Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 181, Issue 21
Lawrence Stoskopf
lstoskopf at cox.net
Tue Jan 16 15:23:34 EST 2018
Sitting south of the house looking over the pond
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 11:00 AM, topband-request at contesting.com 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. Re: cheating (Cecil Acuff)
> 2. Re: Topband Digest, Vol 181, Issue 20 (Pete Rimmel N8PR)
> 3. sdrWEB not going in my log (terry burge)
> 4. Cheating the system (John Randall)
> 5. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Peter Voelpel)
> 6. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Peter Sundberg)
> 7. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Jeff Blaine)
> 8. "use" of webSDR (Johann Bruinier)
> 9. Fwd: Re: VU2GSM webSDR use: A Clarification
> (Joe Giacobello, K2XX)
> 10. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (StellarCAT)
> 11. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Jeff Blaine)
> 12. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Nick Hall-Patch)
> 13. Sunrise and Signals (aa0rs)
> 14. E31A on Topband (Tim Shoppa)
> 15. Re: E31A on Topband (k8gg at voyager.net)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:29:17 -0600
> From: Cecil Acuff <chacuff at cableone.net>
> To: STEVE DANIEL <nn4t at comcast.net>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: cheating
> Message-ID: <E93D78A1-06A5-48DA-82EB-EED16A5D1A35 at cableone.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Well that was a lot of help Steve....
>
> You can crawl back under your rock now...
>
> Cecil
> K5DL
>
> Sent using recycled electrons.
>
>> On Jan 15, 2018, at 9:23 PM, STEVE DANIEL <nn4t at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Guy. You did it the "hard" way did you? I have been a ham and DXer since 1973 and have always encountered people like you. "You don't know how hard it was when I was your age. You have no idea how hard it was to work DX back then" Blah Blah Blah. It was BS then and it is BS now. The only thing that matters is if one works within the rules of the award or contest in which they compete. Technology evolves; rules evolve. Perhaps you and your ilk need to do the same. Look backward if you must. I choose to look in the other direction. Steve Daniel, NN4T
>>> On January 15, 2018 at 6:28 PM Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> With apologies to Tree, who has asked that this subject be dropped...
>>>
>>> The question of the effect of a remote receiver or receivers has
>>> already been dealt with by some contest organizers needing clarity and
>>> consistency using current actual technical possibilities while
>>> retaining the flavor and character of a contest. Probably the best
>>> (IMHO) adjustment on remotes is that from Tree and Lew and the
>>> inimitable BARC in the Stew Perry TBDC.
>>>
>>> The first part of their answer simply says remote RX *and* TX is fine,
>>> and is treated like a very long electronic line from key and headset
>>> to the station wherever it is. Grid square and possible required
>>> xxn/callsign signing are from the remote location, which is the point
>>> of record for scoring, standing, awards, etc.
>>>
>>> The second part is that using a local TX the receiver(s) may be
>>> *entirely* co-located with the TX, or the RX facility may be
>>> *entirely* sited at a single location 75 km or less from the TX
>>> location. Using this provision, listening on the TX antenna is not
>>> permitted during the contest. Although the rule uses the word
>>> "receiver" in the singular, in their mind it does not preclude use of
>>> a remote diversity RX, eg, K3 equipped with phase-locked diversity
>>> subRX.
>>>
>>> Please remember that "cheating" with respect to ARRL DXCC has to do
>>> with *ARRL* rules for same. Arguably some DXCC rules are so lax as to
>>> be meaningless, but they are the ARRL's rules. It has nothing to do
>>> with our being irritated or angered by someone who using modern
>>> technical extensions claims the same status as ourselves when we have
>>> gotten those numbers the HARD way, digging out countries through the
>>> urban noise never heard up on those mountain or off-continent remotes.
>>>
>>> In the end someone whose status self-image depends on what others do
>>> is inevitably doomed to anger. There will always, always be a cheat
>>> among us somewhere. If we must compare, compare ourselves only to the
>>> most noble examples. Or better yet BE that most noble example, knowing
>>> God knows even if no one else does, and sleep well at night.
>>>
>>> 73, Guy K2AV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Steve Daniel <nn4t at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don?t believe it is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word ?cheating? suggests that it is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 15, 2018, at 12:31 PM, John Randall via Topband <topband at contesting.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old fogeys who have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and also a curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force all websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then to make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be compared to say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth chewing over or other methods used.
>>>>> Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain has been absent on the bands incl topband.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73John - M0ELS
>>>>> _________________
>>>>> 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: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 23:50:52 -0500
> From: "Pete Rimmel N8PR" <n8pr at bellsouth.net>
> To: <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 181, Issue 20
> Message-ID: <1366909770F84062A4490AF72A2D7DC0 at PeteRGateway>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> John (and others)
>
> I would not like to see the below suggestion carried out for the following
> reason:
>
> There have been times that I have used a WebSDR receiver in Europe to help
> me decide where to transmit from here in Florida. An example was the
> 3C0/3C1 operations.
>
> I am pretty sure that the pileups from Europe were louder in those locations
> than my signal from Florida. HOWEVER, I used the WebSDR to find holes in
> the EU pileups and successfully worked both stations on TB.
>
> I could not hear most of those whom I saw on the SDR here in Florida, and my
> Waller Flag was not pointed at EU to look for them.
>
> At the same time, I was hearing the 3C stations here on my receiver in
> Florida, and NOT on the webSDR receivers in Europe.
>
> Should I be penalized for using a TOOL to figure out where to transmit? I
> think not. This is not "Cheating" as some would suggest.
>
> If you saw a report of me listening on a webSDR, you would falsely conclude
> I was hearing a 3C by using that means.
>
> This tool is the same as using Reverse beacon networks or telnet reporting
> to find the DX.
>
> I agree that making QSOs where the receiver is not located where the
> transmitter is located is against the rules of DXing and fair play, but
> don't penalize those who would use a tool that is available for getting into
> the DX station's log.
>
> 73, PeteR N8PR
>
>
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:31:38 +0000 (UTC)
> From: John Randall <m0els at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: cheating
> Message-ID: <978842185.6183458.1516041098817 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has
> become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system
> ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what
> we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY
> written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would
> be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old fogeys
> who have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and also a
> curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force all
> websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then to
> make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be compared to
> say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth chewing over or
> other methods used.
> Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain has
> been absent on the bands incl topband.
>
> 73John - M0ELS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:44:04 -0800 (PST)
> From: terry burge <ki7m at comcast.net>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <1280616464.435768.1516085044694 at connect.xfinity.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went on line and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ and YT1AA. Also heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish in the barrel. At least when you plug into the right SDR over there. They are not going in my log but I did find out it is easy to do. And I believe it would get so easy the fascination with working the world would be gone for me. It works but the most of what I got out of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' and how poor my reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!
>
>
> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens, maybe hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham Radio geeks think.
>
>
> Terry
>
> KI7M
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 07:11:06 +0000 (UTC)
> From: John Randall <m0els at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: Cheating the system
> Message-ID: <818261985.6582749.1516086666671 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> My final thoughts on this is that perhaps one way around this problem is to allow websdr qso's via designated websdr sites only for the award chasers and then to penalize them to "try and even the scorecard".Any qso made via other websdr's will not be validated. Maybe its a start !
> Anyway or either way, I prefer to opt out of awards and contests.
>
> 73 allJohn - M0ELS
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:45:06 +0100
> From: "Peter Voelpel" <dj7ww at t-online.de>
> To: "'terry burge'" <ki7m at comcast.net>
> Cc: <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <5932B3341666433BA9BB1F1EDA86934D at SHACK>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Yes, there are several hundred sdr receivers online and reachable via the
> internet.
>
> http://sdr.hu/?top=kiwi
> http://websdr.org/
>
> And when EA3JE takes over the dx portion of 80m with his wide signal and
> illegal power he doesn?t even bother to listen that loud to the websdr he is
> using, that from time time his vox is responding to it and you hear it via
> his transmissions as well.
