CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC updated FAQ - Remote operation

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC updated FAQ - Remote operation
From: Richard Thorne <rmthorne@suddenlink.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:45:20 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Paul:

Whats your opinion on remote control operation?

Rich - N5ZC

On 2/26/2011 7:45 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> On 26/02/2011 03:18, kzerohb@gmail.com wrote:
>
>   >  As long as all his transmitters, receivers, and antenna are inside the
>   >  500-meter circle, why do we care how long his mike cord is?
>
> Microphone/key and phones are necessary parts of
> station equipment, and they all belong within the
> 500-metre circle.
>
>
>   >  Remote control is perfectly legal,
>
> There are other things that are perfectly legal,
> and yet have no place in amateur radio contesting.
>
>
>   >  and gives no particular advantage
>
> Of course, remote control gives an advantage.
> If it didn't, no one would consider using it.
>
>
>   >  In fact we probably could
>   >  make a persuasive case that the remote operator is disadvantaged by
>   >  "path lag" in the controlpoint-to-station link.
>
> We're back to the "I'm special" argument - I'm
> making things harder for myself, and therefore
> I deserve concessions in other respects.
>
>
>   >  If the rules don't prohibit this configuration, your
>   >  "kind of cheating" notion has a distinct Luddite ring
>   >  to it.
>
> The RDXC rules appear to prohibit remote control.
> They may be Luddites too :-)
>
> ______________________________________
>
>
> On 26/02/2011 06:18, Mats Strandberg wrote:
>
>   >  The arguments shown in my words actually reflects
>   >  what others have said to me when I had my doubts about remote
>   >  contesting operation...
>
> I accept that, and in my reply I have repeated
> the arguments against remote-control in contests.
>
>
>   >  Remote is not my cup of tea, but I know many persons who do like to
>   >  explore this way of operation,
>
> Experimenting is always to be encouraged, except
> when it conflicts with contest rules.
>
>
>   >  and as CQWW apparently even agrees for
>   >  this type of operation from another country (correct
>   >  me if I am wrong),
>
> I'd be concerned if CQ, or ARRL, accepted entries
> from unlicensed operations.  Any such operation
> which relies on CEPT arrangements alone is, in fact,
> illegal.
>
>
>   >  Contesting is fun, but not a struggle of life and death, is it?
>
> Serious contesting, in common with other serious
> competitive sporting activities, is not just fun.
> Those who are in it to win take it seriously.
>
> 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

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