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 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, 4:28 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
My oh My,

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.

I know exactly what you mean.

Man, I wanted to do that!

You can.

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.

You don't have to wait. There are CW contests, QSO parties and
sprints of various kinds all through the year. There are also
software simulators for training between contests.

There's also DX chasing and good ol' CW ragchewing.

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

Not a serious problem if you do a little each day.

Then I see your post... Oh my. My first thought was "Wow!
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.

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?

Yes and no.

Of course a "Skimmer" can give an advantage. But so can almost
any other tool. Computer logging gives an advantage over paper
logging, paddles or a bug give an advantage over a straight key,
a rig that can transceive gives an advantage over one that can't.
Sharp filters, simplified or automated tune-up, better antennas,
you name it, the issue is the same.

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.

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.

Beats me, but thinking about it leads to a
number of possible solutions (Please folks let's add to this list.)

1. Ignore the new technology and live with the fact that folks who use
it will likely increase their contest scores.

Like every other tool that has come along...

2. Regulate its use by handicapping folks who choose to use such
tools.

How? Give those who don't use them a bonus or multiplier?

3. Make the use of such tools illegal for the contest.

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

Each approach has its good points and it's bad ones.

Ignoring the technology would be a grave mistake. If it is not
addressed, fully automatic stations during contests would
become the
rule and the single operator won't stand a chance.
Gone would be the
reward for staying up all night practicing those finely honed
operating skills in an attempt to rack up a winning score. The
winners would be asleep in the next room (or the next state for that
matter) for the whole contest. That would be a bad thing for
contests
and for the hobby so we simply cannot ignore this.

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

Except in 1B-1 class, the same thing could be done on FD by having an
operator with a receiver tuning the band and writing
down notes as to where the new ones are.

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....

We cannot
ignore or discourage new technology and how it can advance the state of
the art of radio. We must push to integrate new things
that enhance
our operating capabilities and encourage innovation in one of the few o
pen areas left where the home brewing is alive and well.

Google my call or look on eham.net for a picture of my shack.

These days
most are not going to build a radio to get on the air because it's
very difficult to build a state of the art rig at home.

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.

But you can
write some software at home on your desktop with very cheap and
readily available tools.

Of course. But when it comes to state-of-the-art software, what is
required?

That leaves a middle of the road approach. I personally think that it
would be best to regulate this technology's use in contests. We
need
to preserve the need for personal operating skills and reward
those
who work hard. But we need to recognize that melding
technology with
your station's operation in a effective ways is hard work too. I
would push for a "regulation by bandwidth" kind of approach. This
would handicap operators who use automatic spotting tools by
some
factor that is related to the receiver bandwidth being used. I would
also clearly state in the rules that 100% automatic operation
should
not be allowed, but that there must be some operator interaction
required for each QSO that takes place. The bad point to this
approach is it will lead to more complex rules and make it harder to ke
ep scores straight.

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

There should be a place for CW Skimmer in contesting
and its use
should be encouraged in ways that also encourage
the development of
these kinds of tools, and the integration of this kind of innovation
into good operating practice.

Here's an analogy:

I think amateur radio contesting is best described by the term
"radiosport". IMHO it shares a lot with competitive techno-sports such
as bicycle racing or distance running.

In all such sports, technological improvements have made a big
difference, whether it's better running shoes for the distance runner
or a better bike for the bicycle racer.

But at the same time, there's a clear line drawn of where an
improvement becomes "unfair". Putting even a small motor on
a bicycle means it's not a bicycle anymore. Rollerblades are not
a new form of running shoe. In amateur radio contesting, we need
the same sort of mindset.

There's another angle, too.

Very few bicycle riders can qualify for a world-class race, let alone
win one. Few runners can qualify for the Boston or New York Marathons,
let alone win them. Yet many will ride bikes and run
marathons even with no hope of winning or placing significantly.

The reasons they do it are many, and I will only cover a few.

1) To simply prove they can do it. My first marathon was like that; I
just wanted to know I could run one in under four hours, and I did.

2) Because it is fun in and of itself. In the past few weeks I got the
ol' 10 speed out and started riding. It was tough at first but now I'm
up to 20 miles at a clip. Tomorrow I try for 25 miles. I'm not fast or
fancy and the hills of Radnor make it a challenge, but it's great fun
to go flying down the other side!

