Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests

[chetmoore]

I am standing tall with W2GD that all contest qso's need to be located at
the same location as the xmtr. No
Remote rx allowed.

73

Chet Moore N4FX

-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of John
Crovelli
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 1:33 PM
To: topband at contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests



















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't have 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 most
successful 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't diminish
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 alter what
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 have few
boundaries.  Allowing use of a remotely located RX antenna systems would be
a HUGE GAME CHANGER, just as SO2R techniques have forever changed the 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 then more revision and
more testing to maintain.  Those who have successfully conquered these
technical problems of duplex reception should be held in high 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 not
necessarily 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 vitally
important 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 more
formidable, 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 









 		 	   		  
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband