"Paul O'Kane" said
>> This may be a reactionary viewpoint but it seems to me
>> that when any part of the signal path, between the two,
>> (or more) individuals concerned, is anything other than
>> RF, something is lost - at least in amateur radio terms.
David Kopacz replied
> Your statement is not only reactionary, but wholly incorrect.
I'd say it is self-evidently correct. Which part do
you not understand or not accept?
> Remote operation is simply extending the microphone
> cable (AF signals) and control signals (typically
> low level DC control signals) and extending them a
> longer distance than normal.
You know, and I know, this is stretching the truth,
just as much as I am when I claim to have been
hunting in Africa.
Indeed - there has to be AF and control signals of
some sort at each end of any RF link. I'd have
thought that 500 metres was more than enough for
anyone. You are entitled to experiment with the
internet and remote control as much as you choose,
just don't pretend it's still amateur radio.
> The "radio" communications between two or more
> individuals is still accomplished using RF signals
> between the antennas of each station.
You can't have it both ways. The radio communications
between the stations is accomplished using RF signals.
The additional communications from the station(s) to
at least one of the operators is accomplished using
the internet - a modern alternative to phone patch.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|