"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

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

"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

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

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

"KC4UAI" wrote

I just had my first introduction to CW contesting during field day. I
sat and watched a CW operator rack up QSO after QSO at 25 wpm and I
was very impressed. Man, I wanted to do that! I left field day
with a renewed interest in CW thinking that I might try and brush off
the dust and cobwebs from my CW skills and give it a try next year.
Going from a copy speed of nearly zero to contest ready is going to be
a serious problem for me but I can try.

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

Good! Then go for THAT -- not the electronic automatic whiz-bang stuff that
would give me one big yawn. There's real accomplisment and satisfaction
increasing your CW speed and improving your operating skills. But if your
head is being turned by the thought of automation, just recognize that as a
completely different world of operating. I suggest you stay with your
original plan and stay inspired. As far as I can imagine, there's no real
operating skill required for automation.

N7SO

Howard Lester wrote:
"KC4UAI" wrote

I just had my first introduction to CW contesting during field day. I
sat and watched a CW operator rack up QSO after QSO at 25 wpm and I
was very impressed. Man, I wanted to do that! I left field day
with a renewed interest in CW thinking that I might try and brush off
the dust and cobwebs from my CW skills and give it a try next year.
Going from a copy speed of nearly zero to contest ready is going to be
a serious problem for me but I can try.

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

Good! Then go for THAT -- not the electronic automatic whiz-bang stuff that
would give me one big yawn. There's real accomplisment and satisfaction
increasing your CW speed and improving your operating skills. But if your
head is being turned by the thought of automation, just recognize that as a
completely different world of operating. I suggest you stay with your
original plan and stay inspired. As far as I can imagine, there's no real
operating skill required for automation.

N7SO



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

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

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

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

--
Bill Horne

(Remove QRM from my address for direct replies.)

Howard Lester wrote:

As far as I can imagine, there's no real
operating skill required for automation.

I have to disagree with this.

Perhaps the easiest example that fits into this thread is the
"automation" of a keyer versus a straight key. Using a keyer is much
different than using a straight key and requires operating skill.

Perhaps you object that a keyer isn't "automation". Perhaps not, if you
meant the term to mean "using a computer". But I submit that operating
skill is required to use those tools, too. When I switched from a paper
dupe sheet to a logging program, I had to develop a new skill.

Personally, I happen to be a purist; I'll use a logging program but I'm
not interested in using computer-generated CW or computer-aided QSOs.
But the important words are "I'm not interested." Just like many other
aspects of our hobby, my lack of interest does not imply that something
is inherently good or bad. It's just different, and if someone else IS
interested that's great.

Even though I have no desire to use or develop computer aids to
contesting, I think that people who do should be encouraged and that
their skills should be recognized. An important aspect of ham radio is
pushing the state of the art, and developing/using/testing this kind of
facility is as much a part of that as developing new electronic
circuits. When we've lost the ability to innovate, and to encourage
innovation, we've lost an important basis of the whole hobby.

73, Steve KB9X

"Steve Bonine" wrote

Howard Lester wrote:

As far as I can imagine, there's no real operating skill required for
automation.

I have to disagree with this.

Are you disagreeing with my imagination? ;-)

There have been many aspects of ham radio's various levels of automation
I've taken advantage of. As you and others have mentioned, an "automatic"
keyer (I used to have a good fist on a straight key), a transceiver (I grew
up with a separate transmitter/receiver setup with separate antennas: no
auto relay), a transmatch with variable capacitors and switchable tapped
coils... stuff like that.

What I was getting at is that I can't imagine being involved in any contest
or any casual QSO with an automatic CQ-seeking machine that does all kinds
of things that take away from what I can do between my ears. It's not for
me. Those who develop those programs and skills are doing a great service as
contributing hobbyists by at least pushing technology ahead -- you're right.
And there are many, many aspects to ham radio. It's a hobby, and we have
much freedom within it to pursue these aspects and develop them further. *I*
have no use for many of them. I'd continue to push the OP to develop his CW
skills and get back to the basics. It's fun.

Howard N7SO

On Jul 12, 9:16�am, Steve Bonine wrote:
Howard Lester wrote:
As far as I can imagine, there's no real
operating skill required for automation.

I have to disagree with this.

Me too.

Perhaps the easiest example that fits into this thread is the
"automation" of a keyer versus a straight key. �Using a keyer is
much
different than using a straight key and requires operating skill.

Straight keys, sideswipers, bugs and keyers all require operating
skills. They all require different but related operating skills.

A keyboard Morse generator also requires a certain amount of skill,
but there's a fundamental difference between a keyboard Morse
generator and the keys mentioned above: the keyboard Morse generator
can be used by someone with no knowledge of Morse Code.

Perhaps you object that a keyer isn't "automation". �Perhaps not,
if you meant the term to mean "using a computer". �

A keyer automates making dits and dahs. The operator input required
for a keyer is much less than that of a straight key.

But I submit that operating
skill is required to use those tools, too.

Of course, but they are different skills.

�When I switched from a paper
dupe sheet to a logging program, I had to develop a new skill.

So did I. But computer logging automates much of what an operator
using paper logging does.

For example, paper logging SS means logging not only the exchange
received, but also the time and band, as well as entering the call
into the dupe sheet. With a computer, all but the exchange itself is
automated.

Personally, I happen to be a purist; I'll use a logging program but I'm
not interested in using computer-generated CW or computer-
aided QSOs.

But most logging programs will also generate code. btw, Hams were
using CQ wheels in the 1920s....

But the important words are "I'm not interested." �Just like many
other
aspects of our hobby, my lack of interest does not imply that
something
is inherently good or bad. �It's just different, and if someone e
lse IS interested that's great.

Even though I have no desire to use or develop computer aids to
contesting, I think that people who do should be encouraged and that
their skills should be recognized. �An important aspect of ham
radio is
pushing the state of the art, and developing/using/testing this kind of
facility is as much a part of that as developing new electronic
circuits. �When we've lost the ability to innovate, and to encour
age
innovation, we've lost an important basis of the whole hobby.

I agree 100%. But at the same time, there need to be some rules that
recognize the sporting nature of contesting.

Every major contest I know of has some recognition of power level.
Field Day, which started this discussion, recognizes three power
levels:

QRP, which is 5 watts or less with non-generator-or-commercial-mains
power,
Low power, which is all stations who don't qualify for QRP and are
running 150 watts or less
High power, which is 150 watts to 1500 watts.

The idea is to recognize that more power changes the game
significantly. If there are power categories why not automation
categories?

73 de Jim, N2EY