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

Wed Aug 7 11:07:38 EDT 2019

Check slides 19 and 20 of Ed's presentation over on the WW-Digi wb site, 
  for a great visual representation of why this is a bad idea and how 
it's easy to detect rule violations:

https://ww-digi.com/World%20Wide%20Digi%20DX%20Contest.pdf

73 - Mark N5OT


On 8/7/2019 8:05 AM, Jeff Blaine wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest