This issue is not about technology. It is about the definition of Single-Op
competition. The category simply requires the operator to tune his receiver
to find stations to work, without technology, or other people, to identify
call signs and frequencies of CQing stations.
A similar "arbitrary" rule definition exists in sailboat racing. Motors are
not allowed. Only the wind can be used to propel the boat. Carbon fiber
masts, mylar sails, computer tools, and all sorts of unlimited technology is
allowed except for engine technology to propel the boat. Sailboat racing is
not anti-technology. The sport simply requires wind propulsion in its
definition of sailboat racing.
Ed - W0YK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
> Sent: Monday, 27 December, 2010 15:34
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer and NAQP
>
> I was having a conversation with an old buddy of mine off
> list on this whole thing with Skimmer. And his summation
> below I feel hit's it perfectly in every way.
>
> He isn't a BIG HF contester but does a lot of VHF/UHF
> contesting and work and follows this list because of many
> thoughts and policies in contesting find their way into the
> VHF/UHF world also. In addition he is a much better writer
> than I. He wishes to remain annonomous though.
>
> Enjoy his thoughts. And what does the group think?
>
> Joe WB9SBD
>
> But it comes back to my position that*everything* about
> radio technology in itself*is* assisting me to make
> contacts, singling out skimmer types of technologies I still
> see as just an arbitrary line drawn around a particular
> technology.. I really don't see how a narrow roofing filter
> cannot be considered assistance as well, it clearly assists
> me in hearing signals that I would not otherwise hear because
> of the other signals inside a wide passband are blanking the
> extremely weak ones. Same for a low phase noise RX design.
> And what about CW keyers and logging SW that fills in calls
> for you with what it thinks you likely heard, isn't that
> assistance too? With skimmer it may ID a signal, but you
> still need to be sure that it did indeed decode it correctly,
> or you get a busted call. And yes, as skimmer user if you let
> that busted call happen in your log then you most certainly
> should take the score hit for it. Skimmer doesn't relieve you
> from having to
> positively ID the station and making the exchange itself.
>
> Ham radio technology has been continually evolving from day
> one. The only thing that in my mind that can and should be
> held constant rule-wise is clearly defining what the
> station's location is. And in the context of contesting
> that*all* information about signals and operators on the
> bands be solely derived by that station's antenna system and
> the equipment that is connected to it, AND which are a part
> of the competition itself. Trying to legislate what the
> equipment that is connected to those antennas can, or cannot
> be allowed to do with the signals it hears directly from
> those antennas runs counter to what ham radio's very
> foundations are - technological advancement!!
>
> If skimmer types of technology cross some arbitrary line,
> then why not require that everyone use 2.4 kHz filters only?
> After all there are numerous people who can copy most all of
> the signals within that 2.4 kHz without problem at all. How
> is someone's skill at doing that fundamentally different than
> someone who masters jumping from signal to signal most
> efficiently in skimmer any different? Skimmer is a long way
> from making Q's for you, you do need to know how to use it
> effectively to make the Q.
>
> And when it comes to bandscopes, with a little practice you
> can easily identify who is calling CQ or who is running, and
> do so without ever actually listening to them. This is true
> even with the mediocre $10K JA brand radio scopes that are
> out there. The signals (CQ vs. run) each have unique
> signature patterns, and you can also tell right away when
> someone new shows up. So If I know I have worked all the
> runners I can skip tuning to them and focus on the CQ'ers,
> especially the new ones. And if you are using a waterfall
> display you can often "read" the dots and dashes (something
> that I'm not very good at BTW) on the display directly, so
> isn't that "decoding" of the signal as well?? So then is that
> capability close enough to skimmer to deem it also too much
> like a spotting network and then panadapters and waterfalls
> should be banned from SO's as well?
>
> I don't recall that there was any uproar over memory CW
> keyers when they came along, same for computer
> logging/keying. But yet those who wanted top stay competitive
> as (unassisted) SO's once those became popular simply took
> the time to implement, learn, and use them. So why shouldn't
> skimmer types of technologies be treated the same way today?
>
> And I don't think radio contesting has ever been solely about
> the operator's skill alone. And skills aspect alone isn't
> just copying and finding signals, it is also "reading" the
> broader band conditions and activity trends. Plus it also
> encompasses the ability to build an effective station. A
> competitive station is largely defined by its ability to
> implement new technologies. If the ability to apply new
> technologies is artificially constrained, then why bother
> improving stations in the future? Doing that will cause ham
> radio and ham radio contesting to eventually whither and die.
> There have been dozens of previous technological advances
> over the years that could have also been deemed "too
> disruptive" to be legal for contesting, so why now with
> skimmer types of technologies?
>
> One thing for sure is that when I first saw CWSkimmer a few
> years ago I knew it was going to kick up a hornets nest of
> debate in contesting circles - it certainly has!! I was just
> surprised at the ratio of "apposed to" vs. those who like me
> see it as simply an advancement of radio technology. It also
> led me to fully understand what it was specifically about DX
> spotting networks that had always bugged me for years. I
> finally figured out that it wasn't the*technology* of the
> spotting networks itself that bothered me, but it was instead
> the fact that ops could use information from*other* people's
> stations to decide whether to try and work a Q or not. And it
> also really allowed me to hone in on my current position that
> all technology that is wholly contained within my station is
> fair game to implement. But also that ideally one should
> strive to have a "sterile" station environment where the
> signals themselves are handled by my own, and exclusive to my
> station's equipment, and that any possible Q info only be
> obtained by those means that my station itself is capable of.
> So that is why I increasingly shy away from using QSO
> spotting pages and QSO "chat" pages. Those are unquestionably
> "assistance", they turn the Q making process itself into
> little more than an exercise in validating a QSO made on the
> Internet. Local skimmer types of technologies on the other
> hand*are* just me*and* my station's equipment finding and
> making the Q's. No other station or op is involved with
> telling me when/where to look.
>
> In the end if local CWSkimmer must be segregated, then it
> needs to be its own new category, as it is*not* the same
> thing as packet and/or using information from*other*
> stations/ops. I'm truly flabbergasted that people can't see
> the difference between the two.
>
> 73,
>
>
>
> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> Idle Tyme
> Idle-Tyme.com
> http://www.idle-tyme.com
>
> On 10/24/2010 10:07 AM, Charles W. Shaw wrote:
> > What Tree has already said, and:
> >
> > Put in a rule that says something to the effect that--no electronic
> > systems/devices are permitted to help interpret the CW other than
> > speakers, headphones, blinking lights and vibrating panels.
> SO, MO,
> > makes no difference, same deal.
> >
> > BUT, I and my same 100 watt radio and copper wires still plan to be
> > 'participating' this time as since the beginning and
> earlier. I like
> > it, it's fun.
> >
> > 73,
> > N5UL - Chas, '55, NM
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|