On Jul 14, 3:10 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:44 pm, wrote:

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.

The article was fiction. At the time (a year before I was born!) it
must have seemed
really far-out. Today it's almost reality.

Point is, the *idea* isn't something new.

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.

The thing about electronic logging, computer-generated keying driven
by
function keys and the like is that they still need operator
intervention to
work. Full automation does not.

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

Just like a packet cluster - which puts you in a different category.

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.

In fact, you don't need all of those features. All that's needed is
for the
system to be able to make QSOs by itself.

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

Maybe. About 1950, Alan Turing himself thought that computers that
would pass
his hypothetical Turing Test of machine intelligence would be around
in less than 50
years.

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.

Sort of.

Besides,
I'd hate to lug enough batteries around to get a 100W tube station on
the air in a parking lot.

Batteries? Parking lot?

I've done FD with tube gear, it's not that much harder than with
"modern" stuff.
The main difference is that the rigs tend to be bigger and heavier,
and you
need to know how to tune them up. All part of the game.

In 1995 I used the rig shown on my web page (google my call to see it)
on
Field Day in clas 1B-1. Antennas were an 80/40 inverted V with the
apex at 40 feet
on a homebrew wooden mast and a 20 meter ground plane vertical.
Paper logs, bug and straight keys. Power from a generator. All set up
in
a tent, on a homebrew portable table. Also had my 2 meter
rig for FM simplex QSOs. This was a solo operation - I brought
everything to the site, set up
all by myself, operated all 24 hours, took everything down and brought
it home. All of the
equipment and me in a 1980 VW Rabbit.

629 CW QSOs, 11 FM voice QSOs. Bonuses for 100% emergency power, W1AW
message, message to SM, and making 10 QSOs on VHF/UHF.

A lot of work but a lot of fun too. K0HB speaks of "a boy and his
radio" and that's
what it was. Wasn't the only time I did it, either.

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.

Point is, it can be done, and a decent score earned. In a contest like
Field
Day, a lot of those features may not make a lot of difference in how
many
points you make.

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.

That's very true! But here's the important point: The reverse is also
true. Sit an unskilled op down at the best station imaginable and
if s/he doesn't have the skills, the QSO rate will be very low.

In the case of Morse Code contesting, a person with no Morse Code
skills won't make any QSOs at all unless some form of code reader
and code generator are used.

But there comes a point in automation where the operator's skills
become
unnecessary and the machine does it alone or nearly so. Repeaters of
various
types are like that - the operator only intervenes to start and stop
it, not to make
QSOs.

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?

For one thing, FCC limits such automatic operation to certain band
segments. More important, I don't think any contest now in existence
would give credit for such automated operation.

Note that contacts made through terrestrial repeaters are not counted
in any contest I know of.

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.

Thanks!

In the long run we may need more categories, but that's the price of
increased complexity.

Here's another analogy: Chess competition.

There are now chess-playing software packages for your PC that can be
set to levels that are very difficult to beat. The very best chess-
playing computers ("Deep Blue", for example) may prove to be
unbeatable by *any* human, if they are not already that good.

But does that mean the person or team who writes the software is the
world's chess champion? If a machine is built that is truly
unbeatable, what would be the point of playing it? Should human chess
competiton be transformed into Machine A vs. Machine B?

IIRC, there was a dispute about a feature of Deep Blue's software. As
I recall, the software included an enormous library of games played
over many years. Part of what the software did was to compare the
present state of the board to those recorded games and determine
possible next moves from the successes of the past. It also avoided
possible disaster from the failures of the past. Its library of past
games was limited only by the ability of the humans to encode the
games into its memory. From what I recall, the dispute was that
allowing such a system was like allowing a human player to have a huge
chess book available while playing. So the issue isn't limited to ham
radio!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Steve Bonine" wrote in message
m...
wrote:


[snip]

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


Yet the ancient Olympics made no such distinction.

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.


Some people do get a tad bit too serious about their hobbies.

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.

[snip]
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.


"Leveling the playing field" is only important to those who want to win (or
have a category that they can win) but haven't the resources to compete in
an "open" situation. Since I don't care about that, it doesn't matter to
me. I just like to pick up a few contacts, polish my skills, make sure my
station is working correctly and so on.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"Steve Bonine" wrote:

"Leveling the playing field" is only important to those who want to win (or
have a category that they can win) but haven't the resources to compete in
an "open" situation. Since I don't care about that, it doesn't matter to
me. I just like to pick up a few contacts, polish my skills, make sure my
station is working correctly and so on.

There's a difference between "haven't the resources" and "choose not to
use the resources".

I don't have a mountaintop QTH with several towers topped with stacked
arrays, and I don't have the latest fancy radios to handle the QRM or
the KW amplifiers to go with them. Those are resources that I don't have.

But I have a computer, and if I didn't have this Luddite idea that CW
should be copied by my own wetware, I could use it to improve my score.
That's a case of choosing not to use a resource. It seems pretty
clear that those of us who choose not to use automation are in contests
for the same reason that you are, and winning isn't the goal.

As I consider the reality of contest categories, I realize that what
they're really doing is separating the "big guns" into their own
category. Anyone who has invested the time and money to build a
mountaintop station with big antennas and fancy radios is going to end
up in the high-power multi-op category. To avoid competing with these,
stay out of that category. This limited attempt to level the playing
field does accomplish something using criteria that are easily measured
(e.g. input power, number of operators).

On Jul 14, 5:55 pm, wrote:
On Jul 14, 3:10 pm, KC4UAI wrote:

On Jul 11, 8:44 pm, wrote:

Besides,
I'd hate to lug enough batteries around to get a 100W tube station on
the air in a parking lot.

Batteries? Parking lot?

I've done FD with tube gear, it's not that much harder than with
"modern" stuff.
The main difference is that the rigs tend to be bigger and heavier,
and you
need to know how to tune them up. All part of the game.

In 1995 I used the rig shown on my web page (google my call to see it)
on
Field Day in clas 1B-1. Antennas were an 80/40 inverted V with the
apex at 40 feet
on a homebrew wooden mast and a 20 meter ground plane vertical.
Paper logs, bug and straight keys. Power from a generator. All set up
in
a tent, on a homebrew portable table. Also had my 2 meter
rig for FM simplex QSOs. This was a solo operation - I brought
everything to the site, set up
all by myself, operated all 24 hours, took everything down and brought
it home. All of the
equipment and me in a 1980 VW Rabbit.

629 CW QSOs, 11 FM voice QSOs. Bonuses for 100% emergency power, W1AW
message, message to SM, and making 10 QSOs on VHF/UHF.

A lot of work but a lot of fun too. K0HB speaks of "a boy and his
radio" and that's
what it was. Wasn't the only time I did it, either.


Well, my point was that technology has moved on and right now tubes
are not state of the art. (Not saying that they won't be in the
future.) And I’ll bet your 2 Meter rig was at least partly solid
state. Sure they work (and in some cases are the optimal solution for
a problem) but I don't see one new rig for sale today that has even
one tube.

I think that the rules of contests may need to be adapted from time to
time to adjust for technology as it marches on, however I think that
we need to be mindful of two things.

First, the rules must be clearly written so everybody understands
where the various lines are drawn.

Second, they need to keep things as simple as possible.

Apart from that, the folks who are writing the rules for these events
are the ones who will need to make the choices. If a contest's rules
attract participants, good for them, if they are no longer popular
they need to adapt or close up shop.

Personally, I'm worried that with the increased average age for your
local ham translates into lack of interest for those of us who are
younger (say mid 40s). I see this as a problem for contests and not
just the hobby in general.

-= KC4UAI =-

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..


"Leveling the playing field" is only important to those who want to win (or
have a category that they can win) but haven't the resources to compete in an
"open" situation. Since I don't care about that, it doesn't matter to me. I
just like to pick up a few contacts, polish my skills, make sure my station is
working correctly and so on.



Level playing fields result in "average" operators at "average" stations,
regulated by rules which stifle competition, not enhance it. It is my opinion,
based on decades of participation and observation, that serious that serious
radiosport hobbiests are OPPOSED to "levelized playing fields" (other than broad
categories to separate the "bicycles" from the "motorcycles").

Within their category, serious competitors do everything possible to landform
the playing field to their personal advantage. They hone their receiving
skills, their operating habits, and their equipment performance. They study
propagation models and forecasts to optimize their band-change plan and their
time-off strategy. They analyze logs (theirs and others) of previous contests
to ferret out reasons for wins or losses (when should I "run" and when should I
"S&P"). They optimize their antenna farm to the next contest (a winning CQWW
antenna farm is probably a lousy Sweepstakes antenna farm and vice versa). They
develop new skills, like SOxR. They lurk at online "water coolers" like the
"CQ-CONTEST" email reflector. They optimize their operating layout for
streamlined ergonomics and to counter fatigue. They budget their equipment
purchases to increase the competitiveness of their station ("should I buy new
roofing filters, or build a 4-square for 40?"). Etc., etc., etc.

