| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Something old and something new
"Skimmer" Software created by Alex Shovkoplyas, VE3NEA, is an interesting mix
of "old" and "new". This new application, which depends on the "new" of SDR (Software Defined Radio) and focuses on the "old" of Morse Code is one of those "gee, why didn't I think of that" pieces of technology that exemplifies the "tinker and experiment" heart of Amateur Radio. Download a functional demo at http://www.dxatlas.com/Download.asp Read a critical review at http://www.pvrc.org/~n4zr/Articles/Skimmer.pdf Join an online bbs-style forum at http://skimmer.createforum.net/index.php Join an email discussion group at http://dayton.contesting.com/mailman...fo/skimmertalk -- 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Something old and something new
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. 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? 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 such tools illegal for the contest. 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. Banning these tools from contests would also be a mistake. It would be like banning transistors, or DSP signal processing. 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 open areas left where the home brewing is alive and well. 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. But you can write some software at home on your desktop with very cheap and readily available tools. 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 keep scores straight. 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. -= bob =- On Jul 7, 7:32 pm, "K�HB" wrote:  "Skimmer" Software created by Alex Shovkoplyas, VE3NEA, is an inter esting mix of "old" and "new". This new application, which depends on the "new" of SDR (Software Defined Radio) and focuses on the "old" of Morse Code is one of those "gee, why didn't I think of that" pieces of technology that exemplifies the "tinker and experiment " heart of Amateur Radio. Download a functional demo athttp://www.dxatlas.com/Download.asp Read a critical review athttp://www.pvrc.org/~n4zr/Articles/Skimmer.pdf Join an online bbs-style forum athttp://skimmer.createforum.net/index.php Join an email discussion group athttp://dayton.contesting.com/mailman/lis tinfo/skimmertalk -- 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Something old and something new
"KC4UAI" wrote in message ... 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 such tools illegal for the contest. I have a 4th selection to add to your list, but first some thoughts on radiosport contesting in general. I have a general dislike for the notion of "level playing fields". (To help you understand "level playing fields", read KVG's "Harrison Bergeron" at http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html I think that every serious participant in contesting should be developing skills, adopting technologies, and engineering his station with an eye on tilting the playing field to their advantage. Contesting and contesting rules ought to be crafted in a fashion which encourages innovative thinking, adopting new ideas, and increasing the pool of good operators and the pool of technological communications tools, not handicapping those who would do so. So it would appear that I'm advocating your choice #1 above (basically saying "let 'em play and get out of the way"). And, yes, I support that mindset. BUT........ Contesting rules should also preserve a traditional space where "just a boy and his radio" can compete with other "just boys and their radios". There is a real concern that technologies like Skimmer can "crowd out" the human factor of contesting, leaving just a collection of robo-stations duking it out. SO........ Here's the 4th selection I promised you (and I've asked the major contest sponsors to consider). 4. Allow new technologies like Skimmer, but in the rules for each CW contest include a "Classic" single operator category where the operator him(her)self locates and works the target stations without any "automagic" aids like Skimmer, packet clusters, or other techniques which locate and identify unworked stations. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Something old and something new
"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 |
Something old and something new
KØHB wrote:
"KC4UAI" wrote in message . ... How the CW contesters will deal with this new technology while keeping the playing field level? To me, this is a classic example of "hand wringing" which I've seen repeated over and over with ever new bit of technology to appear. First it continuous wave, then AM, then SSB then RTTY, packet, PSK etc. This is amateur radio, not "Freeze Frame" your favorite era. 4. Allow new technologies like Skimmer, but in the rules for each CW co ntest include a "Classic" single operator category where the operator him(her )self locates and works the target stations without any "automagic" aids like Skimmer, packet clusters, or other techniques which locate and identify unworked stations. I'm with Hans on this 4th approach. It's really no different than Field Day where they have single operator battery vs multi-operator on generator categories. As it is, nobody's complained, or effectively at least, about the canned "CQ CONTEST" keyers or voice loops. Used to be, "the big thing" was to have a panadaptor to see who might be around you. Short answer, "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch." But they should and do have special categories for the little dogs too. Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi |
Something old and something new
KØHB wrote:
4. Allow new technologies like Skimmer, but in the rules for each CW co ntest include a "Classic" single operator category where the operator him(her )self locates and works the target stations without any "automagic" aids like Skimmer, packet clusters, or other techniques which locate and identify unworked stations. I like this concept. I think that there is a place in contesting for people who use no technology except what's between their ears (and radio equipment, of course) and just as much a place for people who use every bell and whistle available. Developing new technology and learning to use it is a goal that contests should support. I wonder if this could be implemented by adjusting the credit for QSOs based on how they were made. This is similar to CW contacts counting more than phone. It needs to be kept simple, but perhaps there's a way. But the bottom line for me is that both groups should be encouraged -- the "classic" operator, and the technology-aided operator. 73, Steve KB9X |
Something old and something new
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 |
Something old and something new
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 |
Something old and something new
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.) |
Something old and something new
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) |
Something old and something new
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 |
Something old and something new
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 |
Something old and something new
"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 |
Something old and something new
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 |
Something old and something new
|
Something old and something new
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 |
Something old and something new
|
Something old and something new
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? |
Something old and something new
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 =- |
Something old and something new
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 =- |
Something old and something new
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 |
Something old and something new
"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 |
Something old and something new
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). |
Something old and something new
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 =- |
Something old and something new
"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 |
Something old and something new
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 |
Something old and something new
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 |
Something old and something new
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 =- |
Something old and something new
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 |
Something old and something new
"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 |
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 04:19 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com