[CQ-Contest] Extent of computerization (was: Mode 516 suggestions)

[Bill Coleman]

On 7/8/01 2:07 PM, Paul EI5DI at paul at ei5di.com wrote:

>This is my attempt to define the boundary.  I submit that Amateur
>"Radio" Contesters -
>
>  1. Use the ionosphere as their sole means of propagation.

I see nothing in a better computer/radio integration that would affect 
this. (Although some contacts are clearly made with ground wave, but I 
get what you mean)

>  2. Use local antennas and radios, not remote equipment controlled
>over the web or by any other means.

Already, today, W4AN and others access their stations remotely. There are 
many reasons to do this. I can see a problem if an operator used a 
variety of stations located in disparate geographic locations. However, 
there are contest rules that current prohibit this type of operation. So 
long as the transmitters and antennas have a defined locale, I see no 
problem if the operator happens to be remote.

>  3. Do not use modes that we, unaided, can understand. That rules out
>all digital modes, no mater how efficient or technically advanced,
>and, in effect, everything apart from the spoken word (analogue modes,
>including SSB, DSB, FM, AM etc.) and CW, so long as the CW is not
>machine decoded.

RTTY contesting has been well established -- yet you would wipe it out? 
(Indeed, there are some RTTY contest operators who are known to use 3 
radios in a contest -- they are not bound by the limitation of CW or SSB 
operators who only have 2 ears)

As for machine decoding of CW -- why prohibit it? What if an amatuer is 
deaf? Is he not allowed to participate in a CW contest? And how about 
operators whose code speed is lousy? (I know of a friend of mine who 
never got beyond 5 wpm) Should they be prohibited from CW contests?

>  4. Do not make use of any external assistance.  That includes
>spotting using any external mechanism such as packet radio or the
>internet or calls from friends.  This is independent of SO / MO
>arguments.

There are already contest rules in place to deal with the concept of 
assistance. 

>Within the bounds of Amateur Radio Contesting, I accept cw and voice
>keyers, DSP processing, computer control of all (local) station
>hardware, and logging software with callsign databases - so long as
>these databases are available before the contest and are not updated
>during the contest other than with data logged during the contest.

If DSP processing is OK, then we just extend the concept of DSP to it's 
logical conclusion.

>Once we, as contesters, break any of the above rules, we have crossed
>a boundary that changes the very nature of what we're doing.  It's no
>longer amateur radio contesting, it's amateur wirrio (wired radio)
>contesting - different, and a perfectly valid discipline in its own
>right.

Seems like we crossed the boundary long ago.

>The boundary is similar to that between sailboating and power-boating,
>then using an engine to make your sailboat go faster and insisting
>it's still sailing - it's nothing of the sort.

And how would you feel about a turbosail? (A Turbosail is still a 
wind-powered vessel, but the sail portion is a cylindrical column with an 
adjustable slot, whose contents are evacuated by a fan at the top. The 
power comes from the wind, the fan merely allows the airflow to hug the 
sail tightly. Turbosail is typically computer controlled, and adjusts 
automatically to changing wind conditions)

Isn't the same true of computerized logging versus paper logging? 
Computerized logging is a  simpler, faster and requires a lot less manual 
effort.



Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
            -- Wilbur Wright, 1901


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com