Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, <b)" rule 
> would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid 
> square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC
> Entity.
I think 500 meters is more than enough of a "circle" to contain both
transmit and receive antennas.  If one is making the effort to create
a remote site, it can certainly contain both transmit and receive
antennas.  The idea of placing the transmitter *for an amateur station*
on a salt marsh on the coast and the receive antennas 10 miles distant
and well away from man made noises (to the extent possible) is ludicrous
- it reminds me of the commercial maritime stations of old.

Frankly, the DXCC rules should be changed to limit all operators to
*ONE* location a month unless the operator is physically present at
the station (as defined by the 500 meter circle) to prevent the near
simultaneous use of multiple remote transmitters/receivers in physically
large DXCC entities to "feed" a single DXCC/Challenge/Single Band DXCC
from propagation advantaged locations.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-21 12:37 PM, Lloyd - N9LB wrote:
> I'd like to see the ARRL change part <b) to address the needs of the Amateur
> Radio Community in light of the recent radical increase in electrical noise
> from consumer switching power supplies, variable speed motors, LED lighting,
> solar panels with "optimizers", and all of the other "energy efficient"
> wideband RF garbage generators.
> 
> I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, <b)" rule would be
> to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid square" or "within
> 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC Entity.
> 
> I also think that building and maintaining a shared Community Low Noise RX
> Receiver Site would make a great DX Club project and service.
> 
> Let's get this rule updated.   How do we get started?
> 
> 73
> 
> Lloyd - N9LB
>