>
> 73
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of terry
> burge
> Sent: Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018 07:44
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
>
> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went on line
> and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ and YT1AA. Also
> heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish in the barrel. At least
> when you plug into the right SDR over there. They are not going in my log
> but I did find out it is easy to do. And I believe it would get so easy the
> fascination with working the world would be gone for me. It works but the
> most of what I got out of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there'
> and how poor my reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!
>
>
> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those
> webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens, maybe
> hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham Radio geeks
> think.
>
>
> Terry
>
> KI7M
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:09:23 +0000
> From: Peter Sundberg <sm2cew at telia.com>
> To: terry burge <ki7m at comcast.net>,topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <20180116080928.B8B27AC802A at mx.contesting.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> So..
>
> - Station A in North America is calling CQ on 1827.0 and is heard by
> Station B in Europe via a webSDR located 50 km away from Station A in
> North America.
>
> - Station B in Europe is calling Station A - who is listening via a
> webSDR in Europe located 50 km away from Station B
>
> - Both stations exchange 599+ reports and greetings for a fine QSO.
>
> Wow, their signal made it 50 km via the airwaves at both ends and was
> then "carried" across the world via the Internet.
>
> What a wonderful Top Band QSO, carried out "the modern way",
> embracing new technology.
>
> OMG.
>
> 73
> Peter SM2CEW
>
>
>
> At 06:44 2018-01-16, terry burge wrote:
>> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went
>> on line and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ
>> and YT1AA. Also heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish
>> in the barrel. At least when you plug into the right SDR over there.
>> They are not going in my log but I did find out it is easy to do.
>> And I believe it would get so easy the fascination with working the
>> world would be gone for me. It works but the most of what I got out
>> of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' and how poor my
>> reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!
>>
>>
>> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those
>> webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens,
>> maybe hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham
>> Radio geeks think.
>>
>>
>> Terry
>>
>> KI7M
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:34:29 +0800
> From: Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188 at ac0c.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <1b24d5d0-290c-30a0-7928-196364e52289 at ac0c.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> There is no way to supervise this behavior globally.? It's ultimately up
> to each op to decide on what falls under ethical conduct.? And opinions
> vary as to what is proper and what's not, even among peoples of a single
> country with similar cultural view.
>
> I personally don't use receivers or antennas that are not located at my
> QTH - even though ARRL DXCC regulations make the use of an east-coast
> USA remote receiver point perfectly acceptable. However that's my choice
> and of course, compared to someone using that sort of arrangement is
> going to have a few more guys in the log that I may never hear which is
> part of the price I pay for the choice I have made.? However if another
> guy wants to take advantage of the rules allowing for a US-based remote
> receiver that is much closer to the other station, I really can't
> complaint because it's allowed explicitly by the rules and it's within
> their set of choices.? The example Peter lists of the webSDR pair is
> certainly possible in the modern world but that kind of QSO is not going
> to go into my log because I've decided that is not my personal sort of
> ham radio QSO.
>
> Each of us has an obligation is to manage our own personal behavior
> within the scope of the official rules - what the rest of the ham world
> does is up to them.? In the end, each ham who looks at a prized QSL from
> a rare one, or who looks at the DXCC plaque on the wall with a count
> higher than their local competition, will know well what decisions they
> have made to get there.? And if they can live with the choices they have
> made, then I'm happy for them.
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
> www.ac0c.com
>
>> On 16-Jan-18 4:09 PM, Peter Sundberg wrote:
>> So..
>>
>> - Station A in North America is calling CQ on 1827.0 and is heard by
>> Station B in Europe via a webSDR located 50 km away from Station A in
>> North America.
>>
>> - Station B in Europe is calling Station A - who is listening via a
>> webSDR in Europe located 50 km away from Station B
>>
>> - Both stations exchange 599+ reports and greetings for a fine QSO.
>>
>> Wow, their signal made it 50 km via the airwaves at both ends and was
>> then "carried" across the world via the Internet.
