On Jul 11, 11:35�pm, "K�HB" wrote
:
wrote in message

...

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.

Competition is NOT about "level playing fields".

I disasgree, Hans.

�True competition is about
working (within the rules) to tilt the playing field to your own
advantage.
Things like honing your skills, improving your station, and seeking out
new
(legal) tools that your competitors may not have gained access to.

Perhaps we're using different definitions of "level playing field".

You mentioned the excellent KVG short story "Harrison Bergeron". IMHO,
that story isn't about leveling the playing field; it's about leveling
the *players*. The things you describe - honing your skills, improving
your station, and seeking out new (legal) tools - are about improving
the player, not changing the field.

"Skimmer" isn't "like every other tool that has come along".
�It is an instant
game changer; in military tactical terms a "force multiplier".

Perhaps.

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE = ON

But isn't that true of many other tools?

Consider the rig that can transceive as opposed to separate
transmitters and receivers where the transmitter frequency must be
manually set to match the receiver. When working hunt-and-pounce in a
contest like the SS, the transceiver-equipped station is way ahead,
because a whole set of operator skills has been automated. Same for
the modern no-tuneup rig with ATU vs. one that has a series of manual
tuneup steps.

Or consider the integrated logging/sending computer system vs. paper
logs. A considerable amount of operator action is automated in such a
system. The op doesn't have to record band, time, date or mode, the
computer does all that unerringly. The op doesn't have to send the
exchange or keep track of serial number, the computer does that too.
Avoiding dupes is easy; the computer flags them and even gives you the
info on the previous QSO.

The past few years on FD we've used N3FJP software networked between
computers at each rig. If you enter the call of a station that has
been worked on another band/mode, it will tell you the exchange and
fill in the blanks for you!

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

In terms of the classic "boy and his radio" category of contest
participant, I
believe the line must be drawn on the south side of Skimmer.

A panoramic display simply gives a general idea of conditions
and activity
levels on a band. �It's a handy tool but doesn't identify a singl
e call sign, or replace any CW copying skill.

Agreed.

A logging computer simply provides a more efficient means
of "book-keeping".
It's a handy tool but doesn't identify a single call sign, or replace a
ny CW copying skill.

But it does replace a lot of operator skills, and reduces the workload
on the operator. It also replaces huge amounts of operator *sending*
skill if enough function keys are programmed.

I've worked contests where a human logger was used to improve the
performance and reduce the workload on the op running the rig. The
logger's main job was searching the paper dupe sheet for dupes. In
many contests, the use of a human logger put the station in the
multiop category.

I've also seen operations where the logger's job included spotting the
transmitter and keeping it tuned up properly. Band change goes a lot
faster when there are four hands to do it! And in many contests, the
use of a second op like that put the station in the multiop category.

What logging computers and no-tune-up rigs have done is to automate
those skills that were formerly done by human operators *without*
putting the station in the multiop category.

Skimmer, on the other hand, is like having dozens and dozens of assista
nt
operators scanning the bands from top to bottom and in real-time feedin
g you the
callsigns and the QRG's of EVERY STATION THAT IT HEARS ON EVERY BAND IT
MONITORS, and "nudging you in the ribs" when it identifies a
needed multiplier.

Just like your own personal packet cluster. Which puts a station into
a different category (assisted).

I can imagine that it could (in theory) be set up to determine which
of the stations it hears is the most desirable to attempt to work
next, based on a complex formula of rarity, propagation, one's own
DXCC totals, etc. (if it doesn't do this already...)

For this reason, I believe that every major contest sponsor must
maintain one
category "Skimmer free" where humans can compete with
humans, finding,
identifying with their own ears, and working the stations that go
into their log.

Outside of that "classic" category, let Skimmer roam free.

I agree 100% with the "classic" category. Or call it "Unassisted", or
even "Iron Op" or some such.

But while still in devil's advocate mode, consider this:

You use the phrase "finding, identifying with their own ears, and
working the stations that go into their log.", and I agree on the
reasonableness of that.

But when it comes to finding stations, isn't the use of a logging
computer a big help in finding new ones, because it will tell you
instantly and unerringly if a station is a dupe? Isn't it a big help
in getting them in the log because it automates some of the data entry
and makes the rest easier?

When it comes to working them, isn't an automated sending setup (Morse
Code or digital voice recorder, for example) a big help in working
them, because it eliminates most or all of the sending?

IOW, you'd keep a Skimmer-free category because Skimmer acts like a
group of robot second operators helping the human operator. But aren't
logging/sending computers, DVRs, and even no-tuneup rigs in a similar
situation, because they behave like robot operators helping the human
operator? Granted, Skimmer is different because it acts like a whole
group of robot operators, but isn't the concept the same?

I guess it all depends on what you define as operator skill. ISTM that
you (and many others) consider it OK to automate Morse Code sending,
but not receiving. It's OK to automate logging and duping, spotting
the transmitter frequency and keeping the rig tuned up, but not
finding new ones.

I'm not making a judgement, just an observation. I'm not sure where I
stand on those issues. But I do agree a line must be drawn; there's a
difference between developing a better bicycle for the Tour de France
and allowing the use of motorcycles in that race.

