[CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions
Edward Sawyer
EdwardS at sbelectronics.com
Fri Aug 16 15:17:25 EDT 2019
Good Luck with that.
Ed N1UR
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of rjairam at gmail.com
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 12:35 PM
To: AB2E Darrell
Cc: David Gilbert; Zack Widup; CQ Contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions
Such QSOs will not be counted. They are likely to be flagged as invalid under the rules.
Ria
N2RJ
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:30 PM AB2E Darrell <ab2e at hotmail.com> wrote:
> There's an ad for fully automated software for ft4/8 today on one of
> the portals. It also has the warning not to be operated
> unattended(violation of FCC rules).
> So Zack and Dave, I agree with both of you, there should be a separate
> DXCC award for this mode of operating and it should not count towards
> traditional dxcc award.
> Which brings to mind a related topic, if the software makes possible
> robotic qsos from a dxpedition, should those qsos be counted as
> valid(if unattended and op watching)?
>
> 73 Darrell AB2E
> ________________________________
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of
> David Gilbert <xdavid at cis-broadband.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 7:35:53 PM
> To: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack at gmail.com>; CQ Contest <
> cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions
>
>
> Neither FT8 nor FT4 are fully automatic using WSJT-X or JTDX. I'm not
> sure which app you were using (there are others), but both of those
> two require the operator to initiate each CQ and each QSO by default.
> Yes, there are people who have written scripts to make QSOs automatic,
> but unless you were using something like that your contacts were not
> automatic. Neither WSJT-X nor JTDX have a menu option for full
> automatic operation.
>
> And if you're trying to optimize rates in an FT4 contest, you have to
> be almost constantly doing something.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
> On 8/15/2019 7:07 AM, Zack Widup wrote:
> > Some of you may have seen the postings elsewhere that ARRL will no
> > longer admit fully automatic QSO's for contest and DXCC credit (CQ's
> > and QSO initiation are fully automatic, with no operator
> > intervention). I am guessing this primarily affects FT8 operation. I
> > have not operated much
> FT8
> > but the operation I did was fully automatic. I am guessing there is
> > a way to set it to semi-automatic operation (a real operator
> > initiates each CQ and each QSO) (which is a valid QSO for those
> > awards). And I don't know
> how
> > how they would tell. But the ruling stands.
> >
> > 73, Zack W9SZ
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:08 AM robert <wa1fcn at charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> GM Matts/Yuri
> >>
> >> I agree with you about the ARRL's DXCC credit system.
> >>
> >> A mistake for sure. As a life long low power operator it
> >> has
> >>
> >> taken me 54 years to reach 40 meter DXCC of 280. By
> >> allowing
> >>
> >> FT8 credits mixed in with every thing I foresee in the
> >> near future,
> >>
> >> many achieving this in 10 years or less of effort. At the
> >> next sun spot
> >>
> >> cycle peak high DXCC totals on 10, 12, and 15 will be
> >> meaningless. I
> >>
> >> know of hams who no longer take part in DXCC for just
> >> this reason.
> >>
> >> FT8 credit for DXCC is fine, but keep it separated from
> >> single band/mixed
> >>
> >> mode totals.
> >>
> >> 74 BoB WA1FCN
> >>
> >> On 8/15/2019 1:30 AM, Mats Strandberg wrote:
> >>> I tend to agree with Yury.
> >>>
> >>> CY9 was much more balanced between modes, than the 3D2 (or least
> >>> that
> was
> >>> my perception).
> >>>
> >>> It might be so that at the time of John’s (GD) participation in
> >>> KP5 and KP1, that there was no ambition to maximize the revenue
> >>> through
> donations
> >>> (before, during and after the expedition). I don’t question that.
> >>>
> >>> However, since FT8 appeared as an equal mode for DXCC (along with
> CW,SSB
> >>> and RTTY), it definitely has changed some expeditions into
> >>> becoming automated QSO/QSL-creating machines...
> >>>
> >>> John, during KP1/KP5, the FT modes were not available, so
> >>> comparison
> >> might
> >>> not be fully relevant.
> >>>
> >>> It is maybe good that FT8 will bring new “DXers” to the table, but
> >>> the appearance of this dull mode... has forever changed the
> >>> feeling of
> “being
> >>> on the other side of the expedition”, and most likely also, being
> >>> an operator of that expedition as well.
> >>>
> >>> I question myself, what is the pleasure of being that rare DX,
> >>> giving
> out
> >>> the ATNOs and the new band points, when the reality is that NO
> >>> operator skills are required from me to make those “contacts” happen!
