Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I agree with John,

Receiving systems should be allowed only on the station property.  I can
understand the Stew Perry exemption but that opens up a can of worms.
If you give an inch people will take a mile as the saying goes.

Now the real story is people are using remote receivers and have been
and probably will never be caught or exposed because they are our
friends.  This is sad.  I received a number of comments from people
regarding a fairly well known contester and his use of remote receivers
and how this usage has essentially been cover up by other well known
contesters and log checkers???!!!!  VO1HP was not the station in
question either.

I have never understood the reasoning behind cheating in a hobby where
the rewards are wooden plaques and paper printed award. Apparently
people are so down on themselves they must cheat to get high rankings to
feel good about themselves.  This is sad.

Is N2NT at the point now where he understands that this practice may and
probably is already being used far more than many understand and is
going to open the can up completely?

Other than people speaking out against these obvious cheaters, what can
be done to stop it?  It only requires a decent receiver and a good
internet connection.  When your have your antenna in the middle of
Europe you probably don't even need that great of a receiving antenna to
copy stations you have no hope of ever hearing normally, especially for
us in the west.

So NO NO NO NO NO and lets hope that most will play by the rules and
hope that those who know about cheaters will expose them for what they are.

W0MU

Mike W0MU

On 3/15/2015 11:32 AM, John Crovelli wrote:
> Greetings Fellow Topband Contesters:
> During the last week of January the topic of remote RX systems was extensively discussed on the TB reflector.  I was on my way to K1N and didn'thave the time nor opportunity to pay proper attention.
> This week CQ160 Contest Director N2NT suggested I take a look at the discussion and offer an opinion.  So....I went back and read ALL of your posts.
> As a long-time 160 meter contester (spanning some four decades) it was quite interesting to read what others thought important to them in terms contest rules, station design, things that impact scores, and what they felt it took to have 'fun' in a 160 meter contest.  Thanks for sharing.
> My thoughts here are on the overall 160 meter contesting scene and specifically about how remote RX systems would impact contest results.  I'll leave it to others to sort out what some clearly see as a parallel theme - how remote stations and systems impact DXCC country chasing. To me the DXCC subject is not aligned with contesting and is best treated separately.
> I've long believed the multi-op competition between a select group of serious N.A. entrants in the CQ160 CW is the most rigorous (and exciting) competition in all of amateur radio contesting.  One need only look at how amazingly close the results have been over the years to realize how well matched the stations and operating teams have been. This high level of parity did not happen by accident.
> Teams and stations have come and gone over the past 30 years.  The mostsuccessful players in 160 meter multi-op include such notables as WW2Y, W1KM, K1ZM, KC1XX, VY2ZM, K1LZ, W8JI, W2FU, VE3EJ, W4RM, WB9Z, N0NI and my own 160 team operating from various locations in NJ as W2GD since ~1985. Yes, this is an exclusive group, almost all located east of the Mississippi River.  There is little question location maters, but that doesn'tdiminish the amount of work and technical innovation these teams have exhibited on their path to success.
> Generally speaking, success in the 160 multi game requires teamwork, dedication, a flare for innovation, advanced antenna and station design, careful construction practices, regular station maintenance, and expert on the air execution. There is no free ride.....you snooze you loose.  Year after year incremental station improvements are the norm.
> For the record I'm OPPOSED to the use of receiving systems located somewhere other than on station property.  It's my belief that once you alterwhat amounts to a common or similar RF environment found present at a typical contest station location, the playing field changes, and event results become a function of something much more complex and unpredictable. If you introduce a remote element to the technical mix, serious teams are forced to deal with a new set of technical solutoins which seemingly havefew boundaries.  Allowing use of a remotely located RX antenna systems would be a HUGE GAME CHANGER, just as SO2R techniques have forever changedthe single op category   The ability to compare accomplishments is no longer 'apples to apples' when remote station technologies creep into the rules.
> The ability to accomplish near duplex reception on 160 meters is the holy grail which most successful 160 teams have long worked to achieve....using on-site solutions.  Over the past 20 years my team has spent literally hundreds of hours experimenting with numerous antenna systems and noise cancelling techniques to accomplish something close to duplex capability. It is particularly difficult on topband as anyone who has gone down this road knows...and we've never enjoyed total success despite our best efforts.
> The most successful M/S, M/2 and M/M stations world-wide have found a variety of solutions to the on-site duplex reception issue, most notably on the higher frequency bands where the technical solutions are somewhat less difficult but also on 160, 80 and 40 where physical separation of radiators and receptors is a greater challenge to overcome. Having two (or more) stations on the same band has almost become a baseline requirement to ensure a competitive and maybe winning entry, esp. in M/S.  This all took technical innovation, advanced design work, and undoubtedly great patience while doing hours and hours of trial and error testing......and thenmore revision and more testing to maintain.  Those who have successfullyconquered these technical problems of duplex reception should be held inhigh esteem by us all ... they earned an operational advantage few have achieved.  If this were easy, everyone would be doing it....from experience it's NOT easy at all.
> Other than the Stew Perry TBDC, no major international contest currently allows the use of TX or RX systems physically located beyond station boundaries. This has more or less kept everyone on a common footing but notnecessarily an equal playing field.  Other than what is found in WRTC rules, there is not now nor has there ever been an expectation of 'equality' between stations.   Station locations and resources are left to the individual station owner to resolve. "Location location location" is vitallyimportant in many aspects of radiosport as it is in real estate.  There is nothing in contest rules (nor in life) that suggests there should be some common standard of opportunity.
> It's unfortunate that some station locations are plagued by power line noise and other interference issues which inhibit reception. But that does not mean the rules need to be adjusted for parity of all entrants.
> At all three of our 160 locations the last 25 years, we've faced these same reception challenges, and out of necessity were forced to work very hard to find solutions.   Difficult to do but still achievable with perseverance and some technical know how.
> Permitting remote reception systems invites an even greater temptation to circumvent the rules for one's own purposes.  I applaud VO1HP for his public admission, and for doing the right thing (sending in a check log entry) for having used a remote RX system.  But given human nature, and the strong type-A behaviors that are so common in the contesting ranks....the possibility of the rules being abused is out there.....and it goes without saying there is no reasonable way to enforce strict compliance.
> In summary, it is certain a relatively small percentage of 160 meter contest enthusiasts would take advantage of any proposed rule change to enhance there station capabilities using remote RX systems.  For some, it will simply make their already technically superior stations just that moreformidable, and for others it could open new doors.  But I simply don't see an overwhelming  and compelling NEED for this change, which will benefit relatively few, and change the competitive dynamic in ways that cannot be predicted.
> 73,
> John, W2GD a.k.a P40W