[CQ-Contest] Minority Report: FT4 - Robotic Contesting

[Michael Clarson]

An interesting thought. FT# modes produce QSOs that comply with FCC Rule
97.119 a. while typical CW or SSB QSOs do not.Quoted below.

*§97.119   Station identification.*

(a) Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand station,
must transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end
of each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a
communication, for the purpose of clearly making the source of the
transmissions from the station known to those receiving the transmissions.
No station may transmit unidentified communications or signals, or transmit
as the station call sign, any call sign not authorized to the station.

On CW, a run station, if he considers the communication the CQ, and he IDs
at least every 10 minutes, he complies with 97.119 a.

The station calling the run station typically only sends his call at the
beginning of the communication, not at the end, therefore does NOT comply
with 97.119 a. either to the letter or spirit of the rule.

FT-8 does send the station call sign at the end of the communication,
thereby complying with 97.119 a. But does it? FT8 sends a 73 after the
call. If one likens the 73 to such finishing characters like "K". "SK"
"QRT" "QRZ" etc. it still complies If not, then  A "/73" would  comply. See
97.119 c.

One last comment --unlike CW and SSB, in  RTTY contests sending one's call
at the end of a communication is pretty common practice. --Mike, WV2ZOW



On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:14 PM Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at sbelectronics.com>
wrote:

> Tom, Great ideas.  Run as an FT4 only contest - its wonderful.
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Tom
> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 5:19 AM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Minority Report: FT4 - Robotic Contesting
>
> Yes, but what would they do? I'll answer that in a minute.
>
> There has been a bunch of complaining about FT4 and the automation put
> into selecting which station to work.  I'm sure the authors saw the 6
> second cycle time and decided that was a useful thing to add.  The problem
> is that it diminishes the amount of operator intervention required and thus
> the effect of operator skill on outcome.  Worse, it makes fully automated
> stations possible.  What would be the fun in that?
>
> Why not turn a disadvantage into an advantage? Computer games have
> automated "players".  They are used to enhance the experience of the humans
> playing the game.  What if a *new* contest had robots that were there to
> provide bonus points and/or multipliers to the human participants?  What if
> the robots could be worked multiple times during a contest, dispensing the
> bonus points to far away stations during the
> 15 minutes, close stations during the second 15, odd grids during the
> third 15, even grids during the fourth 15, etc.   The point is not these
> examples, the point is that the robots would be designed to force
> participants to make tactical and strategic decisions that would require
> operator skill.  These skills would replace those lost due to the other
> changes.
>
> Stop thinking about how FT4 will ruin contesting.  Start thinking about
> how one would design a one hour contest (like CWT) that would leverage
> FT4's strengths and get hams with rudimentary antennas interested in HF
> propagation. Or not.
>
> 73,
>
> Tom - N1MM
>
> On 5/2/2019 9:51 PM, Hans Brakob wrote:
> > For curiosity's sake, I would be interested in a contest where some
> robots were in the mix, but a contest of only robots would be a giant yawn.
> >
> > 73, de Hans, KØHB
> > "Just a Boy and his Radio"
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of
> > ktfrog007--- via CQ-Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 8:40 PM
> > To: cq-contest at contesting.com; wsjtgroup at yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Minority Report: FT4 - Robotic Contesting
> >
> >
> > I'm sure I'm way deep in the minority but I'd love to see an automated
> contest run as an experiment.  FT4 could be used as the mode with the
> appropriate software.
> >
> > Control operators would have to be present and the software would need
> some kind of periodic time out requiring operator input to continue, as
> well as being able to alert the control ops in case of problems and
> governors to keep the program from running amok.
> >
> > In the latter case, the software would need a driver for a klaxon.
> >
> > Aside from the fact that virtually nobody likes this, is there any real
> reason not to do it?  Some regulatory issue not covered above?
> >
> >
> > 73,Ken, AB1J
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>