On Jul 11, 4:28 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
My oh My,

I just had my first introduction to CW contesting during
field day. I
sat and watched a CW operator rack up QSO after QSO
at 25 wpm and I was very impressed.

I know exactly what you mean.

Man, I wanted to do that!

You can.

I left field day
with a renewed interest in CW thinking that I might try
and brush off
the dust and cobwebs from my CW skills and give it
a try next year.

You don't have to wait. There are CW contests, QSO parties and
sprints of various kinds all through the year. There are also
software simulators for training between contests.

There's also DX chasing and good ol' CW ragchewing.

Going from a copy speed of nearly zero to contest ready
is going to be
a serious problem for me but I can try.

Not a serious problem if you do a little each day.

Then I see your post... Oh my. My first thought was "Wow!
That would
be great on field day to speed up finding stations to work!" I could
even imagine that it would be pretty easy to automate most of the
QSO
process and depend on the computer to find, work and log
contacts with
little (if any) operator interaction required.

That's not a new idea.

Some time back, there was an article in QST called "The Man Who
Broke The Bank", about a ham who built an automated CW SS
station. He and it (mostly it) made a record score, which would not
be topped for many years.

The article appeared in QST for May, 1953.

This is, of course, at
the heart of the whole debate over this new tool’s use. Is it fair
to the operator who doesn't have this tool if I use it?

Yes and no.

Of course a "Skimmer" can give an advantage. But so can almost
any other tool. Computer logging gives an advantage over paper
logging, paddles or a bug give an advantage over a straight key,
a rig that can transceive gives an advantage over one that can't.
Sharp filters, simplified or automated tune-up, better antennas,
you name it, the issue is the same.

IMHO a line is drawn when operator intervention is no longer needed to
make a QSO. Another line is drawn when the op gets direct outside help
in making QSOs, such as by a packet cluster.

How the CW contesters will deal with this new technology while
keeping the playing field level?

As long as we all have to follow the same rules, the playing
field *is* level. The players may not be equal, though, but
that's what competition is all about.

Beats me, but thinking about it leads to a
number of possible solutions (Please folks let's add to this list.)

1. Ignore the new technology and live with the fact that folks who use
it will likely increase their contest scores.

Like every other tool that has come along...

2. Regulate its use by handicapping folks who choose to use such
tools.

How? Give those who don't use them a bonus or multiplier?

3. Make the use of such tools illegal for the contest.

But where does one draw the line? Should a panoramic display/bandscope
be allowed? Should logging computers
be banned? .

Each approach has its good points and it's bad ones.

Ignoring the technology would be a grave mistake. If it is not
addressed, fully automatic stations during contests would
become the
rule and the single operator won't stand a chance.
Gone would be the
reward for staying up all night practicing those finely honed
operating skills in an attempt to rack up a winning score. The
winners would be asleep in the next room (or the next state for that
matter) for the whole contest. That would be a bad thing for
contests
and for the hobby so we simply cannot ignore this.

But the Skimmer does not make QSOs. It simply tells you where stations
are that you may want to work.

Except in 1B-1 class, the same thing could be done on FD by having an
operator with a receiver tuning the band and writing
down notes as to where the new ones are.

Banning these tools from contests would also be a mistake.
It would be like banning transistors, or DSP signal
processing.

You'd be surprised what can be done on FD without either of
those things....

We cannot
ignore or discourage new technology and how it can advance the state of
the art of radio. We must push to integrate new things
that enhance
our operating capabilities and encourage innovation in one of the few o
pen areas left where the home brewing is alive and well.

Google my call or look on eham.net for a picture of my shack.

These days
most are not going to build a radio to get on the air because it's
very difficult to build a state of the art rig at home.

There are some very high performance kits, though. And the rig
is only one part of the system; the antenna, location, conditions
and operator are all parts too.

But you can
write some software at home on your desktop with very cheap and
readily available tools.

Of course. But when it comes to state-of-the-art software, what is
required?

That leaves a middle of the road approach. I personally think that it
would be best to regulate this technology's use in contests. We
need
to preserve the need for personal operating skills and reward
those
who work hard. But we need to recognize that melding
technology with
your station's operation in a effective ways is hard work too. I
would push for a "regulation by bandwidth" kind of approach. This
would handicap operators who use automatic spotting tools by
some
factor that is related to the receiver bandwidth being used. I would
also clearly state in the rules that 100% automatic operation
should
not be allowed, but that there must be some operator interaction
required for each QSO that takes place. The bad point to this
approach is it will lead to more complex rules and make it harder to ke
ep scores straight.

I think true automatic operation is already not allowed, because there
must always be a control operator. I'm not sure, though.

There should be a place for CW Skimmer in contesting
and its use
should be encouraged in ways that also encourage
the development of
these kinds of tools, and the integration of this kind of innovation
into good operating practice.

Here's an analogy:

I think amateur radio contesting is best described by the term
"radiosport". IMHO it shares a lot with competitive techno-sports such
as bicycle racing or distance running.

In all such sports, technological improvements have made a big
difference, whether it's better running shoes for the distance runner
or a better bike for the bicycle racer.

But at the same time, there's a clear line drawn of where an
improvement becomes "unfair". Putting even a small motor on
a bicycle means it's not a bicycle anymore. Rollerblades are not
a new form of running shoe. In amateur radio contesting, we need
the same sort of mindset.

There's another angle, too.

Very few bicycle riders can qualify for a world-class race, let alone
win one. Few runners can qualify for the Boston or New York Marathons,
let alone win them. Yet many will ride bikes and run
marathons even with no hope of winning or placing significantly.

The reasons they do it are many, and I will only cover a few.

1) To simply prove they can do it. My first marathon was like that; I
just wanted to know I could run one in under four hours, and I did.

2) Because it is fun in and of itself. In the past few weeks I got the
ol' 10 speed out and started riding. It was tough at first but now I'm
up to 20 miles at a clip. Tomorrow I try for 25 miles. I'm not fast or
fancy and the hills of Radnor make it a challenge, but it's great fun
to go flying down the other side!

3) As training to get better.

4) To see how good one can do within one's own limitations. I'll
probably never win any race, nor any contest, but that's not the
point. Back in 1995 the rig you see in my shack pictures and I made
629 CW FD QSOs in class 1B-1, with simple antennas.
While that's not a world record, it's a personal one that I hope to
better someday.



73 es GL de Jim, N2EY