confirmed our QSO on LoTW he was tickled shirtless to see he had > worked a new state". It is not clear to the uninitiated what all of this > means, but NJ6YOY sounded very excited about his new conquests. With > Verizon's new service he won't have to worry about his 'internets' going > down either. All he will have to do is keep his iPhone charged. > > > > > > [yes, it's satire] > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From rodenkirch_llc at msn.com Sun Jul 12 16:24:29 2015 From: rodenkirch_llc at msn.com (James Rodenkirch) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:24:29 -0600 Subject: Topband: New Commercial Remote Service In-Reply-To: <04ce01d0bcce$6ea5f840$4bf1e8c0$@sbcglobal.net> References: <04ce01d0bcce$6ea5f840$4bf1e8c0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: Hah............well done, Larry!!! Always envious of people who can take a topical subkect area and give it a comedic but germane twist....good on ya!! 72 de Jim R. K9JWV > From: wi5a at sbcglobal.net > To: topband at contesting.com > Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:13:17 -0500 > Subject: Topband: New Commercial Remote Service > > VERIZON WIRELESS TO OFFER REMOTE AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE > > > > BASKING RIDGE, NJ (Roytours) - The nation's largest wireless company > announced today that it plans to enter the remote ham radio station business > to serve amateur radio operators. Verizon Wireless, a wholly owned > subsidiary of Verizon Communications, Inc. [VZ, -4.25%] indicated that the > stations are a natural fit with their existing infrastructure and require > little additional investment. Customers will be able to talk all over the > world using only their cell phone. The service will be available via > subscription to existing Verizon customers. Coverage is expected to be the > same as Verizon's current 4G coverage area, with all calls routed to high > powered stations located on the east and west coasts of the United States. > > > > "At first we really didn't understand why this service was needed" said > company spokesperson Ben Dover. "We had a misconception that ham radio > operators built their own stations and advanced technology. Then we learned > that there was a subculture in the hobby that tried to talk to as many > countries as possible using any means available and many were already using > a personal computer to talk to those countries. Some didn't even own a > radio. Often they were using a service that offers complete anonymity" > > > > When asked how the new service is different from how Verizon customers > currently call other countries, Dover hesitated. "Well it IS another revenue > stream", he replied. > > > > Software developers have been quick to respond to the announcement. One such > developer, who prefers to go by the name SchrockRock, is working on iPhone > applications called DXCodeReadR and ThisisHowIHonorRoll (THIHR for short). > SchrockRock explained that THIHR continuously monitors a notification system > called the "cluster" and checks to see if the ham needs a country that has > been "spotted" there. If the ham needs it, THIHR automatically works in > concert with DXCodeReadR to generate what hams call a "QSO" to snag that new > country, even while the ham sleeps. "It's all about convincing users that > they are advancing technology", SchrockRock added in a recent post to > reddit. > > > > Markets also reacted quickly, sending Verizon stock down as much as 6% in > early trading. Reached on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, trader > Larry Burke summed up the market's reaction, "There was a going-in concern > about the ethics associated with this type of service as applied to what > hams call the DXCC program. But when brokers are able to explain that not > even the national association of amateur radio operators, the ARRL, is able > to define 'ethics', most concerns evaporate". > > > > Currently, there are few players in the commercial remote business. The > largest, RemoteHamRadio.com or RHR for short, operates a network of remotes, > many of which are located in New York state. Verizon spokesperson Dover said > his company realized the potential "when the FCC chose to look the other way > with enforcement of Part 97 and common carrier regulations as they applied > to this type of service". > > > > Users of existing services seem to enjoy them. One California ham, who goes > by the callsign NJ6YOY, had this to say: "These remotes are fantastic. Just > yesterday I had a PL-259 fail on the coax going into the back of my radio. > The technician told me it would be three weeks before he could come out and > fix it. Three weeks! What was I supposed to do in the meantime? I thought to > myself, 'now this is a case for remote stations'. I whipped out my > MasterCard and signed up for RHR. I didn't even need one of those K3/0 > doohickeys. I just did my DXing with my computer. Things were going great > and then my internets stopped working. Fortunately for me there was another > RHR subscriber nearby. I used his internets to work four new ones in one > day. The guy I talked to in Ireland was really happy to work California on > six meters, too. He said he thought the band was only open to New York, but > when I confirmed our QSO on LoTW he was tickled shirtless to see he had > worked a new state". It is not clear to the uninitiated what all of this > means, but NJ6YOY sounded very excited about his new conquests. With > Verizon's new service he won't have to worry about his 'internets' going > down either. All he will have to do is keep his iPhone charged. > > > > > > [yes, it's satire] > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From chacuff at cableone.net Sun Jul 12 16:47:14 2015 From: chacuff at cableone.net (Cecil) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 15:47:14 -0500 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <55A2BD0C.90007@w0mu.com> References: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <55A2BD0C.90007@w0mu.com> Message-ID: <125A0AEE-0D43-47B0-A9CE-03822752EA8C@cableone.net> It's obvious the DXCC award system is not important to you by your own admission, which doesn't put you in the best of positions to be so vocal about paid/shared remote station access and its impact on the award systems. Call it what you will it's very competitive...in an individualized sort of way but competitive it is. It is a badge of honor for those passionate about such things. Yes the guy with the $100,000 station most days has an advantage over the guy with 100 Watts and a wire...but some days the propagation Gods shine on the guy with 100 Watts and he beats the big bucks station out..also operator skill levels that playing field as well...you learn those things when that's all you have for a station. Yes we have always faced those kind of challenges and no rule or class changes were really needed. It was incentive to make your station the best it could be within your means and to improve your operating skills. For contesters things were a bit better as the differences in station capability was recognized and different competitive classes were formed....so the guy with 100 Watts and a wire could feel a sense of accomplishment by competing with guys generally equipped like him. In today's world where one could finally move into that swanky neighborhood that the wife has always wanted to live but couldn't because hubby needed space and acceptance to put up all those ugly wires, towers, antennas and such....no worries! (That's my wife...and we still don't live there) We can pick up a radio front panel for a song and a smokin internet connection and just dial up whatever superstation has propagation to where the DX is today and bag em. Just think about being able to get in on that E skip action anytime it happens just by dialing up a station that is in the skip zone today...and 160 DXCC...just dial around until you find a station that can hear that rare DX station that's on tonight. The wall paper is piling up... What's a traditional station OP to do...he's been working hard for years, building new antennas, buying commercial products and improving his station whenever he can, staying up late nights or getting up early mornings. An expected normal progression for Ham Radio....he is close to finishing his DXCC on 160 and a guy that don't even own a station...or worse owns a small station but doesn't use it to work the hard ones, lands his first 100 on 160 in his first year of being on the air. He throws up his hands and says what's the point...and certainly won't be buying any more commercial products to try and improve his station....and out of business go more of the commercial equipment makers. Now... I don't have a problem with technology and its advancement...I'm a technical guy. But the advantages that paid or even shared remote station access allows should dictate that these OPs compete in their own class with others that are leveraging that advantage. The exception to this is the guy that has built his station on a remote site on land he owns or leases for that purpose because he has noise issues he can't overcome or he lives in the subdivision with an HOA that won't allow his antennas, but he still wants to compete on the bands...that remote station is his primary station...it's just a traditional station accessed remotely by its owner...no problem....good use of today's technology. You own property on three different coasts and one remote island and have stations on all of them....the new DXCC/Contesting class is ready made for you too... I think new class structure language in the DXCC and various contest rules is the only viable answer... Don't limit technology, adapt to it to allow its advancement but as it evolves allow the traditional station owner to continue to practice his kind of Ham Radio on a traditional playing field....fact is probably 90 percent of stations are traditional styled operations anyway. Soap box mode OFF... Cecil K5DL Sent using recycled electrons. > On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:16 PM, W0MU wrote: > > I think much of the issue with RHR is people are bent out of shape that a group of people have jumped on this and appear to be doing quite well. Business must be booming as they are adding new stations constantly. > > Personally I have a decent station and am not interested in renting station time. > > In the end the challenge is personal. The award is whatever you make it. > > DXCC is DXCC. If you feel better that you worked it from the same location using wet noodles more power to you. > > If you are chasing DX to impress other people I think you are doing it wrong. When you focus on yourself and what you are doing then these little "issues" become non issues. > > My Dad told me a long time ago in business was to quit paying so much about the other guy and start focusing on my business and what my strength were. > > I have been a ham since 1978. Honor roll number 1 mean very little to me. What it says is that you have either been doing this longer than me, spend more time on the radio, have a better setup, etc. It doesn't mean that you are a better DXer. I hear so called big DXers in pileups calling endlessly with no clue about how pileups work etc. Lots of great DXers are in and out of a pileup before you know it. Many of those guys may or may not have DXCC. I waited for over 20 years to apply for DXCC and the award is still in the tube.......... > > Be proud of yourself and what you have done. The watering down of the award is in your head. > >> On 7/12/2015 7:32 AM, nn4t at comcast.net wrote: >> Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that. >> I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC rul > es >> change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree. >> Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list? >> I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From k8mn at frontiernet.net Sun Jul 12 18:28:23 2015 From: k8mn at frontiernet.net (Dave Heil) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 22:28:23 +0000 Subject: Topband: The Remote Question.. In-Reply-To: <55A2811B.1010604@gmail.com> References: <55A2811B.1010604@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55A2EA07.1080705@frontiernet.net> Bill, There was no competition among those who walked to school, no matter what the distance. There were no awards, annual listings, pins, certificates, plaques or such. The internet is akin to telephones and cable television more than to amateur radio. If you're making your way to Topband DXCC with stations on both coasts and receivers/antennas on various continents, you are not operating in the spirit of the awards. 73, Dave Heil K8MN On 7/12/2015 3:00 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote: > Hi Mike, > > There really is a difference among all the people who walked to school > and back every school day for 12 years or so. Some of them lived across > the street and others lived ten miles away, uphill both ways grin>. I do see that somebody who did all of a DX challenge from their > home location has more bragging rights than somebody who did parts of it > over the internet. > > This message was done in part with the internet. Doing it all by radio > would be *more* fun. > > 73, > > Bill KU8H From lmecseri at cfl.rr.com Sun Jul 12 18:50:16 2015 From: lmecseri at cfl.rr.com (lmecseri) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:50:16 -0400 Subject: Topband: DXCC etc Message-ID: $$$$$$$$ KE1F Lou Sent on the new Sprint Network from my Samsung Galaxy S?4. By KE1F -------- Original message -------- From: Roger D Johnson Date: 07/12/2015 3:08 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Top Band Reflector Subject: Topband: DXCC etc I just did a quick perusal of the current DXCC rules. If I understand them correctly: 1. Another ham can operate my station, using my call, and the contacts count towards my DXCC. 2. I can go to his station, sign my call, and the contacts count towards my DXCC. So...the station doesn't matter and the operator doesn't matter. What the heck matters anymore? 73, Roger _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From w0mu at w0mu.com Sun Jul 12 18:56:36 2015 From: w0mu at w0mu.com (W0MU) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 16:56:36 -0600 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <125A0AEE-0D43-47B0-A9CE-03822752EA8C@cableone.net> References: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <55A2BD0C.90007@w0mu.com> <125A0AEE-0D43-47B0-A9CE-03822752EA8C@cableone.net> Message-ID: <55A2F0A4.9000006@w0mu.com> So what is the difference if I build a station for $100,000 or I rent one for whatever it costs? Nothing. I guess the guy that can't climb towers who has to pay someone else to climb it and fix his stuff should be shoved into another category too? I must have missed what is the big prize for #1 Honor roll? A plaque? I hope that you feel good about yourself because of other things not because you managed to work them all. As I said before #1 has been at it longer, has better stuff and plays radio more and probably is located in a better location. CQ has a competition every year and I get that. It starts over every year and it is a rush to work as many as you can. Once again the winners will have great stations and tons of time. Congrats to the winners. I think Honor Roll #1 means much more to you that have decided to make this a strange competition that really doesn't have a start date or and end, then it does the majority of active hams. Bitch all you like about Remote Radio it is here to stay just like packet and the ARRL is certainly not going to exclude anyone. I could care less who is or is not using Remote radio. I hope more people do as we could use more activity on the bands. I would love to see old timers and most of the ham population are old timers now be able to operate from nursing homes, condo's, rv's etc. I guess you would rather them be shoved to the streets and ignored. What you are asking for is less competition in your competition which is a bit hypocritical isn't it? Removing players from the DXCC field waters down your victory doesn't it? Why would the rules change now after remotes being allowed for 50 years? Paying for a service is not even relevant to the conversation so lets not make it one. How I get on the air is really none of your business. On 7/12/2015 2:47 PM, Cecil wrote: > It's obvious the DXCC award system is not important to you by your own admission, which doesn't put you in the best of positions to be so vocal about paid/shared remote station access and its impact on the award systems. > > Call it what you will it's very competitive...in an individualized sort of way but competitive it is. > > It is a badge of honor for those passionate about such things. Yes the guy with the $100,000 station most days has an advantage over the guy with 100 Watts and a wire...but some days the propagation Gods shine on the guy with 100 Watts and he beats the big bucks station out..also operator skill levels that playing field as well...you learn those things when that's all you have for a station. > > Yes we have always faced those kind of challenges and no rule or class changes were really needed. It was incentive to make your station the best it could be within your means and to improve your operating skills. > > For contesters things were a bit better as the differences in station capability was recognized and different competitive classes were formed....so the guy with 100 Watts and a wire could feel a sense of accomplishment by competing with guys generally equipped like him. > > In today's world where one could finally move into that swanky neighborhood that the wife has always wanted to live but couldn't because hubby needed space and acceptance to put up all those ugly wires, towers, antennas and such....no worries! (That's my wife...and we still don't live there) > > We can pick up a radio front panel for a song and a smokin internet connection and just dial up whatever superstation has propagation to where the DX is today and bag em. Just think about being able to get in on that E skip action anytime it happens just by dialing up a station that is in the skip zone today...and 160 DXCC...just dial around until you find a station that can hear that rare DX station that's on tonight. The wall paper is piling up... > > What's a traditional station OP to do...he's been working hard for years, building new antennas, buying commercial products and improving his station whenever he can, staying up late nights or getting up early mornings. An expected normal progression for Ham Radio....he is close to finishing his DXCC on 160 and a guy that don't even own a station...or worse owns a small station but doesn't use it to work the hard ones, lands his first 100 on 160 in his first year of being on the air. > > He throws up his hands and says what's the point...and certainly won't be buying any more commercial products to try and improve his station....and out of business go more of the commercial equipment makers. > > Now... > > I don't have a problem with technology and its advancement...I'm a technical guy. But the advantages that paid or even shared remote station access allows