And this is easy to say when you have 5 acres in a semi-rural area, hi hi.
As it happens, I do not use a remote RX (it shows!). But at my QTH I can barely
fit a K9AY (though it's compromised by masts and other antennas that are
necessarily close). I really dig working what DX I can on 160 but even with a
lousy TX antenna, I TX better than RX these days. I am sure I am one of those
guys that honk people off from time to time because, for me, hearing on 160 is
often a come/go proposition. But that's the reality here on the ground.
Now 20 years ago, hearing was a lot easier, but in recent years, with all the
noise sources nearby, hearing from most non-rural locations has become
problematic (to say the least) on 160. So I can understand why people are
considering going to remote RX and personally, as long as the RX site is close
enough to the TX site (same grid should suffice) that there is no real
propagational advantage, I am cool with that. It's making the best out of
today's bad situation in my view.
Moreover, my suspicion is that in 10/20 years, as more and more solar panel
controllers, car charging stations, switching supplies, grow lights (as
"certain substances"... "certain substances of an illicit nature", as Monty
Python would have it, become legal in more places) etc. come on line, non-rural
hams on ANY H.F. band without sophisticated RX arrays will be, as my Dad would
have put it, S.O.L.
73, Kevin K3OX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 10:28:45 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary
On 2018-11-21 2:39 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote:
>
> Maintaining a club project "remote" receiver is something I would
> support with some money and some work. It's a lot more worthwhile than
> yet another two meter FM repeater. I don't really care about using it
> for 160 meter DXCC but I would certainly get my money's worth playing
> with it.
This (remote receivers in multiple locations) is specifically what the
rules are meant to prevent. rankly there is no justification for the
multiple remote receiver operations ... one might as well make an
internet QSO!
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 2018-11-21 2:39 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I live in a small village. Even so, 500 meters isn't going to buy
> anything. If we were overwhelmed by noise we would still be overwhelmed
> by exactly the same noise. So this is going to be yet another thread
> about whose ox is being gored. All those noises don't bother anybody's
> transmitter. So why would we care where the transmitter is within the
> same grid square as the receiver?
>
> Maintaining a club project "remote" receiver is something I would
> support with some money and some work. It's a lot more worthwhile than
> yet another two meter FM repeater. I don't really care about using it
> for 160 meter DXCC but I would certainly get my money's worth playing
> with it.
>
> 73,
>
> Bill KU8H
>
> On 11/21/18 2:05 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>
>>> I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, <b)" rule
>>> would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid
>>> square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC
>>> Entity.
>> I think 500 meters is more than enough of a "circle" to contain both
>> transmit and receive antennas. If one is making the effort to create
>> a remote site, it can certainly contain both transmit and receive
>> antennas. The idea of placing the transmitter *for an amateur station*
>> on a salt marsh on the coast and the receive antennas 10 miles distant
>> and well away from man made noises (to the extent possible) is ludicrous
>> - it reminds me of the commercial maritime stations of old.
>>
>> Frankly, the DXCC rules should be changed to limit all operators to
>> *ONE* location a month unless the operator is physically present at
>> the station (as defined by the 500 meter circle) to prevent the near
>> simultaneous use of multiple remote transmitters/receivers in physically
>> large DXCC entities to "feed" a single DXCC/Challenge/Single Band DXCC
>> from propagation advantaged locations.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>> On 2018-11-21 12:37 PM, Lloyd - N9LB wrote:
>>> I'd like to see the ARRL change part <b) to address the needs of the
>>> Amateur
>>> Radio Community in light of the recent radical increase in electrical
>>> noise
>>> from consumer switching power supplies, variable speed motors, LED
>>> lighting,
>>> solar panels with "optimizers", and all of the other "energy efficient"
>>> wideband RF garbage generators.
>>>
>>> I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, <b)" rule
>>> would be
>>> to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid square" or
>>> "within
>>> 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC Entity.
>>>
>>> I also think that building and maintaining a shared Community Low
>>> Noise RX
>>> Receiver Site would make a great DX Club project and service.
>>>
>>> Let's get this rule updated. How do we get started?
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> Lloyd - N9LB
>>>
>>
>>
>> _________________
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>> Reflector
>>
>
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|