At 03:09 PM 2/26/96 -0800, Brian, K6STI, wrote:
>But after I got the basic algorithm working and
>printing pileup callsigns on my screen, I realized that I would not want to
>use this device in a contest myself! I love CW and I love digging calls >out
>of pileups. To me, that's a big part of the fun of operating. My decoder
>wasn't perfect but it certainly would increase your score. Therefore, a
>serious competitor would feel compelled to use one whether he wanted to or
>not, whether it made the contest more fun for him or not. I thought this
>was an awful position to put someone in.
An interesting, thoughtful message, Brian.
Fifteen or so years ago, I wrote a letter to the CAC suggesting that there
be a rule in contests limiting real-time computing to 8 KB of RAM, so as to
permit memory keyers and bar everything else. As I recall, I didn't even
get an answer. A few years later I wrote one of the first real-time logging
programs, for the Commodore 64. Today I use TRLog and a DVP.
So what's the point? It seems to me that contesting technology is a little
like the arms race. Once it's been demonstrated that it can be done, it
will be. A few people will do it, when it's expensive and hard, but sooner
or later the price will be in general reach.
If we feel -- and I do, too -- that essentially unaided use of the human ear
and brain is central to the concept of radio contesting, then how do we
write a reasonable rule to keep it in that position? Or, maybe better, how
do we distinguish between the unaided human class and the new SOA you suggest?
This isn't easy, I realize -- how do you distinguish between the use of DSP
that filters, auto-notches, etc. and DSP that decodes callsigns in pileups?
Or the software that then works the station for you?
Anyhow, just a topic for discussion between now and the next interesting
contest.
73,
Pete Smith N4ZR (n4zr@ix.netcom.com)
|