> In any competitive activity, there has to be rules to limit
> technology - I know of no exceptions to this principle.
> Single-operator contesting is no different.
Amateur radio (radiosport) is not "any competitive activity."
Amateur radio competitions have, since their inception, been
based as much on technology as operator skill.
Even the first DX contests - the transatlantic tests - had a
substantial technology component when Godley et. al. used the
new "suprehetrodyne" receivers instead of the older regenerative
sets and the transmitters were "pure" CW instead of spark or
"rough" notes. If amateur radio were not about technology,
why weren't the "competitors" limited to spark and iron filing
or catwhisker detectors - after all it must be entirely about
operator skill?
Why is modern voice contesting all SSB ... after all, that's
just another technological improvement over AM phone. Maybe
contests should reject SSB as a "technology too far."
Perhaps EME contests should ban the use of WSJT modes since
the computer can copy signals not even detectable by ear and
copy several of them at a time. Why not limit EME contests
to CW only and require every station to build huge antenna
arrays and barely legal amplifiers ... enough of this 100W
and a single Yagi stuff.
Technology is a fundamental component of amateur radio and
radiosport. To deny that denies the history of amateur
radio. The only reason to exclude any technology that meets
licensing requirements is simple prejudice and placing a
"local skimmer" in the same class as remote human assistance
when SO2R (second receivers) are permitted in the "normal"
single operator class is simple prejudice.
> Wouldn't a bat that gives extra speed mean more hits, more
> home runs, and more fun for everyone? The answer is No,
> because it would disturb the fine balance between pitching
> and batting.
I could care less about baseball bats. However, the "fine
balance between pitching and batting" has been adjusted
many times over the history of Major League Baseball. The
strike zone has been reduced to give batters an advantage
and rules like the balk have been added. It is not beyond
possible that improved bat technology could be compensated
by a larger strike zone or frankly by better pitching that
relies more on breaking balls and changes in speed than in
pure brute "blow it by the batter" speed that results in
rookies pitchers needing "Tommy John" surgery due to tendon
damage. In any case, who's to say that higher scoring
games would not be more exciting and more popular ... an
overall improvement to the game of baseball just as local
skimmers would just possibly make CW contesting more interesting
and fun for a wider variety of persons?
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 9/18/2010 5:47 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV"<lists@subich.com>
>
>
>> .. there are several contest sponsors who do not take a
>> punitive view of Skimmer and have no restriction against
>> its use by any single operator.
>
> References would help.
>
>
>> I am completely opposed to excluding any technology from
>> single operator contests.
>
> No one is likely to take that remark out of context :-)
>
> In any competitive activity, there has to be rules to limit
> technology - I know of no exceptions to this principle.
> Single-operator contesting is no different.
>
> I'll give one example. In Major League Baseball, the bat
> must be a single piece of wood - no modern technology
> such as plastic laminates or carbon-fibre composites.
>
> Wouldn't a bat that gives extra speed mean more hits, more
> home runs, and more fun for everyone? The answer is No,
> because it would disturb the fine balance between pitching
> and batting.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|