Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests

To: "topband@contesting.com" <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
From: John Crovelli <w2gd@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:32:49 -0400
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>

















Greetings Fellow Topband Contesters:
During the last week of January the topic of remote RX systems was extensively 
discussed on the TB reflector.  I was on my way to K1N and didn't have the time 
nor opportunity to pay proper attention. 
This week CQ160 Contest Director N2NT suggested I take a look at the discussion 
and offer an opinion.  So....I went back and read ALL of your posts.  
As a long-time 160 meter contester (spanning some four decades) it was quite 
interesting to read what others thought important to them in terms contest 
rules, station design, things that impact scores, and what they felt it took to 
have 'fun' in a 160 meter contest.  Thanks for sharing.
My thoughts here are on the overall 160 meter contesting scene and specifically 
about how remote RX systems would impact contest results.  I'll leave it to 
others to sort out what some clearly see as a parallel theme - how remote 
stations and systems impact DXCC country chasing. To me the DXCC subject is not 
aligned with contesting and is best treated separately. 
I've long believed the multi-op competition between a select group of serious 
N.A. entrants in the CQ160 CW is the most rigorous (and exciting) competition 
in all of amateur radio contesting.  One need only look at how amazingly close 
the results have been over the years to realize how well matched the stations 
and operating teams have been. This high level of parity did not happen by 
accident. 
Teams and stations have come and gone over the past 30 years.  The most 
successful players in 160 meter multi-op include such notables as WW2Y, W1KM, 
K1ZM, KC1XX, VY2ZM, K1LZ, W8JI, W2FU, VE3EJ, W4RM, WB9Z, N0NI and my own 160 
team operating from various locations in NJ as W2GD since ~1985. Yes, this is 
an exclusive group, almost all located east of the Mississippi River.  There is 
little question location maters, but that doesn't diminish the amount of work 
and technical innovation these teams have exhibited on their path to success.  
Generally speaking, success in the 160 multi game requires teamwork, 
dedication, a flare for innovation, advanced antenna and station design, 
careful construction practices, regular station maintenance, and expert on the 
air execution. There is no free ride.....you snooze you loose.  Year after year 
incremental station improvements are the norm.  
For the record I'm OPPOSED to the use of receiving systems located somewhere 
other than on station property.  It's my belief that once you alter what 
amounts to a common or similar RF environment found present at a typical 
contest station location, the playing field changes, and event results become a 
function of something much more complex and unpredictable. If you introduce a 
remote element to the technical mix, serious teams are forced to deal with a 
new set of technical solutoins which seemingly have few boundaries.  Allowing 
use of a remotely located RX antenna systems would be a HUGE GAME CHANGER, just 
as SO2R techniques have forever changed the single op category   The ability to 
compare accomplishments is no longer 'apples to apples' when remote station 
technologies creep into the rules.   
The ability to accomplish near duplex reception on 160 meters is the holy grail 
which most successful 160 teams have long worked to achieve....using on-site 
solutions.  Over the past 20 years my team has spent literally hundreds of 
hours experimenting with numerous antenna systems and noise cancelling 
techniques to accomplish something close to duplex capability. It is 
particularly difficult on topband as anyone who has gone down this road 
knows...and we've never enjoyed total success despite our best efforts.   
The most successful M/S, M/2 and M/M stations world-wide have found a variety 
of solutions to the on-site duplex reception issue, most notably on the higher 
frequency bands where the technical solutions are somewhat less difficult but 
also on 160, 80 and 40 where physical separation of radiators and receptors is 
a greater challenge to overcome. Having two (or more) stations on the same band 
has almost become a baseline requirement to ensure a competitive and maybe 
winning entry, esp. in M/S.  This all took technical innovation, advanced 
design work, and undoubtedly great patience while doing hours and hours of 
trial and error testing......and then more revision and more testing to 
maintain.  Those who have successfully conquered these technical problems of 
duplex reception should be held in high esteem by us all ... they earned an 
operational advantage few have achieved.  If this were easy, everyone would be 
doing it....from experience it's NOT easy at all.
Other than the Stew Perry TBDC, no major international contest currently allows 
the use of TX or RX systems physically located beyond station boundaries. This 
has more or less kept everyone on a common footing but not necessarily an equal 
playing field.  Other than what is found in WRTC rules, there is not now nor 
has there ever been an expectation of 'equality' between stations.   Station 
locations and resources are left to the individual station owner to resolve. 
"Location location location" is vitally important in many aspects of radiosport 
as it is in real estate.  There is nothing in contest rules (nor in life) that 
suggests there should be some common standard of opportunity.  
It's unfortunate that some station locations are plagued by power line noise 
and other interference issues which inhibit reception. But that does not mean 
the rules need to be adjusted for parity of all entrants.  
At all three of our 160 locations the last 25 years, we've faced these same 
reception challenges, and out of necessity were forced to work very hard to 
find solutions.   Difficult to do but still achievable with perseverance and 
some technical know how.  
Permitting remote reception systems invites an even greater temptation to 
circumvent the rules for one's own purposes.  I applaud VO1HP for his public 
admission, and for doing the right thing (sending in a check log entry) for 
having used a remote RX system.  But given human nature, and the strong type-A 
behaviors that are so common in the contesting ranks....the possibility of the 
rules being abused is out there.....and it goes without saying there is no 
reasonable way to enforce strict compliance.  
In summary, it is certain a relatively small percentage of 160 meter contest 
enthusiasts would take advantage of any proposed rule change to enhance there 
station capabilities using remote RX systems.  For some, it will simply make 
their already technically superior stations just that more formidable, and for 
others it could open new doors.  But I simply don't see an overwhelming  and 
compelling NEED for this change, which will benefit relatively few, and change 
the competitive dynamic in ways that cannot be predicted.
73,
John, W2GD a.k.a P40W 









                                          
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>