Hi Jack,
I haven't been at this long enough to know what contesting was like before
computers. I suspect the debate forum wasn't an Internet hosted mailing list.
Maybe folks actually debated those issues via radio. ;-)
The reason I threw SO2R into the mix was not to restart that debate (the
history of this can be reconstructed from the reflector archives), but to draw
a contrast on how technology can help to advance the art of radio versus one
that might be harmful and should be approached with caution. This is of
course just my opinion.
I guess the assisted category might become a testing ground for skimmer. I've
yet to see a posting from someone who regularly operates assisted taking issue
with this. I think a total ban would be severe. I would think that using a
skimmer network to check propagation would clearly place one in the assisted
category by the same logic you presented.
I'm a software engineer by profession and probably a few years younger than
many of the folks on this list. One thing about technology I've learned is
"just because you can, it doesn't mean you should".
73 - Guy, N7ZG
> CC: cq-contest@contesting.com; hwardsil@gmail.com> From:
> jackbrindle@earthlink.net> To: guy_molinari@hotmail.com> Subject: Re:
> [CQ-Contest] Skimmer musings> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:31:50 -0700> > 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 ava
ilability 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 shoul
d 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>
=======================================================================> >
_________________________________________________________________
In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_realtime_042008
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|