How about we go to a "One Class" system for competition. Everyone must use the same radio and same antenna to participate. shrug.
There is skill in the chase. That's the criteria. Having access to a remote doesn't make you a DXer. Having remote stations actually enables lots of folks to chase DX that could not do so otherwise. So in that context, I believe remotes are a tremendous asset for keeping the bands active and not having them taken away. DXCC is a driving activity to keep the bands active--along with contests.
I am sure Ray is happy with my participation in EASTPORT. And I am happy too. Why are you so SAD :-( Carl? BTW, if you haven't been vetted by DXCC, no one takes your assertion of '300 confirmed' on 160m as credible. Maybe you meant 73 Magazine and 'Work the World'? Basically, I don't believe you. I do believe the 147 on 160m. And I certainly believe W1JR's DXCC tallies! Happy happy!
This topic is a long drawn out bicker between "Station Builders" versus "DX Operators". Those that build so called super-stations and consider themselves both seem to expect assignment of special respect and an added criteria to the DXCC award. But that would diminish its value to those who can't or don't devote so much time and expense to the "hardware" and competition, often to self-destructive obsession, as can be read about on this thread. To focus on building so much ignores the fact that achieving impressive DXCC totals per unit time from the USA has more to do with region and propagation then anything else, along with a DX Operators long term commitment, that gets it done. East and west coast USA super-station Hams have always puffed out their chests over quickly obtained results without regard to the struggle of those confined to reside other places like the upper midwest geo-mag Black Hole. (ie, MN, where I was first licensed) The smug "Station Builders" demand a DXCC criteria that has never been there. See the original Basic Rules from QST Sept 1937 here. Rule 6 accommodates guest operators using other stations, with the minor restriction of them being in the same call area, changed along the way to be just from the same entity (USA). To quell these debates the ARRL not long ago modified the Basic Rules, see #11 today, emphasizing personal ethics be applied. However, this apparently instead simply irritates the Station Builders. For me it doesn't matter. I long ago realized the super-station of my dreams would not happen. But that did not stop being interested in DXCC. After a change of QTH to FL and eventually becoming active again, about 10 years ago I started DXCC from zero just for yucks. Am now at 320 Mixed total entities and a 9 band DXCC confirmed, 160-10m. Triple play too of course. Never a tower nor a directional gain antenna used; just wires and verticals never more then 50ft high. But I suppose since FT8 was used for the last few confirmations on 160m, and LOTW for all instead of cards, in the eyes of some that should diminish my feeling of accomplishment. It doesn't. 73, John, WØPV
And Im still doing it over in different ways. Currently Im trying for it on AM; as well as using pre 1930 equipment and/or components at QRP level consisting of a Radiola 60 with converters. Antennas will be wires. I already did it several years ago using PP 211's as an oscillator on 80 CW at 90-100W that one was a challenge to get stable enough and not sound like a yooper or a 60's Russian. A modified 1931 Scott Allwave 12 I rescued from the town dump decades ago was the receiver. No awards for that, no bragging with photos or anything else, just enjoying the challenge of doing it on my own at my home. Someone who hasnt accomplished DXCC on their own simply doesnt understand it. Im not making a big deal over it either, just stating my own one person OPINION about the deterioration of DXCC which others arent able to accept and go on and on with insults or make believe questions hoping to start a flame war which I will not be involved in. Maybe Glen can deal with those troublemakers once and for all. Done and over, let the troublemakers keep at it....Im on to other things. Carl
Who cares what you believe? That means absolutely ZERO to me. You have also been invited here to drool over the actual REAL QSL cards. It is those Ive competed with in pileups over the decades that understand my claimed total is realistic and endorsement stickers on a piece of increasingly meaningless paper are not worth the effort to apply for.
An excellent well said post John. I havent delved into FT8 yet as that would mean some new gear and Im not really interested in that for now at least. The ancient TS-940 and TS-950SD still work well and I can fix what breaks. Thanks Carl
And yaknowhat Carl, I have an open invitation. When I have time I will take him up on it. He is one really great guy. Excuse me while I mosey off and make a major donation to the VP6 dxpedition...so that lotsa folks can work'em.
I have several vintage hollow state AM rigs to chose from 20-25W such as an Elmac AF-67, and Johnson Ranger which is plenty to drive an amp to 1200+ W or a barefoot 32V2, Viking I and II, and Valiant. There is plenty on 10M at 29.0 when the band is open as well as on 6m at 50.4 plus plenty of decent power DX on 75 thru 12M conditions cooperating. Ive probably worked an easy 50 without writing anything down so a DXCC shouldnt take too long, maybe 2 years of casual operation. There are plenty of RX including a slightly souped up HRO-60, HQ-180, NC-300, and R-390A so Im not worried about hearing anyone or dealing with QRM. Amps will be linears , NCL-2000, Alpha 76PA 3 holer, Amp Supply LK-500ZC, Hunter 2000C, Dentron DTR-2000L and even a Clipperton L. All capable of around 1100-1500W. Collecting, restoring and using vintage gear is another enjoyment of this hobby Ive been in since 1955. Glen is K9STH, one of the moderators who has vowed to clean up the bickering. Carl
