Something old and something new
wrote in message ... 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. And wailing and knashing of teeth would still be heard throughout the "Land of Average". "Average operators" (those who voted for Diana Moon Glompers) would cry "unfair". Let's just take one real-life example, not a strained speculation. SO2R (SingleOp2Radio operating style) is a developed skill (not a technology). It takes work to perfect, but once mastered it dramatically tilts the field in favor the operator who uses it. Join the CQ-Contest email reflector, and mention you'll be operating "SO2R" in SS CW next November. The "average operators who want rules to level the field" will rise up bemoaning the "unfairness of it all" and "there ought to be a rule". If radiosport contesting (the last great hope of saving ham radio, IMNSHO) is to live up to it's potential to advance the state of the radio art, then we need to structure contest rules which encourage and nurture skill and technology developers, and do not reward "average" operators or "average" stations. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Something old and something new
On Jul 16, 8:52�pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
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. Here's an example: My high school was involved in a competition known then as "Mathletes", where we'd compete against teams from other schools in solving math problems. IMHO there was never a more level playing field, because all competitors got the same problems, the same amount of time and had the same resources. In my senior year we had so many students who wanted to compete and who met the requirements that my school fielded two independent teams, "A" and "B". This was not unusual; other schools did the same thing. The overall City championship was determined by the season points total of a given team - highest scoring team got first place, second highest got second place, etc. The top two positions were the big ones to win. But at the end of the last meet, our A team had the highest season points score, and the B team had the second highest. Two winning teams from the same school had never happened before, and the officials were somewhat unsure of what to do. So after some deliberation they gave the first place trophy jointly to the A and B team from my school, and the second place trophy to the *third* place team. Their reasoning was that they didn't want the rest of the teams to feel bad - that it somehow wasn't "good" for one school to walk off with both trophies. All of us on both the A and B teams learned a lesson that day. I don't think it was the lesson the officials wanted us to learn, though. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Something old and something new
On Jul 16, 9:04�pm, "K�HB" wrote:
wrote in message ... 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. And wailing and knashing of teeth would still be heard throughout the " Land of Average". "Average operators" (those who voted for Diana Moon Glompers) would cry "unfair". There would probably be complaints that it was unfair that the big guns used expensive low-loss feedlines, for example, to get a tiny advantage of signal strength. Let's just take one real-life example, not a strained speculation. � Actually, I don't think it's strained. I've had conversations with hams who felt that the big guns should be limited in all sorts of ways, from power to antennas to automation. My point is that even if those limits were imposed, there would be stations and operators whose performance was outstanding. SO2R (SingleOp2Radio operating style) is a developed skill (not a technology). � I'd say it's both. Not that it really matters. It takes work to perfect, but once mastered it dramatically tilts the field in favor the operator who uses it. � Join the CQ-Contest email reflector, and mention you'll be operating "SO2R" in SS CW next November. �The "average operators who want rules to level the field" will rise up bemoaning the "unfairness of it all" and "there ought to be a rule". I don't see how SO2R is "unfair" in any way. IIRC, the SS rules permit as many bandchanges and frequency changes as one desires, but a station can only transmit one signal at any time. So all that SO2R, or SO3R or SOxR does is make it possible to change band/frequency really really fast. It could be implemented with 1930s technology if somebody really wanted to. Some of the concepts of SO2R can even be implemented with one rig. Should that be outlawed too? There will always be folks with advantages. If nothing else, the person who doesn't have a job or family responsibilities will have an advantage over the person who does. So what? If radiosport contesting (the last great hope of saving ham radio, IMNS HO) is to live up to it's potential to advance the state of the radio art, then we need to structure contest rules which encourage and nurture skill and technology developers, and do not reward "average" operators or "average" stations .. I think that is easily done by having various categories. As I have said before, don't outlaw "Skimmer", but don't put it in the same category as the "boy and his radio" stations. I think it's a bit of hyperbole to describe contesting as "the last great hope of saving ham radio". OTOH, I think being able to offer a competitive sport kind of activity is a big selling point for amateur radio. What would distance running or bicycling be like if there were no marathons, 10Ks or bike races? I suspect those things would be greatly diminished and less popular, even though most runners and cyclists will never win a race. I'm no more than an "average" operator with a somewhat unusual station. Long ago I realized that unless I won the lottery, I'd probably never "win" any radio contest. So for me the competition is really against myself. Can I do better than before? Are there improvements I can make to my modest station to get a higher score? How much can be done with the limited resources I do have? The results have been gratifying and a lot of fun. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Something old and something new
wrote in message ... So all that SO2R, or SO3R or SOxR does is make it possible to change band/frequency really really fast. It could be implemented with 1930s technology if somebody really wanted to. It is routinely implemented with no "technology" any more complex than SO1R, unless you call split headphones a "technology". Pure and simple, it's a human skill. And it's nothing new either. The first generally accepted "serious" use of SO2R was 56 years ago by W4KFC in the 1952 SS CW contest. 73, de Hans, K0HB Just an old boy and his radios |
Something old and something new
|
Something old and something new
On Jul 17, 10:24 am, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote: My high school was involved in a competition known then as "Mathletes", where we'd compete against teams from other schools in solving math problems. IMHO there was never a more level playing field, because all competitors got the same problems, the same amount of time and had the same resources. .... But at the end of the last meet, our A team had the highest season points score, and the B team had the second highest. I suspect that this is actually an illustration that all the competitors did not really have the same resources. How much influence did your coach have in how well the team did? None, we didn't have a coach. We had a faculty moderator, whose job it was to see that we got to the meets and behaved ourselves. Some of the teams were probably coached by a teacher who was pressed into the position and had neither the ability nor motivation to push the team to be competitive, while I bet your coach was excellent. He was excellent in that he made sure we knew when the meets were and how we'd get there. The rest was up to us. We won because *we* had ability and motivation, not because we were pushed. Native ability is just part of the puzzle. Unless the opportunity and motivation is there to develop the skill, nothing will ever come of it. The opportunity was that the Mathletes competition existed. The motivation was our own; that we knew we were good and wanted to prove it. And we did, even if the Diana Moon Glompers clones in charge denied the B team their trophy. As for amateur radio contesting, what motivates the big guns? Their achievements are only appreciated by a few; amateur radiosport is generally not a spectator thing. Nor will they be paid. And while they are intensely competitive, (google "Barracuda Rules"), nothing the big guns do to win remains a secret for very long. Take computer logging - it started as a very expensive and complex alternative to paper, but now there are all sorts of logging software packages that are free or of nominal cost, and which will run on computers so old they are dumpster fodder. What could be fairer than that? Yet I recall folks years ago who said it was unfair that the big guns had computer logging. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Something old and something new
|
Something old and something new
On Jul 20, 8:20 pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:51:14 EDT, wrote: 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. Yet the broadcast industry is going to SS as fast as they can. Modular in design, if one "final" module fails, the power gets reduced but they stay on the air. If a "final" tube fails, it's February 2009 much sooner. Reduction in maintenance costs outweigh capital investment. I don't think that you can buy a new AM broadcast transmitter below 50 KW that isn't SS all the way, and there are plenty of SS 50 rigs in service. Of course! But that shows the difference between Amateur Radio and other services. Perhaps I should have specified that the comparisons I was making were between SS and tube amps meant for Amateur Radio service, particularly HF and VHF service. A broadcast transmitter has to be ultra-reliable and built for continuous service. At 8760 hours in a standard year, it doesn't take long for a component with an expected life of 10,000 or 20,000 hours life to require replacement. Which BC folks tend to do on a schedule, rather than waiting for failure to force the issue. But with a very few exceptions, an amateur transmitter spends very little time actually transmitting. I'd guess that most active amateurs are on the air less than 1000 hours per year (that's about 2-3/4 hours per day, every single day), and when they are on the air, most spend at least half their time listening. OTOH, most amateurs will change frequency at least once in a while... So while the BC station owner can justify the purchase of an SS transmitter based on lower maintenance costs, the amateur is usually more limited by first-cost. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Something old and something new
Phil Kane wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:51:14 EDT, wrote: 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. Yet the broadcast industry is going to SS as fast as they can. Modular in design, if one "final" module fails, the power gets reduced but they stay on the air. If a "final" tube fails, it's February 2009 much sooner. Reduction in maintenance costs outweigh capital investment. I don't think that you can buy a new AM broadcast transmitter below 50 KW that isn't SS all the way, and there are plenty of SS 50 rigs in service. -- We hams are starting to see some higher power amplifiers available but at rather breathtaking prices. I've drooled over a couple of the Tokyo Hi-Power offerings and I have a friend running the Yaesu Quadra. I think the MFJ/Ameritron folks will need to get into the solid state amp game before we see *affordable* solid state amps with outputs of 1 to 1.5 KW. Only when that happens will I make my move to a solid state amp. Dave K8MN |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com