I have been using a spectrum scope since the IC756PROIII. Now I use a flex.
It’s not really that much of a help. Sure, I can see where signals are but
it’s blind. There is no decoding. So I still have to tune and see what is a
dupe and what is not a mult. All it does is save me time turning the knob.
(I don’t like using knobs, but that’s another matter). It does help me find
clear space to CQ.
Station monitors and other stuff has been around since the analog days. It
just got wider and digital now.
I’ve operated assisted and unassisted and I can assure you that there is a
monumental difference using spots and just using the waterfall.
The difference between assisted and unassisted comes down to running.
Unassisted favors brute force running. Assisted favors mult chasing.
Assisted scores are usually LOWER than unassisted and have fewer QSOs.
There’s no advantage. It’s an entirely different game.
Ria
N2RJ
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:16 AM Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr@gmail.com> wrote:
> I definitely have the opinion that the new generation of radios (SDR) moves
> into the territory of Assisted very clearly - no matter if calls signs are
> shown or not.
>
> Until this recent development, I was against joining Assisted and
> Non-Assisted into one category. I am not so sure anymore.
>
> My thought is that in CQWW, the Classic category should be more marketed.
> One radio, with one receiver, max two VFOs in that receiver, no waterfalls,
> reduced allowed operating time (18/36hours) to make it possible for each
> entrant to pick his favorite preference for operating time.
>
> The Classic category should be developed as the Boy and His Radio - or the
> Gentlemen’s Category, where an “old-fashioned” rule compliance statement
> needs to be signed by each participant:
>
> “I hereby confirm that I have used equipment in full technical compliance
> with both the rules of the contest (specifically taking into notice all
> criteria for the Classic/Gentleman’s Category). This means I used ONE radio
> with single receiver, max two VFOs. I also choose not to use any QSO or
> propagation alerting assistance such as clusters, skimmers, SDRs,
> waterfalls, Reverse Beacon Network or similar”. All my search for new
> contacts were made either by turning the VFO or calling CQ. I also, and
> very specifically , confirm that I have NOT exceeded the output power
> regulations of either my license or the rules of the contest”.
>
> All new invented rules seem adapted just for the top level of contesters,
> and the purpose seem to be reduction of Assisted/Non-Assisted cheating,
> whereas the Power Abuse indeed is the biggest of all problems - but for
> obvious reasons hard to catch.
>
> It is time we take a step back and realize that “technical development in
> absurdity” does not make contesting more fun - or the operators better.
>
> High time that we pay attention to the bulk of operators that does
> contesting in a way that pleases them - and not the Contes Sponsors’ more
> and more bureaucratic demands, to support their vain attempts to find
> cheaters.
>
> Contesting SHOULD be a Gentleman’s sport where we measure results mainly
> against our own expectations, previously achieved results or own targets.
>
> To cheat in contesting is an ugly modern way of development, no matter if
> this includes using huge amps, connect a skimmer secretly from time to
> time, or log pad a few or more contacts into the log - simply to “win fame
> and reputation”. I know which guys have reached their positions in a
> respectable way - and who have not. Those clean guys (or girls) have my
> highest respect. Others not - they are the Fake of contesters.
>
> Bring back courtesy and Gentlemanship into Contesting - and only you can
> decide in what category you belong... That amp of yours, does it really fit
> into your new costume as a Fair Play Contester?
>
> Recording of a whole contest for each participant who “risk” to end up in
> “Top 5” is PURE NONSENSE! If this rule also would make a real-time approved
> video recording of a calibrated and approved output power meter of the
> amplifier, maybe this would have more relevance..
>
> Stereo recordings is a bad excuse for Contest Sponsors that they “at least
> do a tiny something to reduce cheating” but it is a game catching
> mosquitoes instead of (power) elephants...
>
> 73 de Mats RM2D (SM6LRR)
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:22, Richard Ferch <ve3iay@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > N1UR wrote:
> >
> > > Sure they don't ask everyone in the top 5 for a recording, but I assume
> > if
> > > Scott had one, it would have clarified whatever the concern was.
> >
> > Not necessarily.
> >
> > Presumably they are checking for assisted vs. non-assisted, since audio
> > recordings are only required in non-assisted entry classes.
> >
> > But just how would a recording tell them whether you were assisted?
> Because
> > you jumped directly from one S&P QSO to the next without tuning through
> > intervening frequencies? At one time, maybe that would have been an
> > indication, but not with current technology. With a current Icom or Flex
> > radio, or with any other radio plus a cheap SDR and some free or
> > inexpensive software, you can now configure N1MM Logger+ to display a
> > spectrum/waterfall window that is integrated with the logger, so you can
> > click on traces in the waterfall and jump directly from one signal to the
> > next. You can do an entire contest S&P without ever turning the tuning
> > knob, and without using any assistance as defined in CQ WW rule VIII.2
> (the
> > spectrum display software does not decode CW, it just displays signal
> > traces, the same as the display on the front panel of many current
> radios,
> > or on an external panadapter like a P3).
> >
> > As far as an audio recording is concerned, someone clicking on spectrum
> or
> > waterfall traces to jump between signals would sound exactly the same as
> > someone clicking on cluster spots. An audio recording would not be able
> to
> > discriminate between the two.
> >
> > 73,
> > Rich VE3KI
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
|