On Apr 29, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Tom Taormina wrote:
> I am not taking one side or another on this one, I just have two
> questions.
> First, will banning skimmers also include banning band scopes
> (panadaptors),
> waterfall displays and computer images from the receiver? Second,
> how could
> such a ban be enforced? With packet, we can correlate single op
> logs to
> packet spots. With a skimmer, the data exists in the station's
> receiver.
I would hope that contests would not ban the skimmer. The reasons are
not due to any ideas about more or less desirable entry status, but
more on possibly turning one or another class into an anachronism.
Just the existence of technology such as the Skimmer forces us to
revisit other technological advances such as your bandscope and
waterfall display, and for those who wish for some very strict
interpretation of present rules, be careful what you wish for, you
might get it. We're asking for interpretations and rules. We might be
able to argue that a bandscope isn't assistance, but it might not be
an argument that holds sway with the sponsors.
And for the last question, I know of no practical way to enforce such
a ban.
>
> Aren't we revisiting the other unenforceable topics of listening
> during
> off-times, QROOO, operator assistance, etc? As I listened to the
> skimmer
> debates at Visalia, I had moments of déjà vu from over 30 years ago
> when
> W6RR got one of the first memory keyers.
>
>
>
> Emotion is driving a lot of this debate. One of the people I
> respect most in
> this hobby, N6TJ, is lobbying against while K6XX, a stellar
> contester is
> arguing for. Unfortunately, I do not think that either camp will
> change the
> course of technology evolution nor will they significantly affect what
> single op's do behind closed doors in the privacy of their own ham
> stations.
Back to my anachronism comment, technology will increase, and very
useful operating enhancements will come out of computers and radios.
Can we ban these or restrict their use to some inferior status? Sure.
Problem is that as each advancement comes along, the distance between
the unassisted and the assisted classes widens, and at some future
point, might even endanger the class as more and more people move up
to the assisted classes because the technology that they use in all
other aspects of Amateur radio is unavailable.
As for an outright ban, I liken the technology gap to a related
matter of the Pennsylvania Amish (stick with me here a minute)
In say 1845, the Amish were not a whole lot different technology wise
than the "English" as they referred to other folks here in PA. As
years went by, as the rest of us adopted more and more technology,
the gap widened, until today, those who practice the traditional form
are completely estranged from the rest of us, technology wise.
side note: Many Amish folk here in PA have adopted some modern
technology, some times in unusual ways so as not to violate their
beliefs - but that is a different issue.
>
>
> I have six WaveNode Wattmeters on-line now. Perhaps we should
> require power
> output data be logged and that log and a WinTest-type Band Map log be
> appended to the Cabrillo file?
>
No. It would be pointless, as that data could be easily faked. Not to
mention that with documentation of every parameter, contesting would
become prohibitively expensive for many Hams.
>
>
> I now also have two complete and identical SO2R stations that can
> access any
> amplifier and antenna. Is it ethical to run two different SO2R
> stations in
> the same contest, at the same station, because I have pushed the
> envelope of
> technology? Should any attempt at 2 X SO2R be banned because the two
> single-ops need to talk to one another about sharing resources and
> changing
> bands? Are they increasing or decreasing their scores by being in a
> 2 X SO2R
> environment?
>
>
>
> During my last turn as NCJ editor I wrote a futuristic article about
> stations automatically operating contests and feeding log data to
> adjudicators as they happen with all of the QSO's being displayed
> on a map
> in real time. We are getting closer to this scenario.
>
One of the unfortunate parts of this discussion is that we sometimes
go places better left alone. While yes, it is becoming possible to
have an unmanned station, the skimmer concept is not intended to take
us there. It is a bit of technology that (presumably) just makes it
easier to make a Higher QSO rate, and even more so, be able to snag a
rare one. I think that the human running the station is sacrosanct,
and I doubt that anyone wants to make such a human-less station.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|