should dictate that these OPs compete in their own class with others that are leveraging that advantage. > > The exception to this is the guy that has built his station on a remote site on land he owns or leases for that purpose because he has noise issues he can't overcome or he lives in the subdivision with an HOA that won't allow his antennas, but he still wants to compete on the bands...that remote station is his primary station...it's just a traditional station accessed remotely by its owner...no problem....good use of today's technology. > > You own property on three different coasts and one remote island and have stations on all of them....the new DXCC/Contesting class is ready made for you too... > > I think new class structure language in the DXCC and various contest rules is the only viable answer... > > Don't limit technology, adapt to it to allow its advancement but as it evolves allow the traditional station owner to continue to practice his kind of Ham Radio on a traditional playing field....fact is probably 90 percent of stations are traditional styled operations anyway. > > Soap box mode OFF... > > Cecil > K5DL > > > > > Sent using recycled electrons. > >> On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:16 PM, W0MU wrote: >> >> I think much of the issue with RHR is people are bent out of shape that a group of people have jumped on this and appear to be doing quite well. Business must be booming as they are adding new stations constantly. >> >> Personally I have a decent station and am not interested in renting station time. >> >> In the end the challenge is personal. The award is whatever you make it. >> >> DXCC is DXCC. If you feel better that you worked it from the same location using wet noodles more power to you. >> >> If you are chasing DX to impress other people I think you are doing it wrong. When you focus on yourself and what you are doing then these little "issues" become non issues. >> >> My Dad told me a long time ago in business was to quit paying so much about the other guy and start focusing on my business and what my strength were. >> >> I have been a ham since 1978. Honor roll number 1 mean very little to me. What it says is that you have either been doing this longer than me, spend more time on the radio, have a better setup, etc. It doesn't mean that you are a better DXer. I hear so called big DXers in pileups calling endlessly with no clue about how pileups work etc. Lots of great DXers are in and out of a pileup before you know it. Many of those guys may or may not have DXCC. I waited for over 20 years to apply for DXCC and the award is still in the tube.......... >> >> Be proud of yourself and what you have done. The watering down of the award is in your head. >> >>> On 7/12/2015 7:32 AM, nn4t at comcast.net wrote: >>> Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that. >>> I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC ru > l >> es >>> change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree. >>> Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list? >>> I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From wi5a at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 12 19:10:33 2015 From: wi5a at sbcglobal.net (Larry Burke) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:10:33 -0500 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <55A2F0A4.9000006@w0mu.com> References: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <55A2BD0C.90007@w0mu.com> <125A0AEE-0D43-47B0-A9CE-03822752EA8C@cableone.net> <55A2F0A4.9000006@w0mu.com> Message-ID: <051d01d0bcf7$f57b8000$e0728000$@sbcglobal.net> So much for civility. -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 5:57 PM To: topband at contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: The Remote question So what is the difference if I build a station for $100,000 or I rent one for whatever it costs? Nothing. I guess the guy that can't climb towers who has to pay someone else to climb it and fix his stuff should be shoved into another category too? I must have missed what is the big prize for #1 Honor roll? A plaque? I hope that you feel good about yourself because of other things not because you managed to work them all. As I said before #1 has been at it longer, has better stuff and plays radio more and probably is located in a better location. CQ has a competition every year and I get that. It starts over every year and it is a rush to work as many as you can. Once again the winners will have great stations and tons of time. Congrats to the winners. I think Honor Roll #1 means much more to you that have decided to make this a strange competition that really doesn't have a start date or and end, then it does the majority of active hams. Bitch all you like about Remote Radio it is here to stay just like packet and the ARRL is certainly not going to exclude anyone. I could care less who is or is not using Remote radio. I hope more people do as we could use more activity on the bands. I would love to see old timers and most of the ham population are old timers now be able to operate from nursing homes, condo's, rv's etc. I guess you would rather them be shoved to the streets and ignored. What you are asking for is less competition in your competition which is a bit hypocritical isn't it? Removing players from the DXCC field waters down your victory doesn't it? Why would the rules change now after remotes being allowed for 50 years? Paying for a service is not even relevant to the conversation so lets not make it one. How I get on the air is really none of your business. On 7/12/2015 2:47 PM, Cecil wrote: > It's obvious the DXCC award system is not important to you by your own admission, which doesn't put you in the best of positions to be so vocal about paid/shared remote station access and its impact on the award systems. > > Call it what you will it's very competitive...in an individualized sort of way but competitive it is. > > It is a badge of honor for those passionate about such things. Yes the guy with the $100,000 station most days has an advantage over the guy with 100 Watts and a wire...but some days the propagation Gods shine on the guy with 100 Watts and he beats the big bucks station out..also operator skill levels that playing field as well...you learn those things when that's all you have for a station. > > Yes we have always faced those kind of challenges and no rule or class changes were really needed. It was incentive to make your station the best it could be within your means and to improve your operating skills. > > For contesters things were a bit better as the differences in station capability was recognized and different competitive classes were formed....so the guy with 100 Watts and a wire could feel a sense of accomplishment by competing with guys generally equipped like him. > > In today's world where one could finally move into that swanky neighborhood that the wife has always wanted to live but couldn't because hubby needed space and acceptance to put up all those ugly wires, towers, antennas and such....no worries! (That's my wife...and we still don't live there) > > We can pick up a radio front panel for a song and a smokin internet connection and just dial up whatever superstation has propagation to where the DX is today and bag em. Just think about being able to get in on that E skip action anytime it happens just by dialing up a station that is in the skip zone today...and 160 DXCC...just dial around until you find a station that can hear that rare DX station that's on tonight. The wall paper is piling up... > > What's a traditional station OP to do...he's been working hard for years, building new antennas, buying commercial products and improving his station whenever he can, staying up late nights or getting up early mornings. An expected normal progression for Ham Radio....he is close to finishing his DXCC on 160 and a guy that don't even own a station...or worse owns a small station but doesn't use it to work the hard ones, lands his first 100 on 160 in his first year of being on the air. > > He throws up his hands and says what's the point...and certainly won't be buying any more commercial products to try and improve his station....and out of business go more of the commercial equipment makers. > > Now... > > I don't have a problem with technology and its advancement...I'm a technical guy. But the advantages that paid or even shared remote station access allows should dictate that these OPs compete in their own class with others that are leveraging that advantage. > > The exception to this is the guy that has built his station on a remote site on land he owns or leases for that purpose because he has noise issues he can't overcome or he lives in the subdivision with an HOA that won't allow his antennas, but he still wants to compete on the bands...that remote station is his primary station...it's just a traditional station accessed remotely by its owner...no problem....good use of today's technology. > > You own property on three different coasts and one remote island and have stations on all of them....the new DXCC/Contesting class is ready made for you too... > > I think new class structure language in the DXCC and various contest rules is the only viable answer... > > Don't limit technology, adapt to it to allow its advancement but as it evolves allow the traditional station owner to continue to practice his kind of Ham Radio on a traditional playing field....fact is probably 90 percent of stations are traditional styled operations anyway. > > Soap box mode OFF... > > Cecil > K5DL > > > > > Sent using recycled electrons. > >> On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:16 PM, W0MU wrote: >> >> I think much of the issue with RHR is people are bent out of shape that a group of people have jumped on this and appear to be doing quite well. Business must be booming as they are adding new stations constantly. >> >> Personally I have a decent station and am not interested in renting station time. >> >> In the end the challenge is personal. The award is whatever you make it. >> >> DXCC is DXCC. If you feel better that you worked it from the same location using wet noodles more power to you. >> >> If you are chasing DX to impress other people I think you are doing it wrong. When you focus on yourself and what you are doing then these little "issues" become non issues. >> >> My Dad told me a long time ago in business was to quit paying so much about the other guy and start focusing on my business and what my strength were. >> >> I have been a ham since 1978. Honor roll number 1 mean very little to me. What it says is that you have either been doing this longer than me, spend more time on the radio, have a better setup, etc. It doesn't mean that you are a better DXer. I hear so called big DXers in pileups calling endlessly with no clue about how pileups work etc. Lots of great DXers are in and out of a pileup before you know it. Many of those guys may or may not have DXCC. I waited for over 20 years to apply for DXCC and the award is still in the tube.......... >> >> Be proud of yourself and what you have done. The watering down of the award is in your head. >> >>> On 7/12/2015 7:32 AM, nn4t at comcast.net wrote: >>> Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that. >>> I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC r u > l >> es >>> change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree. >>> Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list? >>> I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From k3bu at optimum.net Sun Jul 12 19:17:05 2015 From: k3bu at optimum.net (Yuri Blanarovich) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:17:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Topband: DXCC etc In-Reply-To: <55A2BB44.4090606@roadrunner.com> References: <55A2BB44.4090606@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: <2ec8431d.7767d.14e848ec19b.Webtop.43@optimum.net> What matters? Technology. ? Engine on a sail boat, Cessna vs. glider, biker vs. runner and "competing" in the same category. (According to ham radio "logic") DXCC was destroyed by lists and nets waaaay baaaack. Now contesting, results, record tables are being destroyed by Internet, remotes?and rentastations. ? ARRL is just like another dumb gummit bureaucracy. See the "recognition" of Russian occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Thousands of dead freedom loving Ukrainians, not even UN and US State Dept. matter. What you expect? Maybe tax on rentastation rental fee, or per QSO? Welcome to Ham Radio Commerce! I lost appetite for playing with competitive radios. Thanks to Ham Radio for great old times, learning and building stations,?getting me out of commie hell, influence in my career and many great friends I made. Tony Soprano was right: "Fuggetaboutit"! Good luck to further perversion of our beloved hobby/sport. I might try to 'splain more to those who don't get it, but wonder if it will do any good. I am getting back to photo/video. Technology there is allowing some amazing things, UHD, 3D, VR, drones. 73 Yuri, K3BU.us, VE3BMV etc. ? ?On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 03:08 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: ? ?> I just did a quick perusal of the current DXCC rules. If I understand them correctly: > > 1. Another ham can operate my station, using my call, and the contacts > count > towards my DXCC. > > 2. I can go to his station, sign my call, and the contacts count > towards my DXCC. > > So...the station doesn't matter and the operator doesn't matter. What > the heck > matters anymore? > > 73, Roger > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From w6jhb at me.com Sun Jul 12 19:19:53 2015 From: w6jhb at me.com (James Bennett) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 16:19:53 -0700 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <55A2F0A4.9000006@w0mu.com> References: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <55A2BD0C.90007@w0mu.com> <125A0AEE-0D43-47B0-A9CE-03822752EA8C@cableone.net> <55A2F0A4.9000006@w0mu.com> Message-ID: <67A21D95-963D-44C1-80FF-E8F3EFAAE383@me.com> Well folks, I have just about had it with this thread and the group. I had joined the group to possibly help my knowledge of operating and building equipment and antennas for 80 and 160 meters, not to be bombarded with a ton of messages of how the entire ham community feels about what is becoming common practice for some. My delete key is nearly worn out. It appears that the moderator of the list is off on vacation somewhere or simply does not care about this non-stop remote / DXCC drivel. To those who've helped me in the past - thank you. The rest of you guys can have at - I'm un subscribing ASAP. Jim Bennett / W6JHB Folsom, CA > On Jul 12, 2015, at 3:56 PM, W0MU wrote: > > So what is the difference if I build a station for $100,000 or I rent one for whatever it costs? Nothing. I guess the guy that can't climb towers who has to pay someone else to climb it and fix his stuff should be shoved into another category too? > > I must have missed what is the big prize for #1 Honor roll? A plaque? I hope that you feel good about yourself because of other things not because you managed to work them all. As I said before #1 has been at it longer, has better stuff and plays radio more and probably is located in a better location. > > CQ has a competition every year and I get that. It starts over every year and it is a rush to work as many as you can. Once again the winners will have great stations and tons of time. Congrats to the winners. I think Honor Roll #1 means much more to you that have decided to make this a strange competition that really doesn't have a start date or and end, then it does the majority of active hams. > > Bitch all you like about Remote Radio it is here to stay just like packet and the ARRL is certainly not going to exclude anyone. > > I could care less who is or is not using Remote radio. I hope more people do as we could use more activity on the bands. I would love to see old timers and most of the ham population are old timers now be able to operate from nursing homes, condo's, rv's etc. I guess you would rather them be shoved to the streets and ignored. > > What you are asking for is less competition in your competition which is a bit hypocritical isn't it? Removing players from the DXCC field waters down your victory doesn't it? > > Why would the rules change now after remotes being allowed for 50 years? Paying for a service is not even relevant to the conversation so lets not make it one. How I get on the air is really none of your business. > > > > >> On 7/12/2015 2:47 PM, Cecil wrote: >> It's obvious the DXCC award system is not important to you by your own admission, which doesn't put you in the best of positions to be so vocal about paid/shared remote station access and its impact on the award systems. >> >> Call it what you will it's very competitive...in an individualized sort of way but competitive it is. >> >> It is a badge of honor for those passionate about such things. Yes the guy with the $100,000 station most days has an advantage over the guy with 100 Watts and a wire...but some days the propagation Gods shine on the guy with 100 Watts and he beats the big bucks station out..also operator skill levels that playing field as well...you learn those things when that's all you have for a station. >> >> Yes we have always faced those kind of challenges and no rule or class changes were really needed. It was incentive to make your station the best it could be within your means and to improve your operating skills. >> >> For contesters things were a bit better as the differences in station capability was recognized and different competitive classes were formed....so the guy with 100 Watts and a wire could feel a sense of accomplishment by competing with guys generally equipped like him. >> >> In today's world where one could finally move into that swanky neighborhood that the wife has always wanted to live but couldn't because hubby needed space and acceptance to put up all those ugly wires, towers, antennas and such....no worries! (That's my wife...and we still don't live there) >> >> We can pick up a radio front panel for a song and a smokin internet connection and just dial up whatever superstation has propagation to where the DX is today and bag em. Just think about being able to get in on that E skip action anytime it happens just by dialing up a station that is in the skip zone today...and 160 DXCC...just dial around until you find a station that can hear that rare DX station that's on tonight. The wall paper is piling up... >> >> What's a traditional station OP to do...he's been working hard for years, building new antennas, buying commercial products and improving his station whenever he can, staying up late nights or getting up early mornings. An expected normal progression for Ham Radio....he is close to finishing his DXCC on 160 and a guy that don't even own a station...or worse owns a small station but doesn't use it to work the hard ones, lands his first 100 on 160 in his first year of being on the air. >> >> He throws up his hands and says what's the point...and certainly won't be buying any more commercial products to try and