[SEDXC] Contest Scoring

[Bill Coleman]

On Jun 21, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Jeff Carter wrote:

> My question revolves around the fact that we as a community are  
> holding on to
> two concepts that seem diametrically opposed to me, said concepts  
> being (a)
> Nothing Gets Through Like Morse Code and (b) CW Contacts Are Worth  
> More in
> Contests.

OK, let's look at this carefully.

While (a) is conventionally true, it is technically false. There are  
other ways of transmitting information that get through better than  
CW (particularly if the CW is received by the human ear).  
Mathematically, we can show that OOK (On-off Keying) is at least 2 dB  
inferior to FSK (Frequency-shift Keying), and 4 dB inferior to PSK  
(Phase-shift Keying) in the presence of Gaussian noise.

Jumping back to information theory for a moment, it's clear that our  
ability to "get through" is primarily dependent on the noise present  
in the communications channel. For any sort of propagated signal, we  
don't really have a lot of control over the noise in the channel,  
other than by limiting the signal bandwidth. The less bandwidth our  
signal occupies -- the less noise we have to deal with.

CW benefits from being much, much narrower than phone, by a factor of  
20 or more. Back in the day when there were really only two modes (CW  
and Phone), it was clearly obvious that CW could get through in  
conditions that are impossible for Phone. CW even has some bandwidth  
advantage over RTTY. However, modern PSK31 is potentially as narrow  
or narrower than CW. Amateurs using that mode routinely print signals  
that are inaudible by ear.

Now, looking at (b) -- note that contest CW takes place at about  
30-35 wpm, typically. Shorthand notation likely doubles this rate, so  
we might consider it to be 60-70 wpm, information-wise, but let's  
just say it's less than 100 wpm.

A normal person talking, can do 250 wpm without a problem. The short  
contest speech that we use is likely more like 400 wpm. Phone can  
convey information a lot faster, while CW can convey information over  
more adverse conditions. This is taken directly out of information  
theory. (Shannon's Law) It's also bourne out by contest practice --  
if you look at peak QSO rates, on phone it is possible to work nearly  
400 Q/hr. On CW, you would be doing well to approach 150 Q/hr,  
although some hams have done nearly 200 Q/hr

The contest rules are structured this way to acknowledge this  
performance difference. If you look at the rules for ARRL Field Day,  
you'll see they give the same advantage to digital modes (typically  
RTTY, PSK31), because they are also slow. Without this compensation,  
there would be much fewer CW (or Digital) contacts in an event.

> In short, we're rewarding at twice the rate something that we're  
> also saying
> is The Mode That Never Fails.  Shouldn't we recognize and reward  
> contacts
> based on difficulty across the board?

I believe I've covered this above.

> For example, we often recognize VHF or
> UHF DX for its level of difficulty.  Does it make sense to reward  
> CW contacts
> at twice the rate if they're twice as easy to copy?

Yes, because it takes twice as much time to make those contacts.

> Riley Hollingsworth said at Dayton that Ham Radio is aging, and  
> poorly, but
> whether or not you agree with him it does seem to me that as  
> current Hams get
> out of the hobby or go SK and new ones come in,  the new ones will  
> not be
> required to know Morse Code.

True. They won't be *required* to know Morse Code. (emphasis added)

> In turn, every year that goes by leaves a
> smaller and smaller group who could be expected to be able to take  
> advantage
> of a contest scoring system that favors CW contacts.

Untrue. You make a false assumption. You assume that without a  
regulatory requirement, there is no reason or incentive to learn  
Morse Code.

I maintain there are four excellent reasons to learn (or improve your  
proficiency) in Morse Code:

1)) DXing -- some DX stations are more readily available on CW (and  
it goes back to principle (a) above that they'd be easier to work)

2) Contesting -- there's at least 50-100% more contesting  
opportunities if you know CW. You may get changes to greatly improve  
your score by knowing CW.

3) QRP / Homebrewing -- the simpliest transmitters are CW  
transmitters. Low power operation lends itself well to the greater  
propagation efficiency of CW.

4) Fun -- using CW is just plain fun.

None of these reasons has anything to do with the regulations.

Furthermore, you assume that every OT is proficient in CW. Not so. I  
know plenty of guys who obviously learned the code back in the day  
but never really used it. Some guys, the moment they upgraded to  
General (or Conditional) turned their backs on CW and have forgotten  
it completely.

> Is the "Grade Inflation" for CW a method of protecting a mode?

No.

> If so, why would any given mode need protecting, particularly one  
> that many claimed is the Best There Is?

CW is not being "protected" by the contest rules, so this question  
makes no sense.

> So, in your opinion as individuals, which is it?  Is CW a mode that  
> stands on
> its own for its ability to be pulled out of the noise when All Else  
> Fails, or
> like so many subsidized and/or substandard things in this country  
> that happen
> to have an emotionally attached following, should we continue to  
> play the
> Grade Inflation Game where CW is concerned?

Neither. As I've pointed out above, CW is not technically the mode  
that gets through when all else fails. As a practical matter, though,  
it isn't bad.

Further more, there's no Grade Inflation Game.

> I'm not a very good contester, even though I enjoy playing.

Ah!

> Since I'm not
> very good at it, the ultimate answer to the question of what to do  
> about this
> isn't going to affect me that much.

I think you are mistaken here. If you aren't a very good contester,  
it could very well be that you will find the desire to improve your  
contesting ability. Once this aspiration hits you, you may find  
yourself developing your contest skills.

CW certainly takes greater contesting skill than Phone. (Although  
effective Phone contesting requires a lot of skill as well) Shouldn't  
we reward contesters who demonstrate greater skills?

>   It does seem to me that whatever we're
> doing as a group, however, should make at least common sense, and  
> I'm not
> certain this does.

It makes perfect sense.


Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901