>>
>> What a wonderful Top Band QSO, carried out "the modern way", embracing
>> new technology.
>>
>> OMG.
>>
>> 73
>> Peter SM2CEW
>>
>>
>>
>> At 06:44 2018-01-16, terry burge wrote:
>>> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went
>>> on line and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ
>>> and YT1AA. Also heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish in
>>> the barrel. At least when you plug into the right SDR over there.
>>> They are not going in my log but I did find out it is easy to do. And
>>> I believe it would get so easy the fascination with working the world
>>> would be gone for me. It works but the most of what I got out of it
>>> was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' and how poor my
>>> reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!
>>>
>>>
>>> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those
>>> webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens,
>>> maybe hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham
>>> Radio geeks think.
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry
>>>
>>> KI7M
>>>
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:57:44 +0100
> From: "Johann Bruinier" <Bruinier at t-online.de>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: "use" of webSDR
> Message-ID: <1e2dfcac-ad1f-2496-4263-ca3b81a1b7bc at t-online.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Peter SM2CEW: Kudos on a great summery! I'm with you and many others
> (like VE6WZ et al.)
>
> 73, Jan DL9KR.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:17:41 -0500
> From: "Joe Giacobello, K2XX" <k2xx at swva.net>
> To: a Topband COL <topband at contesting.com>
> Cc: VE6WZ_Steve <ve6wz at shaw.ca>, Ron Spencer
> <ron.e.spencer at gmail.com>, k7ja at dxer.com
> Subject: Topband: Fwd: Re: VU2GSM webSDR use: A Clarification
> Message-ID: <5A5DFB75.80902 at swva.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Several members of this forum rightfully objected to my post "doubting"
> VU2GSM's use of remote RX in QSOs since he had openly admitted to same
> in his correspondence. Since I view my e-mail in reverse chronological
> order, I had read Paul's post and responded before seeing the posts by
> VE6WZ with the links to his correspondence with VU2GSM. I apologize for
> my hasty response and resultant ambiguity.
>
> Nevertheless, I have worked Kanti a couple of times on each of 30, 40
> and 80M. The 30M QSOs took place generally around his SR and early
> evening here, and I have heard him many times in that time frame on that
> band. I use a two element quad and either 100 or 200W output on that
> band, and his reports of my signal, 559, are consistent with those
> conditions. When I worked him on 80M, I began a correspondence with
> him. His response to that initial e-mail was "Yes i got you clearly and
> you were overriding QSB." That sure sounds like he was copying me
> directly. Further, for some reason when I had QSLed him directly, I had
> omitted our 80M QSO and had to request a second QSL from him via
> e-mail. In that exchange there was not the slightest hint of his using
> remote RX. Subsequently, because he knew I had an Expert 2K amp here,
> we had several detailed e-mail exchanges to discuss the set-up of his
> newly acquired 1.3K amp. Again, there was absolutely no hint of using
> remote RX.
>
> It appears that he does use remote RX at times, but a review of the
> times and signal reports for all our QSOs strongly support direct, long
> haul reception.
>
> Again, I apologize for any ambiguity in my previous post.
>
> 73, Joe
> K2XX
>
>> *From:* "Joe Giacobello, K2XX" <k2xx at swva.net>
>> *Date:* Monday, January 15, 2018 10:37 AM
>> *To:* Paul Christensen <w9ac at arrl.net>
>> *CC:* 'Steve Babcock' <ve6wz at shaw.ca>, 'topband' <topband at contesting.com>
>> *Subject:* Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use
>> Like Paul, I seriously doubt that Kanti is using a remote receiver. I
>> have worked him on 30, 40 and 80M and have had occasional
>> correspondence with him regarding his relatively recently acquired
>> Expert 1.3K amp. The signal reports he has given me seem appropriate
>> for the times and band conditions at the time of the QSOs. I'm
>> confident that had he been using a remote RX, it would have come up in
>> our correspondence.