improve his station....and out of business go more of the commercial equipment makers. >> >> Now... >> >> I don't have a problem with technology and its advancement...I'm a technical guy. But the advantages that paid or even shared remote station access allows should dictate that these OPs compete in their own class with others that are leveraging that advantage. >> >> The exception to this is the guy that has built his station on a remote site on land he owns or leases for that purpose because he has noise issues he can't overcome or he lives in the subdivision with an HOA that won't allow his antennas, but he still wants to compete on the bands...that remote station is his primary station...it's just a traditional station accessed remotely by its owner...no problem....good use of today's technology. >> >> You own property on three different coasts and one remote island and have stations on all of them....the new DXCC/Contesting class is ready made for you too... >> >> I think new class structure language in the DXCC and various contest rules is the only viable answer... >> >> Don't limit technology, adapt to it to allow its advancement but as it evolves allow the traditional station owner to continue to practice his kind of Ham Radio on a traditional playing field....fact is probably 90 percent of stations are traditional styled operations anyway. >> >> Soap box mode OFF... >> >> Cecil >> K5DL >> >> >> >> >> Sent using recycled electrons. >> >>> On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:16 PM, W0MU wrote: >>> >>> I think much of the issue with RHR is people are bent out of shape that a group of people have jumped on this and appear to be doing quite well. Business must be booming as they are adding new stations constantly. >>> >>> Personally I have a decent station and am not interested in renting station time. >>> >>> In the end the challenge is personal. The award is whatever you make it. >>> >>> DXCC is DXCC. If you feel better that you worked it from the same location using wet noodles more power to you. >>> >>> If you are chasing DX to impress other people I think you are doing it wrong. When you focus on yourself and what you are doing then these little "issues" become non issues. >>> >>> My Dad told me a long time ago in business was to quit paying so much about the other guy and start focusing on my business and what my strength were. >>> >>> I have been a ham since 1978. Honor roll number 1 mean very little to me. What it says is that you have either been doing this longer than me, spend more time on the radio, have a better setup, etc. It doesn't mean that you are a better DXer. I hear so called big DXers in pileups calling endlessly with no clue about how pileups work etc. Lots of great DXers are in and out of a pileup before you know it. Many of those guys may or may not have DXCC. I waited for over 20 years to apply for DXCC and the award is still in the tube.......... >>> >>> Be proud of yourself and what you have done. The watering down of the award is in your head. >>> >>>> On 7/12/2015 7:32 AM, nn4t at comcast.net wrote: >>>> Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that. >>>> I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC r > u >> l >>> es >>>> change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree. >>>> Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list? >>>> I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T >>>> _________________ >>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From chacuff at cableone.net Sun Jul 12 20:20:14 2015 From: chacuff at cableone.net (Cecil) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:20:14 -0500 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <55A2F0A4.9000006@w0mu.com> References: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <55A2BD0C.90007@w0mu.com> <125A0AEE-0D43-47B0-A9CE-03822752EA8C@cableone.net> <55A2F0A4.9000006@w0mu.com> Message-ID: <4717CA8F-91D1-4E0C-9DF1-6E1F77E1C6A2@cableone.net> Well for one thing your $100,000 station doesn't magically appear anywhere in the country just by selecting a new location on the computer screen because where it's located at the moment ain't getting the job done....big difference! I don't have any problem with remote ham radio for general ham radio activities...want to get on the air and rag chew, operate to keep up with your buddies from the nursing home, run a net from your condo...great...knock yourself out...I don't think any one who takes issue with Remote Ham Radio and systems like it would have any problems with that use of it at all... I object as many do to bringing it into the competitive aspects of the hobby and expecting to compete against it with a traditional Amateur Station implementation....and I have no issue with that if its use is placed in its own class. Nuff said Mike...I'm clear.. Cecil K5DL Sent using recycled electrons. > On Jul 12, 2015, at 5:56 PM, W0MU wrote: > > So what is the difference if I build a station for $100,000 or I rent one for whatever it costs? Nothing. I guess the guy that can't climb towers who has to pay someone else to climb it and fix his stuff should be shoved into another category too? > > I must have missed what is the big prize for #1 Honor roll? A plaque? I hope that you feel good about yourself because of other things not because you managed to work them all. As I said before #1 has been at it longer, has better stuff and plays radio more and probably is located in a better location. > > CQ has a competition every year and I get that. It starts over every year and it is a rush to work as many as you can. Once again the winners will have great stations and tons of time. Congrats to the winners. I think Honor Roll #1 means much more to you that have decided to make this a strange competition that really doesn't have a start date or and end, then it does the majority of active hams. > > Bitch all you like about Remote Radio it is here to stay just like packet and the ARRL is certainly not going to exclude anyone. > > I could care less who is or is not using Remote radio. I hope more people do as we could use more activity on the bands. I would love to see old timers and most of the ham population are old timers now be able to operate from nursing homes, condo's, rv's etc. I guess you would rather them be shoved to the streets and ignored. > > What you are asking for is less competition in your competition which is a bit hypocritical isn't it? Removing players from the DXCC field waters down your victory doesn't it? > > Why would the rules change now after remotes being allowed for 50 years? Paying for a service is not even relevant to the conversation so lets not make it one. How I get on the air is really none of your business. > > > > >> On 7/12/2015 2:47 PM, Cecil wrote: >> It's obvious the DXCC award system is not important to you by your own admission, which doesn't put you in the best of positions to be so vocal about paid/shared remote station access and its impact on the award systems. >> >> Call it what you will it's very competitive...in an individualized sort of way but competitive it is. >> >> It is a badge of honor for those passionate about such things. Yes the guy with the $100,000 station most days has an advantage over the guy with 100 Watts and a wire...but some days the propagation Gods shine on the guy with 100 Watts and he beats the big bucks station out..also operator skill levels that playing field as well...you learn those things when that's all you have for a station. >> >> Yes we have always faced those kind of challenges and no rule or class changes were really needed. It was incentive to make your station the best it could be within your means and to improve your operating skills. >> >> For contesters things were a bit better as the differences in station capability was recognized and different competitive classes were formed....so the guy with 100 Watts and a wire could feel a sense of accomplishment by competing with guys generally equipped like him. >> >> In today's world where one could finally move into that swanky neighborhood that the wife has always wanted to live but couldn't because hubby needed space and acceptance to put up all those ugly wires, towers, antennas and such....no worries! (That's my wife...and we still don't live there) >> >> We can pick up a radio front panel for a song and a smokin internet connection and just dial up whatever superstation has propagation to where the DX is today and bag em. Just think about being able to get in on that E skip action anytime it happens just by dialing up a station that is in the skip zone today...and 160 DXCC...just dial around until you find a station that can hear that rare DX station that's on tonight. The wall paper is piling up... >> >> What's a traditional station OP to do...he's been working hard for years, building new antennas, buying commercial products and improving his station whenever he can, staying up late nights or getting up early mornings. An expected normal progression for Ham Radio....he is close to finishing his DXCC on 160 and a guy that don't even own a station...or worse owns a small station but doesn't use it to work the hard ones, lands his first 100 on 160 in his first year of being on the air. >> >> He throws up his hands and says what's the point...and certainly won't be buying any more commercial products to try and improve his station....and out of business go more of the commercial equipment makers. >> >> Now... >> >> I don't have a problem with technology and its advancement...I'm a technical guy. But the advantages that paid or even shared remote station access allows should dictate that these OPs compete in their own class with others that are leveraging that advantage. >> >> The exception to this is the guy that has built his station on a remote site on land he owns or leases for that purpose because he has noise issues he can't overcome or he lives in the subdivision with an HOA that won't allow his antennas, but he still wants to compete on the bands...that remote station is his primary station...it's just a traditional station accessed remotely by its owner...no problem....good use of today's technology. >> >> You own property on three different coasts and one remote island and have stations on all of them....the new DXCC/Contesting class is ready made for you too... >> >> I think new class structure language in the DXCC and various contest rules is the only viable answer... >> >> Don't limit technology, adapt to it to allow its advancement but as it evolves allow the traditional station owner to continue to practice his kind of Ham Radio on a traditional playing field....fact is probably 90 percent of stations are traditional styled operations anyway. >> >> Soap box mode OFF... >> >> Cecil >> K5DL >> >> >> >> >> Sent using recycled electrons. >> >>> On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:16 PM, W0MU wrote: >>> >>> I think much of the issue with RHR is people are bent out of shape that a group of people have jumped on this and appear to be doing quite well. Business must be booming as they are adding new stations constantly. >>> >>> Personally I have a decent station and am not interested in renting station time. >>> >>> In the end the challenge is personal. The award is whatever you make it. >>> >>> DXCC is DXCC. If you feel better that you worked it from the same location using wet noodles more power to you. >>> >>> If you are chasing DX to impress other people I think you are doing it wrong. When you focus on yourself and what you are doing then these little "issues" become non issues. >>> >>> My Dad told me a long time ago in business was to quit paying so much about the other guy and start focusing on my business and what my strength were. >>> >>> I have been a ham since 1978. Honor roll number 1 mean very little to me. What it says is that you have either been doing this longer than me, spend more time on the radio, have a better setup, etc. It doesn't mean that you are a better DXer. I hear so called big DXers in pileups calling endlessly with no clue about how pileups work etc. Lots of great DXers are in and out of a pileup before you know it. Many of those guys may or may not have DXCC. I waited for over 20 years to apply for DXCC and the award is still in the tube.......... >>> >>> Be proud of yourself and what you have done. The watering down of the award is in your head. >>> >>>> On 7/12/2015 7:32 AM, nn4t at comcast.net wrote: >>>> Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that. >>>> I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC r > u >> l >>> es >>>> change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree. >>>> Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list? >>>> I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T >>>> _________________ >>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From n7rt at cox.net Sun Jul 12 20:56:26 2015 From: n7rt at cox.net (Hardy Landskov) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 17:56:26 -0700 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: References: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <55A2BD0C.90007@w0mu.com> <125A0AEE-0D43-47B0-A9CE-03822752EA8C@cableone.net> <55A2F0A4.9000006@w0mu.com> Message-ID: <000501d0bd06$bf584170$3e08c450$@net> Why don't we have the drivers of the Indy 500 operate their cars with joysticks in the stands or somewhere far, far away? Same thing as remote, right? This is not my radio!!!! My 2 cents. 73 Hardy N7RT -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Cecil Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 5:20 PM To: W0MU Cc: topband at contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: The Remote question Well for one thing your $100,000 station doesn't magically appear anywhere in the country just by selecting a new location on the computer screen because where it's located at the moment ain't getting the job done....big difference! I don't have any problem with remote ham radio for general ham radio activities...want to get on the air and rag chew, operate to keep up with your buddies from the nursing home, run a net from your condo...great...knock yourself out...I don't think any one who takes issue with Remote Ham Radio and systems like it would have any problems with that use of it at all... I object as many do to bringing it into the competitive aspects of the hobby and expecting to compete against it with a traditional Amateur Station implementation....and I have no issue with that if its use is placed in its own class. Nuff said Mike...I'm clear.. Cecil K5DL Sent using recycled electrons. > On Jul 12, 2015, at 5:56 PM, W0MU wrote: > > So what is the difference if I build a station for $100,000 or I rent one for whatever it costs? Nothing. I guess the guy that can't climb towers who has to pay someone else to climb it and fix his stuff should be shoved into another category too? > > I must have missed what is the big prize for #1 Honor roll? A plaque? I hope that you feel good about yourself because of other things not because you managed to work them all. As I said before #1 has been at it longer, has better stuff and plays radio more and probably is located in a better location. > > CQ has a competition every year and I get that. It starts over every year and it is a rush to work as many as you can. Once again the winners will have great stations and tons of time. Congrats to the winners. I think Honor Roll #1 means much more to you that have decided to make this a strange competition that really doesn't have a start date or and end, then it does the majority of active hams. > > Bitch all you like about Remote Radio it is here to stay just like packet and the ARRL is certainly not going to exclude anyone. > > I could care less who is or is not using Remote radio. I hope more people do as we could use more activity on the bands. I would love to see old timers and most of the ham population are old timers now be able to operate from nursing homes, condo's, rv's etc. I guess you would rather them be shoved to the streets and ignored. > > What you are asking for is less competition in your competition which is a bit hypocritical isn't it? Removing players from the DXCC field waters down your victory doesn't it? > > Why would the rules change now after remotes being allowed for 50 years? Paying for a service is not even relevant to the conversation so lets not make it one. How I get on the air is really none of your business. > > > > >> On 7/12/2015 2:47 PM, Cecil wrote: >> It's obvious the DXCC award system is not important to you by your own admission, which doesn't put you in the best of positions to be so vocal about paid/shared remote station access and its impact on the award systems. >> >> Call it what you will it's very competitive...in an individualized sort of way but competitive it is. >> >> It is a badge of honor for those passionate about such things. Yes the guy with the $100,000 station most days has an advantage over the guy with 100 Watts and a wire...but some days the propagation Gods shine on the guy with 100 Watts and he beats the big bucks station out..also operator skill levels that playing field as well...you learn those things when that's all you have for a station. >> >> Yes we have always faced those kind of challenges and no rule or class changes were really needed. It was incentive to make your station the best it could be within your means and to improve your operating skills. >> >> For contesters things were a bit better as the differences in station capability was recognized and different competitive classes were formed....so the guy with 100 Watts and a wire could feel a sense of accomplishment by competing with guys generally equipped like him. >> >> In today's world where one could finally move into that swanky >> neighborhood that the wife has always wanted to live but couldn't >> because hubby needed space and acceptance to put up all those ugly >> wires, towers, antennas and such....no worries! (That's my wife...and >> we still don't live there) >> >> We can pick up a radio front panel for a song and a smokin internet connection and just dial up whatever superstation has propagation to where the DX is today and bag em. Just think about being able to get in on that E skip action anytime it happens just by dialing up a station that is in the skip zone today...and 160 DXCC...just dial around until you find a station that can hear that rare DX station that's on tonight. The wall paper is piling up... >> >> What's a traditional station OP to do...he's been working hard for years, building new antennas, buying commercial products and improving his station whenever he can, staying up late nights or getting up early mornings. An expected normal progression for Ham Radio....he is close to finishing his DXCC on 160 and a guy that don't even own a station...or worse owns a small station but doesn't use it to work the hard ones, lands his first 100 on 160 in his first year of being on the air. >> >> He throws up his hands and says what's the point...and certainly won't be buying any more commercial products to try and improve his station....and out of business go more of the commercial equipment makers. >> >> Now... >> >> I don't have a problem with technology and