"Maybe someday there will be unmanned solar-powered stations on remote DX
entities."
This was actually proposed at the 2017 IDXC in Visalia by a well-known and
prolific DXpeditioner. I was the only person in the room who stood up with
a dissenting opinion about it. However, I did have several people come up
to me after the presentation was over to tell me they agreed with me.
Reducing the human element ruins the accomplishment, in my opinion. I
think many others agree with that sentiment.
I am all for technological advancement, but, for instance, when SSB
supplanted AM, the human element was not reduced.
Digital mode proponents will say that there is still a human element to the
process (despite what some naysayers have proclaimed), and I agree.
However, the REDUCTION of the human element reduces the FUN part of it.
One can argue that you cannot copy RTTY without electronic means, either.
That does not fully compare with how the JT modes work. The JT modes, more
than any others, reduce the human's role in the QSO. When was the last
time a mechanical RTTY machine responded back without it's human pushing
the green keys?
73, Tony K4QE
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Brian Pease <bpease2@myfairpoint.net>
wrote:
> When 90% of band activity is taking place in ~1% of the available
> bandwidth, it gets one's attention, doesn't it.
> Personally, I have always considered DXpedition, and especially contest,
> CW exchanges to be a bit silly, with nearly everyone getting a 5NN signal
> report. With today's technology I think eventually a computer will be
> able sort out a CW pileup nearly as well as a human, and do it 24/7 while
> perhaps giving more accurate signal reports. Maybe someday there will be
> unmanned solar-powered stations on remote DX entities. It is certainly
> much easier than self-driving cars, which should be sorted out in a few
> years.
>
>
> On 3/30/2018 1:02 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
>
>> My thoughts on FT8:
>>
>>
>> - How is it actually a Q from our normal perspective? The
>> comments
>> Jeff made on the fact that 2 operators (on both sides of the circuit)
>> could
>> see evidence of each other for 20 minutes before the "computers" finally
>> made the connection - is proof that the operator is not making the QSO.
>>
>> - There is a floating robot in the Pacific making FT8 QSOs with
>> people right now - unattended.
>>
>> - 3Z9DX has stated that they will leave an FT8 station going 24/7
>> (which means unattended) on T31.
>>
>> - Are these what we want to count as QSOs? What about in
>> contests
>> - FT8 is already infiltrating VHF contests. Should they be considered
>> valid
>> contest Qs - while you sleep?
>>
>> - I agree with Jeff and others that for people that that consider
>> topband a PTA to operate and/or are not CW operators - 160M looks like the
>> perfect place to drop a robot and go concentrate on something else. But
>> isn't this a slippery slope? What about 10M/12M since the sunspots are
>> low.
>> Or 80M because the static crashes in the tropics are terrible - etc.
>> Before
>> you know it the whole DXpedition is an FT8 robot while the "crew" is
>> lounging about the pool with the XYL/YLs.
>>
>> - If we continue to facilitate such nonsense, they we deserve
>> what
>> we get in my opinion. If we decide that the band counter is so important
>> we
>> don't care how we have to get it, then its time to look in the mirror
>> folks.
>>
>> - On the other hand, maybe some people are happier with the
>> computer doing the heavy lifting of digging out the QSO. Personally,
>> count
>> me out of that list.
>>
>>
>> Ed N1UR
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|