On Jul 11, 8:44 pm, wrote:
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.

I'll have to dig out the archives and see how he did that in 1953
without the benifit of your modern computer. I'll bet there was some
serious integration work that took place to make something like this
work that many years ago.


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?

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.

Personally, I think you have hit the division points the same places I
would. They are logical lines that are fairly easy to define. I
cannot get rid of the nagging thought that CW Skimmer (and things like
it) in some ways can blur these lines, but so can electronic logging
coupled with automatic keying, but I do like the simplicity of your
approach.


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

Actually this is true right now, but it seems that it is only a short
step from where we are now (in terms of technology and automation) to
the sport becoming more of a "point and shoot" affair. CW Skimmer (or
things like it) could easily be made to check with your electronic
log, review the current contest's rules, review the signal strengths
of incoming signals then provide the operator a prioritized list of
who they should work next to maximize the probability of getting the
best score. Once you are at that point, it's a quick hop to removing
the operator from the cycle.

It may not do this yet, but from where we are to fully automated is
not that far. The hard part has been done.

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....

True, these things are not necessary for RF communications, but they
represent the "state of the art" in radio technology today. Besides,
I'd hate to lug enough batteries around to get a 100W tube station on
the air in a parking lot. It's been a long time since your average HF
rig for sale used Tubes, and even longer since they started using
transistors. Now the average HF rig is ripe with solid state
components and are digitally controlled. Try to tune your tube radio
with my laptop though software and you are going to have your hands
full, yet the average HF radio today is going to have DSP and computer
control ability.


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.

And I would like to point out that we don't handicap stations for
antenna height, using a beam, where they are located (with some
exceptions) and stuff like that. How to set up a station to operate
effectively is an important part of operating. Antenna selection,
station grounding and things like feed line losses all play an
important part in the performance of a station, yet get ignored by the
rules. Doing a good job engineering these things is very important.
Having all the automation in the world won't help you if your station
doesn't work on the air in the first place.


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

Thinking about it; I think such a station *could* be legally set up
and operated. The question of how "in control" does the control
operator need to be is an interesting one. Surely a packet station is
legal and the control operator of a packet repeater doesn't see and
approve every transmission. Some are located in very remote locations
with no control operator sitting there all the time. PSK guys run
100% automated too, with their stations logging QSO's while they sleep
or work. How would what I describe be different?

I like your general approach. Don't ignore this new technology, but
also don't place too many regulations on its use. I also like how you
drew the lines because these lines are clearly understood.

-= KC4UAI =-