Elecraft › [K3]

K3/0

Classic

List

Threaded

Locked 42 messages Options

123

N2TK

Re: K3/0

Joe,
Quite an accomplishment that you got to feel proud of, especially with low
power and the antennas you have.
73,
N2TK, Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 4:09 PM
To: [hidden email]; Elecraft Reflector
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3/0

> I have thought for many years that it would be a great feature if a >
radio club could set up a super station and offer remote access to its >
apartment-bound members.

I keep hearing this - and the "HOA limitation" - as justification for remote
operation. As far as I'm concerned both just don't "pass the smell test."

We moved to Florida just over 13 years ago ... since we've been here the
only antennas I've had are a Cushcraft R5 and a low wire (80/40 trap dipole
or Windom no higher than 12 meters above ground). I call
the antenna system the "HOA special". I do not have 240 volts in the
shack and do not run an amplifier - highest power has been 200W from
FT-1000D or Mark V but it's been 100W since the K3 replaced all of the Yaesu
gear.

While we've been here I made DXCC Honor Roll mixed (one away on CW) and over
this past weekend I received the last of the confirmations for WAS on seven
bands (I'm still chasing four relatively populous states on 12 meters). I
ran some reports against my log for the time being and find the following in
one sunspot cycle worth of part-time operation:

> *confirmed* (cards/Lotw) totals for current countries:
>
> Confirmed DXCC Challenge total (Phone, CW, RTTY, excludes deleted
countries)

> bands 1815
>
> Confirmed DXCC Countries (excludes deleted countries)
> mixed 311
> phone 199
> cw 298
> rtty 263
> 160m 060
> 80m 116
> 40m 184
> 30m 261
> 20m 234
> 17m 280
> 15m 193
> 12m 246
> 10m 178
> 6m 063

The relatively low phone count reflects my dislike of that mode and the DXCC
Challenge total is about 500 less than my "all time" number since there are
quite a few common "old ones" that I have not bothered to work again on
160/80/40/15/10 since they were already confirmed - and I lack a real
antenna on 160.

Admittedly, I am not in an apartment but I would suggest a similar antenna
system on the roof of an apartment or other antenna limited space situation
would provide similar results. admittedly these antennas and power level do
not make me first in a pile-up and it takes some effort to get thought in
some cases but the lack of big antennas is not a severe limitation unless
one wants to compete with the likes of K3LR/KC1XX/W3LPL/K1TTT/etc. in CQWW
or be first in every pile-up.

While I understand the desire "to be loud", even modest antennas and 100W
are a big change compared to fewer than 140 QSOs in the prior 14 years!

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 1/16/2012 2:21 PM, Alan Bloom wrote:

> On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 14:11 -0500, N2TK, Tony wrote:
>
>> Maybe even a remote club where several hams can enjoy the remote
>> antennas? I can picture a home station involving just a laptop and
>> low power KX3 tied into nice unmanned hilltop station.
>> Maybe multiple rigs on the hilltop with amps, multi-antennas?
>
> I have thought for many years that it would be a great feature if a
> radio club could set up a super station and offer remote access to its
> apartment-bound members. There was no Internet back when I was first
> thinking of this so I envisioned microwave links between the
> apartments and the station at the top of a nearby mountain. But with
> the Internet it is now much easier.
>
> And now with the K3/0 it is even easier still.
>
> Alan N1AL
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

David Gilbert

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by Phil Hystad-3

Although I've never had to deal with an HOA, I lived for thirty years in
a neighborhood that "frowned" upon any kind of tower, and the lot was
small enough that I didn't want one to dominate everything anyway. I
worked over 300 countries with simple homebrew verticals and had lots of
fun doing so, but for you or anyone else to tell me that I should just
be content to live with those restrictions is beyond your pay grade.

Antenna restrictions are not the only limitation some folks have to live
with. Local QRN can be a real issue for some, and trust me ... it is a
LOT more fun to be able to hear stations than it is not to hear them.
Ask any contester how much fun it is to endlessly call stations only to
have most of your RF end up as heat loss in the ground or a nearby building.

I now have a tower with excellent antennas on a nice hillside lot. Very
few people get to enjoy what I experience during a contest, where I can
run a frequency for hours and not have to rely solely on S&P. Remote
operation potentially gives some folks that opportunity and I can't see
a thing wrong with it. Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really
curious why.

Dave AB7E

On 1/16/2012 4:27 PM, Phil Hystad wrote:

> I will guess that Joe is suggesting that remote operation should not be needed to enjoy ham radio from any location. Maybe, I am just guessing.
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
>> So ... what exactly about that "smells"? You figure they're trying to
>> cheat in some way? What else would you have against somebody doing that?
>>
>> Dave AB7E
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/16/2012 2:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>>> I have thought for many years that it would be a great feature if a
>>>> radio club could set up a super station and offer remote access to its
>>>> apartment-bound members.
>>> I keep hearing this - and the "HOA limitation" - as justification for
>>> remote operation. As far as I'm concerned both just don't "pass the
>>> smell test."
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: K3/0

> Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really curious why.

You misquote me ... I said that argument that remote operation was a
necessary answer to HOAs/other antenna restrictions and the only way
to get on the air did not pass the smell test.

As far as I am concerned, remote operation changes the character of
amateur radio from over the air "amateur radio" to "landline based
commercial communication" at least in part. When the operator is not
present at the station (transmitting/receiving site) the "radio" part
of the communications path can become infinitesimal - nothing more
than a hand-held link to the nearest access point.

That eliminates everything that makes amateur radio unique. Taking
that one step further ... if the mode is digital, one might as well
be using keyboard chat on the internet.

In my career as an amateur I've seen repeaters go from something
built in the garage/shack to multi-site, statewide linked, trunked
communications systems. I have watched packet radio go from a random
network of individual stations to nothing more than the equivalent of
wireless access points linked by commercial wired networks (internet).

I don't want to see HF devolve to the point that "amateurs" will need
to pay for membership in and access to a series of "mega stations" in
northeast Maine, southern Florida, northwest Washington and southern
California to have the best shot at DX ... or even worse Radio Arcla
class facilities all over the world just to be able to "chat" with
any amateur, anywhere without regard to propagation, local conditions
and time of day.

I've already seen evidence of individuals working a DX contest from
KP2 or other locations in the Caribbean while setting at home in New
York or Boston or San Francisco, etc. I'd rather *never* work a P5
than "work" someone operating a multi-band remote transmitter located
on the roof of a PyongYang hotel (or cell-phone factory) with operators
in Oakland, Atlanta, London, Berlin and Helsinki.

Is remote technology "fun"? Is it an engineering challenge? Yes.
Is it appropriate for amateur radio? Not in my book (even though
that opinion may be contrary to my own bank account before long)!

Remote operation/remote technology offers a huge opportunity for
regulators and those commercial interests (primarily messaging
and remote sensing companies) who would like to acquire amateur
spectrum to argue that "amateur radio" can be accommodated entirely
on-line rather than continue to occupy more than 15% of the spectrum
below 30 MHz.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 1/16/2012 7:11 PM, David Gilbert wrote:

>
> Although I've never had to deal with an HOA, I lived for thirty years in
> a neighborhood that "frowned" upon any kind of tower, and the lot was
> small enough that I didn't want one to dominate everything anyway. I
> worked over 300 countries with simple homebrew verticals and had lots of
> fun doing so, but for you or anyone else to tell me that I should just
> be content to live with those restrictions is beyond your pay grade.
>
> Antenna restrictions are not the only limitation some folks have to live
> with. Local QRN can be a real issue for some, and trust me ... it is a
> LOT more fun to be able to hear stations than it is not to hear them.
> Ask any contester how much fun it is to endlessly call stations only to
> have most of your RF end up as heat loss in the ground or a nearby building.
>
> I now have a tower with excellent antennas on a nice hillside lot. Very
> few people get to enjoy what I experience during a contest, where I can
> run a frequency for hours and not have to rely solely on S&P. Remote
> operation potentially gives some folks that opportunity and I can't see
> a thing wrong with it. Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really
> curious why.
>
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
>
> On 1/16/2012 4:27 PM, Phil Hystad wrote:
>> I will guess that Joe is suggesting that remote operation should not be needed to enjoy ham radio from any location. Maybe, I am just guessing.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>>> So ... what exactly about that "smells"? You figure they're trying to
>>> cheat in some way? What else would you have against somebody doing that?
>>>
>>> Dave AB7E
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/16/2012 2:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>>>> I have thought for many years that it would be a great feature if a
>>>>> radio club could set up a super station and offer remote access to its
>>>>> apartment-bound members.
>>>> I keep hearing this - and the "HOA limitation" - as justification for
>>>> remote operation. As far as I'm concerned both just don't "pass the
>>>> smell test."
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Don Wilhelm-4

Re: K3/0

Joe,

I support and applaud your position.
There are those who will support "contacts at any cost", and that is
just not ham radio to me - if you can buy contacts for dollars (or
pounds or pesos), then it is no longer ham radio.
One of the main rules of ham radio for me is the "no pecuniary interest"
rule. That says to me that ham radio is all about sharing, and not for
personal gain. When we begin to talk about "stations for hire", that is
when my interest wanes. Many of us take pride in our stations and our
operating skills, and strive to improve on our previous 'score' in the
same contest from last year. We do not all have to be "top dogs" in
order to have satisfaction.
This is a hobby, enjoy it in what ever way you are able - there are
many, many facets, and you do not have to excel in all of them - pick
what appeals to you and 'just do it'.

If HOAs restrict you to attic antennas, so be it, you can still work
DXCC with that attic antenna, and be rightfully proud of your
accomplishment. Sure, you will not do it in a weekend like those with
monster antennas and 1.5kW transmitters, but you can still do it and
stand proud of your accomplishment.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 1/16/2012 8:33 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> > Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really curious why.
>
> You misquote me ... I said that argument that remote operation was a
> necessary answer to HOAs/other antenna restrictions and the only way
> to get on the air did not pass the smell test.
>
> As far as I am concerned, remote operation changes the character of
> amateur radio from over the air "amateur radio" to "landline based
> commercial communication" at least in part. When the operator is not
> present at the station (transmitting/receiving site) the "radio" part
> of the communications path can become infinitesimal - nothing more
> than a hand-held link to the nearest access point.
>
> That eliminates everything that makes amateur radio unique. Taking
> that one step further ... if the mode is digital, one might as well
> be using keyboard chat on the internet.
>
> In my career as an amateur I've seen repeaters go from something
> built in the garage/shack to multi-site, statewide linked, trunked
> communications systems. I have watched packet radio go from a random
> network of individual stations to nothing more than the equivalent of
> wireless access points linked by commercial wired networks (internet).
>
> I don't want to see HF devolve to the point that "amateurs" will need
> to pay for membership in and access to a series of "mega stations" in
> northeast Maine, southern Florida, northwest Washington and southern
> California to have the best shot at DX ... or even worse Radio Arcla
> class facilities all over the world just to be able to "chat" with
> any amateur, anywhere without regard to propagation, local conditions
> and time of day.
>
> I've already seen evidence of individuals working a DX contest from
> KP2 or other locations in the Caribbean while setting at home in New
> York or Boston or San Francisco, etc. I'd rather *never* work a P5
> than "work" someone operating a multi-band remote transmitter located
> on the roof of a PyongYang hotel (or cell-phone factory) with operators
> in Oakland, Atlanta, London, Berlin and Helsinki.
>
> Is remote technology "fun"? Is it an engineering challenge? Yes.
> Is it appropriate for amateur radio? Not in my book (even though
> that opinion may be contrary to my own bank account before long)!
>
> Remote operation/remote technology offers a huge opportunity for
> regulators and those commercial interests (primarily messaging
> and remote sensing companies) who would like to acquire amateur
> spectrum to argue that "amateur radio" can be accommodated entirely
> on-line rather than continue to occupy more than 15% of the spectrum
> below 30 MHz.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 1/16/2012 7:11 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>> Although I've never had to deal with an HOA, I lived for thirty years in
>> a neighborhood that "frowned" upon any kind of tower, and the lot was
>> small enough that I didn't want one to dominate everything anyway. I
>> worked over 300 countries with simple homebrew verticals and had lots of
>> fun doing so, but for you or anyone else to tell me that I should just
>> be content to live with those restrictions is beyond your pay grade.
>>
>> Antenna restrictions are not the only limitation some folks have to live
>> with. Local QRN can be a real issue for some, and trust me ... it is a
>> LOT more fun to be able to hear stations than it is not to hear them.
>> Ask any contester how much fun it is to endlessly call stations only to
>> have most of your RF end up as heat loss in the ground or a nearby building.
>>
>> I now have a tower with excellent antennas on a nice hillside lot. Very
>> few people get to enjoy what I experience during a contest, where I can
>> run a frequency for hours and not have to rely solely on S&P. Remote
>> operation potentially gives some folks that opportunity and I can't see
>> a thing wrong with it. Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really
>> curious why.
>>
>> Dave AB7E
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/16/2012 4:27 PM, Phil Hystad wrote:
>>> I will guess that Joe is suggesting that remote operation should not be needed to enjoy ham radio from any location. Maybe, I am just guessing.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>>
>>>> So ... what exactly about that "smells"? You figure they're trying to
>>>> cheat in some way? What else would you have against somebody doing that?
>>>>
>>>> Dave AB7E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/16/2012 2:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>>>>> I have thought for many years that it would be a great feature if a
>>>>>> radio club could set up a super station and offer remote access to its
>>>>>> apartment-bound members.
>>>>> I keep hearing this - and the "HOA limitation" - as justification for
>>>>> remote operation. As far as I'm concerned both just don't "pass the
>>>>> smell test."
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

daleputnam

Re: K3/0

And I, for one, am so glad that there are those around that "buy the Qs" ...because that just gives me that much more satisfaction, when I blow past them,in a contest, a pileup, or what have you.... not being mean.. but it does give me just a little bit of a thrill, when my "cost per Q" is immeasurably less!But my "Thrill per Q" is so immeasurably MORE!!

--... ...--
Dale - WC7S in Wy
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:51:17 -0500

> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> CC: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3/0
>
> Joe,
>
> I support and applaud your position.
> There are those who will support "contacts at any cost", and that is
> just not ham radio to me - if you can buy contacts for dollars (or
> pounds or pesos), then it is no longer ham radio.
> One of the main rules of ham radio for me is the "no pecuniary interest"
> rule. That says to me that ham radio is all about sharing, and not for
> personal gain. When we begin to talk about "stations for hire", that is
> when my interest wanes. Many of us take pride in our stations and our
> operating skills, and strive to improve on our previous 'score' in the
> same contest from last year. We do not all have to be "top dogs" in
> order to have satisfaction.
> This is a hobby, enjoy it in what ever way you are able - there are
> many, many facets, and you do not have to excel in all of them - pick
> what appeals to you and 'just do it'.
>
> If HOAs restrict you to attic antennas, so be it, you can still work
> DXCC with that attic antenna, and be rightfully proud of your
> accomplishment. Sure, you will not do it in a weekend like those with
> monster antennas and 1.5kW transmitters, but you can still do it and
> stand proud of your accomplishment.
>
> 73,
> Don W3FPR
>
> On 1/16/2012 8:33 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> > > Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really curious why.
> >
> > You misquote me ... I said that argument that remote operation was a
> > necessary answer to HOAs/other antenna restrictions and the only way
> > to get on the air did not pass the smell test.
> >
> > As far as I am concerned, remote operation changes the character of
> > amateur radio from over the air "amateur radio" to "landline based
> > commercial communication" at least in part. When the operator is not
> > present at the station (transmitting/receiving site) the "radio" part
> > of the communications path can become infinitesimal - nothing more
> > than a hand-held link to the nearest access point.
> >
> > That eliminates everything that makes amateur radio unique. Taking
> > that one step further ... if the mode is digital, one might as well
> > be using keyboard chat on the internet.
> >
> > In my career as an amateur I've seen repeaters go from something
> > built in the garage/shack to multi-site, statewide linked, trunked
> > communications systems. I have watched packet radio go from a random
> > network of individual stations to nothing more than the equivalent of
> > wireless access points linked by commercial wired networks (internet).
> >
> > I don't want to see HF devolve to the point that "amateurs" will need
> > to pay for membership in and access to a series of "mega stations" in
> > northeast Maine, southern Florida, northwest Washington and southern
> > California to have the best shot at DX ... or even worse Radio Arcla
> > class facilities all over the world just to be able to "chat" with
> > any amateur, anywhere without regard to propagation, local conditions
> > and time of day.
> >
> > I've already seen evidence of individuals working a DX contest from
> > KP2 or other locations in the Caribbean while setting at home in New
> > York or Boston or San Francisco, etc. I'd rather *never* work a P5
> > than "work" someone operating a multi-band remote transmitter located
> > on the roof of a PyongYang hotel (or cell-phone factory) with operators
> > in Oakland, Atlanta, London, Berlin and Helsinki.
> >
> > Is remote technology "fun"? Is it an engineering challenge? Yes.
> > Is it appropriate for amateur radio? Not in my book (even though
> > that opinion may be contrary to my own bank account before long)!
> >
> > Remote operation/remote technology offers a huge opportunity for
> > regulators and those commercial interests (primarily messaging
> > and remote sensing companies) who would like to acquire amateur
> > spectrum to argue that "amateur radio" can be accommodated entirely
> > on-line rather than continue to occupy more than 15% of the spectrum
> > below 30 MHz.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > ... Joe, W4TV
> >
> >
> > On 1/16/2012 7:11 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> >> Although I've never had to deal with an HOA, I lived for thirty years in
> >> a neighborhood that "frowned" upon any kind of tower, and the lot was
> >> small enough that I didn't want one to dominate everything anyway. I
> >> worked over 300 countries with simple homebrew verticals and had lots of
> >> fun doing so, but for you or anyone else to tell me that I should just
> >> be content to live with those restrictions is beyond your pay grade.
> >>
> >> Antenna restrictions are not the only limitation some folks have to live
> >> with. Local QRN can be a real issue for some, and trust me ... it is a
> >> LOT more fun to be able to hear stations than it is not to hear them.
> >> Ask any contester how much fun it is to endlessly call stations only to
> >> have most of your RF end up as heat loss in the ground or a nearby building.
> >>
> >> I now have a tower with excellent antennas on a nice hillside lot. Very
> >> few people get to enjoy what I experience during a contest, where I can
> >> run a frequency for hours and not have to rely solely on S&P. Remote
> >> operation potentially gives some folks that opportunity and I can't see
> >> a thing wrong with it. Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really
> >> curious why.
> >>
> >> Dave AB7E
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/16/2012 4:27 PM, Phil Hystad wrote:
> >>> I will guess that Joe is suggesting that remote operation should not be needed to enjoy ham radio from any location. Maybe, I am just guessing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> So ... what exactly about that "smells"? You figure they're trying to
> >>>> cheat in some way? What else would you have against somebody doing that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Dave AB7E
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/16/2012 2:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> >>>>>> I have thought for many years that it would be a great feature if a
> >>>>>> radio club could set up a super station and offer remote access to its
> >>>>>> apartment-bound members.
> >>>>> I keep hearing this - and the "HOA limitation" - as justification for
> >>>>> remote operation. As far as I'm concerned both just don't "pass the
> >>>>> smell test."
> >>>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>> Elecraft mailing list
> >>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >> Elecraft mailing list
> >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >>
> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >>
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

John K9UWA-2

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Sorry but I disagree with a good share of this Joe. My Station is at My Home
in Indiana. I built the station and I operate it Remotely during the wintertime
while I am in Florida.

John k9uwa

>
> > Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really curious why.
> As far as I am concerned, remote operation changes the character of
> amateur radio from over the air "amateur radio" to "landline based
> commercial communication" at least in part. When the operator is not
> present at the station (transmitting/receiving site) the "radio" part
> of the communications path can become infinitesimal - nothing more
> than a hand-held link to the nearest access point.
>
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm-4

Don,

> I support and applaud your position.
> There are those who will support "contacts at any cost", and that is
> just not ham radio to me - if you can buy contacts for dollars (or
> pounds or pesos), then it is no longer ham radio.

Thank you. However, my concern is not as much for the "contacts at any
cost" aspect of remote operation (that happened long ago with the major
multi-multi other multi-op contest stations) as it is the migration of
amateur radio from a "wireless" to a "wired" communication model.

I can accept a remote transmitter/receiver (even one with better
antennas than might be possible at the operator's licensed location) if
the station is located in the same community (same zip code, county,
precinct, etc. - a very limited geographic difference) and everything
- controls and communication - was done entirely via RF (microwave,
high UHF, etc.). It is when the control and communication moves from
the RF domain (what might be considered wireless microphone/headphones
on steroids) to the wired domain (telephone, internet, private fiber,
common carrier etc.) that I draw the line.

It's the wired infrastructure that makes remote operation across time
zones and in different countries possible. Not withstanding questions
of legality (a US licensed operator - controlling a transmitter in a
country where they have no license), "wired" remote turns amateur radio
into some strange and perverted video game imitation of the real thing.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 1/16/2012 8:51 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:

> Joe,
>
> I support and applaud your position.
> There are those who will support "contacts at any cost", and that is
> just not ham radio to me - if you can buy contacts for dollars (or
> pounds or pesos), then it is no longer ham radio.
> One of the main rules of ham radio for me is the "no pecuniary interest"
> rule. That says to me that ham radio is all about sharing, and not for
> personal gain. When we begin to talk about "stations for hire", that is
> when my interest wanes. Many of us take pride in our stations and our
> operating skills, and strive to improve on our previous 'score' in the
> same contest from last year. We do not all have to be "top dogs" in
> order to have satisfaction.
> This is a hobby, enjoy it in what ever way you are able - there are
> many, many facets, and you do not have to excel in all of them - pick
> what appeals to you and 'just do it'.
>
> If HOAs restrict you to attic antennas, so be it, you can still work
> DXCC with that attic antenna, and be rightfully proud of your
> accomplishment. Sure, you will not do it in a weekend like those with
> monster antennas and 1.5kW transmitters, but you can still do it and
> stand proud of your accomplishment.
>
> 73,
> Don W3FPR
>
> On 1/16/2012 8:33 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>> > Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really curious why.
>>
>> You misquote me ... I said that argument that remote operation was a
>> necessary answer to HOAs/other antenna restrictions and the only way
>> to get on the air did not pass the smell test.
>>
>> As far as I am concerned, remote operation changes the character of
>> amateur radio from over the air "amateur radio" to "landline based
>> commercial communication" at least in part. When the operator is not
>> present at the station (transmitting/receiving site) the "radio" part
>> of the communications path can become infinitesimal - nothing more
>> than a hand-held link to the nearest access point.
>>
>> That eliminates everything that makes amateur radio unique. Taking
>> that one step further ... if the mode is digital, one might as well
>> be using keyboard chat on the internet.
>>
>> In my career as an amateur I've seen repeaters go from something
>> built in the garage/shack to multi-site, statewide linked, trunked
>> communications systems. I have watched packet radio go from a random
>> network of individual stations to nothing more than the equivalent of
>> wireless access points linked by commercial wired networks (internet).
>>
>> I don't want to see HF devolve to the point that "amateurs" will need
>> to pay for membership in and access to a series of "mega stations" in
>> northeast Maine, southern Florida, northwest Washington and southern
>> California to have the best shot at DX ... or even worse Radio Arcla
>> class facilities all over the world just to be able to "chat" with
>> any amateur, anywhere without regard to propagation, local conditions
>> and time of day.
>>
>> I've already seen evidence of individuals working a DX contest from
>> KP2 or other locations in the Caribbean while setting at home in New
>> York or Boston or San Francisco, etc. I'd rather *never* work a P5
>> than "work" someone operating a multi-band remote transmitter located
>> on the roof of a PyongYang hotel (or cell-phone factory) with operators
>> in Oakland, Atlanta, London, Berlin and Helsinki.
>>
>> Is remote technology "fun"? Is it an engineering challenge? Yes.
>> Is it appropriate for amateur radio? Not in my book (even though
>> that opinion may be contrary to my own bank account before long)!
>>
>> Remote operation/remote technology offers a huge opportunity for
>> regulators and those commercial interests (primarily messaging
>> and remote sensing companies) who would like to acquire amateur
>> spectrum to argue that "amateur radio" can be accommodated entirely
>> on-line rather than continue to occupy more than 15% of the spectrum
>> below 30 MHz.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>> On 1/16/2012 7:11 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>> Although I've never had to deal with an HOA, I lived for thirty years in
>>> a neighborhood that "frowned" upon any kind of tower, and the lot was
>>> small enough that I didn't want one to dominate everything anyway. I
>>> worked over 300 countries with simple homebrew verticals and had lots of
>>> fun doing so, but for you or anyone else to tell me that I should just
>>> be content to live with those restrictions is beyond your pay grade.
>>>
>>> Antenna restrictions are not the only limitation some folks have to live
>>> with. Local QRN can be a real issue for some, and trust me ... it is a
>>> LOT more fun to be able to hear stations than it is not to hear them.
>>> Ask any contester how much fun it is to endlessly call stations only to
>>> have most of your RF end up as heat loss in the ground or a nearby
>>> building.
>>>
>>> I now have a tower with excellent antennas on a nice hillside lot. Very
>>> few people get to enjoy what I experience during a contest, where I can
>>> run a frequency for hours and not have to rely solely on S&P. Remote
>>> operation potentially gives some folks that opportunity and I can't see
>>> a thing wrong with it. Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really
>>> curious why.
>>>
>>> Dave AB7E
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/16/2012 4:27 PM, Phil Hystad wrote:
>>>> I will guess that Joe is suggesting that remote operation should not
>>>> be needed to enjoy ham radio from any location. Maybe, I am just
>>>> guessing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So ... what exactly about that "smells"? You figure they're trying to
>>>>> cheat in some way? What else would you have against somebody doing
>>>>> that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave AB7E
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/16/2012 2:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>>>>>> I have thought for many years that it would be a great feature if a
>>>>>>> radio club could set up a super station and offer remote access
>>>>>>> to its
>>>>>>> apartment-bound members.
>>>>>> I keep hearing this - and the "HOA limitation" - as justification for
>>>>>> remote operation. As far as I'm concerned both just don't "pass the
>>>>>> smell test."
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>