its advancement...I'm a technical guy. But the advantages that paid or even shared remote station access allows should dictate that these OPs compete in their own class with others that are leveraging that advantage. >> >> The exception to this is the guy that has built his station on a remote site on land he owns or leases for that purpose because he has noise issues he can't overcome or he lives in the subdivision with an HOA that won't allow his antennas, but he still wants to compete on the bands...that remote station is his primary station...it's just a traditional station accessed remotely by its owner...no problem....good use of today's technology. >> >> You own property on three different coasts and one remote island and have stations on all of them....the new DXCC/Contesting class is ready made for you too... >> >> I think new class structure language in the DXCC and various contest rules is the only viable answer... >> >> Don't limit technology, adapt to it to allow its advancement but as it evolves allow the traditional station owner to continue to practice his kind of Ham Radio on a traditional playing field....fact is probably 90 percent of stations are traditional styled operations anyway. >> >> Soap box mode OFF... >> >> Cecil >> K5DL >> >> >> >> >> Sent using recycled electrons. >> >>> On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:16 PM, W0MU wrote: >>> >>> I think much of the issue with RHR is people are bent out of shape that a group of people have jumped on this and appear to be doing quite well. Business must be booming as they are adding new stations constantly. >>> >>> Personally I have a decent station and am not interested in renting station time. >>> >>> In the end the challenge is personal. The award is whatever you make it. >>> >>> DXCC is DXCC. If you feel better that you worked it from the same location using wet noodles more power to you. >>> >>> If you are chasing DX to impress other people I think you are doing it wrong. When you focus on yourself and what you are doing then these little "issues" become non issues. >>> >>> My Dad told me a long time ago in business was to quit paying so much about the other guy and start focusing on my business and what my strength were. >>> >>> I have been a ham since 1978. Honor roll number 1 mean very little to me. What it says is that you have either been doing this longer than me, spend more time on the radio, have a better setup, etc. It doesn't mean that you are a better DXer. I hear so called big DXers in pileups calling endlessly with no clue about how pileups work etc. Lots of great DXers are in and out of a pileup before you know it. Many of those guys may or may not have DXCC. I waited for over 20 years to apply for DXCC and the award is still in the tube.......... >>> >>> Be proud of yourself and what you have done. The watering down of the award is in your head. >>> >>>> On 7/12/2015 7:32 AM, nn4t at comcast.net wrote: >>>> Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that. >>>> I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the >>>> perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment >>>> also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) >>>> but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for >>>> two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur >>>> career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I >>>> have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities >>>> I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full >>>> sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 >>>> square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works >>>> well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation >>>> is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even >>>> more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more >>>> opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply >>>> another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC r > u >> l >>> es >>>> change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree. >>>> Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list? >>>> I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has >>>> already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I >>>> would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available >>>> to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, >>>> antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is >>>> yours. Best, Steve, NN4T _________________ Topband Reflector >>>> Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From ve5ra at sasktel.net Sun Jul 12 21:03:01 2015 From: ve5ra at sasktel.net (Doug Renwick) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:03:01 -0600 Subject: Topband: The Remote Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85D1409D240949F7969954B199CE2137@DOUG8PC> I consider it another form of cheating. Regardless of what the ARRL says. Since when has the ARRL - DXCC been a bastion of ethics? IMO ARRL ethics is an oxymoron. Without inserting politics into the discussion, all one has to do is look at what is going in the world around us and it is clear the ARRL has fallen into the same game plan. Me, me, me and mini me. What amazes me is all these 'cheaters' or 'cheater cheerleaders' voluntarily admitting to cheating. The contest committees need to study this effect to get contest cheaters to admit to cheating on their own volition. Doug Generation of idiots - smart phones and dumb people. -----Original Message----- -------- Original message -------- I just did a quick perusal of the current DXCC rules. If I understand them correctly: 1. Another ham can operate my station, using my call, and the contacts count towards my DXCC. 2. I can go to his station, sign my call, and the contacts count towards my DXCC. So...the station doesn't matter and the operator doesn't matter. What the heck matters anymore? 73, Roger --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From n7rt at cox.net Sun Jul 12 21:24:08 2015 From: n7rt at cox.net (Hardy Landskov) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:24:08 -0700 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: References: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <55A2BD0C.90007@w0mu.com> <125A0AEE-0D43-47B0-A9CE-03822752EA8C@cableone.net> Message-ID: <000601d0bd0a$9dc4fe00$d94efa00$@net> All I can say is working the P5 was awesome to me for the last one. The pileups were horrendous, the postage bills too much, but I loved every minute through the years. And I did love the plaque. I did this to see what I could do, not to compete with someone else. Some think it's a waste of time but I learned more about antennas, RF, amplifiers, etc that really made me succeed in my job. I question what you accomplish by playing golf--with green fees being what they are? But we all have are wants and desires. Just my outlook on the whole thing. 73 N7RT -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 3:57 PM To: topband at contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: The Remote question So what is the difference if I build a station for $100,000 or I rent one for whatever it costs? Nothing. I guess the guy that can't climb towers who has to pay someone else to climb it and fix his stuff should be shoved into another category too? I must have missed what is the big prize for #1 Honor roll? A plaque? I hope that you feel good about yourself because of other things not because you managed to work them all. As I said before #1 has been at it longer, has better stuff and plays radio more and probably is located in a better location. CQ has a competition every year and I get that. It starts over every year and it is a rush to work as many as you can. Once again the winners will have great stations and tons of time. Congrats to the winners. I think Honor Roll #1 means much more to you that have decided to make this a strange competition that really doesn't have a start date or and end, then it does the majority of active hams. Bitch all you like about Remote Radio it is here to stay just like packet and the ARRL is certainly not going to exclude anyone. I could care less who is or is not using Remote radio. I hope more people do as we could use more activity on the bands. I would love to see old timers and most of the ham population are old timers now be able to operate from nursing homes, condo's, rv's etc. I guess you would rather them be shoved to the streets and ignored. What you are asking for is less competition in your competition which is a bit hypocritical isn't it? Removing players from the DXCC field waters down your victory doesn't it? Why would the rules change now after remotes being allowed for 50 years? Paying for a service is not even relevant to the conversation so lets not make it one. How I get on the air is really none of your business. On 7/12/2015 2:47 PM, Cecil wrote: > It's obvious the DXCC award system is not important to you by your own admission, which doesn't put you in the best of positions to be so vocal about paid/shared remote station access and its impact on the award systems. > > Call it what you will it's very competitive...in an individualized sort of way but competitive it is. > > It is a badge of honor for those passionate about such things. Yes the guy with the $100,000 station most days has an advantage over the guy with 100 Watts and a wire...but some days the propagation Gods shine on the guy with 100 Watts and he beats the big bucks station out..also operator skill levels that playing field as well...you learn those things when that's all you have for a station. > > Yes we have always faced those kind of challenges and no rule or class changes were really needed. It was incentive to make your station the best it could be within your means and to improve your operating skills. > > For contesters things were a bit better as the differences in station capability was recognized and different competitive classes were formed....so the guy with 100 Watts and a wire could feel a sense of accomplishment by competing with guys generally equipped like him. > > In today's world where one could finally move into that swanky neighborhood that the wife has always wanted to live but couldn't because hubby needed space and acceptance to put up all those ugly wires, towers, antennas and such....no worries! (That's my wife...and we still don't live there) > > We can pick up a radio front panel for a song and a smokin internet connection and just dial up whatever superstation has propagation to where the DX is today and bag em. Just think about being able to get in on that E skip action anytime it happens just by dialing up a station that is in the skip zone today...and 160 DXCC...just dial around until you find a station that can hear that rare DX station that's on tonight. The wall paper is piling up... > > What's a traditional station OP to do...he's been working hard for years, building new antennas, buying commercial products and improving his station whenever he can, staying up late nights or getting up early mornings. An expected normal progression for Ham Radio....he is close to finishing his DXCC on 160 and a guy that don't even own a station...or worse owns a small station but doesn't use it to work the hard ones, lands his first 100 on 160 in his first year of being on the air. > > He throws up his hands and says what's the point...and certainly won't be buying any more commercial products to try and improve his station....and out of business go more of the commercial equipment makers. > > Now... > > I don't have a problem with technology and its advancement...I'm a technical guy. But the advantages that paid or even shared remote station access allows should dictate that these OPs compete in their own class with others that are leveraging that advantage. > > The exception to this is the guy that has built his station on a remote site on land he owns or leases for that purpose because he has noise issues he can't overcome or he lives in the subdivision with an HOA that won't allow his antennas, but he still wants to compete on the bands...that remote station is his primary station...it's just a traditional station accessed remotely by its owner...no problem....good use of today's technology. > > You own property on three different coasts and one remote island and have stations on all of them....the new DXCC/Contesting class is ready made for you too... > > I think new class structure language in the DXCC and various contest rules is the only viable answer... > > Don't limit technology, adapt to it to allow its advancement but as it evolves allow the traditional station owner to continue to practice his kind of Ham Radio on a traditional playing field....fact is probably 90 percent of stations are traditional styled operations anyway. > > Soap box mode OFF... > > Cecil > K5DL > > > > > Sent using recycled electrons. > >> On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:16 PM, W0MU wrote: >> >> I think much of the issue with RHR is people are bent out of shape that a group of people have jumped on this and appear to be doing quite well. Business must be booming as they are adding new stations constantly. >> >> Personally I have a decent station and am not interested in renting station time. >> >> In the end the challenge is personal. The award is whatever you make it. >> >> DXCC is DXCC. If you feel better that you worked it from the same location using wet noodles more power to you. >> >> If you are chasing DX to impress other people I think you are doing it wrong. When you focus on yourself and what you are doing then these little "issues" become non issues. >> >> My Dad told me a long time ago in business was to quit paying so much about the other guy and start focusing on my business and what my strength were. >> >> I have been a ham since 1978. Honor roll number 1 mean very little to me. What it says is that you have either been doing this longer than me, spend more time on the radio, have a better setup, etc. It doesn't mean that you are a better DXer. I hear so called big DXers in pileups calling endlessly with no clue about how pileups work etc. Lots of great DXers are in and out of a pileup before you know it. Many of those guys may or may not have DXCC. I waited for over 20 years to apply for DXCC and the award is still in the tube.......... >> >> Be proud of yourself and what you have done. The watering down of the award is in your head. >> >>> On 7/12/2015 7:32 AM, nn4t at comcast.net wrote: >>> Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that. >>> I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC r u > l >> es >>> change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree. >>> Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list? >>> I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From art at nk8x.net Sun Jul 12 21:23:53 2015 From: art at nk8x.net (Art Snapper) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:23:53 -0400 Subject: Topband: The Remote Question In-Reply-To: <85D1409D240949F7969954B199CE2137@DOUG8PC> References: <85D1409D240949F7969954B199CE2137@DOUG8PC> Message-ID: Remote stations should be operated in the assisted class during contests.. As far as DXCC, how about an endorsement for all stations who earned it using only their local station? My $0.02 Art NK8X ? On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Doug Renwick wrote: > I consider it another form of cheating. Regardless of what the ARRL says. > Since when has the ARRL - DXCC been a bastion of ethics? IMO ARRL ethics > is > an oxymoron. > > Without inserting politics into the discussion, all one has to do is look > at > what is going in the world around us and it is clear the ARRL has fallen > into the same game plan. Me, me, me and mini me. > > What amazes me is all these 'cheaters' or 'cheater cheerleaders' > voluntarily > admitting to cheating. The contest committees need to study this effect to > get contest cheaters to admit to cheating on their own volition. > > Doug > > Generation of idiots - smart phones and dumb people. > > > -----Original Message----- > > > -------- Original message -------- > > > I just did a quick perusal of the current DXCC rules. If I understand them > correctly: > > 1. Another ham can operate my station, using my call, and the contacts > count > towards my DXCC. > > 2. I can go to his station, sign my call, and the contacts count towards my > DXCC. > > So...the station doesn't matter and the operator doesn't matter. What the > heck > matters anymore? > > 73, Roger > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From w0mu at w0mu.com Sun Jul 12 21:26:38 2015 From: w0mu at w0mu.com (W0MU) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:26:38 -0600 Subject: Topband: DXCC etc In-Reply-To: <2ec8431d.7767d.14e848ec19b.Webtop.43@optimum.net> References: <55A2BB44.4090606@roadrunner.com> <2ec8431d.7767d.14e848ec19b.Webtop.43@optimum.net> Message-ID: <55A313CE.5020400@w0mu.com> If DXCC is destroyed there sure are a ton of people that failed to get that message. The ARRL is in the business of......................................selling awards.................. The Centennial QSO party was pure marketing genius. How many people got involved to buy another award........ On 7/12/2015 5:17 PM, Yuri Blanarovich wrote: > What matters? Technology. > > Engine on a sail boat, Cessna vs. glider, biker vs. runner and > "competing" in the same category. (According to ham radio "logic") > > DXCC was destroyed by lists and nets waaaay baaaack. > > Now contesting, results, record tables are being destroyed by > Internet, remotes and rentastations. > > ARRL is just like another dumb gummit bureaucracy. See the > "recognition" of Russian occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. > Thousands of dead freedom loving Ukrainians, not even UN and US State > Dept. matter. What you expect? Maybe tax on rentastation rental fee, > or per QSO? Welcome to Ham Radio Commerce! > > I lost appetite for playing with competitive radios. Thanks to Ham > Radio for great old times, learning and building stations, getting me > out of commie hell, influence in my career and many great friends I made. > > Tony Soprano was right: "Fuggetaboutit"! Good luck to further > perversion of our beloved hobby/sport. > I might try to 'splain more to those who don't get it, but wonder if > it will do any good. > > I am getting back to photo/video. Technology there is allowing some > amazing things, UHD, 3D, VR, drones. > > 73 Yuri, > K3BU.us, VE3BMV etc. > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 03:08 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: > > > I just did a quick perusal of the current DXCC rules. If I > understand them correctly: >> >> 1. Another ham can operate my station, using my call, and the >> contacts count >> towards my DXCC. >> >> 2. I can go to his station, sign my call, and the contacts count >> towards my DXCC. >> >> So...the station doesn't matter and the operator doesn't matter. What >> the heck >> matters anymore? >> >> 73, Roger >> >> >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From ww3s at zoominternet.net Sun Jul 12 21:41:57 2015 From: ww3s at zoominternet.net (WW3S) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:41:57 -0400 Subject: Topband: The Remote question Message-ID: is there a length limit on microphone cords, or key cords? Because for several remote stations, thats what you are talking about.....I?m currently in Leesburg VA, over 300 miles from home.....but I still operated MY station on and off this weekend, with MY antennas, MY power supplies, MY technology and MY sweat equity in putting it all together.....while I didnt work any 160, or any new DXCC entities, so what if I did? Its still my primary station location, with the same antennas I use everyday, and the same transceiver to generate and receive RF....only difference is my mic and headset cable is about 340 miles long..... 73, Jamie WW3S > On 7/12/2015 8:56:26 PM, Hardy Landskov (n7rt at cox.net) wrote: > > Why don't we have the drivers of the Indy 500 operate their cars with > joysticks in the stands or somewhere far, far away? Same thing as remote, > right? This is not my radio!!!! > My 2 cents. > 73 Hardy N7RT > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Cecil > Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 5:20 PM > To: W0MU > Cc: topband at contesting.com > Subject: Re: Topband: The Remote question > > Well for one thing your $100,000 station doesn't magically appear anywhere > in the country just by selecting a new location on the computer screen > because where it's located at the moment ain't getting the job done....big > difference! > > I don't have any problem with remote ham radio for general ham radio > activities...want to get on the air and rag chew, operate to keep up with > your buddies from the nursing home, run a net from your > condo...great...knock yourself out...I don't think any one who takes issue > with Remote Ham Radio and systems like it would have any problems with that > use of it at all... > > I object as many do to bringing it into the competitive aspects of the hobby > and expecting to compete against it with a traditional Amateur Station > implementation....and I have no issue with that if its use is From adkmurray at yahoo.com Sun Jul 12 21:51:02 2015 From: adkmurray at yahoo.com (Jim Murray) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 01:51:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Topband: CW Touch Key Message-ID: <974146657.980869.1436752262224.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Since everyone seems to be on board I thought I'd ask a question about one part of Ham Radio we all love-keys. ?Has anyone tried or been using one of these touch keys (no moving parts) etc.. ?I have various types of keys but the hands don't work like they did at one time, especially in the Winter. ?Thinking of giving one of these touch keys a try. ?ThanksJimk2hn From chacuff at cableone.net Sun Jul 12 21:57:54 2015 From: chacuff at cableone.net (Cecil) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:57:54 -0500 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <555B9A71-9D01-419E-9225-B4BD7F7F45F0@cableone.net> No issue with that...remote operation of your primary station...I don't see any difference between that and local operation of the same station...even if you had worked some DX...great use of the technology. Cecil K5DL Sent using recycled electrons. > On Jul 12, 2015, at 8:41 PM, WW3S wrote: > > is there a length limit on microphone cords, or key cords? Because for several remote stations, thats what you are talking about.....I?m currently in Leesburg VA, over 300 miles from home.....but I still operated MY station on and off this weekend, with MY antennas, MY power supplies, MY technology and MY sweat equity in putting it all together.....while I didnt work any 160, or any new DXCC entities, so what if I did? Its still my primary station location, with the same antennas I use everyday, and the same transceiver to generate and receive RF....only difference is my mic and headset cable is about 340 miles long..... > 73, Jamie WW3S > >>> On 7/12/2015 8:56:26 PM, Hardy Landskov (n7rt at cox.net) wrote: >>> Why don't we have the drivers of the Indy 500 operate their cars with >> joysticks in the stands or somewhere far, far away? Same thing as remote, >> right? This is not my radio!!!! >> My 2 cents. >> 73 Hardy N7RT >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Cecil >> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 5:20 PM >> To: W0MU >> Cc: topband at contesting.com >> Subject: Re: Topband: The Remote question >> >> Well for one thing your $100,000 station doesn't magically appear anywhere >> in the country just by selecting a new location on the computer screen >> because where it's located at the moment ain't getting the job done....big >> difference! >> >> I don't have any problem with remote ham radio for general ham radio >> activities...want to get on the air and rag chew, operate to keep up with >> your buddies from the nursing home, run a net from your >> condo...great...knock yourself out...I don't think any one who takes issue >> with Remote Ham Radio and systems like it would have any problems with that >> use of it at all... >> >> I object as many do to bringing it into the competitive aspects of the hobby >> and expecting to compete against it with a traditional Amateur Station >> implementation....and I have no issue with that if its use is > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From tree at kkn.net Sun Jul 12 22:11:05 2015 From: tree at kkn.net (Tree) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:11:05 -0700 Subject: Topband: Remote thread Message-ID: At the risk of sounding like a party pooper - I think the remote thread has gotten stuck into the same rut this discussion typically ends up on - and is no longer really relevant to the main focus on this list (topband). This is a very emotional issue for many - and isn't something we are going to solve here. I (and many others) would like to see it die down please. Thanks. The Management From wrcromwell at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 22:13:24 2015 From: wrcromwell at gmail.com (Bill Cromwell) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 22:13:24 -0400 Subject: Topband: CW Touch Key In-Reply-To: <974146657.980869.1436752262224.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <974146657.980869.1436752262224.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <55A31EC4.40508@gmail.com> Hi Jim, I'm getting into some 'age related' neurological decline too and I'm interested, too. If you try those keys and they help please let us know. I'm sure you and I are NOT the only ones! The most noticeable decline involving my fingers comes when I double click the computer mouse or use the paddles or bug. So far it has only slowed me down but I am not expecting it to get any better. It seems to take me all day to do what I used to do all day! 73, Bill KU8H On 07/12/2015 09:51 PM, Jim Murray via Topband wrote: > Since everyone seems to be on board I thought I'd ask a question about one part of Ham Radio we all love-keys. Has anyone tried or been using one of these touch keys (no moving parts) etc.. I have various types of keys but the hands don't work like they did at one time, especially in the Winter. Thinking of giving one of these touch keys a try. ThanksJimk2hn > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From k6uj at pacbell.net Sun Jul 12 22:48:11 2015 From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Robert Harmon) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:48:11 -0700 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <55A2BD0C.90007@w0mu.com> References: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <55A2BD0C.90007@w0mu.com> Message-ID: Ken, I hear what you are trying to convey but there is a fly in the ointment. I am not trying to impress anyone else. For me it is and always has been a personal achievement. No one here is concerned with diminishing their abilities to impress others as you have stated. These "issues" you call them are the criteria and boundaries needed to achieve the DXCC awards. The perception that the awards are not being watered down is in your head Ken. That is what this discussion is all about. The concern we all feel is that the DXCC awards are becoming awards with no criteria and boundaries anymore, so what value will they be ? Would it not be plausible to create additional DXCC award categories to accommodate technology advances like our current RHR capabilities ? Bob K6UJ > On Jul 12, 2015, at 12:16 PM, W0MU wrote: > > I think much of the issue with RHR is people are bent out of shape that a group of people have jumped on this and appear to be doing quite well. Business must be booming as they are adding new stations constantly. > > Personally I have a decent station and am not interested in renting station time. > > In the end the challenge is personal. The award is whatever you make it. > > DXCC is DXCC. If you feel better that you worked it from the same location using wet noodles more power to you. > > If you are chasing DX to impress other people I think you are doing it wrong. When you focus on yourself and what you are doing then these little "issues" become non issues. > > My Dad told me a long time ago in business was to quit paying so much about the other guy and start focusing on my business and what my strength were. > > I have been a ham since 1978. Honor roll number 1 mean very little to me. What it says is that you have either been doing this longer than me, spend more time on the radio, have a better setup, etc. It doesn't mean that you are a better DXer. I hear so called big DXers in pileups calling endlessly with no clue about how pileups work etc. Lots of great DXers are in and out of a pileup before you know it. Many of those guys may or may not have DXCC. I waited for over 20 years to apply for DXCC and the award is still in the tube.......... > > Be proud of yourself and what you have done. The watering down of the award is in your head. > > On 7/12/2015 7:32 AM, nn4t at comcast.net wrote: >> Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that. >> I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC rul > es >> change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree. >> Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list? >> I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From wes at attawayforensics.com Sun Jul 12 23:11:17 2015 From: wes at attawayforensics.com (Wes Attaway (N5WA)) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:11:17 -0600 Subject: Topband: The Remote Question.. In-Reply-To: <55A2EA07.1080705@frontiernet.net> References: <55A2811B.1010604@gmail.com> <55A2EA07.1080705@frontiernet.net> Message-ID: <78e3863944dd84936d455b1d8d927e9a@attawayforensics.com> Amen. On 2015-07-12 16:28, Dave Heil wrote: > Bill, > > There was no competition among those who walked to school, no matter > what the distance. There were no awards, annual listings, pins, > certificates, plaques or such. > > The internet is akin to telephones and cable television more than to > amateur radio. If you're making your way to Topband DXCC with > stations on both coasts and receivers/antennas on various continents, > you are not operating in the spirit of the awards. > > 73, > > Dave Heil K8MN > > On 7/12/2015 3:00 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote: >> Hi Mike, >> >> There really is a difference among all the people who walked to school >> and back every school day for 12 years or so. Some of them lived >> across >> the street and others lived ten miles away, uphill both ways > grin>. I do see that somebody who did all of a DX challenge from their >> home location has more bragging rights than somebody who did parts of >> it >> over the internet. >> >> This message was done in part with the internet. Doing it all by radio >> would be *more* fun. >> >> 73, >> >> Bill KU8H > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From rich_k7zv at gphilltop.com Sun Jul 12 23:47:54 2015 From: rich_k7zv at gphilltop.com (Rich C) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 22:47:54 -0500 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6e10e29caac047f71f1685213f2fce1d.squirrel@www16.qth.com> I think setting up your personal station at home for remote is OK as it is your station equipment and your antennas. Commercialized RHR is a whole different ball game to me. To me it is a business and for every station receiving money for the use of such stations RHR needs to report that income to the IRS in a 1099 form regardless. Hence I no longer see it as Amateur radio which is service not for hire. Rich K7ZV On Sun, July 12, 2015 8:41 pm, WW3S wrote: > is there a length limit on microphone cords, or key cords? Because for > several remote stations, thats what you are talking about.....I???m > currently in Leesburg VA, over 300 miles from home.....but I still > operated MY station on and off this weekend, with MY antennas, MY power > supplies, MY technology and MY sweat equity in putting it all > together.....while I didnt work any 160, or any new DXCC entities, so > what if I did? Its still my primary station location, with the same > antennas I use everyday, and the same transceiver to generate and receive > RF....only difference is my mic and headset cable is about 340 miles > long..... 73, Jamie WW3S > > >> On 7/12/2015 8:56:26 PM, Hardy Landskov (n7rt at cox.net) wrote: >> >>> Why don't we have the drivers of the Indy 500 operate their cars with >>> >> joysticks in the stands or somewhere far, far away? Same thing as >> remote, right? This is not my radio!!!! My 2 cents. >> 73 Hardy N7RT >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Cecil >> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 5:20 PM >> To: W0MU >> Cc: topband at contesting.com >> Subject: Re: Topband: The Remote question >> >> >> Well for one thing your $100,000 station doesn't magically appear >> anywhere in the country just by selecting a new location on the computer >> screen because where it's located at the moment ain't getting the job >> done....big difference! >> >> I don't have any problem with remote ham radio for general ham radio >> activities...want to get on the air and rag chew, operate to keep up >> with your buddies from the nursing home, run a net from your >> condo...great...knock yourself out...I don't think any one who takes >> issue with Remote Ham Radio and systems like it would have any problems >> with that use of it at all... >> >> I object as many do to bringing it into the competitive aspects of the >> hobby and expecting to compete against it with a traditional Amateur >> Station >> implementation....and I have no issue with that if its use is > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband Rich K7ZV rich_k7zv at gphilltop.com From jayt at arraysolutions.com Tue Jul 14 14:15:25 2015 From: jayt at arraysolutions.com (Jay Terleski) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:15:25 -0500 Subject: Topband: 160m band 1936 Message-ID: Check this out. Hammond Organs and 160M band in 1936 https://archive.org/stream/PopularMechanicsApr1936/Popular%20Mechanics%20Apr%201936#page/n154/mode/1up Jay Terleski President Array Solutions 214 954 7140 From mstangelo at comcast.net Wed Jul 15 09:51:38 2015 From: mstangelo at comcast.net (mstangelo at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:51:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Topband: 160m band 1936 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <917220885.293735.1436968298919.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> I enjoy browsing through these Popular Mechanics magazines. They usually have a cover story, such as flying cars, that is marketing hype and go nowhere. The filler stories, however, are where the revolutionary ideas are reported. Check out page 580. They have a short blurb about the Ernest Lawrence Cyclotron. It was instrumental in the development of high energy physics and won him the Nobel Prize. Mike N2MS ----- Original Message ----- From: Jay Terleski To: topband at contesting.com Sent: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:15:25 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Topband: 160m band 1936 Check this out. Hammond Organs and 160M band in 1936 https://archive.org/stream/PopularMechanicsApr1936/Popular%20Mechanics%20Apr%201936#page/n154/mode/1up Jay Terleski President Array Solutions 214 954 7140 _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From k1fz at myfairpoint.net Wed Jul 15 10:52:23 2015 From: k1fz at myfairpoint.net (=?utf-8?b?SzFGWi1CcnVjZQ==?=) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:52:23 -0400 Subject: Topband: Two Wire Beberage antennas Message-ID: <20150715105223.hz9abjhh344k4cc4@webmail.myfairpoint.net> 21 Sept. 1921 Radio Corporation of America purchased the International Radio & Telegraph (ship-shore) station at Belfast Maine. ? 6 October 1921 Mr & Mrs, David Sarnoff came to the Belfast radio station site and stayed at the Windsor hotel. ? Early in 1923 Engineers H.P. Hassner, Carl Erikson, & Samuel "Wintrop" Dean, including? Albert B. Moulton came to Belfast to construct a?long-wave radio station. The Marconi Cable company was hired to install a ~10 mile two wire wave antenna? South-west to Moody mountain to receive England. A single wire wave antenna? to the Northeast was not possible as Belfast Bay was close by in that direction. ? Albert B. Moulton applied for a Patent for a two wire system? November 1, 1922.?? ? http://www.qsl.net/wa3mej/Articles/Beverage%20Patents%20&%20Notes/1556122_MOULTON.pdf ? In the WW II? period, I was 10 years old 1944.? I walked? under the wires,? that were still there, when my father took me rabbit hunting. ? My job was to jump on the large brush piles to disloge the bunnies. ? 73 Bruce-K1FZ www.qsl.net/k1fz/index.html ? ? ? ? ? From donovanf at starpower.net Wed Jul 15 11:39:57 2015 From: donovanf at starpower.net (donovanf at starpower.net) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Topband: Two Wire Beverage antennas In-Reply-To: <20150715105223.hz9abjhh344k4cc4@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <1243296939.22411162.1436974797070.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> Hi Bruce, Many of the two wire Beverage antennas used by RCA, AT&T and other companies in the 1920s were much more sophisticated than the simple two wire Beverage used by many Topbanders. While we typically select one of the two outputs of a two wire Beverage to cover one of two directions, the patent filed in 1921 by E.W. Kellogg describes how RCA and others used both outputs of a two wire Beverage to produce a deep steerable rear null. http://www.google.com/patents/US1487339 Topbanders can very easily use a two wire Beverage to produce a deep steerable rear null by using the DX Engineering NCC-1 Variable Phasing Controller to combine both outputs of a two wire Beverage: http://www.dxengineering.com/parts/dxe-ncc-1 73 Frank W3LPL ----- Original Message ----- From: "K1FZ-Bruce" To: "Topband" Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 2:52:23 PM Subject: Topband: Two Wire Beberage antennas 21 Sept. 1921 Radio Corporation of America purchased the International Radio & Telegraph (ship-shore) station at Belfast Maine. 