Defining a DX or Contest Contact

What really is required for a ham radio contact to be considered "a contact”?

One of the things that can generate considerable debate is the question of what exactly is a ham radio contact? And what role do supporting technologies play, or should play, in the making of a contact? And are there now technologies that violate the spirit of what a “contact” actually is and has always been? Probably the most contentious supporting technology is the personal computer, and by extension the Internet. Does that really need to be so? Or does this question itself really have nothing to do with computing technology, but instead has everything to do with the “how” we operate our stations?

There are some that feel computers should never be mixed with radio in any form at all. Then there are others on the completely opposite end of spectrum who consider a contact made mostly over a voice over IP mechanism on the Internet just another ham “radio” contact. And then in contesting circles there is the frequent debate as to what constitutes “assistance”. The anti computer crowd consider the use of computers themselves, in any form, “assistance”. And even some of the anti computer crowd consider PC based waterfalls and panadapters “inappropriate assistance” as well. However most of those same highly vocal opponents of mixing PC's with radios have no qualms about using radios with embedded microprocessors or even DSP. And oddly enough many of them are even OK with SDR, but only as long as it only emulates a traditional radio, and uses only knobs and buttons.

On the other end of the spectrum there are those who consider that the “making of contact itself”, no matter what the set up is prior, or if outside assistance is used, is all that matters. So the pre-scheduling of contacts, including the use real-time chat pages while making the contact is completely fine and appropriate to them. And also the use of DX spotting networks whether radio based or Internet based is as well. In fact much of todays DXing is driven from DX spotting networks. Have to wonder how less DXing there would be if there were no spotting networks of any kind?

And then in between these two extremes are those who are more pragmatic about the role of intermixing PC technology with radio. They tend to view computers and related technologies as simply a technological evolution of radio. However many of them still tend to think of it as only incrementally enhancing the traditional tried and true methods of doing things. However increasingly there are more who are now beginning to see its real potential for powerful signal processing, and some new, not before possible ways to have total band situational awareness. And along with that awareness some new highly efficient methods to act upon what they can now discover more efficiently . Often it is these more forward looking ops that tend get these debates fired up. There is currently one going on with the recent release of Alex, VE3NEA's “CWSkimmer” SDR program.

So back to the original question posed at the beginning of this article: What exactly should be considered a “contact” for DX or contest purposes? And should the use of certain technologies be “disallowed”? If so, which ones?

I have pondered these questions for some time and think that I have come up with a fairly simple answer. To me a “contact” for either contesting or DX purposes simply needs to have met these three key criteria:

1.“Was the contact made using equipment and technology that is wholly contained within my station's defined location”?

2.“Do I find or discover the stations that I work using equipment and technology that is wholly contained within my station's defined location”?

3.“Do I make the contacts using the single, direct via RF propagation paths to and from the other station”.

Notice that I put no restrictions at all on what the technology makeup is that is contained within my defined station to locate, demodulate, or decipher the signals that I find. So if I can build it, and it is wholly contained within my station, then it is fair game to use. After all isn't one of ham radio's very earliest foundations built on “advancing the radio art” technologically to improve ones own ability to directly contact another amateur?

And also note that I do not include the use of external, or parallel channels of communications such as spotting networks to pre-arrange, or to locate the stations to work. I think that it is fundamental that is it me, and also my skills at using all the capabilities of the station that I have put together which is key. Having a collective community of others pointing me towards the stations to work diminishes what has always been central to simply getting on the bands and making DX or contest contacts for oneself. It doesn't really matter to me that the collective community is passing the information along over a VHF DX cluster, the telephone, or the Internet. There really isn't any difference between them.

As for rag chewing none of this really matters all that much. In that case is there is no “claim” to making the contact, its sole purpose is to gab with someone.

The only modifier that I would allow for is the complete remote control of the station as along as all of the 3 criteria listed above are met for how I learn about the stations to work, and to work them. And the claims for contacts made be only for the location of the “RF terminal”. The remote station control point simply represents a radio with very long speaker, mic, and control panel connections.

Member Comments: