[CQ-Contest] Fwd: [wsjtgroup] WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6

Tue Jun 4 05:38:08 EDT 2019

Paul, if I am sitting at the keyboard deciding what to send when, and what
to respond to there is no "automated machine to machine contact". That is
like saying "using a bug instead of a straight key is not ham radio." Both
are updated technology and improve on the product. Hams are SUPPOSED to
experiment and inovate. That is what it is all about. That doesn't mean
that you personally have to adapt new things. It means that we get to
ignore your rants and go about our version of ham radio the way we see it.
Like I have said before, your opinions do not change the rules. Not the
government regulations or the contest rules. They are simply opinions and
are taken as such by the rest of us.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 21:05 Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:

> On 03/06/2019 20:44, David Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > You're talking to a wall.
>
> This "wall" listens, and has opinions, and explains the reasoning behind
> itsopinions. Insofar as my opinions deviate from "generally perceived
> wisdom" (my quotes), they are often derided or unwelcome.
>
> > Paul always does this stuff ... if you don't view ham radio the way he
> > does you aren't doing ham radio.
>
> Only to the extent that I don't accept that everything done in the name of
> ham radio, by ham-radio operators, is invariably or necessarily ham radio.
>
> > What Paul is never able to grasp is that "ham radio" covers a much
> > broader scope than he perceives, and that includes contesting.  As
> > long as contest sponsors are thoughtful enough to properly categorize
> > activities, I can find no problem at all with there being CW contests,
> > SSB contests, RTTY contests, FT4 contests, etc.
>
> What I cannot "grasp" or accept is that automated machine-to-machine
> contacts represent ham radio, even when a ham-radio operator or
> contester has fired up the station and computer, and set the
> appropriateapp going.
>
> > They simply require different combinations of skills, and having
> > different types of contests simply serves the broader interests of
> > hams in general.  It's still ham radio.
>
> No skill is needed for automated machine-to-machine contacts.
> That includes FT8 and/or FT4.  YouTube has examples.
>
> > It's ridiculous and purely arbitrary to assert that the only valid
> > contests are those where hams do their own decoding (which of course
> > leaves out the very popular RTTY mode).
>
> Equally, it's ridiculous and arbitrary to give contesting or DXCC
> credit for automated contacts - ones that take place and are logged
> with no human intervention whatsoever.
>
> > What about encoding?   I would bet that most contesters today don't
> > send their own information, at least not on CW and RTTY.  We push a
> > button on the keyboard and the logger does it for us.  Why should only
> > one direction of the communication path need to fit Paul's narrow
> > view? I have literally done entire major CW contests without ever
> > touching the paddle (and had half the received callsigns/reports
> > auto-filled for me by the logger to boot).
>
> Ward N0AX explained it better than I could - in April 2008.
>
>    "Dealing with automated reception differently than automated
>    transmission is appropriate because only reception can initiate
>    a QSO; whether in response to a solicitation (CQ) or from
>    tuning to a solicitation (S&P). Reception is qualitatively
>    different in this regard than transmission."
> http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2008-April/079851.html
>
>    and -
>
>    "You can cast the lure as much as you want, but if no fish
>    bites, you have not caught a fish. There must be a reception
>    event to trigger the process by which a QSO is conducted.
>    Both reception and transmission are necessary, but neither
>    is sufficient. Transmission events soliciting QSOs typically
>    outnumber reception events many-to-one. (Which key on your
>    keyboard is the most worn - F1 or Insert?) Thus, reception
>    is the critical element in allowing the transaction to
>    proceed."
> http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2008-April/079860.html
>
>
> > I wouldn't like to see contests lump fully automated QSOs with
> > non-automated ones,
>
> We're agreed on that, at least :-)
>
> > but the signal processing argument is bogus.
>
> That's a misquote.  I introduced the term "data processing" (the
> data exchanged in a data-mode contact) - not "signal processing".
>
> > The ability for FT4 to copy weak signals comes at the cost of speed,
> > and I can list other disparities between stations as well. If I have a