6 October 1921 Mr & Mrs, David Sarnoff came to the Belfast radio station site and stayed at the Windsor hotel. Early in 1923 Engineers H.P. Hassner, Carl Erikson, & Samuel "Wintrop" Dean, including Albert B. Moulton came to Belfast to construct a long-wave radio station. The Marconi Cable company was hired to install a ~10 mile two wire wave antenna South-west to Moody mountain to receive England. A single wire wave antenna to the Northeast was not possible as Belfast Bay was close by in that direction. Albert B. Moulton applied for a Patent for a two wire system November 1, 1922. http://www.qsl.net/wa3mej/Articles/Beverage%20Patents%20&%20Notes/1556122_MOULTON.pdf In the WW II period, I was 10 years old 1944. I walked under the wires, that were still there, when my father took me rabbit hunting. My job was to jump on the large brush piles to disloge the bunnies. 73 Bruce-K1FZ www.qsl.net/k1fz/index.html _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From donovanf at starpower.net Wed Jul 15 13:11:55 2015 From: donovanf at starpower.net (donovanf at starpower.net) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Topband: Two Wire Beverage antennas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1709651143.22518486.1436980315377.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> Hi Carl, I've never used an MFJ-1025/1026 so I can't comment based on direct experience. Perhaps someone else can comment. The DX Engineering NCC-1 is exceptionally well engineered for ease of use, its the ideal tool for creating deep steerable nulls with two wire Beverages or just about any other combination of two vertically polarized antennas including a pair of close spaced 8 to 25 foot tall verticals on a very small lot. 73 Frank W3LPL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl" To: donovanf at starpower.net, "Topband" Cc: k1fz at myfairpoint.net Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 4:56:16 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Two Wire Beverage antennas Frank, does that work with the MFJ-1025/1026? Carl KM1H ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Topband" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:39 AM Subject: Re: Topband: Two Wire Beverage antennas > Hi Bruce, > > > Many of the two wire Beverage antennas used by RCA, AT&T and other > companies in the 1920s were much more sophisticated than the simple > two wire Beverage used by many Topbanders. While we typically select > one of the two outputs of a two wire Beverage to cover one of two > directions, the patent filed in 1921 by E.W. Kellogg describes how RCA > and others used both outputs of a two wire Beverage to produce a deep > steerable rear null. > > > http://www.google.com/patents/US1487339 > > > Topbanders can very easily use a two wire Beverage to produce a deep > steerable rear null by using the DX Engineering NCC-1 Variable Phasing > Controller to combine both outputs of a two wire Beverage: > > > http://www.dxengineering.com/parts/dxe-ncc-1 > > > 73 > Frank > W3LPL > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "K1FZ-Bruce" > To: "Topband" > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 2:52:23 PM > Subject: Topband: Two Wire Beberage antennas > > 21 Sept. 1921 Radio Corporation of America purchased the International > Radio & Telegraph (ship-shore) station at Belfast Maine. > > 6 October 1921 Mr & Mrs, David Sarnoff came to the Belfast radio station > site and stayed at the Windsor hotel. > > Early in 1923 Engineers H.P. Hassner, Carl Erikson, & Samuel "Wintrop" > Dean, including Albert B. Moulton came to Belfast to construct a long-wave > radio station. > The Marconi Cable company was hired to install a ~10 mile two wire wave > antenna South-west to Moody mountain to receive England. > A single wire wave antenna to the Northeast was not possible as Belfast > Bay was close by in that direction. > > Albert B. Moulton applied for a Patent for a two wire system November 1, > 1922. > > http://www.qsl.net/wa3mej/Articles/Beverage%20Patents%20&%20Notes/1556122_MOULTON.pdf > > In the WW II period, I was 10 years old 1944. I walked under the wires, > that were still there, when my father took me rabbit hunting. My job was > to jump on the large brush piles to disloge the bunnies. > > > 73 > > Bruce-K1FZ > www.qsl.net/k1fz/index.html > > > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4392/10235 - Release Date: 07/15/15 > From k1fz at myfairpoint.net Wed Jul 15 13:41:04 2015 From: k1fz at myfairpoint.net (=?utf-8?b?SzFGWi1CcnVjZQ==?=) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:41:04 -0400 Subject: Topband: Two Wire Beverage antennas In-Reply-To: References: <1709651143.22518486.1436980315377.JavaMail.root@starpower.net> Message-ID: <20150715134104.l07w0mups0sc4ckg@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Carl, ? I use the MFJ-1026 and it does a lot of nice phasing tricks here. ? It allows me to pull out a lot of DX that is unreadable on any one antenna. ? ? 73 Bruce-k1fz ? On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:26:03 -0400, Carl wrote: Its also the cost of a small amp and may not be in everyones budget; Ive read a lot of good comments about the MFJ but havent used either brand. Carl KM1H From k4wj at att.net Wed Jul 15 20:32:57 2015 From: k4wj at att.net (John Bohnovic) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:32:57 -0400 Subject: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input In-Reply-To: <55A19A0F.3090408@audiosystemsgroup.com> References: <55A14484.4000500@cox.net> <55A19A0F.3090408@audiosystemsgroup.com> Message-ID: <55A6FBB9.5050405@att.net> Don't forget K9DX's 160 meter antenna site was remotely operated. My hat is off to John for the design and construction of that site. 73..de John/K4WJ On 7/11/2015 6:34 PM, Jim Brown wrote: > On Sat,7/11/2015 9:29 AM, W7RH wrote: >> Many of you folks are too sensitive, especially to legitimate use of >> remotes. Yes, DX'ing and constesting on a competitive level can be >> challenging to the pocket book but, contrary to comments one does not >> have to be a "Rich" to compete in awards or competitions. > > I agree, Bob, and I also agree with W8JI. Building a remote station is > NOT easy -- I've not done it myself, but as an EE and a designer of > many complex professional sound systems, I appreciate the > cross-disciplinary systems engineering that goes into doing it well. > I've known about your remote station for years, and have nothing but > the greatest respect for your accomplishment. K6TU, K6IE, and K6XX are > three more guys I know who have done it. > > 73, Jim K9YC > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > -- 73..de John/K4WJ ex KN8PXG K8PXG K8WJ K4WJ ZF2HZ From k4wj at att.net Wed Jul 15 20:55:49 2015 From: k4wj at att.net (John Bohnovic) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:55:49 -0400 Subject: Topband: The Remote question In-Reply-To: <4717CA8F-91D1-4E0C-9DF1-6E1F77E1C6A2@cableone.net> References: <14798148.9894100.1436707950189.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> <55A2BD0C.90007@w0mu.com> <125A0AEE-0D43-47B0-A9CE-03822752EA8C@cableone.net> <55A2F0A4.9000006@w0mu.com> <4717CA8F-91D1-4E0C-9DF1-6E1F77E1C6A2@cableone.net> Message-ID: <55A70115.8010403@att.net> Some consider DXCC a competition and want a level playing field. Some consider DXCC a personal goal and don't care what others are doing. 73..de John/K4WJ On 7/12/2015 8:20 PM, Cecil wrote: > Well for one thing your $100,000 station doesn't magically appear anywhere in the country just by selecting a new location on the computer screen because where it's located at the moment ain't getting the job done....big difference! > > I don't have any problem with remote ham radio for general ham radio activities...want to get on the air and rag chew, operate to keep up with your buddies from the nursing home, run a net from your condo...great...knock yourself out...I don't think any one who takes issue with Remote Ham Radio and systems like it would have any problems with that use of it at all... > > I object as many do to bringing it into the competitive aspects of the hobby and expecting to compete against it with a traditional Amateur Station implementation....and I have no issue with that if its use is placed in its own class. > > Nuff said Mike...I'm clear.. > > Cecil > K5DL > > From jbwolf at comcast.net Fri Jul 17 20:10:55 2015 From: jbwolf at comcast.net (James Wolf) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:10:55 -0400 Subject: Topband: HFTA Message-ID: <000301d0c0ee$37491430$a5db3c90$@comcast.net> I wonder if someone can help me with getting the terrain for HFTA. It appears that the Microdem site has a virus in their program download. When I try to install the version from the web site, it tries to delete bootmgr, pagefile.sys, etc. Then it ends with a unexpected memory leak exception. I have the old version of Microdem on my 2004 antenna book CD, but it doesn't want to install in Windows 7 (imagine that). I have the .dem files that need to be merged (because I am close to a grid line, but I can't do anything with them without Microdem. Would someone be willing to take the files merge them and output the .pro files I need for HFTA? Thanks, Jim - KR9U From k6mr at outlook.com Fri Jul 17 20:15:38 2015 From: k6mr at outlook.com (K6MR) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:15:38 -0700 Subject: Topband: HFTA In-Reply-To: <000301d0c0ee$37491430$a5db3c90$@comcast.net> References: <000301d0c0ee$37491430$a5db3c90$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Go to http://k6tu.net/?q=TerrainProfiles and let it generate the files for you. Much easier. And the price is right. Ken K6MR -----Original Message----- From: James Wolf Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 5:10 PM To: topband at contesting.com Subject: Topband: HFTA I wonder if someone can help me with getting the terrain for HFTA. It appears that the Microdem site has a virus in their program download. When I try to install the version from the web site, it tries to delete bootmgr, pagefile.sys, etc. Then it ends with a unexpected memory leak exception. I have the old version of Microdem on my 2004 antenna book CD, but it doesn't want to install in Windows 7 (imagine that). I have the .dem files that need to be merged (because I am close to a grid line, but I can't do anything with them without Microdem. Would someone be willing to take the files merge them and output the .pro files I need for HFTA? Thanks, Jim - KR9U _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From weeksmgr at hotmail.com Fri Jul 17 20:30:47 2015 From: weeksmgr at hotmail.com (Charlie) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:30:47 -0500 Subject: Topband: HFTA In-Reply-To: References: <000301d0c0ee$37491430$a5db3c90$@comcast.net>, Message-ID: I agree with you Ken. The K6TU site is the way to go for generating the terrain files. All you do is enter the coordinates for the tower and name the files. A couple of minutes later, you get an email with a link to your new files. The files are generated using the National Elevation Dataset. You don't have to worry about being near the edge of a USGS quadrangle, thus no merging of DEM files. All the USGS quad DEMS in my area are 30 meter resolution. The NED files are 10 meter resolution. The USGS Quad files have the elevation at my hilltop 20' too low. The NED files generated automatically from the K6TU site show my accurate elevation. I have found the same issue exists with the USGS Quad 30M files on profiles I have done for some other friends here in WV. The K6TU site automates the most difficult part of using HFTA. It is a great tool, and it is free! 73 Charlie N8RR > From: k6mr at outlook.com > To: jbwolf at comcast.net; topband at contesting.com > Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:15:38 -0700 > Subject: Re: Topband: HFTA > > Go to http://k6tu.net/?q=TerrainProfiles > > and let it generate the files for you. Much easier. And the price is right. > > Ken K6MR > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Wolf > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 5:10 PM > To: topband at contesting.com > Subject: Topband: HFTA > > I wonder if someone can help me with getting the terrain for HFTA. > > It appears that the Microdem site has a virus in their program download. > When I try to install the version from the web site, it tries to delete > bootmgr, pagefile.sys, etc. Then it ends with a unexpected memory leak > exception. I have the old version of Microdem on my 2004 antenna book CD, > but it doesn't want to install in Windows 7 (imagine that). I have the .dem > files that need to be merged (because I am close to a grid line, but I can't > do anything with them without Microdem. > > Would someone be willing to take the files merge them and output the .pro > files I need for HFTA? > > Thanks, > > Jim - KR9U > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From jbwolf at comcast.net Fri Jul 17 20:56:07 2015 From: jbwolf at comcast.net (James Wolf) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:56:07 -0400 Subject: Topband: HFTA In-Reply-To: References: <000301d0c0ee$37491430$a5db3c90$@comcast.net>, Message-ID: <001b01d0c0f4$87de7240$979b56c0$@comcast.net> This is great! Thanks for the help. It makes up for the hours I spent trying to get Microdem working. I've sent for my profile. Jim - KR9U -----Original Message----- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 8:31 PM To: K6MR; topband at contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: HFTA I agree with you Ken. The K6TU site is the way to go for generating the terrain files. All you do is enter the coordinates for the tower and name the files. A couple of minutes later, you get an email with a link to your new files. The files are generated using the National Elevation Dataset. You don't have to worry about being near the edge of a USGS quadrangle, thus no merging of DEM files. All the USGS quad DEMS in my area are 30 meter resolution. The NED files are 10 meter resolution. The USGS Quad files have the elevation at my hilltop 20' too low. The NED files generated automatically from the K6TU site show my accurate elevation. I have found the same issue exists with the USGS Quad 30M files on profiles I have done for some other friends here in WV. The K6TU site automates the most difficult part of using HFTA. It is a great tool, and it is free! 73 Charlie N8RR > From: k6mr at outlook.com > To: jbwolf at comcast.net; topband at contesting.com > Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:15:38 -0700 > Subject: Re: Topband: HFTA > > Go to http://k6tu.net/?q=TerrainProfiles > > and let it generate the files for you. Much easier. And the price is right. > > Ken K6MR > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Wolf > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 5:10 PM > To: topband at contesting.com > Subject: Topband: HFTA > > I wonder if someone can help me with getting the terrain for HFTA. > > It appears that the Microdem site has a virus in their program download. > When I try to install the version from the web site, it tries to > delete bootmgr, pagefile.sys, etc. Then it ends with a unexpected memory leak > exception. I have the old version of Microdem on my 2004 antenna book CD, > but it doesn't want to install in Windows 7 (imagine that). I have > the .dem files that need to be merged (because I am close to a grid > line, but I can't do anything with them without Microdem. > > Would someone be willing to take the files merge them and output the > .pro files I need for HFTA? > > Thanks, > > Jim - KR9U > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From rodenkirch_llc at msn.com Sun Jul 19 17:59:44 2015 From: rodenkirch_llc at msn.com (James Rodenkirch) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:59:44 -0600 Subject: Topband: Anyone using the DX Engr. Hi-Z Two or Three element array? Message-ID: If you are using the two or three element version, shoot me an off-line reply with your thoughts on its efficacy...tnx, in advance, for any replies....72 de Jim R. K9JWV From rodenkirch_llc at msn.com Mon Jul 20 12:15:00 2015 From: rodenkirch_llc at msn.com (James Rodenkirch) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:15:00 -0600 Subject: Topband: WTB a low noise preamp ..... Message-ID: .... of anyone has a spare or "excess to your needs" low noise pre amp (similar to a KD9SV design) you'd sell, please contact me off line....72 de Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV From rodenkirch_llc at msn.com Mon Jul 20 12:31:30 2015 From: rodenkirch_llc at msn.com (James Rodenkirch) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:31:30 -0600 Subject: Topband: WTB a low noise preamp ..... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ooooops.....just read up on the TOI number and the DXE RPA-1 comes in with a much better TOI number so...anyone with an excess to their needs DXE RPA-1 or similar pre-amp....contact me off-line. 72 de Jim R. K9JWV From: rodenkirch_llc at msn.com To: topband at contesting.com Subject: WTB a low noise preamp ..... Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:15:00 -0600 .... of anyone has a spare or "excess to your needs" low noise pre amp (similar to a KD9SV design) you'd sell, please contact me off line....72 de Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV From cx6vm.jorge at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 16:44:06 2015 From: cx6vm.jorge at gmail.com (Jorge Diez - CX6VM) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:44:06 -0300 Subject: Topband: 4SQ antennas directions Message-ID: <55ad5d9a.c965340a.3d01.ffffdbab@mx.google.com> Hello What?s the width angle of a single antenna in a 4SQ system? In USA I have W6 at 310 deg and W1 at 350 deg. In Europe I have: - EI, GI, GM at 25 deg - CT, F, DL, EA, PA, EA8, UA1 at 35 deg - OE, OK, HA, OM, UA3 at 40 deg - 6W, 5T, I, E7, 4O, YU, UA4 at 45 deg - LZ, SV, UA6 at 50 deg - 5N, TT, SU, YI, SV9, SV5, TA, at 55 deg Classic setup will be antennas at 45, 135, 225 and 315 But this will be the best positions from me? For Europe 45 degrees will be OK, but not sure about 315 degrees for USA If I change USA antenna at 325 deg, I don?t think Europe at 55 degrees will be the best What would you do in my situation? Thanks in advance 73, Jorge CX6VM/CW5W --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electr?nico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From k2av.guy at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 18:52:27 2015 From: k2av.guy at gmail.com (Guy Olinger K2AV) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:52:27 -0400 Subject: Topband: 4SQ antennas directions In-Reply-To: <55ad5d9a.c965340a.3d01.ffffdbab@mx.google.com> References: <55ad5d9a.c965340a.3d01.ffffdbab@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Midway between 25 and 55 is 40. Midway between 310 and 350 is 330. Rotating counterclockwise 10 degrees from the 45/135/etc common USA settings would give you NE and NW pattern centers at 35 and 325. 35 and 325 is very close to 40 and 330. It will bring far west USA up from 30 degrees off center lobe (-1 dB) to 20 degrees off center lobe (-0.5 dB), for a half dB improvement. It's also mildly better for Scandanavia and Asiatic Russia. If the orientation is entirely arbitrary, then might as well get the half dB. They didn't get 45/135/etc from the Bible. It's just the direction to Europe from my part of the globe. What gets done about the counterpoise for 160m verticals, excellent vs. poor, will make far more difference. 