I really do support the idea of a "Classic" category in all contests.
Perhaps we should write up a proposal and send it to the various
contest sponsors?

Seems to me that if the use of Skimmer is classed the same as the use
of a packet cluster or spotting net, we're 99% of the way there.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Howard Lester wrote:

As far as I can imagine, there's no real
operating skill required for automation.

I have to disagree with this.

Perhaps the easiest example that fits into this thread is the
"automation" of a keyer versus a straight key. Using a keyer is much
different than using a straight key and requires operating skill.

Perhaps you object that a keyer isn't "automation". Perhaps not, if you
meant the term to mean "using a computer". But I submit that operating
skill is required to use those tools, too. When I switched from a paper
dupe sheet to a logging program, I had to develop a new skill.

Personally, I happen to be a purist; I'll use a logging program but I'm
not interested in using computer-generated CW or computer-aided QSOs.
But the important words are "I'm not interested." Just like many other
aspects of our hobby, my lack of interest does not imply that something
is inherently good or bad. It's just different, and if someone else IS
interested that's great.

Even though I have no desire to use or develop computer aids to
contesting, I think that people who do should be encouraged and that
their skills should be recognized. An important aspect of ham radio is
pushing the state of the art, and developing/using/testing this kind of
facility is as much a part of that as developing new electronic
circuits. When we've lost the ability to innovate, and to encourage
innovation, we've lost an important basis of the whole hobby.

73, Steve KB9X

"Steve Bonine" wrote

Howard Lester wrote:

As far as I can imagine, there's no real operating skill required for
automation.

I have to disagree with this.

Are you disagreeing with my imagination? ;-)

There have been many aspects of ham radio's various levels of automation
I've taken advantage of. As you and others have mentioned, an "automatic"
keyer (I used to have a good fist on a straight key), a transceiver (I grew
up with a separate transmitter/receiver setup with separate antennas: no
auto relay), a transmatch with variable capacitors and switchable tapped
coils... stuff like that.

What I was getting at is that I can't imagine being involved in any contest
or any casual QSO with an automatic CQ-seeking machine that does all kinds
of things that take away from what I can do between my ears. It's not for
me. Those who develop those programs and skills are doing a great service as
contributing hobbyists by at least pushing technology ahead -- you're right.
And there are many, many aspects to ham radio. It's a hobby, and we have
much freedom within it to pursue these aspects and develop them further. *I*
have no use for many of them. I'd continue to push the OP to develop his CW
skills and get back to the basics. It's fun.

Howard N7SO

On Jul 12, 9:16�am, Steve Bonine wrote:
Howard Lester wrote:
As far as I can imagine, there's no real
operating skill required for automation.

I have to disagree with this.

Me too.

Perhaps the easiest example that fits into this thread is the
"automation" of a keyer versus a straight key. �Using a keyer is
much
different than using a straight key and requires operating skill.

Straight keys, sideswipers, bugs and keyers all require operating
skills. They all require different but related operating skills.

A keyboard Morse generator also requires a certain amount of skill,
but there's a fundamental difference between a keyboard Morse
generator and the keys mentioned above: the keyboard Morse generator
can be used by someone with no knowledge of Morse Code.

Perhaps you object that a keyer isn't "automation". �Perhaps not,
if you meant the term to mean "using a computer". �

A keyer automates making dits and dahs. The operator input required
for a keyer is much less than that of a straight key.

But I submit that operating
skill is required to use those tools, too.

Of course, but they are different skills.

�When I switched from a paper
dupe sheet to a logging program, I had to develop a new skill.

So did I. But computer logging automates much of what an operator
using paper logging does.

For example, paper logging SS means logging not only the exchange
received, but also the time and band, as well as entering the call
into the dupe sheet. With a computer, all but the exchange itself is
automated.

Personally, I happen to be a purist; I'll use a logging program but I'm
not interested in using computer-generated CW or computer-
aided QSOs.

But most logging programs will also generate code. btw, Hams were
using CQ wheels in the 1920s....

But the important words are "I'm not interested." �Just like many
other
aspects of our hobby, my lack of interest does not imply that
something
is inherently good or bad. �It's just different, and if someone e
lse IS interested that's great.

Even though I have no desire to use or develop computer aids to
contesting, I think that people who do should be encouraged and that
their skills should be recognized. �An important aspect of ham
radio is
pushing the state of the art, and developing/using/testing this kind of
facility is as much a part of that as developing new electronic
circuits. �When we've lost the ability to innovate, and to encour
age
innovation, we've lost an important basis of the whole hobby.

I agree 100%. But at the same time, there need to be some rules that
recognize the sporting nature of contesting.

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

QRP, which is 5 watts or less with non-generator-or-commercial-mains
power,
Low power, which is all stations who don't qualify for QRP and are
running 150 watts or less
High power, which is 150 watts to 1500 watts.

The idea is to recognize that more power changes the game
significantly. If there are power categories why not automation
categories?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
On Jul 12, 9:16am, Steve Bonine wrote:

Personally, I happen to be a purist; I'll use a logging program but I'm
not interested in using computer-generated CW or computer-
aided QSOs.

