I've been hamming for almost 60 years. Every month someone comes up with a new
reason why the sky is falling. So far it hasn't. I'm having more fun than
ever.
Dit dit
73, de Hans, K0HB
"Just a Boy and his Radio"™
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:29 PM, David Siddall <hhamwv@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you think that the underlying problem may not be remote operation, but
> that DXCC allows counting all contacts from anywhere in the same country
> instead of within a geographic area? It has been this way only since the
> 1970's, when the DXCC rules were changed.
> Without any remotes, for the past 40+ years it's been relatively easy to
> earn even 6-band DXCC++ in less than a month -- an *almost* impossible task
> in a single month from most stations. A couple contest weekends at a
> decent (not even the *best*) east coast station and a couple on the west
> coast 4000 km away. Can be Canada or USA. This year February 20 - March 16
> should work well. All that one needs is a roundtrip plane ticket, contest
> weekends, and maybe a couple of additional evenings and some schedules for
> insurance. Even though this is not a time of minimum sunspots this should
> be easy if 10 meters is even marginally open a couple of those weekends.
> Doing it this way is cheaper and faster than designing and building a
> capable 6-band station. The time needed is less than most workers' annual
> vacation and the cost of a roundtrip transcontinental air ticket often is
> less than $400.
> Remote operation or non-remote operation has nothing to do with it. If one
> lusts for DXCC, even 6-band DXCC, since the 1970's rule change there's been
> no difficulty completing the task quickly. If personal accomplishment and
> knowledge is one's goal, well that is something different. Alone, the
> paper on the wall doesn't tell much.
> 73, Dave K3ZJ
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net> wrote:
> < >
>>
>> Now with remote stations permitted, location becomes the main factor. A
>> new
>> book titled 'The rise and fall of DXCC' published not by the fall
>> contributor, the ARRL.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|