<snip> QSO alerting systems will now be permitted in all CQ WW WPX SSB and CW Single Operator categories, except the Single Operator Classic Overlay categories. That's a weasel way of announcing that
<snip> It's disappointing to see opinions stated as fact, or which don't tell the whole story. Choice has not been eliminated. That's true, but it fails to mention that choice has been reduced. (The
Here we go again - with more half-truths and evasions. The revised WPX rules fully support single operators that do not want to utilize QSO alerting systems. They don't - the former Single Op Unassis
Thank you all for your inputs. I have my convictions on the rule changes and I own them. I have provided the rationale in a fully transparent manner. I believe the revised rule are in the long term
<snip> . . . But for example, imagine a radio contest with every participant connected to the internet Imagine a sailboat race with everyone using mechanical propulsion - yes, it's now a powerboat ra
<snip> It involves co-operation, tactics, strategy planning and amplifies the pleasure of contesting by the number of participating operators. This ignores the elephant in the room. M/M Distributed
The same argument could be made for ANY remote operation, Yes, that's my point. and you are most definitely swimming upstream (and mostly alone) on that. It's definitely a struggle :-) And in spite
You still don't understand FT8. Even if their computer is running 24 hrs a day, WSJT-X will complete only one contact before requiring the operator to reset TX. Please try a search for Automated FT8
<snip> Hams being so anti technology is mind blowing. I have never seen such a paradox except in ham radio. (yes, it also talks about skill but that doesn't mean we have to shun technology). Not all
It's simple - "unassisted" ops risk being DQed for accidental or unintended cluster access/use. 73, Paul EI5DI 73, Pete N4ZR Check out the new Reverse Beacon Network web server at<http://beta.reverse
Then, perhaps N4ZR will let us know the "real" reason for K1AR's warning about the consequences of unintended cluster access. With regard to technological innovation, I an opposed to "assisted" being
Identifying fake "self-spotting" using IP addresses alone is a non-starter - we all have access to VPNs these days to spoof them. In supporting, as I do, all relevant technological innovation, I reco
Do you have specific software packages, or kinds of software, that you'd like to see written about in NCJ? How about subjects *about* software, and the influence of software on contesting? One topic
From the number of comments I've received, both on the reflector and off, it appears that a prime subject these days is remote operation. It appears that N4ZR has little or no interest in using softw
Self-spotting is merely the internet equivalent of calling CQ, and is entirely consistent with using the internet for receiving spots - whether generated by people or by the RBN. It's clear that, for
This argument is futile. Regardless of how FT8 works, CW is an analog mode along its entire RF signal path - a mode that can be decoded by people. If CW is sliced and diced to make it a digital RF
The duty cycle for CW does not vary with speed. The standard word PARIS for assessing speed has 50 units, of which 22 are key down. Therefore, the duty cycle is 44% for an average of 5 characters p
<snip> Calling FT8 an "existential threat to ham radio" is ludicrous no matter how much you or I may dislike it. Anything that encourages lots of activity like FT8 does is exactly the opposite. Dave
Self-spotting is merely the equivalent of calling CQ by non-ham means. To me, it never made sense to permit the use of non-ham communications networks for the purpose of improving your score while c
Tom has rejected my attempts to raise this issue on the N1MM reflector, so I'm trying here. The difference between self-spotting and being spotted by an RBN node should be obvious - in the RBN case