In reply to G3VQO:
Take your point Les - my use of the word ‘cheat’ was mainly aimed at contesters, but I think it can be used in other directions too - however, maybe the word ‘crutch’ might be more appropriate.
73 Cris
GM4FAM
In reply to GW7AAV:
… sorry to say no more Kangaroos here due to overhunting by Eskimoes …
73 Cris
GM4FAM
In reply to GM4FAM:
Now I come to think of it I did see zebra crossings in Scotland but only a sign warning of the tree kangaroo. I will have to keep an eye out for Eskimos when I come up in August.
Steve
In reply to GM4FAM:
Are those the guys that now are hunting the haggis?
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to GW0DSP:
I’m not so sure. The evidence base of the comments so far indicate that no-one would be interested in assisting themselves in this way. If you were that way inclined, it’s much quicker and easier to do it via SOTAwatch, email, telephone etc, all of which already exist. This kind of SDR facility isn’t going to add any great bonus to anyone who might be inclined to try for such an advantage, neither is it going to appeal to those who enjoy using their own radios and own aerials.
I will use it, for my own interest. If I see a spot, and find I cannot hear the station, I may try to listen to it on SDR. If I can, then great, that’s interesting. I won’t claim SWL points for it! It’s just a bit of interesting fun.
Although amateur radio can be invaluable as the only reliable method of communication in crisis - Hurricane Katrina, Tsunami etc - for most parts of life, there are much quicker and easier ways to communicate. The radio amateur is therefore someone who aspires to the satisfaction of making that contact directly themselves. Many of them have no interest in amateur radio repeaters, nodes, echolink etc, and those that do see them as a quirkily interesting opportunity without taking them too seriously.
I cannot see that anyone with a leaning towards amateur radio would want to use SDR to claim SWL points or assist with a contact, so I’m not so sure that it does go on, or that there would be a minority in SOTA that would use it. As Les says, the functionality of it does not allow you to work with the speed and efficiency of the top chasers anyway. So there’s no point abusing it to be competitive - 'cos you wouldn’t be!
But I will be playing with this new SDR facility some more, and enjoying the fun of it.
Tom M1EYP
In reply to GW7AAV:
“I will have to keep an eye out for Eskimos when I come up in August”.
Steve, this bloomin WX right now is too cold for Eskimoes - hope it changes for the better when you visit.
73 Cris
GM4FAM
In reply to G3VQO:
I’m a little concerned about the use of the word “cheating”.
Surely cheating can only occur if a breach of rules is committed.
As far as I recall, the rules do not permit contacts via repeaters. My personal opinion is that SDR is equivalent to a repeater as the means of receiving the other station is secondary (remote) and not an inherent part of the station and as such I feel that it should not be permissible.
What really concerns me is that hearing signals via SDR that cannot be heard at the home station could lead to people calling when there is little or no chance of getting signals back … this would just increase QRM levels affecting those genuinely able to copy.
73, Gerald
In reply to M1EYP:
Although amateur radio can be invaluable as the only reliable method of communication in crisis
The combined use of real radio with Internet enabled receivers could make difficult terrain communications in a crisis possible in normally impossible situations. If I was one side of a mountain and you were the other where vhf and uhf failed and there was no NVIS propagation using a third party RX some way off is a well trodden path. The idea of lots of remote receivers to choose from has a lot going for it especially as the operator of the remote station does not have to be on hand to rely messages.
I must point out that SDR is not Internet based, it just uses the computer for an interface, which in turn makes it easy to allow the RX/TX to be controlled remotely as in the case of http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/ so using SDR is not an issue only using a remote station which in this case is Internet enabled which I think would be covered by the rule about repeaters.
I would encourage everyone to have a look at the SoftRock kits and do the real radio thing and build a transceiver. Don’t buy them here get them direct from the US designer they are half the price (about £15 each).
Regards Steve GW7AAV 73
In reply to GW7AAV:
< I must point out that SDR is not Internet based…
Sorry - an inadequate description in my post, but you understood what I meant anyway!
73, Gerald
In reply to G4OIG:
Yes, Gerald I did, but I know a lot of amateurs are confused by all the new stuff, me included. What with SDR, D-Star, IRLP, Echolink, Digital SSB and so on and so on it is not surprising. There are so many great and interesting aspects to this hobby I often wonder if it is not all a plot to divide and conquer the amateur fraternity. If we are all doing different things using different modes on different frequencies is there not a danger we all turn off because no-one is on.
It is good to talk.
73 Steve GW7AAV
In reply to GW7AAV:
The danger is not new! The result is usually described as Dead Band Syndrome.
73 de Mike, EI2CL
In reply to EI2CL:
We all know the answer to that one - Call CQ but how many do? and how many respond to a CQ? That is where SOTA, IOTA, WAB etcetera are so good, they encourage interest.
Steve