And what is point, relative to the Stew Perry rules ?
Are you inferring that any technology that was available in 1974, should
be allowed ?
I'll remind you that 2 meter, voice DX spotting nets were popular in
every metropolitan area of the USA in 1974. The "packet" DX spotting
that we have today was simply a natural evolution.
Let's face it, OT's, we enjoy thinking about the nostalgia of "a boy and
his radio", but, with the exception of W7DRA and KU8H, very few of us
want to use only 1950's technology, and experience the Loran QRN and
power limits in the 2013 Stew Perry.
73,
Steve, N2IC
On 12/28/2013 01:46 PM, Jeff Woods wrote:
Take a look at radiomarine.org to see how remote receivers were implemented
commercially more than 40 years ago. It's easier now, but remote receiving
isn't a new thing.
For that matter, neither are "Band Scopes," a.k.a. Spectrum Analyzers. My
ancient HP-141T, ca 1974, even has a tracking generator that shows the marker frequency
on a friendly nixie tube display.
-Jeff, W0ODS
________________________________
From: Greg - ZL3IX<zl3ix@inet.net.nz>
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent:
Subject: Re: Topband: [CQ-Contest] Stew Perry Streaming Audio
Hi Steve,
I'm afraid that if remote receivers were not allowed, I would not be
taking part. That is the only way that I can do ham radio nowadays, due
to planning restrictions. I can assure you that, although the
technologies are different from those used in the old days, getting a
remote station to work properly, requires just as much design skill and
ingenuity as the old timers used to set up their stations.
73, Greg, ZL3IX
On 2013-12-29 08:39 a.m., Steve London wrote:
Rule 6 of the Stew Perry is a joke in so many ways.
"enjoy the contest the way we did back when Stew Perry was around"
contradicted by:
"We do realize band scopes can show that someone is on 1829.3 - but
since they don't tell you who is actually there, that is okay."
"Therefore, remote receivers are okay as long as they are not more
than 100 kM from your transmitter site."
How many remote receivers and band scopes did W1BB use ?
73,
Steve, N2IC
On 12/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stan Stockton wrote:
Hans,
First - I know there was no il-intent. Others have done it without
public complaints.
However, ask yourself how fair it would be for one of the competitors
in WRTC to be allowed to announce to the world that their callsign
(not operators calls) would be streaming live audio during the IARU
next year. Is there a difference? Would it be a stretch to see an
advantage over the others ? How is that different?
Rules say "Boy and his radio" (!) and also "any communication with
humans other than exchanges that take place over the air can be
considered assistance". Example of exception for asking wife for
sandwich is given.
Assuming a sidetone of some sort is audible, would it be any
different if the operator were allowed to call people on the phone
(one way communication) to tell them he hears them and what report he
is sending? I can't see any difference other than a different,
non-radio means of communicating.
I think we have all gotten to the point of mixing up in our own heads
what is radio and what is not. The Internet is a great thing and can
be used in conjunction with ham radio to add enjoyment. However,
listening to audio via Internet or telephone is not radio.
Recording the entire contest with side tone and posting it for
everyone to listen to after the contest is over is a fine idea.
With no malice but a very strong opinion...
73...Stan, K5GO
Sent from Stan's IPhone
On Dec 28, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "Radio K0HB"<kzerohb@gmail.com> wrote:
What a shame that you've abandoned the idea. I'm not 160-equipped
in my RV but it would have been fun to listen in on the action, and
it's a stretch to see this as an advantage over other competitors.
73, de Hans, K0HB/K7
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eric NO3M<no3m@no3m.net> wrote:
Since there seems to be too much concern over this, though no ill
intent
was intended, audio will not be broadcast.
GL / 73 Eric NO3M
On 12/28/2013 06:23 AM, Stan Stockton wrote:
Eric,
You made it clear what you were doing, and I am quite sure Clive
understood. I think the logic behind his question has to do with
whether it is within the spirit of the contest - especially this
one. Let's say, as a result of the announcement or advertisement ,
15 DX stations and 25 USA stations who are not even going to send
in their log called you, just for fun and the novelty of it, so
they could listen to their own signal at your end via Internet.
What if some have enough QRM or QRN that they could only copy
whether you came back to them by listening via internet? Fair to
your competitors?
It is cool, but I've always had a problem with this, regardless of
what contest.
73...Stan, K5GO
Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_________________
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
|