W2RE Installs 4-Square System in 2 Days

I like this approach, Dave.

But I do have some.....reservations.

IMHO, if someone claims to have DXCC, WAS, WAC, etc., it means they've made the QSOs, gotten the confirmations, and the certificate. Someone may have worked 100 countries, but IMHO, until they have the certificate, they don't have DXCC.

The same goes for contest scores and QSO rates. I've seen all sorts of claims of contest results - some of which hold up, and some don't. When someone claims to have done such-and-such, but doesn't state the year and the specific contest......one has to be suspicious.

Another issue is....what constitutes a QSO? I've heard hams "work" a DXpedition by repeatedly tossing out their call until they saw themselves in the online log. To me, that's not a QSO.

Then there's the issue of remote stations. I'm not sure where I stand, but I see some factors:

1) A remote station that is owned and assembled by the operator is perfectly fine. It's just a matter of having some very long extensions on the cords and controls. Of course a QSO is based on where the station is, not where the operator is.

2) A remote station that is not owned and assembled by the operator is....problematic to me. Not that such stations should be banned, but that they put the operation into a different class from the ham who assembled and owns the station. And it's not just remotes; there's also the issue of "guest operators". There's also the use of multiple remotes located far apart but in the same DXCC entity.

Here's an analogy: In most contests, there are "unassisted" and "assisted" categories, based on the use of spotting nets, clusters, etc. That's because a station with spotting information has a big advantage in finding multipliers over a station that has to find or attract all multipliers. So while both kinds of operation are allowed, there's a distinction made. Same for single- and multiple-operator entries, high and low and QRP power, etc.

3) Historic rules and precedents are important, but they're not the only factor. In some ways, amateur radio was "easier" in the "old days", and in some ways it was harder. Go back to the 50s and 60s, and antenna restrictions were almost nonexistent, but good gear wasn't cheap and TVI was a real concern. OTOH, WW2 surplus, kits and used gear were all over the place, there weren't all that many modes or bands, and the game was just....different.

It used to be that if one moved across certain boundaries, and/or more than a certain distance, one had to start DXCC all over. The ham who reached 90 countries in EPA and then moved to ME had to start all over. Sometime after 1967 this changed, so that all QSOs from the same DXCC entity count. A ham could move all over the USA and never have to "start over".

WAS is different - WAS has a distance rule. IIRC, "all QSOs must be made from stations no two of which are more than 50 miles apart". So my QSOs from my time in New York State (I was in the high 40s on 40 CW with 40 watts when I moved) don't count, but the ones from the house on RadioTelegraph Hill do count, because of the distance rule.

btw - those tales of Cycle 19 are mostly true. Here's proof: In 1957-58, KN4RID (now W4ZV) earned the first Novice DXCC. He did it in less than a year (the Novice license term at the time.)

Think about what that entailed. In those days, Novices were limited to 75 watts DC input, crystal control, and their HF privileges were small parts of 80, 40 and 15 meter CW only - and those parts were in the middle of the band, not the low end. On 80 they had 3700-3750 kc. ; on 40 they had 7150-7200 kc. (which wasn't a ham band outside Region 2, and was full of SWBC). Which left 15 meters - which was a relatively new band at the time. So almost all countries had to be worked on 15.

KN4RID's setup consisted of a Johnson Viking Adventurer (50 watts input, maybe 30 watts out on a good day), a Collins 75A-4 (!!) and a 3 element 15 meter beam. A good setup for the time, particularly the receiver, but the conditions helped too.

See QST for November, 1958, page 64.

Send in a formal request!

Although, in a way, we have that now. You just get three certificates, one for each mode.

Thanks!

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Nothing deceptive. I do this professionally with a two or three man crew under RadioEchoComm.com. The radials are down, all 256 of them in a few hours. The radials come in a kit pre cut 65’ from DXE which saves quite a bit of time. Here is an employee of REC installing radials.

 

Thanks Ray for showing us this great superstation installation at EASTPORT.

