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