Guy;
I'm definitely not anti-SO2R, just as I'm not anti-Skimmer. Just
trying to find some common ground among all the arguments.
Having listened to some SO2R CDs, I very much appreciate the skills
that are needed for SO2R operation. I wish I had them! They are
enabled by some technology that was very much controversial not that
long ago.
Skimmer has some very good as well as some questionable attributes
that we need to understand better. We went through all this with
keyboard keyers many years ago (there were those even more adamantly
opposed to them!), and several more technologies along the way.
Realizing that, the real challenge is in finding room for new
technologies to mature into what is really needed instead of what we
fear they might be. Some form of the Skimmer technology will find its
place in contesting some day (probably soon), although probably not in
the form we see it now, and probably not filling our bandmaps in the
way that has been discussed. I expect that it, like keyers, computer
logging and other technology, will be used in some more subtle way to
help _us_ operate our contest stations more effectively, rather than
taking over from us.
My bet at the moment is in the area of propagation study and
reporting. Possibilities also exist in post-contest training, such as
finding out who you _could_ have worked in addition to who you did,
and maybe even tell us what to practice to be able to achieve those
missing QSOs next time. There are lots of possibilities.
As for SO2R, I'd love to have a station to support it so that I, too,
can develop the skills. Maybe someday...
On Apr 29, 2008, at 7:32 AM, Guy Molinari wrote:
> Give SO2R a try. One will quickly find out that it is definitely
> NOT an automated second operator. Learning to decode two separate
> audio streams would be trivial for the technology behind skimmer.
> It is non-trivial for a human being to learn and it takes a big
> commitment to master. It is hard to program a computer to automate
> "commitment".
>
> 73 - Guy, N7ZG
>
>
>
>
> > From: jackbrindle@earthlink.net
> > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:20:04 -0700
> > To: hwardsil@gmail.com
> > CC: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer musings
> >
> > Ward;
> >
> > Congrats on the Dayton award. As we have seen, you have definitely
> > earned it!
> >
> > On Apr 28, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Ward Silver wrote:
> >
> > >> The same can be said for automated transmission (using a keyer
> > >> to call CQ): only a solicitation (calling CQ) can result in a
> > >> QSO. Unless someone "advertises" that they are on frequency
> > >> and ready to answer any response, there can be no QSO. In that
> > >> regard, the use of automated transmission is a unique advantage.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > This is where I disagree. The use of memory keyers did not
> > significantly change
> > contest operation until they became tied in with automated computer
> > control of
> > when the information was sent. This single event enabled the
> > operation we know
> > as SO2R. SO2R _IS_ a significant change in contest operation, at
> > least as significant
> > as what is expected with skimmer, mostly because it allows a second
> > (automated)
> > operator to conduct most of a QSO while the human operator does
> other
> > things.
> > This most certainly is assisted operation, yet we historically have
> > chosen not to
> > call it so. If we now draw the line that any technology that assists
> > the operator
> > (e.g. skimmer) puts them in the assisted category, then by
> definition
> > the very
> > technology that enables SO2R (automated keyers) must also receive
> > consideration
> > for that same category. Just because we recognize the significance
> of
> > technology
> > changes after the fact does not mean we cannot change designations
> > later when
> > we do recognize them.
> >
> > >> In any case, the "automated reception" ship has already sailed.
> > >> With up to twelve decoders integrated into Writelog, CW decoding
> > >> in MixW (with contest capability), and the availability of CW
> Get,
> > >> CW DecoderXP, MRP40, MultiPSK, and many others, there is no way
> > >> to put the "automated reception" genie back in the bottle. The
> > >> capability has existed for nearly 10 years although many are only
> > >> now waking up to its existence.
> > >
> > > To quote our Vice President, "So?" Realigning and creating
> > > categories (or
> > > not, should that be the decision) based on advances in technology
> > > is always
> > > in order. There were no categories for power division until
> > > affordable
> > > amplifiers became widespread. QRP was added when large numbers of
> > > those
> > > stations entered the competition. Amplifiers and flea-power rigs
> > > had always
> > > existed - it was not until they created distinct populations
> within
> > > the
> > > contest community that categories for them became necessary - and
> > > useful -
> > > in maintaining peer-based competition.
> >
> > I'm not sure that we should change things to put either skimmer or
> > SO2R in
> > an assisted category, but it is worth consideration. Perhaps we
> might
> > consider
> > a three-tier system with non-assisted, technology-assisted and
> human-
> > assisted
> > categories. Skimmer (and maybe SO2R?) would be in the middle
> category,
> > packet and human ops in the fully assisted, and the rest of us in
> > unassisted.
> > The problem then comes from contest sponsors who (rightfully) resist
> > suggestions
> > to add new categories because of the added workload for them.
> >
> >
> > > There may be no line of reasoning that definitively answers the
> > > question.
> > > We may have to undergo a period of evaluation during which this
> > > sort of
> > > technology is evaluated for its effect on actual scores. This
> will be
> > > difficult because the technology won't "hold still" long enough
> for
> > > a true
> > > evaluation, but at some point it will become clear whether multi-
> > > channel
> > > information extraction actually creates a new class of stations.
> >
> > I have wondered this also. Are we premature in a response to this
> > technology?
> > Should we study its effects for a relatively short period (say a
> > contest season)
> > before making any changes?
> >
> > >
> >
> > As a further item, what about derivatives of skimmer that do other
> > things, like
> > collect the calls and geographic information to tell the operator
> > when propagation
> > favors one area or another? It might even point the antennas and
> tell
> > the op which
> > bands to use, but not actually show the calls and frequencies
> > themselves. Is this
> > the same level of "assisted" that has been discussed? In other
> words,
> > is having
> > any information the problem, or is it just having specific (calls &
> > frequency)
> > information? So where do we draw the line?
> >
> > - Jack Brindle, W6FB
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------------------
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> Make i'm yours. Create a custom banner to support your cause.
-Jack Brindle, W6FB
=======================================================================
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|