Sitting south of the house looking over the pond Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 11:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Send Topband mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: cheating (Cecil Acuff) > 2. Re: Topband Digest, Vol 181, Issue 20 (Pete Rimmel N8PR) > 3. sdrWEB not going in my log (terry burge) > 4. Cheating the system (John Randall) > 5. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Peter Voelpel) > 6. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Peter Sundberg) > 7. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Jeff Blaine) > 8. "use" of webSDR (Johann Bruinier) > 9. Fwd: Re: VU2GSM webSDR use: A Clarification > (Joe Giacobello, K2XX) > 10. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (StellarCAT) > 11. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Jeff Blaine) > 12. Re: sdrWEB not going in my log (Nick Hall-Patch) > 13. Sunrise and Signals (aa0rs) > 14. E31A on Topband (Tim Shoppa) > 15. Re: E31A on Topband ([email protected]) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:29:17 -0600 > From: Cecil Acuff <[email protected]> > To: STEVE DANIEL <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: cheating > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Well that was a lot of help Steve.... > > You can crawl back under your rock now... > > Cecil > K5DL > > Sent using recycled electrons. > >> On Jan 15, 2018, at 9:23 PM, STEVE DANIEL <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Guy. You did it the "hard" way did you? I have been a ham and DXer since >> 1973 and have always encountered people like you. "You don't know how hard >> it was when I was your age. You have no idea how hard it was to work DX back >> then" Blah Blah Blah. It was BS then and it is BS now. The only thing that >> matters is if one works within the rules of the award or contest in which >> they compete. Technology evolves; rules evolve. Perhaps you and your ilk >> need to do the same. Look backward if you must. I choose to look in the >> other direction. Steve Daniel, NN4T >>> On January 15, 2018 at 6:28 PM Guy Olinger K2AV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> With apologies to Tree, who has asked that this subject be dropped... >>> >>> The question of the effect of a remote receiver or receivers has >>> already been dealt with by some contest organizers needing clarity and >>> consistency using current actual technical possibilities while >>> retaining the flavor and character of a contest. Probably the best >>> (IMHO) adjustment on remotes is that from Tree and Lew and the >>> inimitable BARC in the Stew Perry TBDC. >>> >>> The first part of their answer simply says remote RX *and* TX is fine, >>> and is treated like a very long electronic line from key and headset >>> to the station wherever it is. Grid square and possible required >>> xxn/callsign signing are from the remote location, which is the point >>> of record for scoring, standing, awards, etc. >>> >>> The second part is that using a local TX the receiver(s) may be >>> *entirely* co-located with the TX, or the RX facility may be >>> *entirely* sited at a single location 75 km or less from the TX >>> location. Using this provision, listening on the TX antenna is not >>> permitted during the contest. Although the rule uses the word >>> "receiver" in the singular, in their mind it does not preclude use of >>> a remote diversity RX, eg, K3 equipped with phase-locked diversity >>> subRX. >>> >>> Please remember that "cheating" with respect to ARRL DXCC has to do >>> with *ARRL* rules for same. Arguably some DXCC rules are so lax as to >>> be meaningless, but they are the ARRL's rules. It has nothing to do >>> with our being irritated or angered by someone who using modern >>> technical extensions claims the same status as ourselves when we have >>> gotten those numbers the HARD way, digging out countries through the >>> urban noise never heard up on those mountain or off-continent remotes. >>> >>> In the end someone whose status self-image depends on what others do >>> is inevitably doomed to anger. There will always, always be a cheat >>> among us somewhere. If we must compare, compare ourselves only to the >>> most noble examples. Or better yet BE that most noble example, knowing >>> God knows even if no one else does, and sleep well at night. >>> >>> 73, Guy K2AV >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Steve Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don?t >>>> believe it is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word ?cheating? >>>> suggests that it is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Jan 15, 2018, at 12:31 PM, John Randall via Topband >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has >>>>> become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system >>>>> ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps >>>>> what we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps >>>>> a DIY written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. >>>>> This would be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also >>>>> us old fogeys who have been around for a long time.Technology is a >>>>> blessing and also a curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some >>>>> control is force all websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its >>>>> subscribers and then to make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat >>>>> the logs can be compared to say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a >>>>> thought and worth chewing over or other methods used. >>>>> Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain >>>>> has been absent on the bands incl topband. >>>>> >>>>> 73John - M0ELS >>>>> _________________ >>>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>>> >>>> _________________ >>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 23:50:52 -0500 > From: "Pete Rimmel N8PR" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 181, Issue 20 > Message-ID: <1366909770F84062A4490AF72A2D7DC0@PeteRGateway> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > John (and others) > > I would not like to see the below suggestion carried out for the following > reason: > > There have been times that I have used a WebSDR receiver in Europe to help > me decide where to transmit from here in Florida. An example was the > 3C0/3C1 operations. > > I am pretty sure that the pileups from Europe were louder in those locations > than my signal from Florida. HOWEVER, I used the WebSDR to find holes in > the EU pileups and successfully worked both stations on TB. > > I could not hear most of those whom I saw on the SDR here in Florida, and my > Waller Flag was not pointed at EU to look for them. > > At the same time, I was hearing the 3C stations here on my receiver in > Florida, and NOT on the webSDR receivers in Europe. > > Should I be penalized for using a TOOL to figure out where to transmit? I > think not. This is not "Cheating" as some would suggest. > > If you saw a report of me listening on a webSDR, you would falsely conclude > I was hearing a 3C by using that means. > > This tool is the same as using Reverse beacon networks or telnet reporting > to find the DX. > > I agree that making QSOs where the receiver is not located where the > transmitter is located is against the rules of DXing and fair play, but > don't penalize those who would use a tool that is available for getting into > the DX station's log. > > 73, PeteR N8PR > > > > > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:31:38 +0000 (UTC) > From: John Randall <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Topband: cheating > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has > become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system > ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what > we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY > written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would > be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old fogeys > who have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and also a > curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force all > websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and then to > make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be compared to > say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth chewing over or > other methods used. > Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain has > been absent on the bands incl topband. > > 73John - M0ELS > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:44:04 -0800 (PST) > From: terry burge <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went on line > and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ and YT1AA. Also > heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish in the barrel. At least > when you plug into the right SDR over there. They are not going in my log but > I did find out it is easy to do. And I believe it would get so easy the > fascination with working the world would be gone for me. It works but the > most of what I got out of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' > and how poor my reception was here in Oregon. Like nil! > > > So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those > webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens, maybe > hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham Radio geeks > think. > > > Terry > > KI7M > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 07:11:06 +0000 (UTC) > From: John Randall <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Topband: Cheating the system > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > My final thoughts on this is that perhaps one way around this problem is to > allow websdr qso's via designated websdr sites only for the award chasers and > then to penalize them to "try and even the scorecard".Any qso made via other > websdr's will not be validated. Maybe its a start ! > Anyway or either way, I prefer to opt out of awards and contests. > > 73 allJohn - M0ELS > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:45:06 +0100 > From: "Peter Voelpel" <[email protected]> > To: "'terry burge'" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log > Message-ID: <5932B3341666433BA9BB1F1EDA86934D@SHACK> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Yes, there are several hundred sdr receivers online and reachable via the > internet. > > http://sdr.hu/?top=kiwi > http://websdr.org/ > > And when EA3JE takes over the dx portion of 80m with his wide signal and > illegal power he doesn?t even bother to listen that loud to the websdr he is > using, that from time time his vox is responding to it and you hear it via > his transmissions as well. > > 73 > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of terry > burge > Sent: Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018 