On Jul 13, 4:00�pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 12, 9:16am, Steve Bonine wrote:
btw, Hams were
using CQ wheels in the 1920s....

Good point. �But there's a progression from using a CQ wheel,
thru
letting the keyer complete the contest QSO, to having a computer
automatically copy the exchange, log it, and send the response.
Somewhere in that progression my threshold for "doing it myself" is
passed. �It's not really an objective thing . . . I am OK with a
programmable keyer that will send CQ, and I'll use a computer-
based
logging program, but much past that and it changes the flavor of
the operation.

My point is simply that everyone's "line of purity" is probably
slightly different.

Every major contest I know of has some recognition
of power level.
Field Day, which started this discussion, recognizes
three power
levels:

...
f there are power categories why not automation
categories?

Because power is objective -- you can easily measure it -- while
automation is much more complicated. �There's not
an "automation meter"
that you can read and say "I'm in category C."

There can be. Here are a couple of "lines of purity":

1) Full automation, such as was fictionally depicted in "The Man Who
Broke The Bank", is when no operator intervention is needed. to make a
QSO. The operator may sit there and watch the system run, and
interrupt it if s/he wants, but if the machine doesn't *need* any
operator intervention, there's an objective line.

While not yet a reality AFAIK, it seems to me that building such a
station for the various RTTY modes is not beyond the realm of
possibility with current methods.

2) Automation that eliminates a particular skillset completely. In the
case of CW contesting, if an operator with no Morse Code skill can
make contacts because a machine does all the encoding and decoding,
something has been lost, and there's another objective line.

3) Automation that extends beyond the actual operation of the rig,
like a packet cluster. This line is already recognized; use of a
packet cluster puts one in an "assisted" category. It seems to me that
a Skimmer would fit here.

4) Automation that partially eliminates a particular skillset. In the
case of CW contesting, if a QSO can be made with the computer doing
all the sending, there's another objective line.

Not that any of the above should be banned; they just get different
categories.

I think that a recognition of automation is good, but I recognize
that
the rules are likely to be complex. �For example, if you establis
h a
"purist" category, where do you draw the line . . . keyer? �memor
y
keyer? �keyer that can generate sequence number? �compute
r
logging and
dupe checking? �spotting? �CW copying? �CW genera
tion?

See above for some ideas. Here's another: a point system.

Start out with a basic station: transmitter, receiver, antenna,
straight key, paper logsheets.

Now give each level of automation a point value:

Transceiver: 50 points
No-tuneup transceiver: 60 points
Bug: 10 points
Keyer: 20 points
Keyer that can generate messages: 30 points
Computer logging: 20 points
Automated beam heading: 5 points
Second VFO: 10 points
Memories: 10 points

etc.

There would be a point value below which you'd be in the "purist"
categor, or some such.

It is, after all, a hobby.

I disagree!

I think it's much more accurate to describe amateur radio contesting
as a form of sport rather than "a hobby". An amateur sport, of course,
but still a sport just like baseball, bicycle racing, golf or tennis.
There's competition, rules, skill of the players, improvements in
equipment, and constant discussion about what should be allowed and
what shouldn't.

I'd hate for it to degenerate too much into
bean counting.

But just because we don't get paid for doing it doesn't mean it
shouldn't be taken seriously. If anything, amateur sports are a place
to take these things very seriously, because the outcome doesn't
matter as much as the game.

For example, if the marathon were shortened to 5 miles from 26.22, a
lot more people would compete. But it wouldn't be a marathon anymore.

I don't play golf, but it is my understanding that there are golf ball
designs that will add dozens of yards or more to most players' drives.
But such golf balls are not recognized for competitive play because
they change the game so much.

All sorts of improvements have been made to racing bicycles but
there's a line at adding a motor.

Auto racing is probably the best example. It is probably possible to
build a car that could win the Indy 500 easily, by simply having so
much speed, power and fuel tank capacity that no existing Indy-car
could keep up. But such a car would have to break several Indy-car
restrictions such as engine displacement and fuel tank size, and would
not be allowed to race.

73 de Jim, N2EY