Why are people talking about some digital mode on a reflector that's supposed
to be for contesting? It's never going to be the dominant mode for
contesting... at least I hope not. If you're getting excited about using a mode
that you're making 30 QSO'S per hour or less in a contest I feel bad for you
:)I guess I'm maybe old fashioned like Paul and prefer modes where the operator
is copying something with their own brain. But if you want to operate these
computer modes all the power to you. I just pray it doesn't take over ham
radio. If it does I will be finding a new hobby.I tried doing some RTTY
contesting in the past but got bored with it pretty quickly. I have also used
FT8 in VHF contests when the band is dead. Will probably continue to do that in
the future to boost my score.JeffSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> Date:
6/3/19 7:22 PM (GMT-05:00) To: cq-contest@contesting.com Subject: Re:
[CQ-Contest] Fwd: [wsjtgroup] WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6 On 03/06/2019 20:44, David
Gilbert wrote:>> You're talking to a wall.This "wall" listens, and has
opinions, and explains the reasoning behinditsopinions. Insofar as my opinions
deviate from "generally perceivedwisdom" (my quotes), they are often derided or
unwelcome.> Paul always does this stuff ... if you don't view ham radio the way
he > does you aren't doing ham radio.Only to the extent that I don't accept
that everything done in the name ofham radio, by ham-radio operators, is
invariably or necessarily ham radio.> What Paul is never able to grasp is that
"ham radio" covers a much > broader scope than he perceives, and that includes
contesting. As > long as contest sponsors are thoughtful enough to properly
categorize > activities, I can find no problem at all with there being CW
contests, > SSB contests, RTTY contests, FT4 contests, etc.What I cannot
"grasp" or accept is that automated machine-to-machinecontacts represent ham
radio, even when a ham-radio operator orcontester has fired up the station and
computer, and set theappropriateapp going.> They simply require different
combinations of skills, and having > different types of contests simply serves
the broader interests of > hams in general. It's still ham radio.No skill is
needed for automated machine-to-machine contacts.That includes FT8 and/or FT4.
YouTube has examples.> It's ridiculous and purely arbitrary to assert that the
only valid > contests are those where hams do their own decoding (which of
course > leaves out the very popular RTTY mode).Equally, it's ridiculous and
arbitrary to give contesting or DXCCcredit for automated contacts - ones that
take place and are loggedwith no human intervention whatsoever.> What about
encoding? I would bet that most contesters today don't > send their own
information, at least not on CW and RTTY. We push a > button on the keyboard
and the logger does it for us. Why should only > one direction of the
communication path need to fit Paul's narrow > view? I have literally done
entire major CW contests without ever > touching the paddle (and had half the
received callsigns/reports > auto-filled for me by the logger to boot).Ward
N0AX explained it better than I could - in April 2008. "Dealing with
automated reception differently than automated transmission is appropriate
because only reception can initiate a QSO; whether in response to a
solicitation (CQ) or from tuning to a solicitation (S&P). Reception is
qualitatively different in this regard than
transmission."http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2008-April/079851.html
and - "You can cast the lure as much as you want, but if no fish bites,
you have not caught a fish. There must be a reception event to trigger the
process by which a QSO is conducted. Both reception and transmission are
necessary, but neither is sufficient. Transmission events soliciting QSOs
typically outnumber reception events many-to-one. (Which key on your
keyboard is the most worn - F1 or Insert?) Thus, reception is the critical
element in allowing the transaction to
proceed."http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2008-April/079860.html>
I wouldn't like to see contests lump fully automated QSOs with > non-automated
ones, We're agreed on that, at least :-)> but the signal processing argument is
bogus.That's a misquote. I introduced the term "data processing" (thedata
exchanged in a data-mode contact) - not "signal processing".> The ability for
FT4 to copy weak signals comes at the cost of speed, > and I can list other
disparities between stations as well. If I have a > rig with better DSP
capabilities I'm going to be able to hear stations > somebody with a lesser rig
won't. It's not my proficiency that makes > a difference ... it's PROCESSING
that does.Signal processing helps us all, and operating proficiency never
goesto waste.> If I have narrower filters than somebody else does I can pick
out > stations from a pack better than somebody else could. It's not my >
proficiency that makes a difference ... it's PROCESSING.They both make a
difference.> FT4 is simply a digital modeNot quite! It's a digital data mode
with data processing and errorchecking capabilities - a mode which can easily
be fully automated.> with different processing tradeoffs, and why Paul thinks
that the > possibilities being "limitless" is a problem is beyond me.Nowhere
did I suggest the possibilities were "limitless". WhatIsaid was "the potential
combinations (for new data modes) arelimitless". I look forward to FT4 Release
Candidate 8 in the nearfuture.> The DSP found in almost all modern rigs is
itself "processing". It > takes the analog signal from the antenna, slices and
dices it to bits, > runs it through various software algorithms, transforms it
in both > time and frequency domains, and reconstructs it to audio.Agreed, but
it's not data processing in the sense I intended - texttransmission/reception
with automatic error correction.> And what is so special about audio? It is
merely one of our senses.Here we go again - another misquote. I suggested
"ham-radio operatorsdo their own decoding", and was careful to not specify a
sense.<snip>> Diversity is healthy.That's a trite, feel-good statement that
means nothing in particular.Competitive swimming doesn't "diversify" by
permitting flippers.New technology is generally deemed to be inappropriate when
its effectsaredisproportionate or when its use would change the nature of
thecompetitive activity concerned.I suggest we're there now with
fully-automated FT8 and FT4 - andI can't help feeling AB7E agrees :-)73,Paul
EI5DI>> 73,> Dave AB7E>> p.s. I can't wait to see what kind of private
message Paul will send > me this time.>>>> On 6/3/2019 9:25 AM, Chuck Dietz
wrote:>> I don’t have any idea what you are saying here. Are you just bad >>
mouthing>> digital modes?>>>> Chuck W5PR>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:55 AM
Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:>>>>> Great - we have yet another data
mode. There is no single data mode >>> that>>> is>>> "best" in all respects.
It's always a compromise between time, signal>>> rate,>>> bandwidth and number
of discrete channels or tones - the potential>>> combinations>>> are
limitless.>>>>>> What all data modes (including RTTY) have in common is that
they >>> require>>> machine decoding. It seems to me that ham-radio contesters
do their >>> own>>> decoding, whether it's CW or Phone. Everything else is
data processing>>> and,>>> increasingly, fully-automated data processing.>>>>>>
Let's leave data modes to the Data-Processing-over-RF apps.>>>>>> 73,>>> Paul
EI5DI>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/06/2019 19:49, Jim Brown wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> --------
Forwarded Message -------->>>> Subject: [wsjtgroup] WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6>>>> Date:
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 14:32:20 -0400>>>> From: Joe Taylor joe@Princeton.EDU
[wsjtgroup]>>>> <wsjtgroup-noreply@yahoogroups.com>>>>> Reply-To: Joe Taylor
<joe@Princeton.EDU>>>>> To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
<wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com>>>>>>>>> To: Users of WSJT-X -- especially those
interested in radio >>>> contesting>>>> From: WSJT Development Group>>>>>>>> As
you know, we have been developing a protocol called FT4 for use in>>>> radio
contesting. A new version of FT4 is now available for testing>>>> in WSJT-X
2.1.0-rc6.>>>>>>>> PLEASE NOTE THAT FT4 IN RELEASE CANDIDATE 6 IS NOT
COMPATIBLE WITH>>>> THAT IN ANY PREVIOUS RELEASE.>>>>>>>> Therefore: Please
stop using WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5. If you wish to use FT4>>>> after today or to take
advantage of other recent program corrections>>>> or enhancements, you should
use WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6.>>>>>> _______________________________________________>>>
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>>
_______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list>
CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest
mailing
listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|