> >>>
> >>> Before, good DX-expeditions we’re separated by less good ones,
> >>> because
> of
> >>> operator skills. How wonderful was it not to listen to great
> >>> operators, handling thousand of callers, to maximize the number of
> >>> contacts and
> >> happy
> >>> DXers on the other side?
> >>>
> >>> Those days were interesting and a memory of our past. The new FT8
> >> euphoria
> >>> has forever changed the perception of DX-big, thanks to ARRL’s
> >>> greed
> for
> >>> award revenue ;(
> >>>
> >>> And, what we now see is the result of the wrong decision to
> >>> equalize
> FTx,
> >>> JT and other artificial modes, with RTTY, SSB and CW, and accept
> >>> them
> for
> >>> DXCC Mixed.
> >>>
> >>> The correct way would have been to create FT/JT DXCC separate from
> >> Classic
> >>> DXCC...
> >>>
> >>> DXCC as we all knew it, has been hurt tremendously by ARRL
> >>> unthoughtful decision to accept FT/JT in Mixed!
> >>>
> >>> 73 de RM2D (Mats)
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 05:14, John Crovelli <w2gd at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I want to take a moment to dispel the notion suggested by Yuri
> >>>> that DXpedition operating strategy is all about financial considerations.
> It
> >>>> simply isn't for well planned operations.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is the intent of virtually every DXpedition to provide an
> opportunity
> >>>> for those running 100 watts or more to work an ATNO. DXpeditions
> teams
> >> are
> >>>> constantly considering ways to reach the broadest possible
> >>>> audience
> >> while
> >>>> on site.
> >>>>
> >>>> The implication that operating strategy and mode selection is all
> about
> >>>> post operation donations (to cover costs) is just not true. Well
> >> organized
> >>>> teams have these issues resolved well in advance.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've been on some large DXpeditions (KP5 and KP1 - both were top
> >>>> ten world). Our operating teams NEVER set goals based upon
> >>>> donations, and
> >> in
> >>>> fact, this issue was never even discussed since no one felt it to
> >>>> be important. Again, financing issues were resolved well before
> >>>> we ever departed for the islands.
> >>>>
> >>>> We did however (on a daily basis) take stock of propagation,
> >>>> probably
> of
> >>>> openings, and how we were providing global coverage ... to
> >>>> prevent
> >> missing
> >>>> opportunities to those regions traditionally most difficult. As
> >>>> a
> tool,
> >>>> FT8 can be useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> FT8 modes are providing options not previously available and for
> >>>> the
> >> most
> >>>> part now replaces RTTY activity. It is my expectation CW and SSB
> will
> >>>> always be the main modes for DXpeditions.
> >>>>
> >>>> John, W2GD aka P40W/P44W
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of
> Yuri
> >> <
> >>>> ve3dz at rigexpert.net>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:57 PM
> >>>> To: 'Jeff Clarke' <ku8e at ku8e.com>; cq-contest at contesting.com <
> >>>> cq-contest at contesting.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are
> >>>>>>> putting
> FT8
> >>>> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't
> >>>> the future of ham radio.
> >>>>
> >>>> I might not be politically correct, but why not to mention that
> >>>> one of
> >> the
> >>>> all of the DXpeditions' goals is to try to maximize the overall
> >>>> QSO
> >> count
> >>>> in order to get more donation? That's what hiding behind "best
> >>>> kept
> >> secret"
> >>>> (that everybody knows) of F/H mode in FT8 in my opinion.
> >>>> I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it's a fact.
> >>>> Multi-channel streams need to be prohibited, otherwise it looks
> >>>> like hypocrisy.
> >>>> I still remember how the rules for M/S in the ARRL Contests were
> changed
> >>>> under the pressure after PJ4G(?) team managed to have 2 stations
> >>>> on
> the
> >>>> same band (even not at the same time).
> >>>>
> >>>> Yuri VE3DZ
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On
> >>>> Behalf
> >> Of
> >>>> Jeff Clarke
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:51 AM
> >>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> >>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
> >>>>
> >>>> Didn't someone create a FT8 contest reflector? It would be nice
> >>>> to
> take
> >>>> all these comments over there. Seems like FT8 is monopolizing the
> >> contest
> >>>> reflector just like it is on the air.
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting
> >>>> FT8 first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this
> >>>> isn't the future of ham radio.
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW I do operate some FT8 because I'm working on a the digital DXCC.
> >>>> (because there is hardly any RTTY activity outside of contests)
> >>>> Now
> that
> >>>> I've reached 100 countries I'm starting to get bored with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >>
> > <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_c
> ampaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon
> >
> > Virus-free.
> > www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com>
> > <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_c
> ampaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link
> >
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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