The ones who do all of this the best end up on the advantaged high ground of the
playing field, and the ones who don't do it well end up in the disadvantaged
valleys.

Kurt Vonnegut illustrates the folly of "level playing fields" in this short
story ---- http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Jul 15, 4:30 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 14, 5:55 pm, wrote:
On Jul 14, 3:10 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:44 pm, wrote:
Besides,
I'd hate to lug enough batteries around to get a 100W tube station on
the air in a parking lot.

Batteries? Parking lot?

I've done FD with tube gear, it's not that much harder than with
"modern" stuff.

In 1995 I used the rig shown on my web page....

629 CW QSOs,
11 FM voice QSOs. Bonuses for 100% emergency power, W1AW
message, message to SM, and making 10 QSOs on VHF/UHF.

Well, my point was that technology has moved on and right now tubes
are not state of the art. (Not saying that they won't be in the
future.) And I’ll bet your 2 Meter rig was at least partly solid
state. Sure they work (and in some cases are the optimal solution for
a problem) but I don't see one new rig for sale today that has even
one tube.

My point was that it was not only possible to do FD with tube gear,
but
that it's possible to get decent results using it.

I think that the rules of contests may need to be adapted from time to
time to adjust for technology as it marches on, however I think that
we need to be mindful of two things.

First, the rules must be clearly written so everybody understands
where the various lines are drawn.

Second, they need to keep things as simple as possible.

Agree on both counts. But "as simple as possible" has different
meanings
to different folks, and will be a compromise.

Apart from that, the folks who are writing the rules for these events
are the ones who will need to make the choices. If a contest's rules
attract participants, good for them, if they are no longer popular
they need to adapt or close up shop.

Personally, I'm worried that with the increased average age for your
local ham translates into lack of interest for those of us who are
younger (say mid 40s). I see this as a problem for contests and not
just the hobby in general.

But is the "average age" really increasing, compared to the "average
age"
of the US population in general?

Or could it be that the younger hams are too busy working, studying,
and
raising families to go to many ham radio gatherings and be seen?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Jul 15, 4:31 pm, "KØHB" wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"Leveling the playing field" is only important to those who want to win
(or
have a category that they can win) but haven't the resources to compete
in an
"open" situation.

I disagree, Dee. Many who have no chance of winning still want
reasonable rules,
for a variety of reasons.

Level playing fields result in "average" operators at "average" stations,
regulated by rules which stifle competition, not enhance it.

I disagree, Hans.

Kurt Vonnegut illustrates the folly of "level playing fields" in this sho
rt
story ----http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

But in that story, it is not the playing field that is leveled. It is
the players who
are.

And there is a difference between technological advantage and skill
advantage.
The true competitor seeks both. And we all benefit, because the
results trickle
down to the rest of us in the form of better rigs and techniques. Plus
for the big guns
to win, they have to work a lot of us little guys.

Suppose, by some folly, a contest sponsor were to place severe
restrictions on the technology used
by contest entrants. I predict that you'd see things like this:

100 W power limit? True competitors would have rigs that delivered
99.999 watts and the lowest-loss
feedlines.

No computer logging? True competitors would invent the best log-and-
dupe sheets ever.

No beams or arrays? True competitors would have the best dipoles and
verticals you ever saw.

Etc.

IOW, the competition would continue, just in a different way. But the
average operator would still
not be able to beat the big guns, because the true competitors would
still have whatever advantages
were to be had.

In fact the average op with the average station would probably have a
lower score, because it would be harder to work others, not easier.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Jul 16, 2:27 pm, wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:30 pm, KC4UAI wrote:

On Jul 14, 5:55 pm, wrote:
On Jul 14, 3:10 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:44 pm, wrote:

My point was that it was not only possible to do FD with tube gear,
but
that it's possible to get decent results using it.

I don't disagree with you there. The old stuff works, but tube gear
is going the way of the spark gap stuff. (Unless some bright cookie
figures out that there are just some things a tube can do better and
cheaper than solid state stuff.)

Personally, I'm worried that with the increased average age for your
local ham translates into lack of interest for those of us who are
younger (say mid 40s). I see this as a problem for contests and not
just the hobby in general.

But is the "average age" really increasing, compared to the "average
age"
of the US population in general?

Or could it be that the younger hams are too busy working, studying,
and
raising families to go to many ham radio gatherings and be seen?

