"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.
Going from a copy speed of nearly zero to contest ready is going to be
a serious problem for me but I can try.

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

Good! Then go for THAT -- not the electronic automatic whiz-bang stuff that
would give me one big yawn. There's real accomplisment and satisfaction
increasing your CW speed and improving your operating skills. But if your
head is being turned by the thought of automation, just recognize that as a
completely different world of operating. 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.

N7SO

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.
Going from a copy speed of nearly zero to contest ready is going to be
a serious problem for me but I can try.

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

Good! Then go for THAT -- not the electronic automatic whiz-bang stuff that
would give me one big yawn. There's real accomplisment and satisfaction
increasing your CW speed and improving your operating skills. But if your
head is being turned by the thought of automation, just recognize that as a
completely different world of operating. 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.

N7SO



I, too, realized that my CW skills have faded from underuse, and I
promised to get back up to speed for next year's Field Day. It's fun to
do simple stuff, with simple radios: it reminds me of how much I learned
and hard hard I worked to get my license, and also about how much magic
their is in a good antenna and rig.

But it's also fun to innovate and try out new things like SDR or CW
Skimmer or Packet Radio or the next killer app. It's important to
remember the past - it teaches us that fortune favors the prepared - but
it's also important to welcome change, and I don't think that putting
restrictions on automated operation or machine-aided reception would be
either enforceable or productive.

There is, as always, the issue of compexity: being good at managing an
automated computer system does _not_ mean you'll be good at allocating
supplies and anticipating demands when all you have to work with is a
clipboard. We could argue that any added complexity reduces our capacity
to react and to be productive in a disaster, when things tend to break
and simpler is almost always better. However, telling a curious ham
"NO!" is a sure-fire way to make sure he does it anyway, so let's assume
that hams who use CW Skimmer or other software will make intelligent
decisions about how to best use their assets in an emergency.

Ham Radio is, of course, a hobby - but so was skateboarding when Tony
Hawke started doing it. We all start out as amateurs, and it's only by
pushing the envelope that we learn what's possible when we look further
and try harder.

--
Bill Horne

(Remove QRM from my address for direct replies.)

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

"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

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?