[CQ-Contest] Expansion of Skimmer Subject
Stan Stockton
k5go at cox.net
Sun Mar 23 13:53:50 EDT 2008
---- "Joe Subich wrote:
>Stan,
>CW Skimmer is not "automation" but then you don't seem to
>care about facts, only your inflammatory opinions.
Joe - I am not talking about CW Skimmer. I am talking about
where code readers and technology will take the sport.
I am worried that it will take it to an Automated QSO
apparatus which will replace the operator as we know
it today. Perhaps there are people who still want the
contest to involve something other, from an operating
perspective, than for someone to turn on the machine.
I am not talking about where the technology is now, but
instead where it will go if code reading software and
all technological improvements associated with is
are allowed.
CAN ANYONE NAME A SPORT THAT ALLOWS ALL
TECHNOLOGY TO BE USED TO IMPROVE THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE PARTICIPANT?
Do they allow the fisherman in a Bass Fishing Contest
to use a big net dragged by the boat?
Do they allow a golfer to use a ball that is smaller
than the standard?
Do they allow a professional baseball player to use
a bat that will allow him to hit it out of the park every time
he hits the ball?
It goes on and on. There is no other sport where the
attitude is that you allow anything and everything that
comes along to improve the performance.
>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.
My attitude is not that it is my way or the highway. My
attitude is that IF CW Contesting becomes an automated
process where the station makes the contact and logs
the contact that it is no different than RTTY and CW WILL
be gone. If automated QSOs are not allowed, it will
continue to be the only form of digital communications
where the translation from the sound to the log is done
by the operator.
>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.
Good Point! CW is horse and buggy. That is what
makes it unique. Is it the most efficient way of
communicating with someone half
way around the world? The answer is no. My opinion,
probably shared by more than you would think, is that
it should be preserved for those who enjoy it. Let those
who do not enjoy CW advance automation in digital modes
where it is not possible for the operator to copy what is
being sent anyway.
I really don't want to be run over and become a grease spot.
I love ham radio and love CW contests. I think the only
thing that is unique about CW is that what is sent has
generally been translated by the operator.
I apologize if I offended you in any way. I had no idea
what your two previous calls were or what your motives
might be. Since my position is against automated QSO
generation (not specifically Skimmer as it exists in its
primitive stage), it appeared to me that with a company motto
of Life Is Too Short For Manual Operation that you might
have a financial motive for being so passionate in your views.
73...Stan, K5GO
> -----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
>
_______________________________________________
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