73, Guy K2AV On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Jorge Diez - CX6VM wrote: > Hello > > > > What?s the width angle of a single antenna in a 4SQ system? > > > > In USA I have W6 at 310 deg and W1 at 350 deg. > > > > In Europe I have: > > - EI, GI, GM at 25 deg > > - CT, F, DL, EA, PA, EA8, UA1 at 35 deg > > - OE, OK, HA, OM, UA3 at 40 deg > > - 6W, 5T, I, E7, 4O, YU, UA4 at 45 deg > > - LZ, SV, UA6 at 50 deg > > - 5N, TT, SU, YI, SV9, SV5, TA, at 55 deg > > > > > > Classic setup will be antennas at 45, 135, 225 and 315 > > > > But this will be the best positions from me? For Europe 45 degrees will be > OK, but not sure about 315 degrees for USA > > > > If I change USA antenna at 325 deg, I don?t think Europe at 55 degrees will > be the best > > > > What would you do in my situation? > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > 73, > > Jorge > > CX6VM/CW5W > > > > > > > > --- > El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electr?nico en > busca de virus. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From cx6vm.jorge at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 19:23:19 2015 From: cx6vm.jorge at gmail.com (Jorge Diez - CX6VM) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:23:19 -0300 Subject: Topband: 4SQ antennas directions In-Reply-To: References: <55ad5d9a.c965340a.3d01.ffffdbab@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <55ad82eb.8f94340a.f2e13.ffffe8d1@mx.google.com> Hello Guy Not understand at all Did you say that I can put one antenna at 35 and other at 325? This is a 70 degrees difference, not 90. 73, Jorge De: guyk2av at gmail.com [mailto:guyk2av at gmail.com] En nombre de Guy Olinger K2AV Enviado el: lunes, 20 de julio de 2015 07:52 p.m. Para: Jorge Diez - CX6VM CC: towertalk at contesting.com; TopBand List Asunto: Re: Topband: 4SQ antennas directions Midway between 25 and 55 is 40. Midway between 310 and 350 is 330. Rotating counterclockwise 10 degrees from the 45/135/etc common USA settings would give you NE and NW pattern centers at 35 and 325. 35 and 325 is very close to 40 and 330. It will bring far west USA up from 30 degrees off center lobe (-1 dB) to 20 degrees off center lobe (-0.5 dB), for a half dB improvement. It's also mildly better for Scandanavia and Asiatic Russia. If the orientation is entirely arbitrary, then might as well get the half dB. They didn't get 45/135/etc from the Bible. It's just the direction to Europe from my part of the globe. What gets done about the counterpoise for 160m verticals, excellent vs. poor, will make far more difference. 73, Guy K2AV On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Jorge Diez - CX6VM wrote: Hello What?s the width angle of a single antenna in a 4SQ system? In USA I have W6 at 310 deg and W1 at 350 deg. In Europe I have: - EI, GI, GM at 25 deg - CT, F, DL, EA, PA, EA8, UA1 at 35 deg - OE, OK, HA, OM, UA3 at 40 deg - 6W, 5T, I, E7, 4O, YU, UA4 at 45 deg - LZ, SV, UA6 at 50 deg - 5N, TT, SU, YI, SV9, SV5, TA, at 55 deg Classic setup will be antennas at 45, 135, 225 and 315 But this will be the best positions from me? For Europe 45 degrees will be OK, but not sure about 315 degrees for USA If I change USA antenna at 325 deg, I don?t think Europe at 55 degrees will be the best What would you do in my situation? Thanks in advance 73, Jorge CX6VM/CW5W --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electr?nico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electr?nico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From k2av.guy at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 20:39:48 2015 From: k2av.guy at gmail.com (Guy Olinger K2AV) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:39:48 -0400 Subject: Topband: 4SQ antennas directions In-Reply-To: <55ad82eb.8f94340a.f2e13.ffffe8d1@mx.google.com> References: <55ad5d9a.c965340a.3d01.ffffdbab@mx.google.com> <55ad82eb.8f94340a.f2e13.ffffe8d1@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hello Jorge, The common 4sq orientation in the eastern U.S. is 45/135/225/315 degrees. That simply is to put the best pattern on Europe at 45 degrees. With your directions to Europe and the USA you will be a half dB better to far western U.S. and Northern Europe with 35/125/215/305 degrees. In this case you will be well centered on BOTH Europe at 35 degrees and USA at 305 degrees. 73, Guy K2AV On Monday, July 20, 2015, Jorge Diez - CX6VM wrote: > Hello Guy > > > > Not understand at all > > > > Did you say that I can put one antenna at 35 and other at 325? This is a > 70 degrees difference, not 90. > > > > 73, > > Jorge > > > > > > > > > > *De:* guyk2av at gmail.com > [mailto: > guyk2av at gmail.com ] *En > nombre de *Guy Olinger K2AV > *Enviado el:* lunes, 20 de julio de 2015 07:52 p.m. > *Para:* Jorge Diez - CX6VM > *CC:* towertalk at contesting.com > ; TopBand List > *Asunto:* Re: Topband: 4SQ antennas directions > > > > Midway between 25 and 55 is 40. > > > > Midway between 310 and 350 is 330. > > > > Rotating counterclockwise 10 degrees from the 45/135/etc common USA > settings would give you NE and NW pattern centers at 35 and 325. > > > > 35 and 325 is very close to 40 and 330. It will bring far west USA up from > 30 degrees off center lobe (-1 dB) to 20 degrees off center lobe (-0.5 dB), > for a half dB improvement. It's also mildly better for Scandanavia and > Asiatic Russia. > > > > If the orientation is entirely arbitrary, then might as well get the half > dB. They didn't get 45/135/etc from the Bible. It's just the direction to > Europe from my part of the globe. > > > > What gets done about the counterpoise for 160m verticals, excellent vs. > poor, will make far more difference. > > > > 73, Guy K2AV > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Jorge Diez - CX6VM > wrote: > > Hello > > > > What?s the width angle of a single antenna in a 4SQ system? > > > > In USA I have W6 at 310 deg and W1 at 350 deg. > > > > In Europe I have: > > - EI, GI, GM at 25 deg > > - CT, F, DL, EA, PA, EA8, UA1 at 35 deg > > - OE, OK, HA, OM, UA3 at 40 deg > > - 6W, 5T, I, E7, 4O, YU, UA4 at 45 deg > > - LZ, SV, UA6 at 50 deg > > - 5N, TT, SU, YI, SV9, SV5, TA, at 55 deg > > > > > > Classic setup will be antennas at 45, 135, 225 and 315 > > > > But this will be the best positions from me? For Europe 45 degrees will be > OK, but not sure about 315 degrees for USA > > > > If I change USA antenna at 325 deg, I don?t think Europe at 55 degrees will > be the best > > > > What would you do in my situation? > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > 73, > > Jorge > > CX6VM/CW5W > > > > > > > > --- > El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electr?nico en > busca de virus. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] > > El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electr?nico en > busca de virus. > www.avast.com > > -- Sent via Gmail Mobile on my iPhone From john at kk9a.com Mon Jul 20 22:10:50 2015 From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:10:50 -0400 Subject: Topband: 4SQ antennas directions Message-ID: <004e01d0c35a$77b94d50$672be7f0$@com> Doing this will put the weakest signal (-2.5 dB) at 350 degrees instead of 0. John KK9A To: Jorge Diez - CX6VM Subject: Re: Topband: 4SQ antennas directions From: Guy Olinger K2AV Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:39:48 -0400 Hello Jorge, The common 4sq orientation in the eastern U.S. is 45/135/225/315 degrees. That simply is to put the best pattern on Europe at 45 degrees. With your directions to Europe and the USA you will be a half dB better to far western U.S. and Northern Europe with 35/125/215/305 degrees. In this case you will be well centered on BOTH Europe at 35 degrees and USA at 305 degrees. 73, Guy K2AV From art at nk8x.net Sun Jul 26 21:39:16 2015 From: art at nk8x.net (Art Snapper) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:39:16 -0400 Subject: Topband: fishnet beacon Message-ID: I was tuning around tonight about an hour before local sunset, and heard a fishnet beacon on 1960KHz. I think it was PFB1 or something like that. I only heard it twice before it faded. I happened to be using a HB coaxial loop favoring E. There was too much QRN on the BOG's to hear it. Art NK8X Kalamazoo, MI From k1fz at myfairpoint.net Mon Jul 27 11:37:20 2015 From: k1fz at myfairpoint.net (=?utf-8?b?SzFGWi1CcnVjZQ==?=) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:37:20 -0400 Subject: Topband: fishnet beacon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150727113720.mavombnplkcs0w84@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Art, ? Hearing several strong ones 1820-1926 KHZ most to my East toward the Grand Banks. ? Wonder if anyone has ever sent any, a SWL card requesting they use an out of Ham band frequency? hi No QRZ listings ? ? 73 Bruce-K1FZ http://www.qsl.net/k1fz/beverage_antenna.html ? On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:39:16 -0400, Art Snapper wrote: I was tuning around tonight about an hour before local sunset, and heard a fishnet beacon on 1960KHz. I think it was PFB1 or something like that. I only heard it twice before it faded. I happened to be using a HB coaxial loop favoring E. There was too much QRN on the BOG's to hear it. Art NK8X Kalamazoo, MI _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From art at nk8x.net Mon Jul 27 14:04:34 2015 From: art at nk8x.net (Art Snapper) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:04:34 -0400 Subject: Topband: fishnet beacon In-Reply-To: <20150727113720.mavombnplkcs0w84@webmail.myfairpoint.net> References: <20150727113720.mavombnplkcs0w84@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: I am not sure what it would accomplish, but we could put the loggings on the DX cluster. Art On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:37 AM, K1FZ-Bruce wrote: > Art, > > > > Hearing several strong ones 1820-1926 KHZ most to my East toward the Grand > Banks. > > > > Wonder if anyone has ever sent any, a SWL card requesting they use an out > of Ham band frequency? hi > > No QRZ listings ? > > > > 73 > > Bruce-K1FZ > > http://www.qsl.net/k1fz/beverage_antenna.html > > > > > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:39:16 -0400, Art Snapper wrote: > > I was tuning around tonight about an hour before local sunset, and heard a > fishnet beacon on 1960KHz. I think it was PFB1 or something like that. I > only heard it twice before it faded. > I happened to be using a HB coaxial loop favoring E. There was too much QRN > on the BOG's to hear it. > > Art NK8X > Kalamazoo, MI > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > From k1fz at myfairpoint.net Mon Jul 27 15:47:44 2015 From: k1fz at myfairpoint.net (=?utf-8?b?SzFGWi1CcnVjZQ==?=) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:47:44 -0400 Subject: Topband: fishnet beacon In-Reply-To: <383249648-1438012613-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1564706139-@b3.c2.bise6.blackberry> References: <20150727113720.mavombnplkcs0w84@webmail.myfairpoint.net> <383249648-1438012613-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1564706139-@b3.c2.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <20150727154744.xn9dv1ciogc40gss@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Do not know yet, will see what I can find. I have heard of drift nets. It can be tough on the whales. They cut one Hump Back loose in the Gulf of Maine recently. ? 73 Bruce-k1fz ? Do they even have stationary fish nets? Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry Art, ? Hearing several strong ones 1820-1926 KHZ most to my East toward the Grand Banks. ? Wonder if anyone has ever sent any, a SWL card requesting they use an out of Ham band frequency? hi No QRZ listings ? ? 73 Bruce-K1FZ http://www.qsl.net/k1fz/beverage_antenna.html ? On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:39:16 -0400, Art Snapper wrote: I was tuning around tonight about an hour before local sunset, and heard a fishnet beacon on 1960KHz. I think it was PFB1 or something like that. I only heard it twice before it faded. I happened to be using a HB coaxial loop favoring E. There was too much QRN on the BOG's to hear it. Art NK8X Kalamazoo, MI _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From wrcromwell at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 15:54:23 2015 From: wrcromwell at gmail.com (Bill Cromwell) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:54:23 -0400 Subject: Topband: fishnet beacon In-Reply-To: <20150727154744.xn9dv1ciogc40gss@webmail.myfairpoint.net> References: <20150727113720.mavombnplkcs0w84@webmail.myfairpoint.net> <383249648-1438012613-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1564706139-@b3.c2.bise6.blackberry> <20150727154744.xn9dv1ciogc40gss@webmail.myfairpoint.net> Message-ID: <55B68C6F.7000106@gmail.com> Hi, This has come up before right here. It was pointed out that *we* are the primary users of that spectrum. If we are not using it we can't expect those untrained people to not use it. If we go ahead and use our spectrum they will QSY just as a practical matter. 73, Bill KU8H On 07/27/2015 03:47 PM, K1FZ-Bruce wrote: > Do not know yet, will see what I can find. I have heard of drift nets. > It can be tough on the whales. They cut one Hump Back loose in the > Gulf of Maine recently. > 73 > Bruce-k1fz > > > Do they even have stationary fish nets? > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > From art at nk8x.net Mon Jul 27 19:53:32 2015 From: art at nk8x.net (Art Snapper) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:53:32 -0400 Subject: Topband: fishnet beacon In-Reply-To: <55B68C6F.7000106@gmail.com> References: <20150727113720.mavombnplkcs0w84@webmail.myfairpoint.net> <383249648-1438012613-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1564706139-@b3.c2.bise6.blackberry> <20150727154744.xn9dv1ciogc40gss@webmail.myfairpoint.net> <55B68C6F.7000106@gmail.com> Message-ID: I was a bit surprised by the apparent grey line propagation. Bruce's observation of the beacon being located near the Grand Banks, would be consistent with the timing. The loop had been oriented toward W1AW a few days prior, so the heading was reasonably correct. The QRN in lower Michigan has been exceptionally bad this summer. It seems like there have been thunderstorms every day either here in Michigan or in nearby northern Indiana. Art NK8X ? On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote: > Hi, > > This has come up before right here. It was pointed out that *we* are the > primary users of that spectrum. If we are not using it we can't expect > those untrained people to not use it. If we go ahead and use our spectrum > they will QSY just as a practical matter. > > 73, > > Bill KU8H > > > On 07/27/2015 03:47 PM, K1FZ-Bruce wrote: > >> Do not know yet, will see what I can find. I have heard of drift nets. It >> can be tough on the whales. They cut one Hump Back loose in the Gulf of >> Maine recently. >> 73 >> Bruce-k1fz >> >> >> Do they even have stationary fish nets? >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry >> >> > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > From ok7gu at ges.cz Tue Jul 28 12:33:51 2015 From: ok7gu at ges.cz (=?UTF-8?Q?Milan_G=c3=bctter=2c_OK7GU?=) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:33:51 +0200 Subject: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 20 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7AEEF.2000500@ges.cz> Hi, The Topband Fish Buoys (see for example) http://www.ryokuseisha.com/eng/ http://www.taiyomusen.co.jp/eng/products/radio_buoy/ http://www.taiyomusen.co.jp/pdf/TB-568S-E.pdf and others we hear in Europe too (with good antenna). Sometimes, during good openings, is the topband full of signals. 73 and Good DX Milan OK7GU www.ok7gu.com Dne 28.7.2015 v 18:00 topband-request at contesting.com napsal(a): > Send Topband mailing list submissions to > topband at contesting.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > topband-request at contesting.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > topband-owner at contesting.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: fishnet beacon (Art Snapper) > 2. Re: fishnet beacon ( K1FZ-Bruce ) > 3. Re: fishnet beacon (Bill Cromwell) > 4. Re: fishnet beacon (Art Snapper) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:04:34 -0400 > From: Art Snapper > To: k1fz at myfairpoint.net > Cc: Topband > Subject: Re: Topband: fishnet beacon > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I am not sure what it would accomplish, but we could put the loggings on > the DX cluster. > > Art > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:37 AM, K1FZ-Bruce wrote: > >> Art, >> >> >> >> Hearing several strong ones 1820-1926 KHZ most to my East toward the Grand >> Banks. >> >> >> >> Wonder if anyone has ever sent any, a SWL card requesting they use an out >> of Ham band frequency? hi >> >> No QRZ listings ? >> >> >> >> 73 >> >> Bruce-K1FZ >> >> http://www.qsl.net/k1fz/beverage_antenna.html >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:39:16 -0400, Art Snapper wrote: >> >> I was tuning around tonight about an hour before local sunset, and heard a >> fishnet beacon on 1960KHz. I think it was PFB1 or something like that. I >> only heard it twice before it faded. >> I happened to be using a HB coaxial loop favoring E. There was too much QRN >> on the BOG's to hear it. >> >> Art NK8X >> Kalamazoo, MI >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:47:44 -0400 > From: " K1FZ-Bruce " > To: n6cmf at verizon.net, Topband > Subject: Re: Topband: fishnet beacon > Message-ID: <20150727154744.xn9dv1ciogc40gss at webmail.myfairpoint.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format="flowed" > > Do not know yet, will see what I can find. I have heard of drift nets. > It can be tough on the whales. > They cut one Hump Back loose in the Gulf of Maine recently. > ? > 73 > Bruce-k1fz > ? > > Do they even have stationary fish nets? > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > Art, > ? > Hearing several strong ones 1820-1926 KHZ most to my East toward the > Grand Banks. > ? > Wonder if anyone has ever sent any, a SWL card requesting they use an > out of Ham band frequency? hi > No QRZ listings ? > ? > 73 > Bruce-K1FZ > http://www.qsl.net/k1fz/beverage_antenna.html > ? > > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:39:16 -0400, Art Snapper wrote: > > I was tuning around tonight about an hour before local sunset, > and heard a > fishnet beacon on 1960KHz. I think it was PFB1 or something like that. I > only heard it twice before it faded. > I happened to be using a HB coaxial loop favoring E. There was too much QRN > on the BOG's to hear it. > > Art NK8X > Kalamazoo, MI > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:54:23 -0400 > From: Bill Cromwell > To: topband at contesting.com > Subject: Re: Topband: fishnet beacon > Message-ID: <55B68C6F.7000106 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Hi, > > This has come up before right here. It was pointed out that *we* are the > primary users of that spectrum. If we are not using it we can't expect > those untrained people to not use it. If we go ahead and use our > spectrum they will QSY just as a practical matter. > > 73, > > Bill KU8H > > > On 07/27/2015 03:47 PM, K1FZ-Bruce wrote: >> Do not know yet, will see what I can find. I have heard of drift nets. >> It can be tough on the whales. They cut one Hump Back loose in the >> Gulf of Maine recently. >> 73 >> Bruce-k1fz >> >> >> Do they even have stationary fish nets? >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:53:32 -0400 > From: Art Snapper > Cc: 160 > Subject: Re: Topband: fishnet beacon > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I was a bit surprised by the apparent grey line propagation. Bruce's > observation of the beacon being located near the Grand Banks, would be > consistent with the timing. > The loop had been oriented toward W1AW a few days prior, so the heading was > reasonably correct. > The QRN in lower Michigan has been exceptionally bad this summer. It seems > like there have been thunderstorms every day either here in Michigan or in > nearby northern Indiana. > > Art NK8X > > > > ? > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This has come up before right here. It was pointed out that *we* are the >> primary users of that spectrum. If we are not using it we can't expect >> those untrained people to not use it. If we go ahead and use our spectrum >> they will QSY just as a practical matter. >> >> 73, >> >> Bill KU8H >> >> >> On 07/27/2015 03:47 PM, K1FZ-Bruce wrote: >> >>> Do not know yet, will see what I can find. I have heard of drift nets. It >>> can be tough on the whales. They cut one Hump Back loose in the Gulf of >>> Maine recently. >>> 73 >>> Bruce-k1fz >>> >>> >>> Do they even have stationary fish nets? >>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry >>> >>> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Topband mailing list > Topband at contesting.com > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 20 > **************************************** > > From n1rj at roadrunner.com Tue Jul 28 14:06:30 2015 From: n1rj at roadrunner.com (Roger D Johnson) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:06:30 -0400 Subject: Topband: Countries and Zones Message-ID: <55B7C4A6.8070201@roadrunner.com> Having some time to fritter away, I decided to see the zone distribution of the countries I need on Top Band. (I still call them countries as "entity" sounds like something that arrived in a flying saucer.) Here's the result: Zone Nr Needed 13 1 17 2 20 2 21 3 22 4 23 1 24 5 25 2 26 7 27 6 28 6 29 2 30 1 31 3 32 1 35 1 37 1 39 3 40 1 Interesting! Zones 24,26,27 and 28 account for almost half my needs. I guess it's not surprising from Maine. 73, Roger From mstangelo at comcast.net Tue Jul 28 14:14:06 2015 From: mstangelo at comcast.net (mstangelo at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 20 In-Reply-To: <55B7AEEF.2000500@ges.cz> References: <55B7AEEF.2000500@ges.cz> Message-ID: <381983064.11660102.1438107246448.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Can the newer buoys can send the GPS coodinates when polled? If so, you can use this information to locate them. The bands are quiet these days; maybe we should start a Fish Buoy listening group. They propagate well for such an inefficient antenna. Mike N2MS ----- Original Message ----- From: Milan G?tter, OK7GU To: topband at contesting.com Sent: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:33:51 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 20 Hi, The Topband Fish Buoys (see for example) http://www.ryokuseisha.com/eng/ http://www.taiyomusen.co.jp/eng/products/radio_buoy/ http://www.taiyomusen.co.jp/pdf/TB-568S-E.pdf and others we hear in Europe too (with good antenna). Sometimes, during good openings, is the topband full of signals. 73 and Good DX Milan OK7GU www.ok7gu.com From indians at xsmail.com Tue Jul 28 14:18:23 2015 From: indians at xsmail.com (Petr Ourednik) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 20:18:23 +0200 Subject: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 20 In-Reply-To: <55B7AEEF.2000500@ges.cz> References: <55B7AEEF.2000500@ges.cz> Message-ID: <1438107503.1579340.335510529.090AB797@webmail.messagingengine.com> FYI, http://topband.blog.cz/0810/drift-nets-fishing-beacons http://topband.blog.cz/0611/160m-beacon-list 73 - Petr, OK1RP http://160mband.blogspot.com On Tue, Jul 28, 2015, at 06:33 PM, Milan G?tter, OK7GU wrote: > Hi, > > The Topband Fish Buoys > > (see for example) > http://www.ryokuseisha.com/eng/ > http://www.taiyomusen.co.jp/eng/products/radio_buoy/ > http://www.taiyomusen.co.jp/pdf/TB-568S-E.pdf and others > > we hear in Europe too (with good antenna). > > Sometimes, during good openings, is the topband full of signals. > > > > 73 and Good DX > > Milan OK7GU > www.ok7gu.com > > > > > > > Dne 28.7.2015 v 18:00 topband-request at contesting.com napsal(a): > > Send Topband mailing list submissions to > > topband at contesting.com > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > topband-request at contesting.com > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > topband-owner at contesting.com > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: fishnet beacon (Art Snapper) > > 2. Re: fishnet beacon ( K1FZ-Bruce ) > > 3. Re: fishnet beacon (Bill Cromwell) > > 4. Re: fishnet beacon (Art Snapper) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:04:34 -0400 > > From: Art Snapper > > To: k1fz at myfairpoint.net > > Cc: Topband > > Subject: Re: Topband: fishnet beacon > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > I am not sure what it would accomplish, but we could put the loggings on > > the DX cluster. > > > > Art > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:37 AM, K1FZ-Bruce wrote: > > > >> Art, > >> > >> > >> > >> Hearing several strong ones 1820-1926 KHZ most to my East toward the Grand > >> Banks. > >> > >> > >> > >> Wonder if anyone has ever sent any, a SWL card requesting they use an out > >> of Ham band frequency? hi > >> > >> No QRZ listings ? > >> > >> > >> > >> 73 > >> > >> Bruce-K1FZ > >> > >> http://www.qsl.net/k1fz/beverage_antenna.html > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:39:16 -0400, Art Snapper wrote: > >> > >> I was tuning around tonight about an hour before local sunset, and heard a > >> fishnet beacon on 1960KHz. I think it was PFB1 or something like that. I > >> only heard it twice before it faded. > >> I happened to be using a HB coaxial loop favoring E. There was too much QRN > >> on the BOG's to hear it. > >> > >> Art NK8X > >> Kalamazoo, MI > >> _________________ > >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:47:44 -0400 > > From: " K1FZ-Bruce " > > To: n6cmf at verizon.net, Topband > > Subject: Re: Topband: fishnet beacon > > Message-ID: <20150727154744.xn9dv1ciogc40gss at webmail.myfairpoint.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format="flowed" > > > > Do not know yet, will see what I can find. I have heard of drift nets. > > It can be tough on the whales. > > They cut one Hump Back loose in the Gulf of Maine recently. > > ? > > 73 > > Bruce-k1fz > > ? > > > > Do they even have stationary fish nets? > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > > > Art, > > ? > > Hearing several strong ones 1820-1926 KHZ most to my East toward the > > Grand Banks. > > ? > > Wonder if anyone has ever sent any, a SWL card requesting they use an > > out of Ham band frequency? hi > > No QRZ listings ? > > ? > > 73 > > Bruce-K1FZ > > http://www.qsl.net/k1fz/beverage_antenna.html > > ? > > > > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:39:16 -0400, Art Snapper wrote: > > > > I was tuning around tonight about an hour before local sunset, > > and heard a > > fishnet beacon on 1960KHz. I think it was PFB1 or something like that. I > > only heard it twice before it faded. > > I happened to be using a HB coaxial loop favoring E. There was too much QRN > > on the BOG's to hear it. > > > > Art NK8X > > Kalamazoo, MI > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:54:23 -0400 > > From: Bill Cromwell > > To: topband at contesting.com > > Subject: Re: Topband: fishnet beacon > > Message-ID: <55B68C6F.7000106 at gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > Hi, > > > > This has come up before right here. It was pointed out that *we* are the > > primary users of that spectrum. If we are not using it we can't expect > > those untrained people to not use it. If we go ahead and use our > > spectrum they will QSY just as a practical matter. > > > > 73, > > > > Bill KU8H > > > > > > On 07/27/2015 03:47 PM, K1FZ-Bruce wrote: > >> Do not know yet, will see what I can find. I have heard of drift nets. > >> It can be tough on the whales. They cut one Hump Back loose in the > >> Gulf of Maine recently. > >> 73 > >> Bruce-k1fz > >> > >> > >> Do they even have stationary fish nets? > >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:53:32 -0400 > > From: Art Snapper > > Cc: 160 > > Subject: Re: Topband: fishnet beacon > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > I was a bit surprised by the apparent grey line propagation. Bruce's > > observation of the beacon being located near the Grand Banks, would be > > consistent with the timing. > > The loop had been oriented toward W1AW a few days prior, so the heading was > > reasonably correct. > > The QRN in lower Michigan has been exceptionally bad this summer. It seems > > like there have been thunderstorms every day either here in Michigan or in > > nearby northern Indiana. > > > > Art NK8X > > > > > > > > ? > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> This has come up before right here. It was pointed out that *we* are the > >> primary users of that spectrum. If we are not using it we can't expect > >> those untrained people to not use it. If we go ahead and use our spectrum > >> they will QSY just as a practical matter. > >> > >> 73, > >> > >> Bill KU8H > >> > >> > >> On 07/27/2015 03:47 PM, K1FZ-Bruce wrote: > >> > >>> Do not know yet, will see what I can find. I have heard of drift nets. It > >>> can be tough on the whales. They cut one Hump Back loose in the Gulf of > >>> Maine recently. > >>> 73 > >>> Bruce-k1fz > >>> > >>> > >>> Do they even have stationary fish nets? > >>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > >>> > >>> > >> _________________ > >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Topband mailing list > > Topband at contesting.com > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 20 > > **************************************** > > > > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband From jn3vqm at gmail.com Tue Jul 28 14:20:12 2015 From: jn3vqm at gmail.com (NAKAMURA BENWEB Wataru) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:20:12 +0900 Subject: Topband: 2015 CQ WW 160-Meter Contest Results Message-ID: <086E16F7-8E73-4BCC-A459-8B736FFF45F0@gmail.com> FYI; 2015 CQ WW 160-Meter Contest Complete CW & SSB Line Scores http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/cq_contests/cq_ww_160_meter_contest/2015_cq_ww_160_meter_contest/2015_cq_160_meter_cw_ssb_linescores.pdf 2015 CQ WW 160-Meter Contest Expanded Results - Soapbox Comments http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/cq_contests/cq_ww_160_meter_contest/2015_cq_ww_160_meter_contest/2015_cq_ww_160_meter_contest_soapbox.pdf 2015 CQ WW 160-Meter Contest Expanded Results - Guest Ops http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/cq_contests/cq_ww_160_meter_contest/2015_cq_ww_160_meter_contest/2015_cq_ww_160_meter_contest_results_guest_op.pdf DE JN3VQM BEN -- begin signature ------------------------------------------------------ "Amateur Radio: One World, One Language, Make Today Count Peace to All Who Enter Here." Mottos pasted on 9N1MM Father Marshall D.Moran's radi -o shack door. http://jn3vqm.info/ -------------------------------------------------------- end signature From mikewate at gmail.com Tue Jul 28 14:51:27 2015 From: mikewate at gmail.com (Mike Waters) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:51:27 -0500 Subject: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 20 In-Reply-To: <381983064.11660102.1438107246448.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> References: <55B7AEEF.2000500@ges.cz> <381983064.11660102.1438107246448.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Message-ID: As was pointed out, this has been discussed here many times before. There used to be an informal fishnet beacon listening group; one ham has a list of them and invites others to send him reports. I forget the URL. I'm not suggesting that this thread shouldn't continue; but if you do a search in the Topband archives, there's a LOT of useful info there that hasn't been discussed in this thread. Maybe it's time to "resurrect" it. The search page is at lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Topband You might try searching for terms such as "fish net", fishnet, "drift net", buoy, buoys, and beacons. W8JI has a Web page about them; there are others who also have useful and varied info. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:14 PM, wrote: > maybe we should start a Fish Buoy listening group. They propagate well for > such an inefficient antenna. > From mikewate at gmail.com Tue Jul 28 14:53:11 2015 From: mikewate at gmail.com (Mike Waters) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:53:11 -0500 Subject: Topband: Fishnet beacons on 160 Message-ID: Edited subject and re-posted. On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Mike Waters wrote: > As was pointed out, this has been discussed here many times before. There > used to be an informal fishnet beacon listening group; one ham has a list > of them and invites others to send him reports. I forget the URL. > > I'm not suggesting that this thread shouldn't continue; but if you do a > search in the Topband archives, there's a LOT of useful info there that > hasn't been discussed in this thread. Maybe it's time to "resurrect" it. > > The search page is at > lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Topband > You might try searching for terms such as "fish net", fishnet, "drift > net", buoy, buoys, and beacons. > > W8JI has a Web page about them; there are others who also have useful and > varied info. > > 73, Mike > www.w0btu.com > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:14 PM, wrote: > >> maybe we should start a Fish Buoy listening group. They propagate well >> for such an inefficient antenna. >> > > From indians at xsmail.com Wed Jul 29 04:53:44 2015 From: indians at xsmail.com (Petr Ourednik) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:53:44 +0200 Subject: Topband: 160m beacons list In-Reply-To: <1438107503.1579340.335510529.090AB797@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <55B7AEEF.2000500@ges.cz> <1438107503.1579340.335510529.090AB797@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1438160024.3232328.336058745.4EE7F7D1@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hi, there is an improved list of the TOP band beacons on new 160m band blog (bothering advertisement free) http://160mband.blogspot.com/2015/07/160m-band-beacons-list.html As You can see it is still "trial" and it's not final version and many of the beacons listed over here was reported years ago... maybe an operation has been cancelled or so. I will be appreciated to get any report or info about beacons from 160m band in Your location to put it into the list. Thank You for help, 73 - Petr, OK1RP http://ok1rp.blogspot.com From wt3q at comcast.net Thu Jul 30 09:20:39 2015 From: wt3q at comcast.net (Sam Harner) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:20:39 -0400 Subject: Topband: amp Message-ID: <41FCAE7C662340B0B25EFBB3A5F289AC@sam03949ada7b6> Guys , a while ago someone posted they were looking for a single band 160 amp . I have decided to sell mine it is a single 8877 outboard supply grid protect 4 minute warm up I can send pics on request please reply OFF the list thanks Sam --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From cfytech24x7 at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 08:19:02 2015 From: cfytech24x7 at gmail.com (Charles Yahrling) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:19:02 +0000 Subject: Topband: LOTW report downloads Message-ID: Looking for some tricks on getting LOTW download report into a more usable format. Yes, I can import the adif it generates into N1MM+ to get each QSL on one line, then export another adif, then import to a spreadsheet or database. But that's not so slick, and loses some detail. I guess I could get off my duff and write a python program to generate a csv but I'm thinking somebody has already worked this out. tnx in advance 73, chuck -- de AB1VL NAQCC #6799 ab1vl.com From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com Fri Jul 31 13:32:51 2015 From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:32:51 -0700 Subject: Topband: LOTW report downloads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55BBB143.8090006@audiosystemsgroup.com> On Fri,7/31/2015 5:19 AM, Charles Yahrling wrote: > Looking for some tricks on getting LOTW download report into a more usable > format. I use DXKeeper, an excellent general purpose ham logger. It imports and exports ADIF files, and with a few mouse clicks, uploads and downloads automatically to LOTW and eQSL. I'm an active contester. For day-to-day operation, I log directly to DXKeeper. For contests, I use N1MM Plus. After each contest, I export the contest log as an ADIF, then import it to DXKeeper, and let DXKeeper send it to LOTW and eQSL. DXKeeper does lots of good stuff, including keeping track of all sorts of awards, QSLs, generates mailing labels, etc. It's FREE, bug free, and well supported. It's part of a suite of programs, some of which I find quite useful -- Spot Collector, which looks at cluster spots, compares them with your log, and shows you only those you "need" for an award; Commander, a rig control program that reads frequency and operating mode and puts it in DXKeeper (and does other stuff if you want it to); DXView that looks up beam headings and distance when you enter a call; WinWarbler, which integrates MMTTY and 2Tone for RTTY, and also does other digital modes. And -- program author, Dave, AA6YQ, is one of the team that's been cleaning up LOTW operation. 73, Jim K9YC From n2gz at gregzenger.com Fri Jul 31 17:21:35 2015 From: n2gz at gregzenger.com (Greg Zenger) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:21:35 -0400 Subject: Topband: LOTW report downloads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Try the ADIF to Excel to ADIF converter by DL1HW On Jul 31, 2015 8:19 AM, "Charles Yahrling" wrote: > Looking for some tricks on getting LOTW download report into a more usable > format. > > Yes, I can import the adif it generates into N1MM+ to get each QSL on one > line, then export another adif, then import to a spreadsheet or database. > But that's not so slick, and loses some detail. I guess I could get off my > duff and write a python program to generate a csv but I'm thinking somebody > has already worked this out. > > tnx in advance > 73, chuck > -- > de AB1VL > NAQCC #6799 > > ab1vl.com > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >