Tom: thank you for placing all of this in the correct context.....it's a
friggin' hobby, not something to start gnashing the teeth over or initiate some
hand wringing due to a) misinterpretation of "rules," b) purposefully
bending/breaking the rules or c) using some combination of a and b to "win"
some certificate!
I got caught up in all of that "paper/certificate chasing" until about two
years ago....the onset of a debilitating disease caused me to stop all if that
nonsense. Downsizing the shack and returning to a more "basic approach - QRP
and QRPp operating" as far as this hobby is concerned is my new 'mantra" and
CONOPS - lots more rag chewing, finding "chat type" nets, exploring the bands
to see how propagation is "doing," tweaking the antenna system or trying new
antennas as the disease allows me, etc.
If some want to bend, break or reconstruct the "rules," have at it....I'm
rediscovering the "fun" in amateur radio to much fire up one synapses over that
sort of piddly crap....hihi
71.5, 72 Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV
> People are putting far too much emotion in this. It is a technical issue.
> The technology to do this at one site is not all that difficult.
>
> Get a K3 and a reasonable amplifier, and you have minimal composite noise on
> site. Phase-null the TX antenna out of the RX antenna ahead of any RX
> amplification, and you can get down to noise floor at 1500 watts with
> reasonable spacing.
>
> Even if the transmitter is nulled, the contact advantage is minimal in a 160
> contest. The reason is any good station will run the band nearly dry of
> contacts. You pick up far more contacts with the operator going slow at slow
> times to get slow stations than someone would ever get by duplex. The
> primary advantage to duplex is in multi-op, where an operator can be
> dedicated to moving up and down the band picking people off. Successful
> multi-ops already have space to duplex, at least to some reasonable extent.
>
> The real advantage to remote or split site is a better noise or antenna
> environment. What we should be debating are the real facts and effects, not
> what we want to be the facts.
>
> As for DXCC, since sometime in the 1990's (as I recall), we could legally
> move anywhere or operate anywhere and collect DXCC. Prior to that, it was
> not unheard of for people to call people on the phone to "help" them get a
> new country. 160 meters for many years had a phone-a-friend list. I recall
> that going on in various forms since the 1970's, at least. Suddenly, it is a
> major problem that will ruin radio as we know it!
>
> The most tragic thing I recall in Ham radio was hearing W8UDN, Ed, (a
> person I rarely spoke to) actually crying on the radio when he was losing
> his 160 station. Listening to Ed's open distress and sadness at no longer
> being able to enjoy something he loved for most of his life turned a page
> for me.
>
> If letting someone who loves radio operate a radio, however he can manage to
> do it, without unfairly taking away from other's ability to enjoy what they
> want, I'm all for it.
>
> I think anyone who bases their success or value in life by how they rank in
> something as silly as a national DXCC list, or worrying about someone making
> 50 more contacts in a contest, deserves all the angst and distress worrying
> about others creates for them.
>
> I hope the people who write rules eventually let people like VO1HP enjoy
> radio, instead of false concerns. Radio is all the better when we help each
> other, instead of holding someone like Ed back.
>
>
> 73 Tom
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|