Remote / Automatic station for record purposes

[VK2OMD]

Leigh has described a scenario in which he can from time to time hear a distant beacon, but not raise someone at the far end for a QSO.

There are many ways to improve the chances of a QSO. Let me float one for discussion and comment.

What if the beacon station was more than a transmit only beacon, what if it could participate in a QSO.

Options would include automatic decoding of some type of modulation, and interacting with the calling station in a way that would be accepted as constituting a valid QSO. Another option would be to include remote operation facilities, so that another licenced amateur on hearing the beacon, could remotely listen at the beacon site and remotely operate the beacon transmitter under the beacon station's call sign to make contact with his own station.

The concept and the technology are just applications of existing technology, and it may even not be a novel application.

How do people feel about the validity of such contacts for record / award / contest purposes?

If the path across the bight is an outstanding prospect for records, is this a way to overcome the disadvantage of the sparse population in turning outstanding conditions into outstanding contacts, whether for record purposes or for personal achievement?

Lets defer discussion of the technical architecture for the moment and concentrate on the ethics issue, both in contemporary terms and respecting the considerable historical achievements by those before us.

Owen

[VK4CZ]

Owen

This was a subject that over the last two cycles received a reasonable amount of attention within the 6m DX fraternity... and spurned a magazine article about 'Intelligent beacons' by Chip Angle (and forgive me if I'm wrong - Steve OT do you remember) utilising CW for TX/RX. The concept was to install several such beacons in locations were known paths availed themselves but where activity was negligable (eg: Sth America).

Although receiving widespread discussion and conceptual support, the proposal never took off.

In these days of digital communications, the the techincal challenges are less - although we couldopen a can of worms regarding the skills required

But given the investment required, the location of such devices would need to be supported where the technical and operational challenges could be realised and recognised... but for my $0.02 worth, that wouldn't be within mainland VK.

VK4CZ/2

[VK5PJ]

Scott,
I have for a long time wanted to create a CW robot that could run on a very basic PC / laptop. This arose from the amount of people asking "where were you last monday, it was open for hours and no one was heard from Alice Springs". During that period I was working the RS series satelites which had a basic CW robot and I thought it would allow people to get a report and a QSO number even while no human operator was around.

The overall idea was to be able to send the PC and a reliable radio to far reaches of the world for it to be powered up for a few months, then retrieve the PC (complete with its QSO log) and see how it had gone

Alas I could not get the project past the basic phase, I had some very compact code for decoding morse, thanks to Tom Moffat (Sk) and a basic response engine but could not mate the two. Like all wild dreams I keep thinking about it at odd times and wonder "what if"....

Owen

This was a subject that over the last two cycles received a reasonable amount of attention within the 6m DX fraternity... and spurned a magazine article about 'Intelligent beacons' by Chip Angle (and forgive me if I'm wrong - Steve OT do you remember) utilising CW for TX/RX. The concept was to install several such beacons in locations were known paths availed themselves but where activity was negligable (eg: Sth America).

Although receiving widespread discussion and conceptual support, the proposal never took off.

In these days of digital communications, the the techincal challenges are less - although we couldopen a can of worms regarding the skills required

But given the investment required, the location of such devices would need to be supported where the technical and operational challenges could be realised and recognised... but for my $0.02 worth, that wouldn't be within mainland VK.

VK4CZ/2

[VK3HZ]

I've discussed this idea with a number of people over the years (e.g. beaming west from Geraldton to try to cross the Indian Ocean on 2m).

Such a beacon could bash away day/night until someone at the other end hears it, whereupon they would contact a nominated person who would remotely access the station and have a QSO (the situation of an operator working himself would lack the verfication required for a Record).

For crossing a path like the Indian Ocean, there could be two digital-mode beacons automatically bleating at each other until they finally hear something. Then they would each contact their respective operators who would log in remotely and have a QSO. (I wouldn't suggest it, but the beacons could have their own QSO - forget the humans )

The question is whether such a contact would count in case of a record distance. The VHF/UHF Record regs are a bit vague:

Contact must be made directly between the two stations without the aid of active repeaters or translators. If the signals
from either station passed at any time through an active repeater, translator, or linked network, the claimant must provide proof that
the signals heard were those emitted directly by the originating station.

Recalling Leigh VK2KRR's 2m contact a few years ago where he worked into a Perth repeater, I wonder if some revision of the rules is needed to take into account the longest radio path involved, regardless of any relaying in the overall link. His was really a record-breaking contact (on FM!), but was disallowed by a technicality - it was a repeater at the other end.

I've asked our Record OverLord (aka John Martin) for his opinion.

Regards,
Dave

[VK2OMD]

The question is whether such a contact would count in case of a record distance. The VHF/UHF Record regs are a bit vague:

Contact must be made directly between the two stations without the aid of active repeaters or translators. If the signals
from either station passed at any time through an active repeater, translator, or linked network, the claimant must provide proof that
the signals heard were those emitted directly by the originating station.

For avoidance of doubt, I was not discussing a repeater or translator. I am talking about evolving a traditional beacon into a transmit / receive station which can be remotely controlled by a licenced amateur, and / or that can automatically participate in a QSO (eg receive and log a callsign and signal report, and supply a signal report) without using a live operator at the automated station.

Remotely controlled stations are already in use, the question is what do people think of the ethics of contacts made using such a station in terms of record recognition.

Of course, creation of robots has its own issues... you only have to look at how packet radio was destroyed by robots exchanging nodelists with robots to the detriment of live traffic... bit like APRS today isn't it.

Owen

[VK3HZ]

One could say that the situation we're discussing is somewhat analagous to that of using a repeater, except that one of the links is via the Internet.

However, as I said, I think that (for example) the VK2KRR to VK6Rxx path should have been eligible for a distance record claim, provided that someone was worked via the repeater to back up the claim. Following on, I'd think that a VK3HZ/R (I wish ...) to whoever contact should also be eligible.

[VK2OMD]

One could say that the situation we're discussing is somewhat analagous to that of using a repeater, except that one of the links is via the Internet.

However, as I said, I think that (for example) the VK2KRR to VK6Rxx path should have been eligible for a distance record claim, provided that someone was worked via the repeater to back up the claim. Following on, I'd think that a VK3HZ/R (I wish ...) to whoever contact should also be eligible.

David, I think that a remotely operated station is quite different to a repeater (which usually has two distinct radio paths between the end station).

My thoughts are that if you want to compare it to a common repeater for the purpose of trying to make part of a repeater contact eligible, you may well sink the lot. (One thought comes to mind is that if the longest repeater path was acceptable, then so would a satellite path be on principle.)

Remote operated stations are a reality, they are used on HF, and it seems that they are accepted for DXCC but the remote operator must be located in the same DXCC entity. This is a useful precedent, but not directly applicable to the VHF distance record scenario.

The first question is should remote controlled stations be accepted for VHF and above distance awards. To answer that may go to the meaning of remote control... and how close to the transceiver / antenna must an operator be to not be considered remote. Then the follow on question of whether the remote control link may involve a radio path (eg Kenwood's sky command), and whether it needs to be differentiated from a common repeater.

The second question is whether a fully automated station can be one end of a QSO for the purpose of VHF and above distance records.

JM may know the answer, or may be able to explore the IARU views etc.

Owen