[UK-CONTEST] SSB Field Day '05]

[Jim Balls]

Well as that rule is in the General Rules (section 4 (e) and is not 
superseded in the contest specific rules then the use of the private 
cluster is not allowed in any section of the SSB Field Day.
So was the station was operating out side of the rules this year even 
though you changed sections?
If so how many other stations were using a similar system?

Jim.



Mark Marsden wrote:

>Hi Jim Nick & Dave
>
>The "private cluster" clause was incorporated in 2004 after we used a
>remote co-operating spotting station in 2003. 
>That was allowed by the wording of the rules of the day, which allowed
>"equipment and antennas for packet radio access above 30MHz". So there
>really was nothing questionable at the time about that. 
>
>If the rules are to be made clearer then a more general statement to
>simplify the restricted section is possible e.g., to disallow any form
>of remote assistance (inc DxCluster), WiFi, WiMax, GPRS networking now
>allows wide-area networking that can easily network a Field Day Station.
>Maybe it's knowledge of the on-site log that should be ring-fenced?
>
>73 Mark G4AXX 
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>Hi Jim
>
>How are you keeping? Is Andy M0CHK still with you at the Wisbech club?
>Sorry to hear about your appendicitus, glad you're on the mend. 
>
>In 2003 the rules were different and the Restricted Section allowed, for
>the first time, the DxCluster. There was nothing stopping a remote
>co-operating spotting station feeding into the DxCluster feed, (with no
>limit on its antennas either!).
>
>Be that as it may, the rules have now changed and I think the future of
>the Restricted Section is "back to basics" with very simple stations. 
>
>73 Mark G4AXX 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Balls
>Sent: 15 September 2005 12:51
>To: Uk-Contest at Contesting.Com
>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] SSB Field Day '05
>
>Not sure Nick, would you class a second station with a receiver looking
>for multipliers by checking the live logbook on a remote PC then sending
>the information to the actual operating station as a private cluster, if
>so then M0CAM were outside the rules even in the open section as Rule
>4(e) is for all sections in all RSGB contests.
>
>I still feel the rules are very vague and some clarification should be
>made so we are all singing from the same hymn book, at the moment its
>very flaky!
>
>Jim
>
>Nick Lewis wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>Isn't it covered by Rule 4(e) in the General Rules, rather than the SSB
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>FD specific rules:
>>"(e) Simultaneous transmissions on more than one frequency below 30MHz 
>>are not permitted, but in multi-operator / assisted events use of 
>>VHF/UHF to access the DX cluster is permitted. Access must be to the 
>>public cluster network, private clusters are not permitted."
>>I've no idea when the "private cluster" bit was incorporated.
>>
>>73s
>>Nick
>>MW0JGE
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:uk-contest- 
>>>bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Balls
>>>Sent: 15 September 2005 09:21
>>>To: Uk-Contest at Contesting.Com
>>>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] SSB Field Day '05
>>>
>>>Hi Dave,
>>>
>>>Thanks for the reply, I don't see any major changes this year, maybe 
>>>they are due for 2006?
>>>
>>>As I read them on the Contest Website, the rules are very vague,  
>>>maybe under the restricted section it should be made more clear that 
>>>only 1 station and 1 antenna may be set up on site within something 
>>>like a 1/4 mile radius, I know with the ease of current communications
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>it could still be abused by using a remote listening station , maybe 
>>>even a few permanent addresses linking to the contest station via RF 
>>>but at least it takes away the ability to have a "local" search 
>>>station linked by lan and operated by the contest team.
>>>
>>>I can now see how they always managed to get so many more mulitpliers 
>>>over us!
>>>
>>>Could this be mentioned at the HF Convention, as I guess thats where 
>>>the rules are decided for the contests?
>>>
>>>Dave Lawley wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Hi Jim
>>>>
>>>>I believe that's what they mean by rule changes for this year. The 
>>>>ability to use cluster has been clarified, ruling out what they did 
>>>>in previous years which was, at the least, questionable.
>>>>
>>>>73, Dave G4BUO
>>>>RSGB HF Contests Committee
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>This email has been verified as Virus free Virus Protection and more 
>>>>available at http://www.plus.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>UK-Contest mailing list
>>>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>--
>>This email has been verified as Virus free Virus Protection and more 
>>available at http://www.plus.net
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>UK-Contest mailing list
>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>_______________________________________________
>UK-Contest mailing list
>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>--
>This email has been verified as Virus free
>Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
>
>
>  
>