[CQ-Contest] FT4 - Robotic Contesting

Sun May 5 22:56:27 EDT 2019

Only for unassisted. Assisted single op it is allowed.

On a side note, if one wanted to tie this to some sort of conspiracy, there
has been a desire to merge the assisted and unassisted categories. This
could be a nudge. Otherwise it seems to make absolutely no sense as it is
simply not QSO finding assistance.

Ria
N2RJ

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 12:27 PM RT Clay <rt_clay at bellsouth.net> wrote:

>  It depends on your definition of "major": CW decoders are prohibited in
> CQWW contests for single ops; ARRL contests only forbid "multichannel
> decoders", so single-frequency decoders are OK there even for unassisted
> operators.
>
> Tor N4OGW
>
>     On Friday, May 3, 2019, 8:03:39 PM CDT, Barry <w2up at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>  CW decoders are strictly prohibited in the majors.
>
> Barry W2UP
>
> On 5/3/2019 1:05 PM, rjairam at gmail.com wrote:
> > There are Cw contesters who use cw decoders and many CW contesters use
> > computer generated CW. It’s simply not as good as a human ear yet but
> it’s
> > there already.
> >
> > Ria
> > N2RJ
> >
> > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:07 AM Jim via CQ-Contest <
> cq-contest at contesting.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> These digital modes, with appropriate tweaks to allow non-trivial
> >> information, can be very useful for communicating. But for sport? Not
> >> unless your sport is robotics.
> >>
> >> Imagine a similar takeover by machines of a well known sport: tennis.
> It’s
> >> not hard to imagine a robot that would eject a tennis ball into the air
> and
> >> use a mechanical arm with a tennis racquet attached to hit a ball at a
> >> similar robot on the other side of a tennis net, and with appropriate
> >> vision software then get to that ball when it is returned to again hit
> it
> >> over a net, and so on. What would that prove, and what about it would be
> >> interesting to observe?
> >>
> >> And I find that mentally decoding a call out of a pileup or out of noise
> >> comprises a lot more than 1% of contact management.
> >>
> >>
> >> 73  -  Jim  K8MR
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 2, 2019, at 9:01 PM, Sterling Mann <kawfey at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In the beginning, there were people. And people raced on foot. And then
> >> man
> >>> domesticated the animal, and raced that. And then man got creative,
> >> making
> >>> cars, planes, boats, trains, rockets, and so on and so forth...and
> raced
> >>> them all.
> >>>
> >>> Ham radio is the same. In the beginning there was CW. And then phone.
> And
> >>> then RTTY. And then BPSK. And so on and so forth, until now with FT4.
> >>>
> >>> What I'm getting at is that FT4 contesting will still be just as much
> fun
> >>> as CW, SSB, and RTTY, and just as competitive. But, I think now after
> >>> reading a negative opinion or two on CQ-contest, QRZ, eHam, reddit, and
> >>> elsewhere, is that the contesters ingrained in CW, phone, or RTTY
> >>> radiosport will be hard pressed to believe me. Meanwhile contesters of
> >>> modern-day modes will have as much fun with FT4 as those who have been
> >>> contesting with CW for their lifetimes and it makes me sad that they'll
> >> be
> >>> unlikely to share that experience. So, I challenge the naysayers to
> give
> >> it
> >>> a try. I promise you that the "robot" you QSOing with will be no
> >> different
> >>> than the N1MM automation that manage 99% of a contact already.
> >>>
> >>> -Sterling N0SSC
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:08 PM Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa at nbnet.nb.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Hey guys n' gals,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not against FT# contesting, but I certainly won't pretend to
> >>>> understand
> >>>> it. (nor am I a Luddite)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO, if you remove too much of the human element from the picture, the
> >>>> 'rush', the 'reward', the 'competition' (if you want to call it that)
> is
> >>>> lessened.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> IE: I derive the greatest pleasure from CW, then SSB, and much much
> less
> >>>> for
> >>>> RTTY. (I don't do very much RTTY - and that is one reason) Watch my
> >>>> computer
> >>>> work someone elses computer with a few mouse clicks and some guessing
> >> as to
> >>>> the callsign and exchange depending on QSB/QRM etc.?  Some editing of
> >>>> function key files to tweak my exchange "better" than maybe Joe-Blow
> >> down
> >>>> the road who sends everything except his hat size. Being quick with
> the
> >>>> mouse.(timing)  Much less than SSB or CW, but at least there's some
> >> human
> >>>> interaction.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> When the JT modes hit 6m, it created a situation for the CW/SSB ops,
> >> that
> >>>> lessened the overall appeal of 6m as "everyone was up the band on the
> JT
> >>>> modes".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, not against it, but don't "get it".  Maybe it's that
> >>>> generational/instant gratification for very little outlay of energy
> >>>> mentality. Maybe it's just the soup de jour.  I dunno.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Even though I am admittedly not a huge proponent of RTTY (as explained
> >>>> above), I don't think RTTY contests and awards should be watered down
> by
> >>>> including FT#, PSK31 or whatever.  There is still some human element
> in
> >>>> RTTY, however small that might be.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Respectfully,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> VE9AA Mike...CW and SSB forever !
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Keswick Ridge, NB
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>