[CQ-Contest] Blind Mode for N1MM Bandmap

Paul O'Kane pokane at ei5di.com
Wed Oct 27 04:17:14 PDT 2010

On 26/10/2010 21:39, Jack Haverty wrote:

> it's very very difficult to draw a line
> around tools, or how contesters use tools, and describe that line
> precisely.

Yes, it's difficult - but it's not impossible, and we're
getting closer.

> Is a tool which converts the RF spectrum into a visual display
for the op's eyes a communications technology?

It doesn't matter - with my proposals anything is OK (any
technology whatsoever) within the own property/ 500 metre
limit so long as the only thing crossing the boundary of
the property is amateur band RF (corresponding to the
band(s) and mode(s) of entry).

Having said that, there is one exception - decoders.
Why, because this includes Skimmer (there are other
reasons to exclude decoders).

 > How about a tool which converts
> the RF spectrum into audio to the ears?  One is a bandscope, the other
> is a receiver.  I can see how they'd both be considered to be
> communications technologies.  But are they amateur or non-amateur?

All OK within the property boundary.  Of course, this
property boundary concept immediately puts remote
operation into the assisted, if not extreme, class,
because there is more than amateur-band RF crossing
the boundary.

> Is a contester who somehow borrows a broadcast station's antenna array,
> figures out how to load it from his rig, and has fun on 160 in a contest
> using "non-amateur" technology?

All OK within the property boundary.

> What makes a technology "non-amateur"?  I suspect there's no easy
> answer.

It doesn't matter when it is all contained within the
property boundary (apart from decoders in CW contests),
and nothing but amateur band RF crosses the boundary.

> Re the CW rule:  Communications takes two people - one to talk, one to
> listen.  If you need to decode CW "by ear" to demonstrate that you can
> understand CW, shouldn't you need to send CW by hand

This issue has been dealt with already.

> [By the way, I don't use a decoder - don't trust them.

Whether anyone likes them, or how well they perform, has no
relevance to the issue.

> My point is simply that it's very hard to draw these lines so that
> there's agreement and no confusion.

I think we've made progress.

> Perhaps the "categories" of contests is the right place to deal with
> tools.  Instead of just power levels (QRP/LP/HP), categories could be
> defined based on the station's toolbox.

Sorry, can't go along with that - ultimately, everyone
would end up in separate categories.

Paul EI5DI

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list