>>
>> 73, Joe
>> K2XX
>>
>> *From:* Paul Christensen <w9ac at arrl.net>
>> *Date:* Sunday, January 14, 2018 12:29 PM
>> *To:* "'Steve Babcock'" <ve6wz at shaw.ca>, "'topband'"
>> <topband at contesting.com>
>> *Subject:* Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use
>> No doubt some ops are using WebSDR on receive, but in this case, I am
>> skeptical of the skepticism. Here's why:
>>
>> I routinely work VU2GSM on 40m GL-LP in the early morning hours on a
>> 210-degree bearing from FL to VU. He is consistently S9, peaking +10
>> dB on my Elecraft K3. The remote station I share with N4CC is in
>> Hilliard, FL just east of the St. Mary's River. Our antenna is a
>> full-size 4 el. M2 40m OWA at 140 ft AGL.
>>
>> On the 210 deg. bearing, the land slopes almost immediately into the
>> river valley. VU2GSM's solid signals aren't an isolated event; he is
>> that strong most of the LP season. VU2GSM cannot be detected on my
>> backyard dipole at my home QTH 30 miles to the south in Jacksonville.
>> The dipole is up 35 ft. AGL. When I say he can't be detected, I mean
>> there's no trace on the dipole whatsoever, not even a blip that rises
>> above the SDR noise floor. That's to be expected on a low dipole if
>> the arriving angle is skimming the horizon.
>>
>> According to HFTA, the statistical mode from FL to VU is 1 degree
>> above the horizon. The sloping terrain accounts for much of VU2GSM's
>> solid signals into the station. Forget 4-square arrays over good soil,
>> Forget stacked arrays up to 200 ft AGL. Apart from verticals on salt
>> water, nothing else compares with high horizonal antennas into sloping
>> terrain when the statistical mode is 1 degree above the horizon. When
>> VU2GSM is +10/S9 here, I am certain he is hearing me on his dipole and
>> he doesn't need WebSDR.
>>
>> When I hear other NA stations calling VU2GSM on 40m, he cannot hear
>> many, if not most of them. Of those he picks out, he struggles to copy
>> unless they're from stations with excellent antenna systems - like
>> those in the RHR group. So, if VU2GSM is routinely using WebSDR on 40m
>> receive, his operating habits are not reflective of such claims.
>>
>> Paul, W9AC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Steve Babcock
>> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:03 AM
>> To: topband <topband at contesting.com>
>> Cc: Larry D Brailean <ve5ua at mcsnet.ca>; Don Moman VE6JY
>> <ve6jy.1 at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use
>>
>> I have been "sitting" on this for a few weeks wondering if I should
>> share this information, but after seeing some spots yesterday for
>> VU2GSM on 160m, I decided that others may appreciate it.
>> I know I would.
>>
>> If you have worked Kanti, VU2GSM recently on the low bands...40, 80 or
>> 160 you should be aware that he was most likely RX using a NA webSDR.
>> The links below are PDF copies of email correspondence with Kanti
>> confirming that this is routine for him.The emails are between both
>> VE5UA, myself and VU2GSM. (Please read the email threads from the
>> "bottom up" to be chronological.)
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing
>> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing
>> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing>
>>
>> To be clear, I do not judge Kanti for his desire to augment his rx,
>> and do not think it is wrong. If he chooses to use Ham radio this way
>> that is his choice. However, I myself do not wish to include a "half"
>> QSO toward my own (personal) DXCC count, and perhaps others will feel
>> the same hence this email. I also don't judge others that are good
>> with such webSDR QSOs since each has his own goals and objectives.
>>
>> Here is some background. I have been working VU2GSM frequently and
>> with ease on 40m in the morning and evening. He would respond almost
>> immediately to my calls which seemed odd. More typical is Rakash
>> VU2RAK who has a great signal but usually can't copy me, though we
>> have QSOd a few times when conditions are exceptional.
>> While at a local ham lunch, I mentioned this, and Don VE6JY said that
>> Kanti is often logged into his webSDR. The following week I copied
>> VU2GSM on 80m in the evening with very light copy with my 2el Yagi and
>> 1000' beverage (diversity rx with K3). He answered immediately and we
>> had a QSO. I was suspicious. I emailed Don VE6JY and he confirmed that
>> at that time Kanti was indeed logged into his SDR.
>> I deleted the QSO from my log.
>> This then precipitated the e-mail correspondence which I share on the
>> attached links.
>>
>> There is little doubt this is going on all the time, and we will never
>> know. We can't undo the technology that makes webSDR possible.
>> There are those who who feel that this destroys the ?integrity? of the
>> DXCC. However, not everyone cares about DXCC.
>> Kanti is not a villan. He is doing nothing wrong. He is not
>> ?cheating?. In his email correspondence he is very open and
>> transparent and makes it clear he doesn't chase DXCC, and could care
>> less about it. Why should he?
>> From Kanti's perspective, using a webSDR enhances his enjoyment of the
>> hobby living in RFI polluted Bangalore. For others, a "half-VU" QSO is
>> better than none and they are happy.
>>
>> Like others, I spend a great deal of effort optimizing both rx and tx
>> and someday when I do make the QSO with VU on 80 and hopefully 160, it
>> will be a true two-way contact. The ?buzz? for me is not getting the
>> country counter in the log, its about knowing that my station made the
>> contact via radio?.both ways?all the way.
>>
>> The purpose of this email is simply to inform those who have worked
>> Kanti recently that it is possible/likely that your TX signal was not
>> actually heard in VU.
>>
>> 73, de Steve ve6wz
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> *From:* Steve Babcock <ve6wz at shaw.ca>
>> *Date:* Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:03 AM
>> *To:* topband <topband at contesting.com>
>> *CC:* Larry D Brailean <ve5ua at mcsnet.ca>, Don Moman VE6JY
>> <ve6jy.1 at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use
>> I have been "sitting" on this for a few weeks wondering if I should share this information, but after seeing some spots yesterday for VU2GSM on 160m, I decided that others may appreciate it.
>> I know I would.
>>
>> If you have worked Kanti, VU2GSM recently on the low bands...40, 80 or 160 you should be aware that he was most likely RX using a NA webSDR. The links below are PDF copies of email correspondence with Kanti confirming that this is routine for him.The emails are between both VE5UA, myself and VU2GSM. (Please read the email threads from the "bottom up" to be chronological.)
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing<https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing>
>>
>> To be clear, I do not judge Kanti for his desire to augment his rx, and do not think it is wrong. If he chooses to use Ham radio this way that is his choice. However, I myself do not wish to include a "half" QSO toward my own (personal) DXCC count, and perhaps others will feel the same hence this email. I also don't judge others that are good with such webSDR QSOs since each has his own goals and objectives.
>>
>> Here is some background. I have been working VU2GSM frequently and with ease on 40m in the morning and evening. He would respond almost immediately to my calls which seemed odd. More typical is Rakash VU2RAK who has a great signal but usually can't copy me, though we have QSOd a few times when conditions are exceptional.
>> While at a local ham lunch, I mentioned this, and Don VE6JY said that Kanti is often logged into his webSDR. The following week I copied VU2GSM on 80m in the evening with very light copy with my 2el Yagi and 1000' beverage (diversity rx with K3). He answered immediately and we had a QSO. I was suspicious. I emailed Don VE6JY and he confirmed that at that time Kanti was indeed logged into his SDR.
>> I deleted the QSO from my log.
>> This then precipitated the e-mail correspondence which I share on the attached links.
>>
>> There is little doubt this is going on all the time, and we will never know. We can't undo the technology that makes webSDR possible.
>> There are those who who feel that this destroys the ?integrity? of the DXCC. However, not everyone cares about DXCC.
>> Kanti is not a villan. He is doing nothing wrong. He is not ?cheating?. In his email correspondence he is very open and transparent and makes it clear he doesn't chase DXCC, and could care less about it. Why should he?