3) As training to get better.

4) To see how good one can do within one's own limitations. I'll
probably never win any race, nor any contest, but that's not the
point. Back in 1995 the rig you see in my shack pictures and I made
629 CW FD QSOs in class 1B-1, with simple antennas.
While that's not a world record, it's a personal one that I hope to
better someday.



73 es GL de Jim, N2EY

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". 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.

1. Ignore the new technology and live with the fact that folks who
use it will likely increase their contest scores.

Like every other tool that has come along...

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

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 single call sign, or
replace any CW copying skill.

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 any CW
copying skill.

Skimmer, on the other hand, is like having dozens and dozens of assistant
operators scanning the bands from top to bottom and in real-time feeding 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.

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.

73, de Hans, K0HB

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

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 =-

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

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 =-

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:28:35 -0400, 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.

Then I see your post... Oh my. My first thought was "Wow! 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. 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?

Please don't let this technology put pause to your desire to kick up your
manual CW skills!

Really, HF ham radio itself is an obsolete skill.

Not that that's a bad thing. There are still millions who build model
railroads (I'm sure there are more model passenger trains than real ones
these days!); who restore 1957 Chevys; there's a special season for
hunting with black powder rifles here in Tennessee.. and we've got plent
y
of Civil War re-enacters. People enjoy doing things their ancestors did.

Sending (and receiving) Morse is no different.

As a brief aside, in the current implementation, Skimmer does NOT replace
the human CW operator for most contests. Skimmer only copies calls. (an
d
whether a station is calling CQ or not) It doesn't copy the class - the
"2A" "3F" "2C" part. That said, I'm sure it would be trivially easy to
add this capacity if someone wanted it.

Also, in the current implementation, Skimmer is designed only to find
CQers to call. It really isn't useful for allowing you to call CQ & copy
those who respond. Only in QRP categories do you stand any chance of a
competitive score without extensive CQing.

How the CW contesters will deal with this new technology while keeping
the playing field level? Beats me, but thinking about it leads to a
number of possible solutions (Please folks let's add to this list.) 1.
Ignore the new technology and live with the fact that folks who use it
will likely increase their contest scores. 2. Regulate its use by
handicapping folks who choose to use such tools. 3. Make the use of suc
h
tools illegal for the contest.

And there has been a rather heated discussion of just this topic over on
the cq-contest reflector.

(I should emphasize, my comments below are with regard to a "local
Skimmer", where the Skimmer equipment complies with the existing 500m
circle rule - all equipment is within a circle of 500m diameter.
"Distributed Skimmer", where multiple Skimmers are connected over the
Internet, should make one a multioperator or "assisted" entry.)

Personally, at the root, I don't think Skimmer is anything radically new.

We've been allowing automation to take over various functions of our
operation for a long time.

Automatic Morse transmission dates back to the early 1980s. (for some
stations, much earlier)

It used to be important to know the difference between a VP5 and a VP6,
and the beam headings to their countries. Today, the computer will tell
you what country they're in; that the VP6 is worth more points than the
VP5; and which way to swing the beam to work either one. If you have the
right rotor controller you don't even have to swing the beam yourself.

Most operators are using a super-check-partial database, widely
distributed on the Internet. Hear "C4UA" & type it into the window, and
it automagically suggests you're listening to KC4UAI.

Yet automation is not perfect. The operator who trusts everything his
computer tells him is going to get screwed when he takes the
super-check-partial database's word for it & doesn't bother to copy the
rest of C4UA's call. He might just miss a double mult when the RAF issue
s
ZC4UA. The operator who passes up VE1XR/1 - the .cty file says it's just
Canada - may regret it when he learns the guy was portable on Sable Islan
d.

And Skimmer doesn't get it right all the time. It's pretty good (and wil
l
get better) but you really MUST verify what it's copying. Especially in
those contests that have an additional penalty for "busted calls".

Personally, I think to a large degree we *can* ignore this technology. I
t
is not so radically different from technologies we consider commonplace.
Maybe if we want to discourage it, the best method would be to increase
the penalty for busted calls. Say, for every incorrect call in the log,
the four subsequent valid QSOs are removed as a penalty. (and any
multipliers that those QSOs may have reflected)