Ev,
The problem is that we're mixing "apples" (operators) and "oranges"
(hardware).
You are asserting that the *hardware* an operator might use should
differentiate between *operator* categories and somehow by differentiating
by hardware used, that other operators will "learn from that to improve
their skills further".
What *skills* will get improved by knowing what *hardware* someone else uses
as a single op?
These are totally different issues.
A single operator (unassisted of course) category has nothing to do with the
hardware. It is a measure of the number of operators. If the count of
operators is 1 (one), then the two entrants are in the same category. There
is no other qualification of the category.
Here is the ARRL definition from the General Rules for HF contests:
2.1.Single Operator: One person performs all transmitting, receiving, and
logging functions as well as equipment and antenna adjustments.
And, from CQ:
III. A.1. Single Operator High: Those stations at which one person performs
all of the operating, logging, and spotting functions. The use of DX
alerting assistance of any kind places the station in the Single Operator
Assisted category.
Please note that there is nothing in either of those rules that defines any
measure of the hardware the individual uses.
Anyone who thinks that it is an advantage to simply have two radios in an
SO2R configuration is sadly mistaken. The skill required to effectively use
two radios is much more dependent on what goes on between the single
operator's two ears than what his radio count is.
Please note that I have suggested in this forum previously that there needs
to be consideration of how much surrogate functionality the hardware
performs for an individual.
My concern is that at some point, the hardware may perform functions that an
additional operator could perform, and at that point, the hardware
might/should be considered as a non-human operator making the entrant a
multi-op (a human + an Operator Surrogate Computer - OSC). I envision that
advances in DSP technology might allow, for example, for high speed scanning
and recognition of callsigns on other radios on SSB and then alerting the
human operator of new multipliers etc. Such functionality might push this
hardware discussion over the edge.
I don't believe we're there today, and certainly not with SO2R, but the time
is coming when an "OSC" will be an issue.
73,
Bob W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: Radiosporting Fan [mailto:radiosporting@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:56 AM
To: 'CQ-Contest MailList'
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting in the Sunlight [was: SO1R and SO2R]
--- Robert Naumann <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
> When you are a single operator, you compete with
> other single operators. If no other person is
> helping the other guy (which would mean that he was
> cheating - by the way) then you and he are competing
> one on one, mano a mano - so to speak.
Only in the traditional sense, Bob. This thread is
intended to reach deeper into the radiosporting
activity to realize that the administration of today's
events categorizes very broadly. There are enough
differences between stations - even in the same
category - that affect outcome, that they should be
revealed ("placed in the sunlight" so to speak) to
help people better understand who their true
competition is (and learn from that to improve their
skills further).
Example: HP=201-watts to 1500-watts. That's quite a
range. Knowing if the guy you're chasing is within
3dB of you or 8-dB of you is a big deal. The opposite
goes, too...if you note that the guy with 3-db less RF
scored better than you did.
Knowing such things can help us to hone our skills in
needed areas.
Ev, W2EV
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|