07:44 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log > > Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went on line > and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ and YT1AA. Also > heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish in the barrel. At least > when you plug into the right SDR over there. They are not going in my log > but I did find out it is easy to do. And I believe it would get so easy the > fascination with working the world would be gone for me. It works but the > most of what I got out of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' > and how poor my reception was here in Oregon. Like nil! > > > So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those > webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens, maybe > hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham Radio geeks > think. > > > Terry > > KI7M > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:09:23 +0000 > From: Peter Sundberg <[email protected]> > To: terry burge <[email protected]>,[email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > So.. > > - Station A in North America is calling CQ on 1827.0 and is heard by > Station B in Europe via a webSDR located 50 km away from Station A in > North America. > > - Station B in Europe is calling Station A - who is listening via a > webSDR in Europe located 50 km away from Station B > > - Both stations exchange 599+ reports and greetings for a fine QSO. > > Wow, their signal made it 50 km via the airwaves at both ends and was > then "carried" across the world via the Internet. > > What a wonderful Top Band QSO, carried out "the modern way", > embracing new technology. > > OMG. > > 73 > Peter SM2CEW > > > > At 06:44 2018-01-16, terry burge wrote: >> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went >> on line and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ >> and YT1AA. Also heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish >> in the barrel. At least when you plug into the right SDR over there. >> They are not going in my log but I did find out it is easy to do. >> And I believe it would get so easy the fascination with working the >> world would be gone for me. It works but the most of what I got out >> of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' and how poor my >> reception was here in Oregon. Like nil! >> >> >> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those >> webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens, >> maybe hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham >> Radio geeks think. >> >> >> Terry >> >> KI7M >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:34:29 +0800 > From: Jeff Blaine <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > There is no way to supervise this behavior globally.? It's ultimately up > to each op to decide on what falls under ethical conduct.? And opinions > vary as to what is proper and what's not, even among peoples of a single > country with similar cultural view. > > I personally don't use receivers or antennas that are not located at my > QTH - even though ARRL DXCC regulations make the use of an east-coast > USA remote receiver point perfectly acceptable. However that's my choice > and of course, compared to someone using that sort of arrangement is > going to have a few more guys in the log that I may never hear which is > part of the price I pay for the choice I have made.? However if another > guy wants to take advantage of the rules allowing for a US-based remote > receiver that is much closer to the other station, I really can't > complaint because it's allowed explicitly by the rules and it's within > their set of choices.? The example Peter lists of the webSDR pair is > certainly possible in the modern world but that kind of QSO is not going > to go into my log because I've decided that is not my personal sort of > ham radio QSO. > > Each of us has an obligation is to manage our own personal behavior > within the scope of the official rules - what the rest of the ham world > does is up to them.? In the end, each ham who looks at a prized QSL from > a rare one, or who looks at the DXCC plaque on the wall with a count > higher than their local competition, will know well what decisions they > have made to get there.? And if they can live with the choices they have > made, then I'm happy for them. > > 73/jeff/ac0c > alpha-charlie-zero-charlie > www.ac0c.com > >> On 16-Jan-18 4:09 PM, Peter Sundberg wrote: >> So.. >> >> - Station A in North America is calling CQ on 1827.0 and is heard by >> Station B in Europe via a webSDR located 50 km away from Station A in >> North America. >> >> - Station B in Europe is calling Station A - who is listening via a >> webSDR in Europe located 50 km away from Station B >> >> - Both stations exchange 599+ reports and greetings for a fine QSO. >> >> Wow, their signal made it 50 km via the airwaves at both ends and was >> then "carried" across the world via the Internet. >> >> What a wonderful Top Band QSO, carried out "the modern way", embracing >> new technology. >> >> OMG. >> >> 73 >> Peter SM2CEW >> >> >> >> At 06:44 2018-01-16, terry burge wrote: >>> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went >>> on line and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ >>> and YT1AA. Also heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish in >>> the barrel. At least when you plug into the right SDR over there. >>> They are not going in my log but I did find out it is easy to do. And >>> I believe it would get so easy the fascination with working the world >>> would be gone for me. It works but the most of what I got out of it >>> was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' and how poor my >>> reception was here in Oregon. Like nil! >>> >>> >>> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those >>> webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens, >>> maybe hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham >>> Radio geeks think. >>> >>> >>> Terry >>> >>> KI7M >>> >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:57:44 +0100 > From: "Johann Bruinier" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Topband: "use" of webSDR > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Peter SM2CEW: Kudos on a great summery! I'm with you and many others > (like VE6WZ et al.) > > 73, Jan DL9KR. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:17:41 -0500 > From: "Joe Giacobello, K2XX" <[email protected]> > To: a Topband COL <[email protected]> > Cc: VE6WZ_Steve <[email protected]>, Ron Spencer > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Subject: Topband: Fwd: Re: VU2GSM webSDR use: A Clarification > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Several members of this forum rightfully objected to my post "doubting" > VU2GSM's use of remote RX in QSOs since he had openly admitted to same > in his correspondence. Since I view my e-mail in reverse chronological > order, I had read Paul's post and responded before seeing the posts by > VE6WZ with the links to his correspondence with VU2GSM. I apologize for > my hasty response and resultant ambiguity. > > Nevertheless, I have worked Kanti a couple of times on each of 30, 40 > and 80M. The 30M QSOs took place generally around his SR and early > evening here, and I have heard him many times in that time frame on that > band. I use a two element quad and either 100 or 200W output on that > band, and his reports of my signal, 559, are consistent with those > conditions. When I worked him on 80M, I began a correspondence with > him. His response to that initial e-mail was "Yes i got you clearly and > you were overriding QSB." That sure sounds like he was copying me > directly. Further, for some reason when I had QSLed him directly, I had > omitted our 80M QSO and had to request a second QSL from him via > e-mail. In that exchange there was not the slightest hint of his using > remote RX. Subsequently, because he knew I had an Expert 2K amp here, > we had several detailed e-mail exchanges to discuss the set-up of his > newly acquired 1.3K amp. Again, there was absolutely no hint of using > remote RX. > > It appears that he does use remote RX at times, but a review of the > times and signal reports for all our QSOs strongly support direct, long > haul reception. > > Again, I apologize for any ambiguity in my previous post. > > 73, Joe > K2XX > >> *From:* "Joe Giacobello, K2XX" <[email protected]> >> *Date:* Monday, January 15, 2018 10:37 AM >> *To:* Paul Christensen <[email protected]> >> *CC:* 'Steve Babcock' <[email protected]>, 'topband' <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use >> Like Paul, I seriously doubt that Kanti is using a remote receiver. I >> have worked him on 30, 40 and 80M and have had occasional >> correspondence with him regarding his relatively recently acquired >> Expert 1.3K amp. The signal reports he has given me seem appropriate >> for the times and band conditions at the time of the QSOs. I'm >> confident that had he been using a remote RX, it would have come up in >> our correspondence. >> >> 73, Joe >> K2XX >> >> *From:* Paul Christensen <[email protected]> >> *Date:* Sunday, January 14, 2018 12:29 PM >> *To:* "'Steve Babcock'" <[email protected]>, "'topband'" >> <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use >> No doubt some ops are using WebSDR on receive, but in this case, I am >> skeptical of the skepticism. Here's why: >> >> I routinely work VU2GSM on 40m GL-LP in the early morning hours on a >> 210-degree bearing from FL to VU. He is consistently S9, peaking +10 >> dB on my Elecraft K3. The remote station I share with N4CC is in >> Hilliard, FL just east of the St. Mary's River. Our antenna is a >> full-size 4 el. M2 40m OWA at 140 ft AGL. >> >> On the 210 deg. bearing, the land slopes almost immediately into the >> river valley. VU2GSM's solid signals aren't an isolated event; he is >> that strong most of the LP season. VU2GSM cannot be detected on my >> backyard dipole at my home QTH 30 miles to the south in Jacksonville. >> The dipole is up 35 ft. AGL. When I say he can't be detected, I mean >> there's no trace on the dipole whatsoever, not even a blip that rises >> above the SDR noise floor. That's to be expected on a low dipole if >> the arriving angle is skimming the horizon. >> >> According to HFTA, the statistical mode from FL to VU is 1 degree >> above the horizon. The sloping terrain accounts for much of VU2GSM's >> solid signals into the station. Forget 4-square arrays over good soil, >> Forget stacked arrays up to 200 ft AGL. Apart from verticals on salt >> water, nothing else compares with high horizonal antennas into sloping >> terrain when the statistical mode is 1 degree above the horizon. When >> VU2GSM is +10/S9 here, I am certain he is hearing me on his dipole and >> he doesn't need WebSDR. >> >> When I hear other NA stations calling VU2GSM on 40m, he cannot hear >> many, if not most of them. Of those he picks out, he struggles to copy >> unless they're from stations with excellent antenna systems - like >> those in the RHR group. So, if VU2GSM is routinely using WebSDR on 40m >> receive, his operating habits are not reflective of such claims. >> >> Paul, W9AC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Topband [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Steve Babcock >> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:03 AM >> To: topband <[email protected]> >> Cc: Larry D Brailean <[email protected]>; Don Moman VE6JY >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use >> >> I have been "sitting" on this for a few weeks wondering if I should >> share this information, but after seeing some spots yesterday for >> VU2GSM on 160m, I decided that others may appreciate it. >> I know I would. >> >> If you have worked Kanti, VU2GSM recently on the low bands...40, 80 or >> 160 you should be aware that he was most likely RX using a NA webSDR. >> The links below are PDF copies of email correspondence with Kanti >> confirming that this is routine for him.The emails are between both >> VE5UA, myself and VU2GSM. (Please read the email threads from the >> "bottom up" to be chronological.) >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing >> >> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing >> >> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing> >> >> To be clear, I do not judge Kanti for his desire to augment his rx, >> and do not think it is wrong. If he chooses to use Ham radio this way >> that is his choice. However, I myself do not wish to include a "half" >> QSO toward my own (personal) DXCC count, and perhaps others will feel >> the same hence this email. I also don't judge others that are good >> with such webSDR QSOs since each has his own goals and objectives. >> >> Here is some background. I have been working VU2GSM frequently and >> with ease on 40m in the morning and evening. He would respond almost >> immediately to my calls which seemed odd. More typical is Rakash >> VU2RAK who has a great signal but usually can't copy me, though we >> have QSOd a few times when conditions are exceptional. >> While at a local ham lunch, I mentioned this, and Don VE6JY said that >> Kanti is often logged into his webSDR. The following week I copied >> VU2GSM on 80m in the evening with very light copy with my 2el Yagi and >> 1000' beverage (diversity rx with K3). He answered immediately and we >> had a QSO. I was suspicious. I emailed Don VE6JY and he confirmed that >> at that time Kanti was indeed logged into his SDR. >> I deleted the QSO from my log. >> This then precipitated the e-mail correspondence which I share on the >> attached links. >> >> There is little doubt this is going on all the time, and we will never >> know. We can't undo the technology that makes webSDR possible. >> There are those who who feel that this destroys the ?integrity? of the >> DXCC. However, not everyone cares about DXCC. >> Kanti is not a villan. He is doing nothing wrong. He is not >> ?cheating?. In his email correspondence he is very open and >> transparent and makes it clear he doesn't chase DXCC, and could care >> less about it. Why should he? >> From Kanti's perspective, using a webSDR enhances his enjoyment of the >> hobby living in RFI polluted Bangalore. For others, a "half-VU" QSO is >> better than none and they are happy. >> >> Like others, I spend a great deal of effort optimizing both rx and tx >> and someday when I do make the QSO with VU on 80 and hopefully 160, it >> will be a true two-way contact. The ?buzz? for me is not getting the >> country counter in the log, its about knowing that my station made the >> contact via radio?.both ways?all the way. >> >> The purpose of this email is simply to inform those who have worked >> Kanti recently that it is possible/likely that your TX signal was not >> actually heard in VU. >> >> 73, de Steve ve6wz >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> *From:* Steve Babcock <[email protected]> >> *Date:* Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:03 AM >> *To:* topband <[email protected]> >> *CC:* Larry D Brailean <[email protected]>, Don Moman VE6JY >> <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use >> I have been "sitting" on this for a few weeks wondering if I should share >> this information, but after seeing some spots yesterday for VU2GSM on 160m, >> I decided that others may appreciate it. >> I know I would. >> >> If you have worked Kanti, VU2GSM recently on the low bands...40, 80 or 160 >> you should be aware that he was most likely RX using a NA webSDR. The links >> below are PDF copies of email correspondence with Kanti confirming that this >> is routine for him.The emails are between both VE5UA, myself and VU2GSM. >> (Please read the email threads from the "bottom up" to be chronological.) >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing<https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing> >> >> To be clear, I do not judge Kanti for his desire to augment his rx, and do >> not think it is wrong. If he chooses to use Ham radio this way that is his >> choice. However, I myself do not wish to include a "half" QSO toward my own >> (personal) DXCC count, and perhaps others will feel the same hence this >> email. I also don't judge others that are good with such webSDR QSOs since >> each has his own goals and objectives. >> >> Here is some background. I have been working VU2GSM frequently and with ease >> on 40m in the morning and evening. He would respond almost immediately to my >> calls which seemed odd. More typical is Rakash VU2RAK who has a great signal >> but usually can't copy me, though we have QSOd a few times when conditions >> are exceptional. >> While at a local ham lunch, I mentioned this, and Don VE6JY said that Kanti >> is often logged into his webSDR. The following week I copied VU2GSM on 80m >> in the evening with very light copy with my 2el Yagi and 1000' beverage >> (diversity rx with K3). He answered immediately and we had a QSO. I was >> suspicious. I emailed Don VE6JY and he confirmed that at that time Kanti was >> indeed logged into his SDR. >> I deleted the QSO from my log. >> This then precipitated the e-mail correspondence which I share on the >> attached links. >> >> There is little doubt this is going on all the time, and we will never know. >> We can't undo the technology that makes webSDR possible. >> There are those who who feel that this destroys the ?integrity? of the DXCC. >> However, not everyone cares about DXCC. >> Kanti is not a villan. He is doing nothing wrong. He is not ?cheating?. In >> his email correspondence he is very open and transparent and makes it clear >> he doesn't chase DXCC, and could care less about it. Why should he? >> From Kanti's perspective, using a webSDR enhances his enjoyment of the hobby >> living in RFI polluted Bangalore. For others, a "half-VU" QSO is better than >> none and they are happy. >> >> Like others, I spend a great deal of effort optimizing both rx and tx and >> someday when I do make the QSO with VU on 80 and hopefully 160, it will be a >> true two-way contact. The ?buzz? for me is not getting the country counter >> in the log, its about knowing that my station made the contact via >> radio?.both ways?all the way. >> >> The purpose of this email is simply to inform those who have worked Kanti >> recently that it is possible/likely that your TX signal was not actually >> heard in VU. >> >> 73, de Steve ve6wz >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:30:52 -0500 > From: "StellarCAT" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log > Message-ID: <14C2970AA59F4085813F2C2C7F7A950C@RXDesignDell> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Jeff wrote: > ?There is no way to supervise this behavior globally. .....................- > even though ARRL DXCC regulations make the use of an east-coast USA remote > receiver point perfectly acceptable. .......................I really can't > complaint because it's allowed explicitly by the rules and it's within their > set of choices. ? > 73/jeff/ac0c > alpha-charlie-zero-charlie > www.ac0c.com This is the second post I?ve seen that states this ... did I > miss something in the rules for DXCC? It seems like it does NOT allow for a > remote receiver! It ONLY allows for a remote STATION, see rule 9b. It says, I > thought, that BOTH RX and TX antennas must be within 500M of each other ... > so one that chooses to receive on the right coast when they?re on the left > (or vice versa) ISN?T complying with the rules. I recently heard a station > that is often high on the CL leaderboard ? calling the 6O group in the middle > of the day on 40 meters when it was being spotted only by W6?s. This guy is > on the EAST coast (LP) ... weird propagation? personally I would not count > such a contact ? and would like to see the agreed to if not required use of > something like a /s in the call for SDR RX. This would only apply to those > that are using remote RX? which would then allow stations to decide on what > to do with it. But again unless I misread it, and if so my apologies, it doe sn > ?t allow for remote RX for DXCC! Gary K9RX > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:41:05 +0800 > From: Jeff Blaine <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Hi gary, > > I thought that was the rule.? But I've not dug into it because I don't > use the remotes.? So just now I looked and you are 100% right.? Here's > what the ARRL web page says from Section 1... > > *9.? Station Location and Boundary:* > > *a)*All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be > located within the same DXCC entity. > *b)*All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a > specific contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle. > *c)*QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are > allowed to be used for DXCC credit. > > Thanks for setting me straight! > > 73/jeff/ac0c > alpha-charlie-zero-charlie > www.ac0c.com > >> On 16-Jan-18 10:30 PM, StellarCAT wrote: >> Jeff wrote: >> ?There is no way to supervise this behavior globally. >> .....................