But most logging programs will also generate code.

But that doesn't mean that I have to avail myself of this function.

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.

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

QRP, which is 5 watts or less with non-generator-or-commercial-mains
power,
Low power, which is all stations who don't qualify for QRP and are
running 150 watts or less
High power, which is 150 watts to 1500 watts.

The idea is to recognize that more power changes the game
significantly. If 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."

I think that a recognition of automation is good, but I recognize that
the rules are likely to be complex. For example, if you establish a
"purist" category, where do you draw the line . . . keyer? memory
keyer? keyer that can generate sequence number? computer logging and
dupe checking? spotting? CW copying? CW generation?

It is, after all, a hobby. I'd hate for it to degenerate too much into
bean counting.

73, Steve KB9X

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

wrote:

It is, after all, a hobby.

I disagree!

For some of us, it's a hobby. For others, it's their life. There is a
huge difference between someone who spends a few hours working a contest
from their home station with a simple transceiver and a dipole, versus
one of the "big guns" who has invested huge amounts of time and money
building the ultimate contest station with stacked beams up 150 feet on
top of a mountain.

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.

And I still yearn for the years when the Olympics were limited to true
amateurs.

Here's an example that illustrates what I'm trying to say. Bridge is a
card game. I enjoy playing it. Many years ago, four of my friends
played bridge during their lunch hour at work. One of them was on
vacation, so they asked me to fill in for him. I flubbed playing a
hand, and the three of them were so upset that they wouldn't speak to me
for a week. These people had taken a card game into territory where I
don't care to tread. That doesn't make their daily game "bad"; it's
just not something that I personally care for.

The same thing can be said of any sport, and I agree that ham radio
contesting is the same way. There are cutthroat competitors out there,
some of whom have spent vast amounts of time and money building the
ultimate contest station. Of course they want to come up with a huge
score, and they will go to great lengths to achieve their goal. OK,
different strokes for different folks. That's not what I enjoy about a
contest, but it's certainly their prerogative to enjoy those aspects.

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.

There are different levels of "serious". There are different
motivations for entering a ham radio contest.

But to get back to the original question of whether there is an
effective way to "level the playing field" relative to use of technology
in a ham radio contest. My personal conclusion is that the current
simple rules of putting people into broad categories based on power,
number of operators, "assistance", and so on are good enough. There are
just too many variables to go any farther. I'd rather see the handicap
system be crude than try to improve it by adding lots of additional
factors, especially when they're impossible to measure.

Someone sitting in a super station with stacked beams at 150 feet has an
inherent advantage over me with my dipole. But how much of an
advantage? Is it ten times easier for them to make a QSO? If we're
going to "level the playing field", what handicap factor should we use?
There's no simple way to deduce it.

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.

How many thousands of pages of rules and specifications do you suppose
there are that spell out in great detail exactly what is allowed in a
car that can enter such a race? That's exactly the kind of thing I'm
trying to avoid.

The factors that are used now to determine contest class are easy to
measure -- things like input power to the transmitter, number of
operators, spotting receivers. The result is some leveling of the
playing field. Adding additional factors would improve the handicap
system, but at the cost of adding complexity and forcing entrants to
make subjective evaluations. I don't think that there would be enough
improvement to justify increasing the complexity of the rules.

It might be an interesting exercise to research the top ten finishers in
popular contests and compare their equipment and techniques. I'm sure
that avid contesters do this, sort of like football teams that review
the tapes of their competitors' games. How much does the hardware
(location, antenna, state-of-the-art radios) contribute to the score,
compared to operator skill?

73, Steve KB9X

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:32:46 -0400, N2EY wrote:
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.

It has in fact been done, for CW. N6TR did it some years ago - I want to
say 1985!

I think he only used it once. Tree enjoys winning contests; even today,
automation technology is not up to that.

=========
A dilemna here, and with many other current issues in contesting, is
"category creep". Should SO2R entries have their own category? Should
there be separate categories for "low-power and dipoles" and for
"low-power and beams"? In some contests, a significant majority of
entrants win, because there's pretty much a category for everyone!

So I think we have to ask: if we're going to split Skimmer users into
a separate category, do we need to get rid of a category distinction
somewhere else?

On Jul 11, 6:56 pm, "Howard Lester" wrote:
"KC4UAI" wrote

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. Man, I wanted to do that! 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.

-----------------------------

I suggest you stay with your
original plan and stay inspired. As far as I can imagine, there's no real
operating skill required for automation.

I actually see value in both approaches. It takes a mixture of what I
call "classic radio operation" (where the radio knobs are turned,
signals received by ear, and keying done by hand) and the use of
automating technology (electronic logs, automatic keyers, and an
increasingly more capable forms of automation) to stay up with the
state of the art. Both involve hard work and dedication to do the job
well and both are valuable skills to develop.

I would hope that the rules that govern contesting will take both into
account and encourage the development and integration of new tools
while maintaining the need for the classic radio skills.

-= KC4UAI =-

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 =-