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

[Bill Coleman]

On 7/11/01 4:59 PM, Paul EI5DI at paul at ei5di.com wrote:

>I'd like to thank Bill AA4LR for his comments.  Just to emphasise that
>all my remarks are in the context of what I see as legitimate
>practices for amateur radio contesting.  I've as many prejudices as
>anyone else, so please don't anyone take this personally.

Not at all.

>> >  EI5DI:  1. (Amateur Radio Contesters) Use the ionosphere as their
>sole means of propagation.
>
>> AA4LR:   I see nothing in a better computer/radio integration that
>would affect this. 
>
>That's fine with me so long as the operator(s), at both ends, are
>physically located close to where the computer/radio integration
>occurs.  For example, remote control or an internet link would, of
>itself, change the operation from amateur radio contesting to amateur
>contesting.

There have been articles in NCJ about this, as well as other postings to 
CQ-Contest. We have ACTIVE contesters who have used remote stations in a 
contest. All the rigs and antennas are in one place, but the operator is 
at a remove location.

How close is close enough for your litmus test?

In VHF/UHF operation, it is not uncommon to place a portion of the radio 
at or near the antenna installation, in order to reduce feedline losses. 
Is this any different than remote control over the internet? How is that 
different from remote control via telephone lines or other networks that 
have existed for 50+ years?

On the whole, I don't see how remoting the operator from the equipment 
changes the nature of the contest operation. I can see where it might be 
a problem if someone were manipulating remote stations on each corner of 
a continent -- but there are already contest rules prohibiting such 
operations. 

>> >  EI5DI:  2. Use local antennas and radios, not remote equipment
>controlled over the web or by any other means.
>
>> AA4LR:  Already, today, W4AN and others access their stations
>remotely. There are many reasons to do this.
>
>My only reservation is that, at some stage - depending on distance and
>methodology, this leads to something other than amateur radio
>contesting.

So, my question back to you would be -- what are those circumstances? 
Distance doesn't seem to matter. Who cares if I'm in Anartica and my 
radio(s) are in New Brunswick? (So long as I'm properly licensed in New 
Brunswick...)

>> >  EI5DI:  3. Do not use modes that we, unaided, can (not)
>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.
>
>> AA4LR:  RTTY contesting has been well established -- yet you would
>wipe it out?
>
>No, not at all, and neither would I wipe out or criticise other data
>modes for contesting.  It's just that they need some intelligence,
>other than human, at both ends of the link to make it all work - be it
>electro-mechanical, or electronic, or software.  I think of all data
>modes as amateur data communications by radio.  Not worse, or better,
>just different.

We can't understand RTTY without the aide of a TU and a teleprinter, at a 
minimum. That doesn't seem to match your definition of "unaided".

>> AA4LR:  As for machine decoding of CW -- why prohibit it? What if an
>amatuer is  deaf?
>
>Yes, that's a valid example, but it's relatively trivial in terms of
>the overall issue.

Then, what level of aide is objectionable?

>>  AA4LR:  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?
>
>No, there should never be prohibition, only encouragement, and amateur
>radio contesting is very liberal in this respect.  Many other
>disciplines have strict qualifying criteria before prospective
>entrants can take part.  Operators whose code speed is lousy should
>try to improve if they want to become competitive at CW. In the same
>way, you don't become a better sailor by using an engine to make your
>sailboat go faster.

Paul, don't take this as an personal assault. I think you're trying to 
get at something that is at the core of contesting, but I just find your 
definition of objectionable behavior wanting. There appear to be a number 
of sanctioned activities TODAY that fall outside your definition.

>> >  EI5DI:  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.
>
>> AA4LR:  There are already contest rules in place to deal with the
>concept of assistance.
>
>Perhaps, but once we permit MO stations to receive real-time
>DX/Multiplier spots, we have effectively removed all limits on the
>location of the station.  I believe the present rules need to be
>changed.

Under present rules, MO stations are allowed to receive such assistance.

>> > EI5DI:  Within the bounds of Amateur Radio Contesting, I accept cw
>and voice keyers, DSP processing, computer control of all (local)
>station hardware ....
>
>> AA4LR:  If DSP processing is OK, then we just extend the concept of
>DSP to it's logical conclusion.
>
>By the same token, if remote control and internet connectivity are OK,
>we might as well have real-time internet contesting and minimise the
>unpredictable RF propagation paths. 

Internet connectivity is OK for remote control or operation, but there 
still has to be a transmtter and receiver and antennas, and these have to 
nominally be fixed in some locale -- this is already covered by the rules 
fashioned by contests.

What you suggest here is behind the current rules. I see no reason to 
outlaw other things when the final result you're opposing is already 
prohibited.

> I'm saying that we have to have a
>boundary between amateur radio contesting and amateur worrio
>contesting.  Our difficulty is in establishing the boundary.  I
>believe it's already placed too far in the direction of the internet -
>others will think differently.

I think everything is ok so long as you have receiver/transmitter and 
antennas in some specific locale, and a human operator making decisions 
-- so prohibit automatic control.

That would seem to set a sound bountry.

>> AA4LR:  Seems like we crossed the boundary long ago.
>
>I agree with you, amateur wirrio contesting is alive and well.  Not
>better, or worse, but different.

I disagree. Wirrio doesn't exist. 

>> AA4LR:  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)
>
>I'll have to think about that one!!  Maybe it's the yachting
>equivalent of DSP?  However, it doesn't detract from my point - once
>the nature of amateur radio contesting is changed, it becomes
>something else.

The thing is, a turbosail makes much of sailing automatic -- you set your 
desired course, and the computer does the rest. It tacks into the wind 
automatically, tries to maintain a given speed, etc, etc. While a 
turbosail still gets all of its power from the wind, it also takes away 
the sailing skill. On the other hand, a diesel engine may provide a 
steady and reliable source of motive power -- it doesn't automatically 
steer the boat. 

Your example isn't clear cut! That's why we should look at these things 
very carefully.

>> AA4LR:  Isn't the same true of computerized logging versus paper
>logging?  Computerized logging is a  simpler, faster and requires a
>lot less manual effort.
>
>My view is that the computer isn't doing anything I couldn't do
>myself, with resources available to me before the contest, and with
>the benefit of my log and what I hear during the contest, except that
>the computer is doing it very much faster.

By the same logic -- if I have a computer doing the CW decoding -- it 
isn't doing anything I couldn't do myself, except that the computer is 
doing it very much faster.

>  I can send morse on a hand
>key, decode morse myself, tune my radio and keep my log and dupesheets
>on paper.  On the other hand, I could not use any other data mode
>without a computer.

You can still buy a teleprinter! <grin>

>> AA4LR:  Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"  --
>Wilbur Wright, 1901
>
>Yes, and before Wilbur we had gliders or sailplanes. 

Actually, Wilbur refined the art of gliding. In fact, he set a record for 
gliding in 1910 that stood for several decades.

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