- even though ARRL DXCC regulations make the use of an >> east-coast USA remote receiver point perfectly acceptable. >> .......................I really can't complaint because it's allowed >> explicitly by the rules and it's within their set of choices. ? >> 73/jeff/ac0c >> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie >> www.ac0c.com This is the second post I?ve seen that states this ... did I >> miss something in the rules for DXCC? It seems like it does NOT allow for a >> remote receiver! It ONLY allows for a remote STATION, see rule 9b. It says, >> I thought, that BOTH RX and TX antennas must be within 500M of each other >> ... so one that chooses to receive on the right coast when they?re on the >> left (or vice versa) ISN?T complying with the rules. I recently heard a >> station that is often high on the CL leaderboard ? calling the 6O group in >> the middle of the day on 40 meters when it was being spotted only by W6?s. >> This guy is on the EAST coast (LP) ... weird propagation? personally I >> would not count such a contact ? and would like to see the agreed to if not >> required use of something like a /s in the call for SDR RX. This would only >> apply to those that are using remote RX? which would then allow stations to >> decide on what to do with it. But again unless I misread it, and if so my >> apologies, it do e > sn?t allow for remote RX for DXCC! Gary K9RX >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:17:55 +0000 > From: Nick Hall-Patch <[email protected]> > To: terry burge <[email protected]>,[email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log > Message-ID: <9ae492c76093d86a9e50a12f54b38936@mtlp000085> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > Did the Europeans hear your barefoot transmission, but you were not > able to hear their barefoot transmission Terry? Or were you both > using webSDRs in each others' localities? > > (and was this on 160m?) > > Thanks. > > Nick > VE7DXR > > At 06:44 2018-01-16, terry burge wrote: >> Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went >> on line and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ >> and YT1AA. Also heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish >> in the barrel. At least when you plug into the right SDR over there. >> They are not going in my log but I did find out it is easy to do. >> And I believe it would get so easy the fascination with working the >> world would be gone for me. It works but the most of what I got out >> of it was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' and how poor my >> reception was here in Oregon. Like nil! >> >> >> So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those >> webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens, >> maybe hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham >> Radio geeks think. >> >> >> Terry >> >> KI7M >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > Nick Hall-Patch > Victoria, BC > Canada > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:58:29 -0700 > From: "aa0rs" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Topband: Sunrise and Signals > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Colorado: This morning I started calling CQ around 0550 local (12:50Z) time > and managed to work a few JA stations, HL5IVL was also around, all signals > were 4x5, rapid QSB was again prevalent. > > I opened up the DXMaps website to see what others were hearing and saw that > JA1LZR had logged my signals over a period of nearly an hour as follows: > > 3dB @ 1320 Z > > 6dB @ 1332 > > 5dB @ 1346 > > 16dB @ 1359 > > 17dB @ 0712 > > The very rapid signal rise at his end shows there was significant signal > enhancement which was not reciprocated at my end, what few stations were > audible were well down in the noise. Unfortunately I did not see any further > spots despite continuing to call CQ for another 30 minutes into broad > daylight, I would have liked to have seen how quickly signals decreased, the > signal path was shown as just over 9km. > > Interestingly, KH6LC had also provided spots over the same period which > showed a signal variation of 6,8,7,6dB on a path length of 5km , he is just > South of West from here, JA is NW. Several spots from W6/W7 stations showed > a decrease of 1 to 3 dB over the same period. > > > > 73 to all. > > Dave AA0RS > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:04:21 -0500 > From: Tim Shoppa <[email protected]> > To: topBand List <[email protected]> > Subject: Topband: E31A on Topband > Message-ID: > <caj_qrvzotlfr4-ep+inkmc0n8d+zofax5nkcyccp729fpjf...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > E31A was up and down for a while last night, sometimes OK copy for me and > sometimes not. > > But in the hour before his sunrise he really peaked up A LOT. My logger > tells me his sunrise at at 3:53Z and my QSO was about 40 minutes before > that. > > Tim N3QE > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 15 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:12:47 -0500 (EST) > From: [email protected] > To: "Tim Shoppa" <[email protected]> > Cc: "topBand List" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: E31A on Topband > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > E31A was workable until about 0405Z, then faded quickly in Michigan. > > Heard Tim's QSO and many other US 1's and 2's and some 3's, and some > others in MS, TX, IN, OH, IL, MI. Also some I's, an SP5, an RN3, OH7, > etc. (Only the E31A end, too much Aurora absorption to copy Europe from > Michigan) > > GL all, George, K8GG > > > >> E31A was up and down for a while last night, sometimes OK copy for me and >> sometimes not. >> >> But in the hour before his sunrise he really peaked up A LOT. My logger >> tells me his sunrise at at 3:53Z and my QSO was about 40 minutes before >> that. >> >> Tim N3QE >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Topband mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Topband Digest, Vol 181, Issue 21 > **************************************** _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
