During the recent ARRL DX contests, I experimented with
operating my Galt station from Cupertino. I "cheated"
(per Tom's discussion quoted below) and listened on the
Cupertino receiver part of the time. Since Galt and Cupertino
are less than 100 miles apart, it would take truly spotlight
propagation for there to be signals I could hear in Cupertino
that were not audible in Galt. But I did discover a wonderful
unfair advantage this gave me. I could listen on my transmit
frequency while transmitting, because the ground wave propagation
from Cupertino to Galt on 20 meters is weak. Yes, I could hear
myself in there, but I was not deaf from my own signal as would
normally be the case. Although I had to disqualify myself from
the DX contest because of this, I can see where this technique
might come in handy for working DXpeditions. It would also be
useful if I needed to detect someone QRM'ing me, not that I
run into that very often.
Someone asked why I don't just drive up to Galt and operate
the contest from there. Usually I do, but I only had a few
spare hours that weekend and didn't have an extra 4 hours for
the round trip drive. Also, in Cupertino, I have only 100W to a
2 element SteppIR at 55 ft, and no antennas for 40/80/160.
Rick N6RK
> "The only requirement is that the station from which the contacts are
> made be contained within the 500-meter limit. There is NO requirement
> that the operator (or more appropriately, the transmitter control point)
> be within the 500-meter limit. Remote operation on that basis is fine.
> The station is operating under remote control according to FCC rules and
> that's completely legitimate.
>
> What is NOT allowed is the use of transmitting or receiving equipment
> separated by more than the 500-meter limit, regardless of the location
> of the control point for the transmitter.
>
> So - if the entire station is contained within the 500-meter limit, it
> can be operated under local control (operator on-site) or by remote
> control (operator outside the 500-meter limit and connected by any means
> that allows control of the transmitter)."
>
>
> 73,
> Tom Hogerty, KC1J
> Contest Manager
> ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio
> 860-594-0232
> thogerty@arrl.org
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Eric Hilding [mailto:dx35@hilding.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:01 PM
> To: Contest
> Cc: k6aw@cqww.com; k3est@cq-amateur-radio.com;
> k4jrb@cq-amateur-radio.com; cwnaqpmgr@ncjweb.com; ssbnaqpmgr@ncjweb.com;
> rttynaqpmgr@ncjweb.com; Tyree, Larry; k4ma@nc.rr.com; w0yk@msn.com;
> cq-contest@contesting.com; nccc@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: RULES CLARIFICATION FOR UNIQUE REMOTE CONTESTING OPERATIONS
>
>
> Dear Contest Sponsors & Managers:
>
> I would greatly appreciate an "Offical Ruling" in this specific matter
> (below), and permission to publish the Decision(s) to the CQ-Contest &
> NCCC Reflectors.
>
> Part of the objective of advocating more Remote and SO2R REMOTE
> Contesting is to yield more QSOs for everyone participating in the
> events. And, to enable more "Little Pistol Contest Stations" to put out
> more competitive signals. As we go into a new Sunspot Cycle, the QRP
> ops *could* set up inexpensive remote stations with battery or cheap
> solar power and get their antennas somewhere decent. The issue of the
> TS-480 Control Head needs resolving with concrete clarity now.
>
> Please reply ONLY to: p5@k6vva.com (in order to bypass my heavy
> filtering).
>
> Tnx very much & 73...
>
> Rick, K6VVA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eric Hilding <mailto:dx35@hilding.com>
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Cc: nccc@contesting.com ; w4tv@subich.com
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 6:28 PM
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING
>
> Joe, W4TV, posted a very interesting quite salient "little legal"
> question:
>
>> When one starts to split the transceiver (one part at the
>> remote site another part at the control point) as is being
>> proposed with the TS-480 control heads how does that impact
>> the rules that all transmitters, receivers and antennas must
>> be located within the 500 foot circle?
>
> Some remote control software options I've evaluated reside on the HOST
> (remote station QTH), and some on the CLIENT (operator point QTH) end.
>
> I would say the Control Head is similar to a piece of remote control
> software (except that it has buttons and knobs on it :-) The main (rig
> body) transmitter/receiver unit itself would be still within the overall
> "remote" station boundaries which I think is a 500 meter vs. 500 foot
> circle, and can actually be operated remotely *without* the Control Head
> in the food chain at all (and is not essential to
> "transmitting/receiving" if one chooses to use software control). In
> fact, the return audio from the remote site will come via the computer
> and NOT the Control Head if the latter is used on the CLIENT end.
>
> However, "in an abundance of caution" I personally want to get a firm,
> iron-clad answer to this from the Contest Sponsors.
>
> Tnx for posting, Joe.
>
> 73...
>
> Rick, K6VVA
>
> P.S. I can hardly wait to hear what Paul, VO1HE, will have to say about
> this (as you know, Paul, I have discovered via our recent emails, that
> you do have a sense of "humour" :-)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCCC mailing list (http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/nccc)
> Post to: nccc@contesting.com
> Manage your subscription at:
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/options/nccc
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|