[CQ-Contest] A new "DX cluster" experience for contesters

[Edward Swynar]

Hi Guys,

This is all very interesting to me...

With the influx of technology into the game in its many derivatives, I
foresee the time when radio sporting will be like automobile ownership,
i.e.:

---There's the traditional "mainstream" day-to-day type of driving, as we
consumers buy, use, & give no pretext or special thought as to the innate
high level of technology that is there under the hood, and,

---There's the "enthusiasts" driving/cruising, as birds of a vintage feather
flock together in their Camaros, 'Vettes, Road Runners, etc.

In Ham radio terms, the first category entails any & all computerized
logging/software application etc. that's out there...the second may
nostalgically stipulate NO use of computers, NO spotting, and paper log
submissions ONLY---as long as they're accompanied by dupe sheets!

It's not far-fetched, I don't think, as the leaders of the pack on the
cutting edge of things run light years ahead with "the latest & greatest",
whilst those others left behind are content to have fun in their own way...

~73!~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ


******************************




----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Taylor" <theroadtrip at mts.net>
To: "K1TTT" <K1TTT at ARRL.NET>; "reflector cq-contest"
<CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A new "DX cluster" experience for contesters


> It seems as though this conversation centres a lot around the question of
> progress.
>
> Is it the role of amateur radio to stand by and let the world advance
around
> it?
>
> I would say no, and I'm sure that in the larger context, even our Irish
> friend would agree, especially since I don't hear him using a spark gap.
>
> The question, then, is at what point does technology become unsuitable for
> contests of skill?
>
> Sure, it would be a whole lot quicker and easier to run a marathon on a
> Segway, but that's not the point of a marathon, is it? Similarly, golf
would
> be a whole lot easier if, say, Phil Mickelson could take out a range
finder
> and determine EXACTLY how far the hole is away. Chess games would be so
much
> more efficient if each grand master could consult a computer on each move.
> (I think these examples are better than the sailboat/powerboat thing.)
>
> So: Is a DX contest merely a test of how quickly you can pack points into
a
> log? Or is it a test of the whole bag of skills that go in to the art of
> working DX? Or is it a test of your ability to integrate all available
> technology into a winning score?
>
> Where does that line get crossed? If I don't even have to decode a QSO
> myself; if I don't have to turn that big knob myself and find the rare
ones
> others don't; if I don't have to develop my own understanding of
propagation
> and paths and openings from my QTH myself; if I don't even have to be in
the
> same room, then what of my skills am I demonstrating?
>
> Or is it enough to say that there's an unlimited category and those who
want
> to push the envelope compete by themselves and those who want to stay
> traditional can stay in the unassisted?
>
> Kelly
> ve4xt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>