If i am not wrong i can run iota contest remotly from my house on island Krk
(EU-136) using antennas and radio on the beach max 999m away
and control all station remotely over internet? Right?
73s
Braco
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] Im Auftrag von
Paul O'Kane
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. April 2013 15:45
An: cq-contest@contesting.com
Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote contest operation
On 17/04/2013 12:42, Bob Naumann wrote:
> EI5DI said: "W5OV will immediately say that there are no rules
> regulating remote control in contesting."
> Sorry - that accusation is also completely false:
Is "completely false" even more false than "false"?
I should have said that there are few, if any, rules distinguishing remote
entries from fixed entries in the same categories in major contests - with
the exception of the IOTA contest, which does not permit remote operation.
From the IOTA Contest Rules:
http://www.rsgbcc.org/hf/rules/2013/riota.shtml
"All equipment (transmitters, receivers and antennas)
plus all operators must be located within a 1km diameter
circle . . ."
Simple, effective, unambiguous.
73,
Paul EI5DI
>>From the CQWW Rules: (http://www.cqww.com/rules.htm)
>
> III. 7. An entrant's remote station is determined by the physical
> location of the transmitters, receivers, and antennas. A remote
> station must obey all station and category limitations of Rule III.
> And:
> III. 3. Operating location: All transmitters and receivers used by the
> entrant must be located within a single 500-meter diameter circle or
> within the property limits of the station licensee's address, whichever is
greater.
> III. 4. All antennas used by the entrant must be physically connected
> by wires to the transmitters and receivers used by the entrant.
> And:
> III. 11. Remote receivers outside the limitations of Rule III.3 are
> not allowed. The only exception is public remote skimmers which are
> allowed for the Multi-Operator, Assisted and Xtreme categories.
>
> de W5OV
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of Paul O'Kane
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 2:40 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote contest operation
>
>
> 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
|