CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification

To: WW3S <ww3s@zoominternet.net>, David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
From: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 19:31:15 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sounds to me like multiple streams is the nature of the beast in digi 
contesting.  Those interested in it should embrace it.

Ed  N1UR

-----Original Message-----
From: WW3S [mailto:ww3s@zoominternet.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 7:26 PM
To: David Gilbert
Cc: Edward Sawyer; CQ-Contest@contesting. com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification

You don’t need multiple rigs...or multiple copies of the software to do 
it....one copy of the software will do it, if set for dxpedition mode, I think 
the most I saw was 5 at one time...3 at a time is usually 3 different TX audio 
streams, when you go more than 3 you’ll get 2 stations on the same audio freq, 
one getting a RR73 and one getting a signal report....

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 6, 2019, at 5:19 PM, David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Well, I've read the contest rules several times, and they don't specifically 
> make the same "one signal per band" limitation for single op that they do for 
> multiop.  I agree that it is assumed, but again ... the rules don't 
> specifically rule it out and we all know from past experience that loopholes 
> tend to be exploited.
> 
> And I am absolutely certain that these were three separate QSOs with three 
> different stations.  I should have taken a screenshot.  The contacts were 
> within the same 15 second window, with different stations, and with different 
> signal reports.  And as I said, it happened again a short while later with 
> two completely different stations.  These were not images, and they were not 
> the staggered transmissions that we can do while overlapping more than one 
> contact.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you can run multiple instances of WSJT-X as long as you 
> specify different rigs for each.  If you check out 5T5PA's page at QRZ.com 
> you can clearly see that he is a pretty smart guy and that he has multiple 
> rigs.  Probably the simplest way would be to use three instances of WSJT-X 
> driving the same sound card and talking to three rigs via different com ports.
> 
> Regarding DXCC eligibility, what I saw did not appear to be any more 
> automated than normal FT8 contacts.  They didn't need to be.  If he called CQ 
> on three different frequencies, WSJT-X handles everything from that point on 
> if he clicked the "Call 1st" box.  He would still have to manually enable the 
> next CQ's, but that wouldn't be difficult to quickly do three times.
> 
> I think it's all kind of clever, but I wouldn't want to see it in the contest.
> 
> 73,
> Dave   AB7E
> 
> 
>> On 8/6/2019 1:17 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
>> Dave - is this actually REALLY quickly synchronized separate transmissions 
>> to 3 different stations?  Or are there 3 simultaneous transmissions 
>> occurring at exactly the same time?  If it’s the former, its certainly 
>> serial single op worthy - I do this all the time while contesting - just not 
>> as fast as a computer.  If it’s the later, then it would be "more than one 
>> signal at a time".  That would violate current rules in all categories I 
>> believe.  Even Multi-Op stations can only have one signal at a time on a 
>> distinct band.  Of course I am assuming that a "signal" is the roughly 50hz 
>> of individual beeps and not the 3khz of computer managed bandwidth.  All 
>> definitions to be finalized with this new breed of contest category.  
>> Illustrating how non-human controlled it really is.
>> 
>> Interestingly, and on a different subject, whether 5T5PA is actually 
>> compliant with the new DXCC rules making such contacts ineligible for DXCC 
>> is another topic.  I believe that the next contact cannot be made without a 
>> human engagement.  So was it semi-automatic or automatic fire?  And is that 
>> engagement needed as part of a "stack build" or real time - the initial DXCC 
>> language was not too clear.
>> 
>> Ed  N1UR
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
>> David Gilbert
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 3:10 PM
>> To: 'CQ-Contest@contesting. com'
>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
>> 
>> 
>> Although it is certainly implied, the rules listed on the WW-Digi website do 
>> not specifically prohibit using more than one signal at the same time ON THE 
>> SAME BAND for the single op category.  They say that transmission can only 
>> be on one band at a time, but they don't say you can't make multiple 
>> transmissions at the same time on the same band.
>> 
>> The reason I bring this up is that I just witnessed 5T5PA making three 
>> separate FT8 transmissions on 20m to three different stations all within the 
>> same fifteen second window.  A short time later I saw two separate 
>> transmissions from him to two different stations (and different stations 
>> than the previous three), again all within the same fifteen second window.  
>> Each simultaneous transmission was spaced exactly 60 Hz apart, and the 
>> software cleanly decoded all signals as if they were from different 
>> callsigns.  5T5PA expertly managed all the QSOs cleanly.
>> 
>> Interestingly enough, even though I've worked 5T5PA before, JTAlert only 
>> labeled one of the three as a dupe.
>> 
>> I can think of more than a couple of ways 5T5PA could be doing this, and for 
>> casual operation I see no problem with it.  For a DXpedition, it might even 
>> make a lot of sense.  I don't remember it being against FCC/other laws, but 
>> I could be wrong about that.  In any case, it seems to me that it could open 
>> up the possibility for some controversy in a contest.
>> 
>> Or maybe I'm just crying wolf here ...
>> 
>> 73,
>> Dave   AB7E
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>