> > rig with better DSP capabilities I'm going to be able to hear stations
> > somebody with a lesser rig won't.  It's not my proficiency that makes
> > a difference ... it's PROCESSING that does.
>
> Signal processing helps us all, and operating proficiency never goes
> to waste.
>
> > If I have narrower filters than somebody else does I can pick out
> > stations from a pack better than somebody else could.  It's not my
> > proficiency that makes a difference ... it's PROCESSING.
>
> They both make a difference.
>
> > FT4 is simply a digital mode
>
> Not quite!  It's a digital data mode with data processing and error
> checking capabilities - a mode which can easily be fully automated.
>
> > with different processing tradeoffs, and why Paul thinks that the
> > possibilities being "limitless" is a problem is beyond me.
>
> Nowhere did I suggest the possibilities were "limitless". What
> Isaid was "the potential combinations (for new data modes) are
> limitless". I look forward to FT4 Release Candidate 8 in the near
> future.
>
> > The DSP found in almost all modern rigs is itself "processing". It
> > takes the analog signal from the antenna, slices and dices it to bits,
> > runs it through various software algorithms, transforms it in both
> > time and frequency domains, and reconstructs it to audio.
>
> Agreed, but it's not data processing in the sense I intended - text
> transmission/reception with automatic error correction.
>
> > And what is so special about audio?  It is merely one of our senses.
>
> Here we go again - another misquote. I suggested "ham-radio operators
> do their own decoding", and was careful to not specify a sense.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Diversity is healthy.
>
> That's a trite, feel-good statement that means nothing in particular.
> Competitive swimming doesn't "diversify" by permitting flippers.
> New technology is generally deemed to be inappropriate when its effects
> aredisproportionate or when its use would change the nature of the
> competitive activity concerned.
>
> I suggest we're there now with fully-automated FT8 and FT4 - and
> I can't help feeling AB7E agrees :-)
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
> >
> > 73,
> > Dave   AB7E
> >
> > p.s. I can't wait to see what kind of private message Paul will send
> > me this time.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/3/2019 9:25 AM, Chuck Dietz wrote:
> >> I don’t have any idea what you are saying here. Are you just bad
> >> mouthing
> >> digital modes?
> >>
> >> Chuck W5PR
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:55 AM Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Great - we have yet another data mode. There is no single data mode
> >>> that
> >>> is
> >>> "best" in all respects.  It's always a compromise between time, signal
> >>> rate,
> >>> bandwidth and number of discrete channels or tones - the potential
> >>> combinations
> >>> are limitless.
> >>>
> >>> What all data modes (including RTTY) have in common is that they
> >>> require
> >>> machine decoding.  It seems to me that ham-radio contesters do their
> >>> own
> >>> decoding, whether it's CW or Phone.  Everything else is data processing
> >>> and,
> >>> increasingly, fully-automated data processing.
> >>>
> >>> Let's leave data modes to the Data-Processing-over-RF apps.
> >>>
> >>> 73,
> >>> Paul EI5DI
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 02/06/2019 19:49, Jim Brown wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> >>>> Subject: [wsjtgroup] WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6
> >>>> Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 14:32:20 -0400
> >>>> From: Joe Taylor joe at Princeton.EDU [wsjtgroup]
> >>>> <wsjtgroup-noreply at yahoogroups.com>
> >>>> Reply-To: Joe Taylor <joe at Princeton.EDU>
> >>>> To: wsjtgroup at yahoogroups.com <wsjtgroup at yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> To:   Users of WSJT-X -- especially those interested in radio
> >>>> contesting
> >>>> From: WSJT Development Group
> >>>>
> >>>> As you know, we have been developing a protocol called FT4 for use in
> >>>> radio contesting.  A new version of FT4 is now available for testing
> >>>> in WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6.
> >>>>
> >>>> PLEASE NOTE THAT FT4 IN RELEASE CANDIDATE 6 IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH
> >>>> THAT IN ANY PREVIOUS RELEASE.
> >>>>
> >>>> Therefore: Please stop using WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5.  If you wish to use FT4
> >>>> after today or to take advantage of other recent program corrections
> >>>> or enhancements, you should use WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
>