David Gilbert

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm-4

Oh give me a break. Can you honestly tell me that there is a
significant difference between driving your car over to a decked out
club station to operate a contest versus doing the same thing via a
remote link? Seriously??

I get really, really tired of some of you folks telling everyone else
what they should be willing to live with, or what they should be doing
in order to be legitimate. If the FCC says it's OK and the event
sponsor (contest, DXCC) says it's OK, who are you to say it isn't?

There are already people using remote receivers while claiming operation
from a home QTH. Those folks are cheats, but they're no different than
the many more cheats who operate excess power, or claim unassisted while
using the spotting clusters, or have their buddy on the other coast work
a tough station for them for DXCC. We're not talking about people who
operate from Aruba while sitting in New York, but even if we were what's
the problem? Your RF traveled to Aruba and their RF came back to you
from Aruba. You worked Aruba, period.

The argument about regulators and commercial interests using remote
stations as evidence that amateur radio can be supplanted by online
links is truly bogus. Of course ham radio can be supplanted by online
links. Anybody who doesn't already believe that hasn't been paying
attention.

And no particular definition of ham radio makes it "unique". The great
value of this hobby is that it covers such a wide range of interests and
capabilities, and the spectrum of technology within it is continuous,
not discrete. Here's an example. Hand key CW --> bug key CW -->
electronic keyer CW --> memory keyer CW --> logging program CW (auto
fills on report, callsign, etc).

This hobby really needs fewer intolerant and narrow minded old men ...
and probably fewer old men like me who get all riled up about stupid stuff.

Dave AB7E

On 1/16/2012 6:51 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:

> Joe,
>
> I support and applaud your position.
> There are those who will support "contacts at any cost", and that is
> just not ham radio to me - if you can buy contacts for dollars (or
> pounds or pesos), then it is no longer ham radio.
> One of the main rules of ham radio for me is the "no pecuniary
> interest" rule. That says to me that ham radio is all about sharing,
> and not for personal gain. When we begin to talk about "stations for
> hire", that is when my interest wanes. Many of us take pride in our
> stations and our operating skills, and strive to improve on our
> previous 'score' in the same contest from last year. We do not all
> have to be "top dogs" in order to have satisfaction.
> This is a hobby, enjoy it in what ever way you are able - there are
> many, many facets, and you do not have to excel in all of them - pick
> what appeals to you and 'just do it'.
>
> If HOAs restrict you to attic antennas, so be it, you can still work
> DXCC with that attic antenna, and be rightfully proud of your
> accomplishment. Sure, you will not do it in a weekend like those with
> monster antennas and 1.5kW transmitters, but you can still do it and
> stand proud of your accomplishment.
>
> 73,
> Don W3FPR
>
> On 1/16/2012 8:33 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>> > Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really curious why.
>>
>> You misquote me ... I said that argument that remote operation was a
>> necessary answer to HOAs/other antenna restrictions and the only way
>> to get on the air did not pass the smell test.
>>
>> As far as I am concerned, remote operation changes the character of
>> amateur radio from over the air "amateur radio" to "landline based
>> commercial communication" at least in part. When the operator is not
>> present at the station (transmitting/receiving site) the "radio" part
>> of the communications path can become infinitesimal - nothing more
>> than a hand-held link to the nearest access point.
>>
>> That eliminates everything that makes amateur radio unique. Taking
>> that one step further ... if the mode is digital, one might as well
>> be using keyboard chat on the internet.
>>
>> In my career as an amateur I've seen repeaters go from something
>> built in the garage/shack to multi-site, statewide linked, trunked
>> communications systems. I have watched packet radio go from a random
>> network of individual stations to nothing more than the equivalent of
>> wireless access points linked by commercial wired networks (internet).
>>
>> I don't want to see HF devolve to the point that "amateurs" will need
>> to pay for membership in and access to a series of "mega stations" in
>> northeast Maine, southern Florida, northwest Washington and southern
>> California to have the best shot at DX ... or even worse Radio Arcla
>> class facilities all over the world just to be able to "chat" with
>> any amateur, anywhere without regard to propagation, local conditions
>> and time of day.
>>
>> I've already seen evidence of individuals working a DX contest from
>> KP2 or other locations in the Caribbean while setting at home in New
>> York or Boston or San Francisco, etc. I'd rather *never* work a P5
>> than "work" someone operating a multi-band remote transmitter located
>> on the roof of a PyongYang hotel (or cell-phone factory) with operators
>> in Oakland, Atlanta, London, Berlin and Helsinki.
>>
>> Is remote technology "fun"? Is it an engineering challenge? Yes.
>> Is it appropriate for amateur radio? Not in my book (even though
>> that opinion may be contrary to my own bank account before long)!
>>
>> Remote operation/remote technology offers a huge opportunity for
>> regulators and those commercial interests (primarily messaging
>> and remote sensing companies) who would like to acquire amateur
>> spectrum to argue that "amateur radio" can be accommodated entirely
>> on-line rather than continue to occupy more than 15% of the spectrum
>> below 30 MHz.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>> On 1/16/2012 7:11 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>> Although I've never had to deal with an HOA, I lived for thirty
>>> years in
>>> a neighborhood that "frowned" upon any kind of tower, and the lot was
>>> small enough that I didn't want one to dominate everything anyway. I
>>> worked over 300 countries with simple homebrew verticals and had
>>> lots of
>>> fun doing so, but for you or anyone else to tell me that I should just
>>> be content to live with those restrictions is beyond your pay grade.
>>>
>>> Antenna restrictions are not the only limitation some folks have to
>>> live
>>> with. Local QRN can be a real issue for some, and trust me ... it is a
>>> LOT more fun to be able to hear stations than it is not to hear them.
>>> Ask any contester how much fun it is to endlessly call stations only to
>>> have most of your RF end up as heat loss in the ground or a nearby
>>> building.
>>>
>>> I now have a tower with excellent antennas on a nice hillside lot.
>>> Very
>>> few people get to enjoy what I experience during a contest, where I can
>>> run a frequency for hours and not have to rely solely on S&P. Remote
>>> operation potentially gives some folks that opportunity and I can't see
>>> a thing wrong with it. Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really
>>> curious why.
>>>
>>> Dave AB7E
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/16/2012 4:27 PM, Phil Hystad wrote:
>>>> I will guess that Joe is suggesting that remote operation should
>>>> not be needed to enjoy ham radio from any location. Maybe, I am
>>>> just guessing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So ... what exactly about that "smells"? You figure they're
>>>>> trying to
>>>>> cheat in some way? What else would you have against somebody
>>>>> doing that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave AB7E
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/16/2012 2:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>>>>>> I have thought for many years that it would be a great feature if a
>>>>>>> radio club could set up a super station and offer remote access
>>>>>>> to its
>>>>>>> apartment-bound members.
>>>>>> I keep hearing this - and the "HOA limitation" - as justification
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> remote operation. As far as I'm concerned both just don't "pass the
>>>>>> smell test."

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by John K9UWA-2

John,

Everyone has an "excuse" for his own remote control application. All
I'm saying is that wired remote control irrevocably changes the nature
of amateur radio and that remote control is not a requirement for
"success" and/or enjoyment of amateur radio in an antenna limited
environment.

Sure it's a technical tour de force but it's not the same amateur radio
that my Elmers taught me more than 40 years ago. There is a major
qualitative difference between "hands on" amateur radio and "hands off"
remote operation and when we willingly accept the removal of the "hands
on" aspect, we give up much of the value of amateur radio.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 1/16/2012 9:22 PM, John K9UWA wrote:

> Sorry but I disagree with a good share of this Joe. My Station is at My Home
> in Indiana. I built the station and I operate it Remotely during the wintertime
> while I am in Florida.
>
> John k9uwa
>
>
>>
>> > Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really curious why.
>> As far as I am concerned, remote operation changes the character of
>> amateur radio from over the air "amateur radio" to "landline based
>> commercial communication" at least in part. When the operator is not
>> present at the station (transmitting/receiving site) the "radio" part
>> of the communications path can become infinitesimal - nothing more
>> than a hand-held link to the nearest access point.
>>
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Tony Estep

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Well, everybody gets their kicks from this or any hobby in their own
personal way.

For my part, I have not found it so easy to get to the honor roll as
Joe has, possibly because Missouri is kinda far from the nearest salt
water. With just a wire in the trees, there are some places in Asia
and the remote Pacific that are audible only once or twice in a
decade, if that.

Still, some of my numerous clubmates who have achieved the magic 331+
total have done it with a tri-bander on the roof, or a vertical in the
yard, and maybe someday I'll snag those last few that I still need,
and join them. When I do, I would like to feel that the other guys who
did it before me got there without sending their signals halfway to
the DX over a phone line or the internet.

Even if it somehow is deemed to be okay to work 'em that way, it's not
for me. I'll stick with the signal I can radiate via whatever wires I
can feed out my bedroom window.

Tony KT0NY

--
http://www.isb.edu/faculty/facultydir.aspx?ddlFaculty=352
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

David Gilbert

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

What is "hands off" about it. You still have to operate the same
controls ... you just do it with a different interface.

And could you explain more how that interface affects the "value" of ham
radio? I don't see it at all.

By the way, I find it extremely condescending of you to say that someone
in an antenna restricted environment should just suck it up and live
with what they have. That doesn't even sound like it complies with the
spirit of ham radio to me.

Dave AB7E

On 1/16/2012 7:40 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by David Gilbert

On 1/16/2012 9:36 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> Oh give me a break. Can you honestly tell me that there is a
> significant difference between driving your car over to a decked out
> club station to operate a contest versus doing the same thing via a
> remote link? Seriously??

Absolutely - the human interaction (multi-multi with every operator in
his own home?).

> There are already people using remote receivers while claiming
> operation from a home QTH. Those folks are cheats, but they're no
> different than the many more cheats who operate excess power, or
> claim unassisted while using the spotting clusters, or have their
> buddy on the other coast work a tough station for them for DXCC.

I knew "big name" DXers who had a buddy in Western Washington hold the
phone to the speaker of his receiver so the guy in Ohio or Michigan,
or Pennsylvania, etc. could hear the XZ or A5 or S2 on 80 meters then
call with an Alpha 77DX or home brew 8171 running everything it would
produce back in the 70's. Sure it's "cheating" ... nothing's changed
morally challenged individuals will do unethical things but I don't
have to like it and I don't have to remain silent about it.

> And no particular definition of ham radio makes it "unique". The
> great value of this hobby is that it covers such a wide range of
> interests and capabilities, and the spectrum of technology within it
> is continuous, not discrete.

True, there is no one definition that makes it unique but there are
some definitions in both US law and international treaty that provide
a rather clear picture - non-commercial, person to person, innovation
in the radio art, "wireless", etc. I certainly don't find anything
that makes it a common carrier or a wired - even in part - service.

However, this is getting rather far afield. The argument that wired
"remote operation" is a necessity for success and enjoyment of ham
radio in HOA and antenna limited conditions simply does not pass the
smell test. It is possible to make all kinds of excuses for wired
remote but in my book they are just that - excuses.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 1/16/2012 9:36 PM, David Gilbert wrote:

>
> Oh give me a break. Can you honestly tell me that there is a significant
> difference between driving your car over to a decked out club station to
> operate a contest versus doing the same thing via a remote link?
> Seriously??
>
> I get really, really tired of some of you folks telling everyone else
> what they should be willing to live with, or what they should be doing
> in order to be legitimate. If the FCC says it's OK and the event sponsor
> (contest, DXCC) says it's OK, who are you to say it isn't?
>
> There are already people using remote receivers while claiming operation
> from a home QTH. Those folks are cheats, but they're no different than
> the many more cheats who operate excess power, or claim unassisted while
> using the spotting clusters, or have their buddy on the other coast work
> a tough station for them for DXCC. We're not talking about people who
> operate from Aruba while sitting in New York, but even if we were what's
> the problem? Your RF traveled to Aruba and their RF came back to you
> from Aruba. You worked Aruba, period.
>
> The argument about regulators and commercial interests using remote
> stations as evidence that amateur radio can be supplanted by online
> links is truly bogus. Of course ham radio can be supplanted by online
> links. Anybody who doesn't already believe that hasn't been paying
> attention.
>
> And no particular definition of ham radio makes it "unique". The great
> value of this hobby is that it covers such a wide range of interests and
> capabilities, and the spectrum of technology within it is continuous,
> not discrete. Here's an example. Hand key CW --> bug key CW -->
> electronic keyer CW --> memory keyer CW --> logging program CW (auto
> fills on report, callsign, etc).
>
> This hobby really needs fewer intolerant and narrow minded old men ...
> and probably fewer old men like me who get all riled up about stupid stuff.
>
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> On 1/16/2012 6:51 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> I support and applaud your position.
>> There are those who will support "contacts at any cost", and that is
>> just not ham radio to me - if you can buy contacts for dollars (or
>> pounds or pesos), then it is no longer ham radio.
>> One of the main rules of ham radio for me is the "no pecuniary
>> interest" rule. That says to me that ham radio is all about sharing,
>> and not for personal gain. When we begin to talk about "stations for
>> hire", that is when my interest wanes. Many of us take pride in our
>> stations and our operating skills, and strive to improve on our
>> previous 'score' in the same contest from last year. We do not all
>> have to be "top dogs" in order to have satisfaction.
>> This is a hobby, enjoy it in what ever way you are able - there are
>> many, many facets, and you do not have to excel in all of them - pick
>> what appeals to you and 'just do it'.
>>
>> If HOAs restrict you to attic antennas, so be it, you can still work
>> DXCC with that attic antenna, and be rightfully proud of your
>> accomplishment. Sure, you will not do it in a weekend like those with
>> monster antennas and 1.5kW transmitters, but you can still do it and
>> stand proud of your accomplishment.
>>
>> 73,
>> Don W3FPR
>>
>> On 1/16/2012 8:33 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>> > Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really curious why.
>>>
>>> You misquote me ... I said that argument that remote operation was a
>>> necessary answer to HOAs/other antenna restrictions and the only way
>>> to get on the air did not pass the smell test.
>>>
>>> As far as I am concerned, remote operation changes the character of
>>> amateur radio from over the air "amateur radio" to "landline based
>>> commercial communication" at least in part. When the operator is not
>>> present at the station (transmitting/receiving site) the "radio" part
>>> of the communications path can become infinitesimal - nothing more
>>> than a hand-held link to the nearest access point.
>>>
>>> That eliminates everything that makes amateur radio unique. Taking
>>> that one step further ... if the mode is digital, one might as well
>>> be using keyboard chat on the internet.
>>>
>>> In my career as an amateur I've seen repeaters go from something
>>> built in the garage/shack to multi-site, statewide linked, trunked
>>> communications systems. I have watched packet radio go from a random
>>> network of individual stations to nothing more than the equivalent of
>>> wireless access points linked by commercial wired networks (internet).
>>>
>>> I don't want to see HF devolve to the point that "amateurs" will need
>>> to pay for membership in and access to a series of "mega stations" in
>>> northeast Maine, southern Florida, northwest Washington and southern
>>> California to have the best shot at DX ... or even worse Radio Arcla
>>> class facilities all over the world just to be able to "chat" with
>>> any amateur, anywhere without regard to propagation, local conditions
>>> and time of day.
>>>
>>> I've already seen evidence of individuals working a DX contest from
>>> KP2 or other locations in the Caribbean while setting at home in New
>>> York or Boston or San Francisco, etc. I'd rather *never* work a P5
>>> than "work" someone operating a multi-band remote transmitter located
>>> on the roof of a PyongYang hotel (or cell-phone factory) with operators
>>> in Oakland, Atlanta, London, Berlin and Helsinki.
>>>
>>> Is remote technology "fun"? Is it an engineering challenge? Yes.
>>> Is it appropriate for amateur radio? Not in my book (even though
>>> that opinion may be contrary to my own bank account before long)!
>>>
>>> Remote operation/remote technology offers a huge opportunity for
>>> regulators and those commercial interests (primarily messaging
>>> and remote sensing companies) who would like to acquire amateur
>>> spectrum to argue that "amateur radio" can be accommodated entirely
>>> on-line rather than continue to occupy more than 15% of the spectrum
>>> below 30 MHz.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/16/2012 7:11 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>>> Although I've never had to deal with an HOA, I lived for thirty
>>>> years in
>>>> a neighborhood that "frowned" upon any kind of tower, and the lot was
>>>> small enough that I didn't want one to dominate everything anyway. I
>>>> worked over 300 countries with simple homebrew verticals and had
>>>> lots of
>>>> fun doing so, but for you or anyone else to tell me that I should just
>>>> be content to live with those restrictions is beyond your pay grade.
>>>>
>>>> Antenna restrictions are not the only limitation some folks have to
>>>> live
>>>> with. Local QRN can be a real issue for some, and trust me ... it is a
>>>> LOT more fun to be able to hear stations than it is not to hear them.
>>>> Ask any contester how much fun it is to endlessly call stations only to
>>>> have most of your RF end up as heat loss in the ground or a nearby
>>>> building.
>>>>
>>>> I now have a tower with excellent antennas on a nice hillside lot. Very
>>>> few people get to enjoy what I experience during a contest, where I can
>>>> run a frequency for hours and not have to rely solely on S&P. Remote
>>>> operation potentially gives some folks that opportunity and I can't see
>>>> a thing wrong with it. Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really
>>>> curious why.
>>>>
>>>> Dave AB7E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/16/2012 4:27 PM, Phil Hystad wrote:
>>>>> I will guess that Joe is suggesting that remote operation should
>>>>> not be needed to enjoy ham radio from any location. Maybe, I am
>>>>> just guessing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So ... what exactly about that "smells"? You figure they're trying to
>>>>>> cheat in some way? What else would you have against somebody doing
>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave AB7E
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/16/2012 2:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have thought for many years that it would be a great feature if a
>>>>>>>> radio club could set up a super station and offer remote access
>>>>>>>> to its
>>>>>>>> apartment-bound members.
>>>>>>> I keep hearing this - and the "HOA limitation" - as justification
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> remote operation. As far as I'm concerned both just don't "pass the
>>>>>>> smell test."
>

Mike Markowski-2

Re: Monmouth (was: K3/0)

In reply to this post by Ted Bryant

Ted,

I was told there had been two rhombics, one pointed at Europe in case
the Cold War ever got a little warmer!, and one to southeast Asia to
support the Vietnam War. At some point after that war, the SE Asia
pointing rhombic came down in a storm and was never repaired. That left
just the EU one. On my K1 I had to convince an op or two in EU and RU
that I truly was qrp. :-)

73,
Mike ab3ap

On 01/16/2012 06:41 PM, Ted Bryant wrote:
> Sorry to hear the station closed. I was there from September 1966 through
> March 1967. Ate a lot of pizza in that lobby. Drank some coffee, too. Lots
> of good memories.
>
> The 3 element 40m Telrex was a real flame thrower then. Btw, I thought that
> rhombic was pointed at Honolulu.
>
> 73, Ted W4NZ
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Guy, K2AV

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Back a few years, a ham now a SK, had a mountain retreat, where he headed
when he could. He built a remote station up there, quite superb, and did
it without the benefit of the rather neat toys we have today. He would
operate it from up there whenever he could, and remotely all the other
times when the tyranny of the job kept him away. His DXCC list was all
from up there. Some number of contests were TX/RX from up there, with him
controlling from the big city. And this was before the big arguments
started over the method. I believe, at this present time, that his mode of
operation back then is legal in all the contests I remember hearing him in,
vindicating his using it all that time.

I really can't see anything, not the slightest thing, the matter with that.
The only difference between then and now, then remote was a real PITA to
setup and maintain, requiring a lot of original engineering and
construction, and now it's easy with "false" front ends and gizmo's
available to control rigs at remote locations.

The guys who really cheat have the ultimate punishment. When they are old
and quiet, thinking about who they are and what they've done, they know in
their heart they don't belong on the big list, and there's no way to fix
it. And ham radio will certainly not be the worst of those failings. And
that's between them and their maker. I don't have to do a thing. So why
worry about it now. If the contest organizers know a way to detect cheats,
FB. But not knowing or bothering to know otherwise, I'm gonna work 'em,
move right on and keep my run rate up. Besides...

If remote operation will get another station on the band Sunday afternoon
to work in the sweepstakes, bring it on, I'll work 'em. SS Sunday
afternoon needs all the help it can get. :>)

73, Guy.

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 1/16/2012 9:36 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > Oh give me a break. Can you honestly tell me that there is a
> > significant difference between driving your car over to a decked out
> > club station to operate a contest versus doing the same thing via a
> > remote link? Seriously??
>
> Absolutely - the human interaction (multi-multi with every operator in
> his own home?).
>
> > There are already people using remote receivers while claiming
> > operation from a home QTH. Those folks are cheats, but they're no
> > different than the many more cheats who operate excess power, or
> > claim unassisted while using the spotting clusters, or have their
> > buddy on the other coast work a tough station for them for DXCC.
>
> I knew "big name" DXers who had a buddy in Western Washington hold the
> phone to the speaker of his receiver so the guy in Ohio or Michigan,
> or Pennsylvania, etc. could hear the XZ or A5 or S2 on 80 meters then
> call with an Alpha 77DX or home brew 8171 running everything it would
> produce back in the 70's. Sure it's "cheating" ... nothing's changed
> morally challenged individuals will do unethical things but I don't
> have to like it and I don't have to remain silent about it.
>
> > And no particular definition of ham radio makes it "unique". The
> > great value of this hobby is that it covers such a wide range of
> > interests and capabilities, and the spectrum of technology within it
> > is continuous, not discrete.
>
> True, there is no one definition that makes it unique but there are
> some definitions in both US law and international treaty that provide
> a rather clear picture - non-commercial, person to person, innovation
> in the radio art, "wireless", etc. I certainly don't find anything
> that makes it a common carrier or a wired - even in part - service.
>
> However, this is getting rather far afield. The argument that wired
> "remote operation" is a necessity for success and enjoyment of ham
> radio in HOA and antenna limited conditions simply does not pass the
> smell test. It is possible to make all kinds of excuses for wired
> remote but in my book they are just that - excuses.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 1/16/2012 9:36 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > Oh give me a break. Can you honestly tell me that there is a significant
> > difference between driving your car over to a decked out club station to
> > operate a contest versus doing the same thing via a remote link?
> > Seriously??
> >
> > I get really, really tired of some of you folks telling everyone else
> > what they should be willing to live with, or what they should be doing
> > in order to be legitimate. If the FCC says it's OK and the event sponsor
> > (contest, DXCC) says it's OK, who are you to say it isn't?
> >
> > There are already people using remote receivers while claiming operation
> > from a home QTH. Those folks are cheats, but they're no different than
> > the many more cheats who operate excess power, or claim unassisted while
> > using the spotting clusters, or have their buddy on the other coast work
> > a tough station for them for DXCC. We're not talking about people who
> > operate from Aruba while sitting in New York, but even if we were what's
> > the problem? Your RF traveled to Aruba and their RF came back to you
> > from Aruba. You worked Aruba, period.
> >
> > The argument about regulators and commercial interests using remote
> > stations as evidence that amateur radio can be supplanted by online
> > links is truly bogus. Of course ham radio can be supplanted by online
> > links. Anybody who doesn't already believe that hasn't been paying
> > attention.
> >
> > And no particular definition of ham radio makes it "unique". The great
> > value of this hobby is that it covers such a wide range of interests and
> > capabilities, and the spectrum of technology within it is continuous,
> > not discrete. Here's an example. Hand key CW --> bug key CW -->
> > electronic keyer CW --> memory keyer CW --> logging program CW (auto
> > fills on report, callsign, etc).
> >
> > This hobby really needs fewer intolerant and narrow minded old men ...
> > and probably fewer old men like me who get all riled up about stupid
> stuff.
> >
> > Dave AB7E
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/16/2012 6:51 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
> >> Joe,
> >>
> >> I support and applaud your position.
> >> There are those who will support "contacts at any cost", and that is
> >> just not ham radio to me - if you can buy contacts for dollars (or
> >> pounds or pesos), then it is no longer ham radio.
> >> One of the main rules of ham radio for me is the "no pecuniary
> >> interest" rule. That says to me that ham radio is all about sharing,
> >> and not for personal gain. When we begin to talk about "stations for
> >> hire", that is when my interest wanes. Many of us take pride in our
> >> stations and our operating skills, and strive to improve on our
> >> previous 'score' in the same contest from last year. We do not all
> >> have to be "top dogs" in order to have satisfaction.
> >> This is a hobby, enjoy it in what ever way you are able - there are
> >> many, many facets, and you do not have to excel in all of them - pick
> >> what appeals to you and 'just do it'.
> >>
> >> If HOAs restrict you to attic antennas, so be it, you can still work
> >> DXCC with that attic antenna, and be rightfully proud of your
> >> accomplishment. Sure, you will not do it in a weekend like those with
> >> monster antennas and 1.5kW transmitters, but you can still do it and
> >> stand proud of your accomplishment.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Don W3FPR
> >>
> >> On 1/16/2012 8:33 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> >>> > Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really curious why.
> >>>
> >>> You misquote me ... I said that argument that remote operation was a
> >>> necessary answer to HOAs/other antenna restrictions and the only way
> >>> to get on the air did not pass the smell test.
> >>>
> >>> As far as I am concerned, remote operation changes the character of
> >>> amateur radio from over the air "amateur radio" to "landline based
> >>> commercial communication" at least in part. When the operator is not
> >>> present at the station (transmitting/receiving site) the "radio" part
> >>> of the communications path can become infinitesimal - nothing more
> >>> than a hand-held link to the nearest access point.
> >>>
> >>> That eliminates everything that makes amateur radio unique. Taking
> >>> that one step further ... if the mode is digital, one might as well
> >>> be using keyboard chat on the internet.
> >>>
> >>> In my career as an amateur I've seen repeaters go from something
> >>> built in the garage/shack to multi-site, statewide linked, trunked
> >>> communications systems. I have watched packet radio go from a random
> >>> network of individual stations to nothing more than the equivalent of
> >>> wireless access points linked by commercial wired networks (internet).
> >>>
> >>> I don't want to see HF devolve to the point that "amateurs" will need
> >>> to pay for membership in and access to a series of "mega stations" in
> >>> northeast Maine, southern Florida, northwest Washington and southern
> >>> California to have the best shot at DX ... or even worse Radio Arcla
> >>> class facilities all over the world just to be able to "chat" with
> >>> any amateur, anywhere without regard to propagation, local conditions
> >>> and time of day.
> >>>
> >>> I've already seen evidence of individuals working a DX contest from
> >>> KP2 or other locations in the Caribbean while setting at home in New
> >>> York or Boston or San Francisco, etc. I'd rather *never* work a P5
> >>> than "work" someone operating a multi-band remote transmitter located
> >>> on the roof of a PyongYang hotel (or cell-phone factory) with operators
> >>> in Oakland, Atlanta, London, Berlin and Helsinki.
> >>>
> >>> Is remote technology "fun"? Is it an engineering challenge? Yes.
> >>> Is it appropriate for amateur radio? Not in my book (even though
> >>> that opinion may be contrary to my own bank account before long)!
> >>>
> >>> Remote operation/remote technology offers a huge opportunity for
> >>> regulators and those commercial interests (primarily messaging
> >>> and remote sensing companies) who would like to acquire amateur
> >>> spectrum to argue that "amateur radio" can be accommodated entirely
> >>> on-line rather than continue to occupy more than 15% of the spectrum
> >>> below 30 MHz.
> >>>
> >>> 73,
> >>>
> >>> ... Joe, W4TV
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1/16/2012 7:11 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> >>>> Although I've never had to deal with an HOA, I lived for thirty
> >>>> years in
> >>>> a neighborhood that "frowned" upon any kind of tower, and the lot was
> >>>> small enough that I didn't want one to dominate everything anyway. I
> >>>> worked over 300 countries with simple homebrew verticals and had
> >>>> lots of
> >>>> fun doing so, but for you or anyone else to tell me that I should just
> >>>> be content to live with those restrictions is beyond your pay grade.
> >>>>
> >>>> Antenna restrictions are not the only limitation some folks have to
> >>>> live
> >>>> with. Local QRN can be a real issue for some, and trust me ... it is a
> >>>> LOT more fun to be able to hear stations than it is not to hear them.
> >>>> Ask any contester how much fun it is to endlessly call stations only
> to
> >>>> have most of your RF end up as heat loss in the ground or a nearby
> >>>> building.
> >>>>
> >>>> I now have a tower with excellent antennas on a nice hillside lot.
> Very
> >>>> few people get to enjoy what I experience during a contest, where I
> can
> >>>> run a frequency for hours and not have to rely solely on S&P. Remote
> >>>> operation potentially gives some folks that opportunity and I can't
> see
> >>>> a thing wrong with it. Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really
> >>>> curious why.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dave AB7E
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/16/2012 4:27 PM, Phil Hystad wrote:
> >>>>> I will guess that Joe is suggesting that remote operation should
> >>>>> not be needed to enjoy ham radio from any location. Maybe, I am
> >>>>> just guessing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> So ... what exactly about that "smells"? You figure they're trying
> to
> >>>>>> cheat in some way? What else would you have against somebody doing
> >>>>>> that?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dave AB7E
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 1/16/2012 2:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I have thought for many years that it would be a great feature if
> a
> >>>>>>>> radio club could set up a super station and offer remote access
> >>>>>>>> to its
> >>>>>>>> apartment-bound members.
> >>>>>>> I keep hearing this - and the "HOA limitation" - as justification
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>> remote operation. As far as I'm concerned both just don't "pass the
> >>>>>>> smell test."
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: K3/0 [End of pro/con thread]

Administrator

Folks, let's end the remote operation pro/con argument portion of this thread. If you feel the need to continue arguing please take it off list. We all enjoy this hobby for widely different reasons, and by using a wide range of technologies. Remember - It is a hobby, not a profession:-) We are all here to have fun, to learn, and to meet interesting people.

It is not appropriate,and is outside of list guidelines, to criticize others for how they may chose to set up their station. Arguing about amateur radio policy issues should also be done elsewhere.

As a side note, I operated with my K3/0 this weekend from a location at Lake Tahoe where antennas are not allowed. I had a blast and was able to satisfy my radio habit. :-)

73,
Eric
Elecraft List Moderator
www.elecraft.com
_..._
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Jim Brown-10

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by Guy, K2AV

On 1/16/2012 9:38 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
> This hobby really needs fewer intolerant and narrow minded old men ...

I've missed this thread, which has obviously gone on for quite a while.
But I SURE DO AGREE with this statement, except that I would change one
word -- This WORLD really needs . . . .

I've operated from a Chicago city lot with wires and an S7 noise level,
from a couple of west coast super stations, from a damn nice station in
PJ4, and from my own station in Nor California that is getting to be
pretty nice. I've run QRP in contests, and I've run legal power. In
every situation I've had fun, but I've had the most fun in the stations
I've built myself (with considerable help from friends). For a short
time I had a lease on a mountain-top QTH that I hoped to develop,
perhaps even remotely operated, but the realities of cost set in, and I
gave up the lease. From experience, I can say that operating from a
mountaintop can be good for another 10dB or more on the HF bands, and
the noise levels are often quite low too.

With all of this experience, I would be the LAST to begrudge a guy who
lives in the city, or in a small place where antennas are limited and/or
the nose is high, the opportunity to compete with a remote station he
has built himself -- indeed, I would applaud him for it! Anyone who
thinks it's easy should talk to some who has done it -- like K6VVA, a
serious contester and expeditioner who has been working on developing
his for nearly three years now. Remote control of a rig is a tiny
fraction of the problem, although in a remote site you may also have to
build the communications link (K6VVA did). There's also the matter of
building a shack, building a power system, building an antenna farm (and
it's seriously WINDY on mountain tops), building a switching system and
a control system for it, even building a road to get to it and buying
snow vehicles to get to it during contest season.

As to cheating -- I include in that category a guy who starts working
DXCC at a QTH on one coast, then moves 2,000 - 3,000 miles (CO and NC,
or CA and NY), still within the US, and counts the QSOs he has made from
both locations for ANY award, including DXCC. or operates at a QTH
across the country to make a QSO that he adds to his award totals.
Anyone who has operated from locations 2,000 miles apart KNOWS in his
heart he's cheating, even if the stupid ARRL DXCC rules say it's OK. I
didn't start over when I moved from WV to OH to IL, because the
distances were short enough that it didn't change the difficulty of
working any given country, but I DID when I moved to CA.

Like the man said -- it's between you and your conscience. And mine is
clean.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Edward R Cole

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by Gregg Marco W6IZT

I guess I can see both sides on this issue.

There is a group of about a dozen Swiss hams that formed a club and
set up a 60-foot dish for eme. In Europe having sufficient land and
room for one's own super-antenna farm is just about impossible. But
the site is not commercial; the hams built the dish and club house
and maintain all. But the members can operate eme remotely from
their house via the internet.

Many living in apartments, condos, HOA, etc. cannot put up the
station they might desire so if they can afford a remote property to
set up their station it makes a good compromise. As I see it the
remote-control qth would not be the official transmitter qth for
contests & awards or other records. That would be the location that
transmitter/antennas are installed.

I am lucky to have 2-3/4 acres with no restrictions, covenants,
zoning, or city ordinances. If I want to build it, I do. No
permits. No inspections. No city "fathers"! My property is even
bounded on one side by a private airstrip/road. I just talked to my
neighbor who owns the 3800-foot strip with my plans to put up a tower
within 80-feet to the side of the runway and he said "no
problem". Of course the spruce trees are about the same height and
he has to stay above them, too. FAA is not involved as it is not a
public airstrip.

Hams are experimenting with wifi on 2.4 and 5.6 GHz and legally able
to run more ERP than the commercial services. A wifi link for remote
control of a station is a possibility. It might only require a patch
antenna in the window to connect with the remote transmitter
site. What is needed are ham radios with remote control interface.

73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
======================================
BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com
EME: 50-1.1kw?, 144-1.4kw, 432-QRT, 1296-?, 3400-?
DUBUS Magazine USA Rep [hidden email]
Coming Soon - "Kits made by KL7UW"
======================================
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Richard Thorne-3

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Joe,

Excuse? I had no idea I had to have an excuse to either be on the air
or off the air, interesting.

73,

Rich - N5ZC

On 1/16/2012 8:40 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> John,
>
> Everyone has an "excuse" for his own remote control application. All
> I'm saying is that wired remote control irrevocably changes the nature
> of amateur radio and that remote control is not a requirement for
> "success" and/or enjoyment of amateur radio in an antenna limited
> environment.
>
> Sure it's a technical tour de force but it's not the same amateur radio
> that my Elmers taught me more than 40 years ago. There is a major
> qualitative difference between "hands on" amateur radio and "hands off"
> remote operation and when we willingly accept the removal of the "hands
> on" aspect, we give up much of the value of amateur radio.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 1/16/2012 9:22 PM, John K9UWA wrote:
>> Sorry but I disagree with a good share of this Joe. My Station is at My Home
>> in Indiana. I built the station and I operate it Remotely during the wintertime
>> while I am in Florida.
>>
>> John k9uwa
>>
>>
>>> > Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really curious why.
>>> As far as I am concerned, remote operation changes the character of
>>> amateur radio from over the air "amateur radio" to "landline based
>>> commercial communication" at least in part. When the operator is not
>>> present at the station (transmitting/receiving site) the "radio" part
>>> of the communications path can become infinitesimal - nothing more
>>> than a hand-held link to the nearest access point.
>>>
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

drewko

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

I think we can safely say that operating a remote mountaintop station
from the comfort of one's retirement home is nothing but a pipe dream
for most of us. The extent of my own remote operations is likely to be
from the far flung regions of my house. I'd be willing to pay about
150 bux for this added capability which, I guess, means it is bound to
remain a remote possibility.

73,
Drew
AF2Z

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:30:24 -0800, you wrote:

>On 1/16/2012 9:38 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
>> This hobby really needs fewer intolerant and narrow minded old men ...
>
>I've missed this thread, which has obviously gone on for quite a while.
>But I SURE DO AGREE with this statement, except that I would change one
>word -- This WORLD really needs . . . .
>
>I've operated from a Chicago city lot with wires and an S7 noise level,
>from a couple of west coast super stations, from a damn nice station in
>PJ4, and from my own station in Nor California that is getting to be
>pretty nice. I've run QRP in contests, and I've run legal power. In
>every situation I've had fun, but I've had the most fun in the stations
>I've built myself (with considerable help from friends). For a short
>time I had a lease on a mountain-top QTH that I hoped to develop,
>perhaps even remotely operated, but the realities of cost set in, and I
>gave up the lease. From experience, I can say that operating from a
>mountaintop can be good for another 10dB or more on the HF bands, and
>the noise levels are often quite low too.
>
>With all of this experience, I would be the LAST to begrudge a guy who
>lives in the city, or in a small place where antennas are limited and/or
>the nose is high, the opportunity to compete with a remote station he
>has built himself -- indeed, I would applaud him for it! Anyone who
>thinks it's easy should talk to some who has done it -- like K6VVA, a
>serious contester and expeditioner who has been working on developing
>his for nearly three years now. Remote control of a rig is a tiny
>fraction of the problem, although in a remote site you may also have to
>build the communications link (K6VVA did). There's also the matter of
>building a shack, building a power system, building an antenna farm (and
>it's seriously WINDY on mountain tops), building a switching system and
>a control system for it, even building a road to get to it and buying
>snow vehicles to get to it during contest season.
>
>As to cheating -- I include in that category a guy who starts working
>DXCC at a QTH on one coast, then moves 2,000 - 3,000 miles (CO and NC,
>or CA and NY), still within the US, and counts the QSOs he has made from
>both locations for ANY award, including DXCC. or operates at a QTH
>across the country to make a QSO that he adds to his award totals.
>Anyone who has operated from locations 2,000 miles apart KNOWS in his
>heart he's cheating, even if the stupid ARRL DXCC rules say it's OK. I
>didn't start over when I moved from WV to OH to IL, because the
>distances were short enough that it didn't change the difficulty of
>working any given country, but I DID when I moved to CA.
>
>Like the man said -- it's between you and your conscience. And mine is
>clean.
>
>73, Jim K9YC
>______________________________________________________________

Mike Reublin

Re: K3/0

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

I like what you said, and how you said it!

73, Mike NF4L

On 1/16/2012 8:33 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

123