Hello fellow contesters;
I have read much of this thread on digital modes etc. There has been a lot
of talk along the lines of Chuck's post I am replying to. If we are talking
strictly about the copying of a signal, then yes, SSB and CW do require the
human component. However this discussion seems to miss what to me is a much
larger part of contesting - propagation, equipment, knowing your station,
knowing your personal limitations.
I personally have done a fair amount of SSB, CW and RTTY contesting. Yes,
when I do a RTTY contest I sit back with a burger in one hand and a beer in
the other, and occationally click the mouse. However, when there is a weak
one, I don't just give up and say "oh well, the machine can't copy it". I
read the text on the screen intently to see if I can find a prefix. I check
the clock to see if maybe there would be some other propagation mode that
might make sense (backscatter, skew path, long path etc) and try turning the
beam. Then I try a lower or higher antenna (even if it doesn't make sense).
I tweak the filters. I ask for fills. Often knowing to try these other
techniques brings the station up enough for the machine to do its work.
Sometimes this results in grabbing a mult, sometimes it isin't worth it -
just another DL. Before a contest I spend hours pouring over past years
logs of my station and other similar stations, planning, making band plans,
looking at current propigation conditions, deciding what band to be on when,
and beaming which direction. This often opens my eyes to wierd propigation
anomilies I can take advantage of, or a strategy that I tried last time that
clearly didn't work. It also allows me to make more balanced decisions
after a long night of 20/hr rates on 80M RTTY.
My point is that digital contests (at least RTTY) don't take the operator
out of the equation, it just relieves the operator from being the one to
copy the actual signal. There is still plenty of operator skill involved
>This debate is like others along the same lines..
>Both have dedicated camps of followers who have
>passionate (and usually well-reasoned) points of
>view and positions staked out. Neither will budge
>(much) off their positions.
>
>(An aside.. kinda reminds me of the Kipling poem
>about the 7 blind men touching different parts of
>an elephant and THEN describing the elephant.
>Each was right, passionate, and accurate... but
>they all lacked an overall contextual point of
>reference.)
>
>After having followed the 'CW/NO CW',
>'CW/SSB/PSK/etc' debates.. one theme seems to be
>constantly appearing - at least to my eyes.
>
>The BIG difference between the two camps is the
>level of human involvment in the effort to
>successfully initiate, follow through on, and
>complete the communications.
>
>CW/SSB operations (without intervening
>decisionmaking technology involved) INHERENTLY
>make the human being an integral part of the
>equation. You CAN'T do it without the human
>being.
>
>It REQUIRES a buy-in and a committment to
>participate which axiomatically brings ownership
>(with the subsequenct personal pleasure of
>succeeding in doing) to the entire process.
>
>Ownership involves investment and that requires
>one to comitt to the investment which invokes a
>personal comittment by the one who is invested in
>he process.
>
>The decision on 'go/no-go' and success/failure of
>the mission is totally dependent on the decisions
>made by the human being which further cement the
>relationship and make that bond even tighter and
>more personal.
>
>In the case of technology driven modes such as
>PSK/RTTY/etc. where the machine makes the
>'go/no-go', 'success/failure' determination and
>decision the human being is reduced to a lesser
>role not having any real stake or buy-in to the
>success or failure of the mission outcome.
>
>The amount of commitment/involvement/investment
>of self is reduced (or depending on the level of
>automation/technology involved) basically
>eliminated and therefore no real sense of
>achievement or satisfaction.
>
>If the mission succeeds, it is due to the machine
>being the primary source of success.. if it
>fails.. then the machine is responsible. All the
>human did was tune a knob and press a
>button/click a mouse and stand back out of the
>way.
>
>The success/failure is dependent on a 'thing' not
>a person and that drives the value to the human
>down to where it becomes just a commodity to be
>used rather than something to invest in.
>
>No personal connection.. no buy-in.. no
>investment of self into the project.. little
>comittment... therefore little pleasure in
>success or desire to findout why things failed.
>
>I AM NOT.. ANTIDIGITAL/AUTOMATED MODES! I believe
>firmly that digital modes and all the wonderful
>benefits have their place, surely. Let us use
>them for their best purposes, of course. However,
>I think we should try to keep the understanding
>of WHY in mind whichwill help eliminate the
>constant aruging about 'MY MODE'S BETTER'N YOUR
>MODE BECAUSE....' OH YEAH! WELL *MY* MODE CAN
>DO...."..etc..etc..
>
>Just one hams humble and perhaps misguided
>understanding.
>
>Fingers are twitching!@ MUST BE TIME FOR A
>CONTEST!
>
>73
>Chuck K3FT
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
>http://health.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
|