Ladies and Gentlement of CQ-Contest:
Excuse my anger, and I'm not speaking for the WWYC (which I went into
the HoF 2 yrs ago):
I guess the relatively young constesters who came up with this (remote
ops); EI5DI, aren't real operators. I guess that's quite OK with us. Ham
radio is boring, it now sucks. I remember in 1994 as a bright eyed kid
taking my license exam and rising through the ranks and applying
technology to my hobby to keep me interested. But.. apparently doing
that makes me less of a "man" in this "hobby":
Not "man(woman) enough:"
-Compete
-Build a station
-- Overcome said obstacles of building a remote station in a BIG A** CITY
-Keep it interesting in the day and age of other things that keep people
interested.
I applaud the CQWW committee for the Extreme category. It *had* my mind
racing of how things can be done given the TOOLS available to us now.
Reading your posts makes me think that it's otherwise, that we are
always just going to be second class operators. Fine.
You know what? Keep your "no lids and space cadets" thing going. Soon,
the ham bands will die out and you will not have anything (or anyone)
left to have "pure RF conversations" on. And I, as a formerly fervent
ham radio operator, will cheer the day it happens.
73 and GL,
WT2P
"PROUD REMOTE OPERATOR"
On 4/15/13 12:23 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
The issue about some QSO's is operating a transmitter in one place and the
receiver at another site far removed, even off-continent. This is usually
done to place a RX and its antennas in a place with less noise or better
propagation to the DX. Sponsor's rules determine if this is allowed for an
award or contest class.
Quite separate is a station with all transmitters, receivers, and antennas
all on the same property. To use a computer to operate that station via
internet from anywhere, submitting logs as from the station property, is no
break of any rules I know of. A well functioning remote station is a
difficult thing to get working correctly and competitively.
The issue is really transmitters and receivers on the same site, with
submissions identified as from the same site. Or not.
73, Guy
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Tibi YO9GZU <yo9gzu@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark and Paul,
I am really curious on your opinion about the following situation: a
friend of mine operates his station in various contests, remotely from the
living room next door to his shack or from outside the house, under the
umbrella in his backyard. He is physically on site, but by commodity he's
using Internet to connect to his station. That means he doesn't make true
QSOs by RF, wright?
Let's assume that, instead wireless Internet, he is using a headset with
very long wire and a laptop connected through LAN to the computer inside
the shack? Now, is he doing true RF QSOs?
73 Tibi YO9GZU
On Apr 15, 2013, at 15:02, "M. WIJK" <pa5mw@home.nl> wrote:
Hi Gerry,
I have great respect for any serious remote station setup.
In fact, I do own one together with a friend.
However, during a contest I expect the operator to be physically on site.
Take the boat,plane,car etc. and put his but in the seat and operate.
Like any other station in a contest.
That's the extra mile or effort.
And although it might look like 'paper spent here', where I prefer
discussing other radio/contest related topics, it is time that people
understand this vision is not voiced by one ham only.
Like others here, I do respect people have different opinions.
73 Mark, PA5MW
Op 04/15/13, Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org> schreef:
Mark,
What the heck does remote operation have to do with "showing putting
effort in the True Game"?
Ask any of the stations who have put in a REAL contest operation using
a remote station, and they will tell you, it takes tremendous effort.
73, Gerry W1VE
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:24 AM, M. WIJK <pa5mw@home.nl> wrote:
Paul ,
I could not have put this any better.
Having followed your many messages on this subject, I believe (and
hope) that most readers must have understood your message by now.
I dislike doing a 'me too' reaction, but I very much care for the
"Radio Amateur True QSO by RF"
IF there's ever gonna be a new group promoting true HAM Radio
vs/against the current X-Box/Wii/mouse-generation with the spirit of
"I-want-it-all-at-no-cost-and-no-effort-and-I-want-it-today", put me up for
it.
I enjoy contesting either at home (7x6mtrs city backyard) or at our
PI4TUE clubstation, where in both cases there are motivated but much
different goal settings.
It's not about the abuse of rules, that will always be with us.
It's about the lack of showing putting effort in the True Game.
73 Mark, PA5MW
Op 04/15/13, Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> schreef:
On 12/04/2013 19:46, w5ov@w5ov.com wrote:
First thing, email on a contest-related reflector is
not a "ham radio activity".
Could this be a denial of reality? Email to cq-contest
is indeed ham radio activity, as is reading QST, going
to Dayton, or watching a DXpedition DVD.
There is no amateur RF involved at all.
RF is a prerequisite for ham radio QSOs, but not for
ham radio activity.
It is clear that W5OV, in common with other remote
control enthusiasts, considers that ham radio QSOs
require nothing more than inter-station communication.
As such, any amateur RF, anywhere in the signal path,
confers the status of an amateur radio QSO on the
activity.
There's just one minor flaw with that point of view.
Stations don't communicate, we (people) do. Whether
it's by the internet, by telephone, by radio, by mail
or by however means available, we communicate - using
the appropriate tools to facilitate the communications.
Regardless of whether W5OV concedes this point, let's
press on.
We all agree that when there is no RF involved, there
is no amateur-radio QSO. A CQ100 QSO is not a ham
radio QSO, though it does represent ham radio activity.
On the other hand, the claim that any amateur RF,
anywhere in the signal path between two people
concerned, qualifies the activity as a ham radio
QSO is clearly wishful thinking.
Often, none of this matters. In competition, however,
how things are done matters. Rules are introduced to
regulate activities and keep the competitors honest.
And W5OV will immediately say that there are no rules
regulating remote control in contesting. And he is
right, it is unregulated. As things stand, in most
contests, we can use any communications system or
utility we choose so long as there as some RF, any
RF, anywhere.
You say (paraphrasing) that the Internet is replacing or displacing
amateur-band RF in contest QSOS. Please explain how this is so?
W5OV has misquoted me. Here is what I actually said.
"Whatever relevance the internet has to contesting
in general, in remote contest operation it serves
only to replace or displace amateur-band RF
between contesters."
I choose my words carefully when posting to this
mailing list. No further explanation is necessary.
There is no alteration or displacement of the RF path in remote
contesting
whatsoever and I pointed that out earlier.
That's correct, however it's not the full story.
With remote operation, no QSO is possible without
first connecting, and staying connected, to the
internet. It can not be an amateur-radio QSO, as
otherwise there would be no need to connect to the
internet. The difference is the internet.
Neither is it an internet QSO, because otherwise
there would be no need for amateur RF. The
difference is amateur radio.
However you look at it, it is undeniable there is a
difference between an internet-dependent QSO and
an amateur-radio QSO. The difference is the internet.
W5OV may say it doesn't matter, which I counter by
saying it does matter because, without full dependence
on a public communications utility, no QSOs can take
place. On the internet, everyone has the world at
their fingertips.
If it's not an amateur radio QSO and it's not an
internet QSO, then what is it? The answer directly
describes the true nature of the activity - it's an
amateur hybrid-communications QSO.
Let's say I'm operating at my station in Dallas and you and I have a
QSO.
The RF path begins at the back of my radio, goes to my antenna,
through
the ionosphere to Ireland and you receive it. That is the complete
amateur band RF path.
Can't argue with that.
For argument sake, let's pretend that I make my Dallas station a
remotely
controlled station. Also pretend that I'm sitting in a hotel room in
San
Francisco remotely controlling my station in Dallas.
What happens in this case?
The RF path begins at the back of my radio (in Dallas), goes to my
antenna(in Dallas), through the ionosphere to Ireland and you
receive it.
That is precisely the same RF path. There is no RF difference
whatsoever.
Can't argue with that.
However, once again, it's not the full story. W5OV
is in San Francisco and there's no RF between him
and his station in Dallas. The internet has replaced
RF along this path. W5OV will say this is irrelevant,
and I will agree with him until he claims he has had
an amateur-radio QSO with me when, in fact, it has
been an amateur hybrid-communications QSO. As for
me, the unsuspecting victim, I have had the modern
equivalent of a phone-patch QSO.
In competition, how things are done matters.
Please tell me how I am wrong.
I've done it, repeatedly!
This last paragraph is the only possible logical explanation of why
you
continue to insist that the Internet changes the RF path when it
does not.
Yet again, W5OV has misquoted me. It is probably
due to carelessness. However, it becomes tedious
for all of us when I am forced to continually repeat
what I actually said.
"Whatever relevance the internet has to contesting
in general, in remote contest operation it serves
only to replace or displace amateur-band RF
between contesters."
Why are there no rules regulating the use of remote
control - with the notable exception of the IOTA
contest?
One reason offered is that remote control confers
no particular competitive advantage. That's true
at present, but it's a cop-out. Compare this to
remote control hunting, where "hunters" hunt without
leaving their armchairs - universally regarded as
unsporting, and already banned in many states.
In contesting, in DXing and in hunting, "being there"
matters. Would anyone want to work North Korea if
the operator was in Finland? Some might, but not
me :-) Wouldn't WRTC be simpler if the competitors
could operate from home? Perhaps, but "control"
could be a minor issue.
Come on, contest sponsors - do something. Give
the remote operators a class of their own, or put
a stop to it. Many of us prefer not to compete
with the hybrid-communications contesters.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
|