[UK-CONTEST] New CQ WW Category

[Callum m0mcx]

>>> which shouldn't upset traditional entrants.

Wrong :)

Callum McCormick
http://www.m0mcx.co.uk/ 
t: 07976 631881
65 Glendon Way, B93 8SY


-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Sent: 13 June 2009 03:03
To: UK Contest reflector
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] New CQ WW Category

Roger

Your system just transfers you as the operator from a practical  radio 
location to somewhere you'd prefer to live, never mind the connecting 
technology, which doesn't provide any additional benefit.   No changes 
to the rules for the existing sections have been indicated, so you 
should be fireproof!

Actually, having read again  more carefully the new rules for the Xtreme 
section, it doesn't look too likely to attract the sort of entrant some 
of us may have been thinking of, largely because the winner will be 
decided at the whim of the CQ adjudicators, who generally speaking know 
what they're about.  The need to pre-register and provide a full 
description of the technologies to be used should dissuade the more 
unscrupulous elements.  Anyway, the scoring system puts the Xtreme 
section squarely outside the main event (at least for 2009!), so all in 
all they seem to have made an interesting innovation, which shouldn't 
upset traditional entrants.

On the subject of innovation, I remember working KH6IJ's entirely 
automated and unattended 14MHz station in 1959, which would have 
involved a pretty keen set-up given the available technologies.  Even a 
log was kept, because I have the card.  Of course, he just kept to a 
single channel and responded to calls - just think what could be done 
today using Skimmer!

73, Peter G3LET

Roger Parsons wrote:

>I have also been biting my tongue, and have to agree with Peter on the
reasons for the new category. 
>
>It is technically possible to set up multiple remote stations, and it can
only be a matter of time before some wealthy and unscrupulous group or
individual sets them up on both coasts of Canada, the US or Russia. Perhaps
it has already happened. It would only be an extension of multi-multis using
different stations for each band. Both of these would give a huge advantage
- and both are obviously cheating.
>
>I do not however see any correlation between the above and condemning all
remote operation. My remote station is 14km from home and I control it over
a 900MHz link - that being an amateur band in Canada. I hope that most
people would accept that as a legitimate amateur radio operation for
contesting or DXing?
>
>My link uses TCP/IP protocol and there is no technical reason why the
station could not be controlled over a 14km wire, somebody else's radio, or
even the evil internet. How does that fundamentally change things?
>
>Personally I have no problem with remote stations operated from within the
same country provided that all transmitters and receivers are at a single
location, and provided that the appropriate locator is used. I do have a
problem with multiple remote stations or with multiple receiving sites. I
also do not like the idea of a station being controlled from a different
country, although in this case my logic* defeats me...
>
>73 Roger
>VE3ZI/G3RBP
>
>*I was once unfortunately marginally involved with Classical Logic. As I
imperfectly understand it, it involves normal logic modified by what the
ancient Gods would have done...
>
>* * * * * 
>
>Peter wrote:
>
>"I've been biting my tongue on this one  although of course, as yet another
OF, my sympathies reside firmly with Paul and Brian.  But really, CQ have
been stuck between a rock and a hard place for some time now.  There have
been increasing complaints about "cheats" in recent years, involving dubious
use of alternative technologies.  So what did they do?  Set  up a new "no
holds barred" section for them.  Being a commercial organisation they need
to be suitably PC and so rather than calling it the Cheats section, they
just invented a different name for it.
>
>As long as "we" all recognise it for what it is, there must be benefits in
that these guys now have a section all to themselves and "we" no longer have
to compete with them on a spurious level.  It would be rather nice though if
Xtreme entrants were required to provide a distinguishing element in their
exchange.  Then "we" could decide whether or not we actually wanted to work
them . . .  How about it, Roger?
>
>73
>Peter G3LET"
>
>
>
>      
>_______________________________________________
>UK-Contest mailing list
>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
>Version: 8.5.364 / Virus Database: 270.12.65/2171 - Release Date: 06/12/09
05:55:00
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
UK-Contest mailing list
UK-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest