Elecraft

Re: Amateur Station Operations - rag chews and macro clicks

Classic

List

Threaded

7 messages Options

Edward A. Dauer

Re: Amateur Station Operations - rag chews and macro clicks

With all due respect, gents, section 97.1 is not what we in the legal biz call substantive. It is an introductory preamble included there originally for political purposes, and after enactment for purposes of interpreting the regulations that are substantive, when questions about interpretation arise. The substantive regulations go from 97.2 ro 97.527, though there aren’t nearly 526 of them. Those are the sections that tell us what we can and, about as frequently, what we cannot do. The statement of purpose is legally speaking neither a grant of specific operational authority nor itself a limitation.

As for international communications, the proscription of some forms of political discourse was not uniquely a product of the Soviet Union. The U.S. law is in 47 C.F.R. §97.117 “International communications:
Transmissions to a different country, where permitted, shall be limited to communications incidental to the purposes of the amateur service [namely, the list in 97.1] and to remarks of a personal character.”

I have not researched whether there are any judicial opinions or FCC policy statements that further explain that substantive rule.

All of that said, nothing that anyone has written in this thread which they enjoy or dislike seems to me to be outside the scope of our legal authority. **HOW** we do it technically and in some respects operationally (e.g. deliberate interference) is of course subject to lots of rules. But the rest is a matter of culture, tradition, preference, and simple operating courtesy. On those things I do not opine. I do what I enjoy. Within the scope of the substantive law, of course.

Ted, KN1CBR (and a lawyer)

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:44:16 -0700
From: "Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RTTY
Message-ID:
<[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

Okay, Kevin....

Here is the appropriate section:
<http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f320c16fc6e027120cc58558cc7a0926&mc=true&node=se47.5.97_11&rgn=div8>

I was told that basically there was no place for ragchewing in Amateur
Radio -- no place at all.

97.1(e) says there is a place for a good ragchew. Not sure where
contesting comes in, but I'll stipulate that it can be fit into 97.1
somewhere.

It does not say that every place is a good place for a ragchew, at any
time. It seems intuitively obvious that a DX pileup is neither the time
nor the place.

You then compare typing on a keyboard to using paddles, and going back
to the post just before mine, it was about using pre-programmed macros
for a contest exchange.

The operators aren't really talking. They're pressing two macro keys
and making an entry in the log.

NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, WHAT YOU LIKE TO DO, SOMEONE WILL SAY "THIS ISN'T
AMATEUR RADIO."

I do respectfully disagree.

It may not be what I want to do, but I've seen the Full-Scan TV ops get
very excited about their favored mode. Moonbounce doesn't excite me,
but it excites moonbounce enthusiasts. Satellites? Did it once, happy
to know about it, not enough to really gear-up for it.

There is room for all of this in Amateur Radio.

... and I'm more than happy to do something else on big Contest
weekends, and to steer clear of the pileups.

I won't name the person I quoted, but his technical contributions are
significant. He'd still rather carry on a conversation than just send
macros.

In my opinion, it is a little bit sad that we have reduced communication
to a couple of macros.

I don't require you to share that opinion, Kevin, nor will I deny you
the pleasure of operating that way if it's what you love.

I won't ridicule it either.

73 -- Lynn

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Colin Thomas

Re: Amateur Station Operations - rag chews and macro clicks

Going back to basics the Radio Regulations (2016) state -

1.56 amateur service: A radiocommunication service for the purpose of
self-training,
intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs,
that is, by duly authorized
persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and
without pecuniary interest.

1.57 amateur-satellite service: A radiocommunication service using space
stations on
earth satellites for the same purposes as those of the amateur service.

and more specifically -

*ARTICLE 25*
Amateur services
Section I − Amateur service
25.1 § 1 Radiocommunication between amateur stations of different
countries shall be permitted unless the administration of one of the
countries concerned has notified that it objects to such
radiocommunications. (WRC-03)
25.2 § 2 1) Transmissions between amateur stations of different
countries shall be limited to communications incidental to the purposes
of the amateur service, as defined in No. 1.56 and to remarks of a
personal character. (WRC-03)
25.2A 1A) Transmissions between amateur stations of different countries
shall not be encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except
for control signals exchanged between earth command stations and space
stations in the amateur-satellite service. (WRC-03)
25.3 2) Amateur stations may be used for transmitting international
communications on behalf of third parties only in case of emergencies or
disaster relief. An administration may
determine the applicability of this provision to amateur stations under
its jurisdiction. (WRC-03)
25.4 (SUP - WRC-03)
25.5 § 3 1) Administrations shall determine whether or not a person
seeking a licence to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the
ability to send and receive texts in Morse code signals. (WRC-03)
25.6 2) Administrations shall verify the operational and technical
qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station.
Guidance for standards of competence may be
found in the most recent version of Recommendation ITU-R M.1544. (WRC-03)
25.7 § 4 The maximum power of amateur stations shall be fixed by the
administrations concerned. (WRC-03)
25.8 § 5 1) All pertinent Articles and provisions of the Constitution,
the Convention and of these Regulations shall apply to amateur stations.
(WRC-03)
25.9 2) During the course of their transmissions, amateur stations shall
transmit their call sign at short intervals.
25.9A § 5A Administrations are encouraged to take the necessary steps to
allow amateur stations to prepare for and meet communication needs in
support of disaster relief. (WRC-03)
25.9B § 5B An administration may determine whether or not to permit a
person who has been granted a licence to operate an amateur station by
another administration to operate an amateur station while that person
is temporarily in its territory, subject to such conditions or
restrictions it may impose. (WRC-03)

Section II − Amateur-satellite service
25.10 § 6 The provisions of Section I of this Article shall apply
equally, as appropriate, to the amateur-satellite service.
25.11 § 7 Administrations authorizing space stations in the
amateur-satellite service shall ensure that sufficient earth command
stations are established before launch to ensure that any harmful
interference caused by emissions from a station in the amateur-satellite
service can be terminated immediately (see No. 22.1). (WRC-03)

I hope that helps

73

Colin, G3PSM
UK Delegate to WRC-03, WRC-07, WRC-12 and WRC-15

On 16/03/2017 21:02, Dauer, Edward wrote:

>
> With all due respect, gents, section 97.1 is not what we in the legal biz call substantive. It is an introductory preamble included there originally for political purposes, and after enactment for purposes of interpreting the regulations that are substantive, when questions about interpretation arise. The substantive regulations go from 97.2 ro 97.527, though there aren’t nearly 526 of them. Those are the sections that tell us what we can and, about as frequently, what we cannot do. The statement of purpose is legally speaking neither a grant of specific operational authority nor itself a limitation.
>
> As for international communications, the proscription of some forms of political discourse was not uniquely a product of the Soviet Union. The U.S. law is in 47 C.F.R. §97.117 “International communications:
> Transmissions to a different country, where permitted, shall be limited to communications incidental to the purposes of the amateur service [namely, the list in 97.1] and to remarks of a personal character.”
>
> I have not researched whether there are any judicial opinions or FCC policy statements that further explain that substantive rule.
>
> All of that said, nothing that anyone has written in this thread which they enjoy or dislike seems to me to be outside the scope of our legal authority. **HOW** we do it technically and in some respects operationally (e.g. deliberate interference) is of course subject to lots of rules. But the rest is a matter of culture, tradition, preference, and simple operating courtesy. On those things I do not opine. I do what I enjoy. Within the scope of the substantive law, of course.
>
> Ted, KN1CBR (and a lawyer)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:44:16 -0700
> From: "Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RTTY
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Okay, Kevin....
>
> Here is the appropriate section:
> <http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f320c16fc6e027120cc58558cc7a0926&mc=true&node=se47.5.97_11&rgn=div8>
>
> I was told that basically there was no place for ragchewing in Amateur
> Radio -- no place at all.
>
> 97.1(e) says there is a place for a good ragchew. Not sure where
> contesting comes in, but I'll stipulate that it can be fit into 97.1
> somewhere.
>
> It does not say that every place is a good place for a ragchew, at any
> time. It seems intuitively obvious that a DX pileup is neither the time
> nor the place.
>
> You then compare typing on a keyboard to using paddles, and going back
> to the post just before mine, it was about using pre-programmed macros
> for a contest exchange.
>
> The operators aren't really talking. They're pressing two macro keys
> and making an entry in the log.
>
> NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, WHAT YOU LIKE TO DO, SOMEONE WILL SAY "THIS ISN'T
> AMATEUR RADIO."
>
> I do respectfully disagree.
>
> It may not be what I want to do, but I've seen the Full-Scan TV ops get
> very excited about their favored mode. Moonbounce doesn't excite me,
> but it excites moonbounce enthusiasts. Satellites? Did it once, happy
> to know about it, not enough to really gear-up for it.
>
> There is room for all of this in Amateur Radio.
>
> ... and I'm more than happy to do something else on big Contest
> weekends, and to steer clear of the pileups.
>
> I won't name the person I quoted, but his technical contributions are
> significant. He'd still rather carry on a conversation than just send
> macros.
>
> In my opinion, it is a little bit sad that we have reduced communication
> to a couple of macros.
>
> I don't require you to share that opinion, Kevin, nor will I deny you
> the pleasure of operating that way if it's what you love.
>
> I won't ridicule it either.
>
> 73 -- Lynn
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Phil Wheeler-2

Re: Amateur Station Operations - rag chews and macro clicks

This list needs a "Don't read this thread" option.
Pedantically quoting the Radio Regs and FCC regs
seems a bit OT in an Elecraft list. It certainly
has become tiresome! Perhaps the Moderator will agree.

Phil W7OX

On 3/16/17 3:01 PM, Colin wrote:

> Going back to basics the Radio Regulations
> (2016) state -
>
> 1.56 amateur service: A radiocommunication
> service for the purpose of self-training,
> intercommunication and technical investigations
> carried out by amateurs, that is, by duly
> authorized
> persons interested in radio technique solely
> with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.
>
> 1.57 amateur-satellite service: A
> radiocommunication service using space stations on
> earth satellites for the same purposes as those
> of the amateur service.
>
> and more specifically -
>
> *ARTICLE 25*
> Amateur services
> Section I − Amateur service
> 25.1 § 1 Radiocommunication between amateur
> stations of different countries shall be
> permitted unless the administration of one of
> the countries concerned has notified that it
> objects to such radiocommunications. (WRC-03)
> 25.2 § 2 1) Transmissions between amateur
> stations of different countries shall be limited
> to communications incidental to the purposes of
> the amateur service, as defined in No. 1.56 and
> to remarks of a personal character. (WRC-03)
> 25.2A 1A) Transmissions between amateur stations
> of different countries shall not be encoded for
> the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except
> for control signals exchanged between earth
> command stations and space stations in the
> amateur-satellite service. (WRC-03)
> 25.3 2) Amateur stations may be used for
> transmitting international communications on
> behalf of third parties only in case of
> emergencies or disaster relief. An
> administration may
> determine the applicability of this provision to
> amateur stations under its jurisdiction. (WRC-03)
> 25.4 (SUP - WRC-03)
> 25.5 § 3 1) Administrations shall determine
> whether or not a person seeking a licence to
> operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the
> ability to send and receive texts in Morse code
> signals. (WRC-03)
> 25.6 2) Administrations shall verify the
> operational and technical qualifications of any
> person wishing to operate an amateur station.
> Guidance for standards of competence may be
> found in the most recent version of
> Recommendation ITU-R M.1544. (WRC-03)
> 25.7 § 4 The maximum power of amateur stations
> shall be fixed by the administrations concerned.
> (WRC-03)
> 25.8 § 5 1) All pertinent Articles and
> provisions of the Constitution, the Convention
> and of these Regulations shall apply to amateur
> stations. (WRC-03)
> 25.9 2) During the course of their
> transmissions, amateur stations shall transmit
> their call sign at short intervals.
> 25.9A § 5A Administrations are encouraged to
> take the necessary steps to allow amateur
> stations to prepare for and meet communication
> needs in support of disaster relief. (WRC-03)
> 25.9B § 5B An administration may determine
> whether or not to permit a person who has been
> granted a licence to operate an amateur station
> by another administration to operate an amateur
> station while that person is temporarily in its
> territory, subject to such conditions or
> restrictions it may impose. (WRC-03)
>
> Section II − Amateur-satellite service
> 25.10 § 6 The provisions of Section I of this
> Article shall apply equally, as appropriate, to
> the amateur-satellite service.
> 25.11 § 7 Administrations authorizing space
> stations in the amateur-satellite service shall
> ensure that sufficient earth command stations
> are established before launch to ensure that any
> harmful interference caused by emissions from a
> station in the amateur-satellite service can be
> terminated immediately (see No. 22.1). (WRC-03)
>
> I hope that helps
>
> 73
>
> Colin, G3PSM
> UK Delegate to WRC-03, WRC-07, WRC-12 and WRC-15
>
> On 16/03/2017 21:02, Dauer, Edward wrote:
>>
>> With all due respect, gents, section 97.1 is
>> not what we in the legal biz call substantive.
>> It is an introductory preamble included there
>> originally for political purposes, and after
>> enactment for purposes of interpreting the
>> regulations that are substantive, when
>> questions about interpretation arise. The
>> substantive regulations go from 97.2 ro 97.527,
>> though there aren’t nearly 526 of them. Those
>> are the sections that tell us what we can and,
>> about as frequently, what we cannot do. The
>> statement of purpose is legally speaking
>> neither a grant of specific operational
>> authority nor itself a limitation.
>>
>> As for international communications, the
>> proscription of some forms of political
>> discourse was not uniquely a product of the
>> Soviet Union. The U.S. law is in 47 C.F.R.
>> §97.117 “International communications:
>> Transmissions to a different country, where
>> permitted, shall be limited to communications
>> incidental to the purposes of the amateur
>> service [namely, the list in 97.1] and to
>> remarks of a personal character.”
>>
>> I have not researched whether there are any
>> judicial opinions or FCC policy statements that
>> further explain that substantive rule.
>>
>> All of that said, nothing that anyone has
>> written in this thread which they enjoy or
>> dislike seems to me to be outside the scope of
>> our legal authority. **HOW** we do it
>> technically and in some respects operationally
>> (e.g. deliberate interference) is of course
>> subject to lots of rules. But the rest is a
>> matter of culture, tradition, preference, and
>> simple operating courtesy. On those things I do
>> not opine. I do what I enjoy. Within the
>> scope of the substantive law, of course.
>>
>> Ted, KN1CBR (and a lawyer)
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:44:16 -0700
>> From: "Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT"
>> <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RTTY
>> Message-ID:
>> <[hidden email]>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>> Okay, Kevin....
>> Here is the appropriate section:
>> <http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f320c16fc6e027120cc58558cc7a0926&mc=true&node=se47.5.97_11&rgn=div8>
>> I was told that basically there was
>> no place for ragchewing in Amateur
>> Radio -- no place at all.
>> 97.1(e) says there is a place for a
>> good ragchew. Not sure where
>> contesting comes in, but I'll stipulate
>> that it can be fit into 97.1
>> somewhere.
>> It does not say that every place is a
>> good place for a ragchew, at any
>> time. It seems intuitively obvious that a
>> DX pileup is neither the time
>> nor the place.
>> You then compare typing on a keyboard
>> to using paddles, and going back
>> to the post just before mine, it was about
>> using pre-programmed macros
>> for a contest exchange.
>> The operators aren't really talking.
>> They're pressing two macro keys
>> and making an entry in the log.
>> NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, WHAT YOU LIKE
>> TO DO, SOMEONE WILL SAY "THIS ISN'T
>> AMATEUR RADIO."
>> I do respectfully disagree.
>> It may not be what I want to do, but
>> I've seen the Full-Scan TV ops get
>> very excited about their favored mode.
>> Moonbounce doesn't excite me,
>> but it excites moonbounce enthusiasts.
>> Satellites? Did it once, happy
>> to know about it, not enough to really
>> gear-up for it.
>> There is room for all of this in
>> Amateur Radio.
>> ... and I'm more than happy to do
>> something else on big Contest
>> weekends, and to steer clear of the pileups.
>> I won't name the person I quoted, but
>> his technical contributions are
>> significant. He'd still rather carry on a
>> conversation than just send
>> macros.
>> In my opinion, it is a little bit sad
>> that we have reduced communication
>> to a couple of macros.
>> I don't require you to share that
>> opinion, Kevin, nor will I deny you
>> the pleasure of operating that way if it's
>> what you love.
>> I won't ridicule it either.
>> 73 -- Lynn

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: Amateur Station Operations - rag chews and macro clicks

Administrator

Thread closed.

While we encourage a wide range of primarily Elecraft related and some other OT
amateur radio topics on this list, in the interest of keeping list volume
reasonable and intercourse polite, discussions and arguments regarding amateur
radio policy etc should be moved to other forums for discussion.

73,
Eric
List moderator, really!
/elecraft.com/

On 3/16/2017 3:45 PM, Phil Wheeler wrote:

> This list needs a "Don't read this thread" option. Pedantically quoting the
> Radio Regs and FCC regs seems a bit OT in an Elecraft list. It certainly has
> become tiresome! Perhaps the Moderator will agree.
>
> Phil W7OX
>
> On 3/16/17 3:01 PM, Colin wrote:
>> Going back to basics the Radio Regulations (2016) state -
>>
>> 1.56 amateur service: A radiocommunication service for the purpose of
>> self-training,
>> intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that
>> is, by duly authorized
>> persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without
>> pecuniary interest.
>>
>> 1.57 amateur-satellite service: A radiocommunication service using space
>> stations on
>> earth satellites for the same purposes as those of the amateur service.
>>
>> and more specifically -
>>
>> *ARTICLE 25*

'DGB'

Remoteing with the K3 Mini and the 1238 Twins

I am getting my remote setup.

For hardware at the remote site (home) I am using a K3, Palstar HF-Auto,
SPE Expert 1.3k - FA Amp., Green Heron Products for Rotor control and
their wireless remote boxes for switching antennas, and one Remoterig
1238. I have all this connected to a PC that is connected to the internet.

From the control site (away from home) I will use a K3 Mini, another
Remoterig 1238, and my laptop. I am able to control all my antennas with
a client program from GH thru the internet. Last year I was using a
KPA500 and KAT500 and was using Elecraft's client program to control them.

What I'm wondering is how I can control the HF-Auto and the SPE from the
control site as neither have similar client programs available as the
Elecraft stuff did?

Anyone else with a similar setup?

Thanks Dwight NS9I

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Chris Tate - N6WM

Re: Remoteing with the K3 Mini and the 1238 Twins

Not sure about the Palstar but the SPE should be fairly easily controlled via its USB interface, So I would suggest a small and inexpensive PC like an intel NUC at the remote site that will open up a number of advanced features that will be difficult to tether over an Internet connection.

Ill be giving a presentation on contesting via Remote at Contest Academy in Visalia and am knee deep in writing material for this right now.. but Dwight if you would like to chat offline about it I would be happy to do a knowledge share with you.

Chris
N6WM

-----Original Message-----
From: Elecraft [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of 'DGB'
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 9:31 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Elecraft] Remoteing with the K3 Mini and the 1238 Twins

I am getting my remote setup.

For hardware at the remote site (home) I am using a K3, Palstar HF-Auto, SPE Expert 1.3k - FA Amp., Green Heron Products for Rotor control and their wireless remote boxes for switching antennas, and one Remoterig 1238. I have all this connected to a PC that is connected to the internet.

From the control site (away from home) I will use a K3 Mini, another Remoterig 1238, and my laptop. I am able to control all my antennas with a client program from GH thru the internet. Last year I was using a
KPA500 and KAT500 and was using Elecraft's client program to control them.

What I'm wondering is how I can control the HF-Auto and the SPE from the control site as neither have similar client programs available as the Elecraft stuff did?

Anyone else with a similar setup?

Thanks Dwight NS9I

______________________________________________________________
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 Message delivered to [hidden email]
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Mitch Wolfson, DJØQN / K7DX

Re: Remoteing with the K3 Mini and the 1238 Twins

In reply to this post by 'DGB'

Dwight,

I suggest using serial port servers for the SPE, rotors and any other
serial port devices. If you use these along with the RemoteRig boxes,
then you will no longer need to have a PC running on the radio side.

The RemoteRig boxes have two serial port servers built-in, but are both
used for CAT if you use CAT with your Elecraft "Twin" system. If you
don't want to use CAT, then COM1 on the RRC's is available to control
another device. I use Lantronix serial port servers such as the UDS2100
https://www.lantronix.com/products/uds2100/, but there are a lot on the
market.

There are also dedicated boxes from RemoteRig called RC-1216H
http://www.remoterig.com/wp/?page_id=1010 that provides a web interface
for these devices. They are much more expensive that a simple serial
port server and don't provide a redirector to use client software
remotely, but are an "idiot proof" method for people that prefer that
method of control.

Using serial port servers allows you to use any client software for that
device on the control side, including the SPE client.

For any further questions or details, please contact me off list.

73,
Mitch DJ0QN / K7DX

Mitch Wolfson DJØQN / K7DX
10285 Boca Cir, Naples, FL 34109
Skype: mitchwo
USA: Home:+1-239-221-9600 - Mobile:+1-424-288-9171
Germany: Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436

On 17.03.2017 12:30, 'DGB' wrote:

> I am getting my remote setup.
>
> For hardware at the remote site (home) I am using a K3, Palstar
> HF-Auto, SPE Expert 1.3k - FA Amp., Green Heron Products for Rotor
> control and their wireless remote boxes for switching antennas, and
> one Remoterig 1238. I have all this connected to a PC that is
> connected to the internet.
>
> From the control site (away from home) I will use a K3 Mini, another
> Remoterig 1238, and my laptop. I am able to control all my antennas
> with a client program from GH thru the internet. Last year I was using
> a KPA500 and KAT500 and was using Elecraft's client program to control
> them.
>
> What I'm wondering is how I can control the HF-Auto and the SPE from
> the control site as neither have similar client programs available as
> the Elecraft stuff did?
>
> Anyone else with a similar setup?
>
> Thanks Dwight NS9I
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>