Am I the only one that is thinking "wow what a mess this is going to be" after
reading this post? Sounds accurate. Sounds completely caotic.
I thought the mess on ARRL DX SSB on 40M was a mess. That’s nothing compared
to what this is going to sound like. Except everyone's speakers will be turned
off, so no sure what the digital equivalent looks like on the screen.
Ed N1UR
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Muns
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 11:49 PM
To: 'David Gilbert'
Cc: 'CQ-Contest@contesting. com'
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
This is an example of the DXpedition "Fox and Hound" mode where the DXpedition
station is the Fox and transmits 2-5 distinct audio frequencies within his TX
passband using a single suppressed carrier at the radio dial frequency.
The WW Digi rules are written to allow multiple parallel QSOs. This is
appropriate for this narrow-band multi-channel signal technology. As of today,
the only technique I'm aware of for achieving this is the Fox and Hound mode
described above. However, in a multiple-Fox scenario like contesting, this
method of parallel QSOs is unacceptable.
The reason is that two or more audio signals are effectively transmitting a
Two-Tone (or Multi-Tone) IMD test on the band. The narrow, vertical-skirt FT
signals are thereby turned into wide, flared-skirt signals that will QRM
neighboring QSOs on both sides. In the DXpedition scenario with just one Fox,
that IMD can be contained in a small area of the pass band, say 400-500 Hz,
while all the DXers (Hounds) calling in can spread out in the rest of the
passband.
In a contest scenario where there will be many Foxes, all trying to increase
their QSO rate, the FT sub-band will be wall-to-wall IMD QRM. This is a
flagrant betrayal of the exceptional signal design in the basic FT GFSK signal.
Not to mention unsportsmanlike operating in general.
Therefore, the pertinent WW Digi rule is:
XII.A.5. Poor signal quality that interferes with other stations’ ability to
operate. This includes, but is not limited to: signals with excessive bandwidth
(e.g., splatter, clicks, IMD), harmonics on other bands, and excessive audio
levels.
One purpose of this rule is to rule out the current Fox and Hound method in WW
Digi, among other signal quality issues like overdriving the TX audio. It is
easy to spot parallel QSOs in a log and any such cases will be reviewed with
SDR recordings. Don't use the current Fox and Hound implementation in this or
any other contest. Some of the software packages don't allow Fox and Hound
mode when the contest mode is selected, to help participants follow the rules.
The WWROF webinar the past Sunday, replayed Monday evening NA time, explained
this with spectrum images of clean and ugly FT signals. The presentation PDF
is linked from the WW Digi home page, and the webinar video recording will be
linked there and on the WWROF webinar archive page later this week.
Ed W0YK
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: 06 August, 2019 12:10
To: 'CQ-Contest@contesting. com' <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
Although it is certainly implied, the rules listed on the WW-Digi website do
not specifically prohibit using more than one signal at the same time ON THE
SAME BAND for the single op category. They say that transmission can only be
on one band at a time, but they don't say you can't make multiple transmissions
at the same time on the same band.
The reason I bring this up is that I just witnessed 5T5PA making three separate
FT8 transmissions on 20m to three different stations all within the same
fifteen second window. A short time later I saw two separate transmissions
from him to two different stations (and different stations than the previous
three), again all within the same fifteen second window. Each simultaneous
transmission was spaced exactly 60 Hz apart, and the software cleanly decoded
all signals as if they were from different callsigns. 5T5PA expertly managed
all the QSOs cleanly.
Interestingly enough, even though I've worked 5T5PA before, JTAlert only
labeled one of the three as a dupe.
I can think of more than a couple of ways 5T5PA could be doing this, and for
casual operation I see no problem with it. For a DXpedition, it might even
make a lot of sense. I don't remember it being against FCC/other laws, but I
could be wrong about that. In any case, it seems to me that it could open up
the possibility for some controversy in a contest.
Or maybe I'm just crying wolf here ...
73,
Dave AB7E
_______________________________________________
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
|