>> From Kanti's perspective, using a webSDR enhances his enjoyment of the hobby living in RFI polluted Bangalore. For others, a "half-VU" QSO is better than none and they are happy.
>>
>> Like others, I spend a great deal of effort optimizing both rx and tx and someday when I do make the QSO with VU on 80 and hopefully 160, it will be a true two-way contact. The ?buzz? for me is not getting the country counter in the log, its about knowing that my station made the contact via radio?.both ways?all the way.
>>
>> The purpose of this email is simply to inform those who have worked Kanti recently that it is possible/likely that your TX signal was not actually heard in VU.
>>
>> 73, de Steve ve6wz
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:30:52 -0500
> From: "StellarCAT" <rxdesign at ssvecnet.com>
> To: <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <14C2970AA59F4085813F2C2C7F7A950C at RXDesignDell>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> Jeff wrote:
> ?There is no way to supervise this behavior globally. .....................- even though ARRL DXCC regulations make the use of an east-coast USA remote receiver point perfectly acceptable. .......................I really can't complaint because it's allowed explicitly by the rules and it's within their set of choices. ?
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
> www.ac0c.com This is the second post I?ve seen that states this ... did I miss something in the rules for DXCC? It seems like it does NOT allow for a remote receiver! It ONLY allows for a remote STATION, see rule 9b. It says, I thought, that BOTH RX and TX antennas must be within 500M of each other ... so one that chooses to receive on the right coast when they?re on the left (or vice versa) ISN?T complying with the rules. I recently heard a station that is often high on the CL leaderboard ? calling the 6O group in the middle of the day on 40 meters when it was being spotted only by W6?s. This guy is on the EAST coast (LP) ... weird propagation? personally I would not count such a contact ? and would like to see the agreed to if not required use of something like a /s in the call for SDR RX. This would only apply to those that are using remote RX? which would then allow stations to decide on what to do with it. But again unless I misread it, and if so my apologies, it doesn
> ?t allow for remote RX for DXCC! Gary K9RX
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:41:05 +0800
> From: Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188 at ac0c.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <0f938ef7-cfab-e08f-1da7-ab1ae0d4c2e5 at ac0c.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Hi gary,
>
> I thought that was the rule.? But I've not dug into it because I don't
> use the remotes.? So just now I looked and you are 100% right.? Here's
> what the ARRL web page says from Section 1...
>
> *9.? Station Location and Boundary:*
>
> *a)*All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be
> located within the same DXCC entity.
> *b)*All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a
> specific contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle.
> *c)*QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are
> allowed to be used for DXCC credit.
>
> Thanks for setting me straight!
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
> www.ac0c.com
>
>> On 16-Jan-18 10:30 PM, StellarCAT wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>> ?There is no way to supervise this behavior globally. .....................- even though ARRL DXCC regulations make the use of an east-coast USA remote receiver point perfectly acceptable. .......................I really can't complaint because it's allowed explicitly by the rules and it's within their set of choices. ?
>> 73/jeff/ac0c
>> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>> www.ac0c.com This is the second post I?ve seen that states this ... did I miss something in the rules for DXCC? It seems like it does NOT allow for a remote receiver! It ONLY allows for a remote STATION, see rule 9b. It says, I thought, that BOTH RX and TX antennas must be within 500M of each other ... so one that chooses to receive on the right coast when they?re on the left (or vice versa) ISN?T complying with the rules. I recently heard a station that is often high on the CL leaderboard ? calling the 6O group in the middle of the day on 40 meters when it was being spotted only by W6?s. This guy is on the EAST coast (LP) ... weird propagation? personally I would not count such a contact ? and would like to see the agreed to if not required use of something like a /s in the call for SDR RX. This would only apply to those that are using remote RX? which would then allow stations to decide on what to do with it. But again unless I misread it, and if so my apologies, it doe
> sn?t allow for remote RX for DXCC! Gary K9RX
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:17:55 +0000
> From: Nick Hall-Patch <nhp at ieee.org>
> To: terry burge <ki7m at comcast.net>,topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log
> Message-ID: <9ae492c76093d86a9e50a12f54b38936 at mtlp000085>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Did the Europeans hear your barefoot transmission, but you were not
> able to hear their barefoot transmission Terry? Or were you both
> using webSDRs in each others' localities?
>
> (and was this on 160m?)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Nick
> VE7DXR
>
> At 06:44 2018-01-16, terry burge wrote:
>> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went
>> on line and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ
>> and YT1AA. Also heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish
>> in the barrel. At least when you plug into the right SDR over there.
>> They are not going in my log but I did find out it is easy to do.
>> And I believe it would get so easy the fascination with working the
>> world would be gone for me. It works but the most of what I got out
>> of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' and how poor my
>> reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!
>>
>>
>> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those
>> webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens,
>> maybe hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham
>> Radio geeks think.
>>
>>
>> Terry
>>
>> KI7M
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
> Nick Hall-Patch
> Victoria, BC
> Canada
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:58:29 -0700
> From: "aa0rs" <aa0rs at freng.com>
> To: <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: Sunrise and Signals
> Message-ID: <003701d38ee2$dea73710$9bf5a530$@freng.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Colorado: This morning I started calling CQ around 0550 local (12:50Z) time
> and managed to work a few JA stations, HL5IVL was also around, all signals
> were 4x5, rapid QSB was again prevalent.
>
> I opened up the DXMaps website to see what others were hearing and saw that
> JA1LZR had logged my signals over a period of nearly an hour as follows:
>
> 3dB @ 1320 Z
>
> 6dB @ 1332
>
> 5dB @ 1346
>
> 16dB @ 1359
>
> 17dB @ 0712
>
> The very rapid signal rise at his end shows there was significant signal
> enhancement which was not reciprocated at my end, what few stations were
> audible were well down in the noise. Unfortunately I did not see any further
> spots despite continuing to call CQ for another 30 minutes into broad
> daylight, I would have liked to have seen how quickly signals decreased, the
> signal path was shown as just over 9km.
>
> Interestingly, KH6LC had also provided spots over the same period which
> showed a signal variation of 6,8,7,6dB on a path length of 5km , he is just
> South of West from here, JA is NW. Several spots from W6/W7 stations showed
> a decrease of 1 to 3 dB over the same period.
>
>
>
> 73 to all.
>
> Dave AA0RS
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:04:21 -0500
> From: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa at gmail.com>
> To: topBand List <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: E31A on Topband
> Message-ID:
> <CAJ_qRvZoTLfr4-Ep+inkmC0N8D+zOFAx5NKCyccP729fPJFkpg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> E31A was up and down for a while last night, sometimes OK copy for me and
> sometimes not.
>
> But in the hour before his sunrise he really peaked up A LOT. My logger
> tells me his sunrise at at 3:53Z and my QSO was about 40 minutes before
> that.
>
> Tim N3QE
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:12:47 -0500 (EST)
> From: k8gg at voyager.net
> To: "Tim Shoppa" <tshoppa at gmail.com>
> Cc: "topBand List" <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: E31A on Topband
> Message-ID:
> <10539.174.230.142.253.1516119167.squirrel at webmail.core.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> E31A was workable until about 0405Z, then faded quickly in Michigan.
>
> Heard Tim's QSO and many other US 1's and 2's and some 3's, and some
> others in MS, TX, IN, OH, IL, MI. Also some I's, an SP5, an RN3, OH7,
> etc. (Only the E31A end, too much Aurora absorption to copy Europe from
> Michigan)
>
> GL all, George, K8GG
>
>
>
>> E31A was up and down for a while last night, sometimes OK copy for me and
>> sometimes not.
>>
>> But in the hour before his sunrise he really peaked up A LOT. My logger
>> tells me his sunrise at at 3:53Z and my QSO was about 40 minutes before
>> that.
>>
>> Tim N3QE
>> _________________
>> 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 181, Issue 21
> ****************************************
More information about the Topband
mailing list