[CQ-Contest] Expansion of Skimmer Subject
Joe Subich, W4TV
w4tv at subich.com
Sun Mar 23 12:37:58 EDT 2008
Stan,
CW Skimmer is not "automation" but then you don't seem to
care about facts, only your inflammatory opinions.
> Speaking of automation, my viewpoint comes
> from someone who has spent forty years working CW.
> After a few minutes of puzzled research it appears
> your viewpoint comes from someone who sells
> equipment and software to automate the process.
I have been contesting for thirty years so don’t give me
any "holier than thou" bull. Go look up AD8I in the late
70's and 80's. Among the results was a #1 finish in the 1982
ARRL 16) contest as a single operator from Ohio (oh yea, that
was CW). For several years I have not been willing to do the
30.36 or 48 hour grind barefoot with an R5 while juggling a
family and career. I still stay involved and occasionally
submit a log for a few contacts (ARRL 10 Meter contest in
2004 happened to be a weekend I did not have any professional
or family conflicts - see K4IK in Low Power Mixed).
If you are going to take the attitude that it's your way or
the highway, that will kill CW contesting faster than ANY
technology. RTTY will surely replace CW for contesting in
five years if that's the case.
> Mine is that I would rather see CW Contesting stay like it
> is for another ten years and then DIE
Keep riding your horse and buggy but don't cry to the rest
of the world when some 18-wheeler turns you into a grease
spot on the side of the highway.
Many others would rather see CW adapt with changing conditions
and survive for another 50 years.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stan Stockton [mailto:k5go at cox.net]
> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 11:19 AM
> To: w4tv at subich.com; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Expansion of Skimmer Subject
>
>
> Joe,
>
> Everyone has an opinion. Mine is that I would rather see
> CW Contesting stay like it is for another ten years and then
> DIE than have it change to a fully automated mode in two
> years so the only possibility of winning would be for you to
> have an automated QSO machine.
>
> What would be the purpose of CW remaining as a contest
> mode of operation if it became automated. Why not just
> abolish CW Contesting ASAP since RTTY is farther advanced
> in terms of automation. It is fine for casual contest operators
> to use a code reader and have some fun. I am not proposing
> that it be "illegal" to use a code reader, only to make it against
> the rules of the contest for the purpose of eliminating the
> automated QSO machine.
>
> Speaking of automation, my viewpoint comes
> from someone who has spent forty years working CW.
> After a few minutes of puzzled research it appears
> your viewpoint comes from someone who sells
> equipment and software to automate the process.
>
> 73...Stan, K5GO
>
> ---- "Joe Subich wrote:
> >
> > Stan writes:
> >
> > > The only way I can think of to prevent full automation in
> > > CW Contesting is to have a rule against using a computer
> > > or machine to copy code. I know this is going to upset
> > > some people. Sorry but, in my opinion, the day a station
> > > wins a CW Contest and the operator listed cannot copy
> > > CW is the day CW Contesting will be ruined.
> >
> > Any rule like this will doom CW contesting to an accelerated
> > death. Perhaps 10% of those making contacts in CW contests
> > are currently using "copying assistance" - Writelog's decoder,
> > CW Get alongside N1MM Logger, MixW, Ham Radio Deluxe and DM780,
> > etc. I see requests daily in logging software the forums for
> > the inclusion of CW copying by amateurs ranging from groups
> > as diverse as those with medical conditions that make copying
> > a single tone difficult, new amateurs who want the "crutch" to
> > learn code, and new amateurs who don't want to learn Morse
> > but simply want to join in the fun of the "most popular digital
> > mode."
> >
> > RTTY will replace CW in contesting in less than 10 years if
> > participants cannot use "a computer or machine" to copy CW.
> > New CW contesters are coming from the population that is using
> > computers ... some will eventually become proficient at coping
> > by ear but most will not. Contesting must adapt to changes in
> > then regulatory environment (no CW requirement for licensing),
> > changes in demographics (older operators who can no longer hear
> > - or manipulate paddles as well as they once did) and changing
> > technology. If CW contesting does not adapt it will die.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> > > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Stan Stockton
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 12:21 AM
> > > To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> > > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Expansion of Skimmer Subject
> > >
> > >
> > > It would be easy for the rules' makers to look at the
> > > technology available today, incorporate Skimmer,
> > > for example, into the assisted category and go on.
> > >
> > > I think in every class of operation for CW Contests
> > > there must also be consideration of a much
> > > larger scope of technology - total automation.
> > >
> > > I know how I feel about the following scenario and what
> > > rule I would put in place. How do you feel about it?
> > >
> > > Scenario:
> > >
> > > The single operator station has several rigs.
> > > Mulit-operator has several per band
> > > The station can be set up so one of them is
> > > transmitting at all times or one per band for
> > > Multi-Multi. So far so good. Many people are
> > > able to do this now.
> > >
> > > How do we feel about an automated system with the computers
> > > making and logging the contacts with the operator never
> > > actually never hearing the stations that are logged?
> > > How will you like to hear a pileup of stations calling at 150 WPM
> > > or more and automated stations working each other at that
> > > rate. How about multiple transceivers scanning the bands
> stopping
> > > on stations found, reading what they are sending with a
> > > code reader, and then making and logging the contact for you?
> > > I'm hoping for a logical ruling regarding Skimmer but also
> > > to address full automation in CW Contesting.
> > >
> > > The only way I can think of to prevent full automation in
> > > CW Contesting is to have a rule against using a computer
> > > or machine to copy code. I know this is going to upset
> > > some people. Sorry but, in my opinion, the day a station
> > > wins a CW Contest and the operator listed cannot copy
> > > CW is the day CW Contesting will be ruined. .
> > >
> > > Yes, technology moves forward. All of it is
> > > interesting. The question is where the line is drawn
> > > so that contesting remains a fun thing to do.
> > >
> > > There are many modes and many contests running in
> > > each mode over the course of a year. The RTTY
> > > mode is one where the only way you can operate is to
> > > have a machine copy what is being sent. It would
> > > seem that full automation in RTTY would be a more
> > > logical step than full automation in CW.
> > >
> > > It is good to see a few additional people who actually work
> > > contests express their views.
> > >
> > > Stan, K5GO
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list