Your efforts have enabled many who would not otherwise be able to have access to such extraordinary facilities. It is a great training and teaching tool and a wonderful example of the radio art. Oh--and its fun too!

Basis of 'ownership' in any ham based objective is a horrible and exclusionary view.

Perhaps some of our brethren may re-consider that .

73
Chip W1YW

 

I agree!

Not sure who you mean....

For me, there IS a difference between renting a remote and building one's own station. That doesn't mean remotes should be banned, or that they somehow "don't count", or that their existence and use "destroyed DXCC" or "ruined DX". Rather, they're another tool in the toolbox.

As for history, consider this: The Ancient Ones sometimes built club/group stations that far exceeded what any of them could do alone. Consider the 1BCG setup built for the 1921 Transatlantic Tests - several prominent hams and non-hams banded together to build a station that became the pre-eminent station of the Tests. Was that wrong? Should they not have done that? I think they did the right thing.

I'm still formulating an opinion. As it stands now, I see no problem with "remotes for rent", but at the same time, there IS a difference between using a station built by others, and using one built by oneself. How much difference is a matter of opinion.

But consider this: If you look at what the DXers of, say, 1948 had at their disposal, and what we have now......

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

I was taught decades ago that a dollar spent on the antenna system is worth ten dollars spent on a rig. Or as my friend K4RRF used to ask, "If you can't hear 'em how you gonna work 'em?"

 

Yes and no. All depends on the exact situation. There are plenty of situations where the money is better spent on a rig than on the antenna.

I find that a much better way of thinking of it is the "weakest link in the chain" idea.

The effectiveness of a station depends on several factors: location, antenna system, rig, operator. Results are mostly determined by the "weakest link" of those factors. In many cases, that's the antenna - but it can also be the operator, the location, or the rig.

In many situations the location is truly the limiting factor, because there's only so much room for antennas, and limitations on things like towers.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Yes, some stations definitely need a different operator.

 

I have many radios. Oldest one is Kenwood TS-430S. I think it have sense to change the radio only when I will have Yagi on all the bands.
If my only antenna is an crappy multiband vertical, then there is no difference what is my radio.

 

Nope. Don't see the difference here. Then again, as I mentioned, I am a free market guy. If someone solves my problem I am willing to pay for it.

I see no difference in this case from buying a 'share', or renting time.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Here's an interesting question...

Let's assume if I OWNED or OWNED PART of a rig, is it legitimate to get DXCC with it?

If someone LOANED me the rig, but it belonged to someone else....is it legit to get DXCC with it?

If I RENTED the rig...is it legit to get DXCC with it?

 

That's a great way to frame the dilemma Chip.

The "Station Builder" mentality, very laudable as it is, wants to use a handiwork or wealth advantage to capture extra or exclusive credit for DXCC or other awards, yet these have historically been oriented as OPERATING achievements.

Perhaps as well as DXCC there ought to be awards for station building separately. Maybe along the lines as done with competitions for Custom Cars and Street / Hot Rods.

Categories like Big Gun, City Lot, Mobile, QRP-portable, BA / Homebrew. Periodically, annually, solicit photos and verified specs and operational status to be submitted to a panel of judges who score according to agreed criteria. First place best-in class winners get excluded from that category for future competitions.

 

The difference is that the builder/operator has to do the station assembly and the operating, which requires a much bigger investment than the "rent a remote" operator.

But you bring up a good point: If someone has enough resources, they can just hire pros to do the station-building, from the basic design, through the tower, cable and antenna installation, to the final checkout. And it has always been that way.

There's also the case of the ham who gets help from others....the ham who hires out some of the work....the ham who has "connections" and can get stuff cheaply or free.

And...club/group stations that are not remote controlled. They've existed since the beginning of radio.

Seems to me there IS a difference, but that they should all qualify for DXCC. The question is: should there be categories? We have categories by band and mode, for example.

Here's one more:

Way back about 1970 or 71, K6YNB (now N6NB) described "The Cabover Kilowatt" in QST. He started with a pickup truck that had a cabover camper, reinforced the roof, redid the inside, added a crankup tower and generator to the back, and designed and built a 2 element quad that collapsed into an easily transported bundle. Inside was a cozy shack with a legal-limit HF station.

The "Cabover Kilowatt" could be driven to a location with no facilities at all and be set up in less than 30 minutes. Legal-limit station with full-size 2 element quad for 20/15/10, inverted V for 80/40. Someone with today's technology could do even better.

With a setup like that, a ham could drive to eastern Maine to work Europeans, to southern Florida to work Africa and South America, to the West Coast to work Asia and Oceania, etc. And they'd all count for DXCC. Such a setup was possible half a century ago.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Station assembly itself can only be looked at as unsubstantial. In that case, all the 'operator' is doing is attaching black boxes, each of which incorporates dozens or thousands of inventions by others. The operator really is not doing anything to 'enable' the process--its already been done for him or her.

Remote stations force us to realize that the defining characteristic of a DXer or contester is his or her operating SKILLS. Remotes--whether free, shared, or pay by minute-- ENABLE lots of people who otherwise could not acquire nor use those skills.

Remotes in their very many forms have been around for many, many, years--a modern option first truly realized by Roger Strauch, KD6UO. They are now an integral part of ham radio. Its time that such negative discussions on remotes, IMO, go the way of the SSB vs AM debate, and so on.

73
Chip W1YW

 

In a word...No. "Station assembly" is really "systems integration", and involves many decisions and a lot of work, all of it up-front before any benefit is realized.

Consider all that is required for most of us to put up, say, a tribander at 50 feet with a dipole for 80/40 between the tower and a tree:

Design of tower system, including foundation, ground system, and plans
Approval and permits by local government.
Hole(s) for foundations(s) (may be plural if a guyed tower is used).
Rebar cage fabrication
Concrete pour
Tower raising
Installation of rotator, mast, and beam
Installation of dipole end
Installation of other end of dipole in tree
Installation of cables to shack
Testing

And through it all, inspections to insure code compliance.

A lot of time, decisions, money and work, all of it before one QSO is made. And that's for a very basic system!

To say all that is "unsubstantial" is....well.....inaccurate. It's very "substantial".

However, that's not the real question. The real question is: Should all that "substantial" work be a reason to forbid the use of remotes?

No, they don't. Those skills are important, no doubt, but there's a lot more to DXing and contesting. However, again, the question is: Should any of that be a reason to forbid the use of remotes?

I agree 100%. That enabling must be weighed against the "substantial work".

Which brings up another point, that may be at the core of the issue:

What remotes can do is to allow anyone with a credit card and the right computing setup to be a "big gun". Perhaps that is what really bothers some folks - that Ham A, living in a high rise in Manhattan, can be competitive with Ham B, who lives way out in the country and has spent years building a superstation.

Here's another factor: Ham-to-ham real estate.

Decades ago, here in Delaware County, a well-to-do ham put up a pretty impressive station on a suburban lot. How he got the township to issue the permits is a mystery, but they did. His 100+ foot rotating mast (not a Big Bertha, but looked just like one) and multiple Yagis (10, 15, 20, 40, and a full-size 2 element quad for 80) gave him a BIG signal. Made the pages of QST, almost 50 years ago.

He enjoyed the setup for many years. When he passed away, another ham bought the place, and got a turnkey operation, fully documented, ready to go. It actually cost him almost nothing, because if a non-ham had bought the place, it would have cost the family serious $$ and time to have it all taken down and carted away. IOW he paid market price for the house and the antenna system was pretty much a freebie, because it saved them having to take it all down. The ham-to-ham sale was a win-win.

The second owner enjoyed it for years too. It's not there any more, sadly.

With the rise of the internet, and the increasing difficulty and cost of putting up towers in many places, ham-to-ham RE sales are becoming more common. Win-win for both parties if done right.

So.....

If I were to buy another ham's house that already had a tower, beams, shack, etc., all ready to go.....would that be "cheating? Would it "destroy" DXCC if my QSOs were allowed?

73 de Jim, N2EY