Well, I know that I'm busy with those things at 40. Before the FCC
removed the information from the public view, the average age of hams
was on the increase. ARRL membership is getting older I'm told. I
don't think the trend has changed and I don't think that it is just a
function of the increase in your average life expectancy and the
general trends. I think your average ham is older than average Joe on
the street and the distribution of age is skewed towards the high end
for hams by quite a bit.

So perhaps you see the effects of both in contest participation. I
know that I have difficulty getting the HF radios turned on for an
hour or so more than a few times a month and there is no way I can
spend a whole 24 hours doing some contest. I have my hands full with
work, mowing the grass, fixing the cars and being a husband and
father.

-= kc4uai =-

On Jul 16, 4:34�pm, KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 16, 2:27 pm, wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:30 pm, KC4UAI wrote:

On Jul 14, 5:55 pm, wrote:
On Jul 14, 3:10 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:44 pm, wrote:
My point was that it was not only possible to do FD with tube
gear, but that it's possible to get decent results using it.

I don't disagree with you there. �The old stuff works, but tube g
ear
is going the way of the spark gap stuff.

No, it isn't. Spark was first abandoned by hams and then outlawed; the
whole transition from King Spark to museum or junkpile took less than
ten years.

Tube rigs are different. Of course they're a special niche interest,
like many other things in amateur radio. But there's a very active
community of hams restoring old tube gear and building new ones.

(Unless some bright cookie
figures out that there are just some things a tube can do better and
cheaper than solid state stuff.)

There are, such as RF power amplifiers for HF and low VHF. While it is
certainly possible to build the solidstate equivalent of, say, a
single-3-500Z HF amplifier, the SS version costs more and is less
efficient.

You'll not see new manufactured stuff using tubes for a variety of
reasons, but for the homebrewer, experimenter and restorer they are a
possibility. In fact, one of the reasons for the high prices of tube
gear is the increasing interest in it!

But the main point is that there's an ever-widening variety of options
out there for us hams. An amateur running a rig made of pre-WW2 parts
can be in QSO with one using the latest SDR lashup, or anything in
between. The RF doesn't care.

Personally, I'm worried that with the increased
average age for your
local ham translates into lack of interest for
those of us who are
younger (say mid 40s). I see this as a problem
for contests and not
just the hobby in general.

But is the "average age" really increasing,
compared to the "average
age" of the US population in general?

Or could it be that the younger hams are too
busy working, studying, and
raising families to go to many ham radio
gatherings and be seen?

Well, I know that I'm busy with those things at 40.

Exactly. So are many others. Life has changed from
the "Ozzie & Harriet/Leave It To Beaver" days.

�Before the FCC
removed the information from the public view, the
average age of hams was on the increase.

I think there's more to it than that.

First off, AFAIK what really happened is that FCC
has gone through periods when they collected
birthdate date, and others when they did not.

If you look up my call on QRZ.com, you'll see I was
born in 1954. But your birthdate info is not given. Unless
I missed something, that's because when I got my license
the FCC was collecting birthdates and when you got
yours, they weren't.

What that means is that you can still derive "average age"
data from the FCC database, but it will be skewed data
because it only covers hams who were first licensed in
certain times. So it's worse that useless because the
youngest hams won't be counted at all.

�ARRL membership is getting older I'm told. �I
don't think the trend has changed and I don't think that it is just a
function of the increase in your average life expectancy and the
general trends.

But how do we really know? Does ARRL keep birthdate info on all
members?

�I think your average ham is older than average Joe on
the street and the distribution of age is skewed towards the high
end for hams by quite a bit.

But without hard data we don't really know.

I do know that from 1990 to 2000 the median age of US residents in the
census rose almost 5 years, from 34 years and some months to 39 years
and some months. So the median American today is probably over 40
years old.

But there are very few hams under the age of 10 or 12, so the median
age of US hams should be quite a bit older than the median age of the
US population. So a median age of hams in their 50s or older, and a
rising number, is not out of whack with what's going on with the US
population.

So perhaps you see the effects of both in contest participation. ï¿
½I
know that I have difficulty getting the HF radios turned on for an
hour or so more than a few times a month and there is no way I
can spend a whole 24 hours doing some contest.

Sure. But contest participation doesn't have to be for the full
period.

�I have my hands full with
work, mowing the grass, fixing the cars and being a husband and
father.

Which is why hams in your age bracket, and mine, are so much less
visible.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message
m...


Kurt Vonnegut illustrates the folly of "level playing fields" in this
short story ---- http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

73, de Hans, K0HB


We should all take this story to heart as it's likely we've all had
experiences where people wanted to "clip our wings" to prevent us from
soaring with the eagles.

Dee, N8UZE