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

Jeff Blaine KeepWalking188 at ac0c.com
Sun Aug 11 02:41:54 EDT 2019

Wow, that is amazing.  I had no idea the products were so bad.  I wonder 
what is at the root cause of that.

I was not advocating a rule violation - simply questioning the argument 
that the occupied bandwidth is a factor.  The net band width of a bunch 
of narrow signals still adds up to a manageable net BW.  Of course that 
is not the case if the program creates a bunch of wideband trash in the 
multiple signal case.


On 8/7/19 11:21 PM, Joe wrote:
> Jeff Blaine wrote:
> "So if there are multiple streams per instance, the occupied BW is 
> still pretty minimal. "
> But it isn't really. The noise floor is raised greatly when the 
> multiple signals are ran. When it is a single station like a 
> DXepedition, all is fine it is not interfering with anyone.
> But when you are trying to listen to many other signals the possible 
> weak signals are reduced greatly because of the tremendous noise floor 
> raising due to the IMD caused by the multiple streams.
> Joe WB9SBD
> Sig
> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> Idle Tyme
> Idle-Tyme.com
> http://www.idle-tyme.com
> 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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list