[CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification

[Jeff Blaine]

Is this really an issue?  The FTx bandwidth is a fraction of most 
modes.  So if there are multiple streams per instance, the occupied BW 
is still pretty minimal.  And contest results are going to be compared 
to like - meaning CW scores and SSB scores - currently limited to one 
signal per band per time.

I'm not a FTx fanboy, but it seems this is a lot of worry about 
something that is unlikely to occupy a net bandwidth even remotely close 
to what a serious CW contest has.

Maybe I'm missing the point of worry?

73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com


On 8/7/19 7:16 PM, Gordon LaPoint wrote:
> MSHV is a program that can answer multiple FT8 calls at the same time, 
> as can WSJT-X in Fox mode.
> Gordon - N1MGO
>
> On 8/6/2019 17:19 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> Well, I've read the contest rules several times, and they don't 
>> specifically make the same "one signal per band" limitation for 
>> single op that they do for multiop.  I agree that it is assumed, but 
>> again ... the rules don't specifically rule it out and we all know 
>> from past experience that loopholes tend to be exploited.
>>
>> And I am absolutely certain that these were three separate QSOs with 
>> three different stations.  I should have taken a screenshot. The 
>> contacts were within the same 15 second window, with different 
>> stations, and with different signal reports.  And as I said, it 
>> happened again a short while later with two completely different 
>> stations.  These were not images, and they were not the staggered 
>> transmissions that we can do while overlapping more than one contact.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure you can run multiple instances of WSJT-X as long as 
>> you specify different rigs for each.  If you check out 5T5PA's page 
>> at QRZ.com you can clearly see that he is a pretty smart guy and that 
>> he has multiple rigs.  Probably the simplest way would be to use 
>> three instances of WSJT-X driving the same sound card and talking to 
>> three rigs via different com ports.
>>
>> Regarding DXCC eligibility, what I saw did not appear to be any more 
>> automated than normal FT8 contacts.  They didn't need to be. If he 
>> called CQ on three different frequencies, WSJT-X handles everything 
>> from that point on if he clicked the "Call 1st" box. He would still 
>> have to manually enable the next CQ's, but that wouldn't be difficult 
>> to quickly do three times.
>>
>> I think it's all kind of clever, but I wouldn't want to see it in the 
>> contest.
>>
>> 73,
>> Dave   AB7E
>>
>>
>> On 8/6/2019 1:17 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
>>> Dave - is this actually REALLY quickly synchronized separate 
>>> transmissions to 3 different stations? Or are there 3 simultaneous 
>>> transmissions occurring at exactly the same time?  If it’s the 
>>> former, its certainly serial single op worthy - I do this all the 
>>> time while contesting - just not as fast as a computer.  If it’s the 
>>> later, then it would be "more than one signal at a time".  That 
>>> would violate current rules in all categories I believe.  Even 
>>> Multi-Op stations can only have one signal at a time on a distinct 
>>> band.  Of course I am assuming that a "signal" is the roughly 50hz 
>>> of individual beeps and not the 3khz of computer managed bandwidth.  
>>> All definitions to be finalized with this new breed of contest 
>>> category. Illustrating how non-human controlled it really is.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, and on a different subject, whether 5T5PA is actually 
>>> compliant with the new DXCC rules making such contacts ineligible 
>>> for DXCC is another topic.  I believe that the next contact cannot 
>>> be made without a human engagement. So was it semi-automatic or 
>>> automatic fire?  And is that engagement needed as part of a "stack 
>>> build" or real time - the initial DXCC language was not too clear.
>>>
>>> Ed  N1UR
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On 
>>> Behalf Of David Gilbert
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 3:10 PM
>>> To: 'CQ-Contest at contesting. com'
>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
>>>
>>>
>>> Although it is certainly implied, the rules listed on the WW-Digi 
>>> website do not specifically prohibit using more than one signal at 
>>> the same time ON THE SAME BAND for the single op category.  They say 
>>> that transmission can only be on one band at a time, but they don't 
>>> say you can't make multiple transmissions at the same time on the 
>>> same band.
>>>
>>> The reason I bring this up is that I just witnessed 5T5PA making 
>>> three separate FT8 transmissions on 20m to three different stations 
>>> all within the same fifteen second window. A short time later I saw 
>>> two separate transmissions from him to two different stations (and 
>>> different stations than the previous three), again all within the 
>>> same fifteen second window.  Each simultaneous transmission was 
>>> spaced exactly 60 Hz apart, and the software cleanly decoded all 
>>> signals as if they were from different callsigns.  5T5PA expertly 
>>> managed all the QSOs cleanly.
>>>
>>> Interestingly enough, even though I've worked 5T5PA before, JTAlert 
>>> only labeled one of the three as a dupe.
>>>
>>> I can think of more than a couple of ways 5T5PA could be doing this, 
>>> and for casual operation I see no problem with it.  For a 
>>> DXpedition, it might even make a lot of sense.  I don't remember it 
>>> being against FCC/other laws, but I could be wrong about that.  In 
>>> any case, it seems to me that it could open up the possibility for 
>>> some controversy in a contest.
>>>
>>> Or maybe I'm just crying wolf here ...
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Dave   AB7E
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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