Hopefully, all of us who feel compelled to "transmit" our opinions and
emotions about skimmer will take some time out to "receive". I've found
Ward's few, but thoughtful, postings on the topic to be insightful
descriptions of the key issues which are larger than the skimmer controversy
itself. The essence of radio-sport is being challenged by some technologies
like skimmer, more important than just the acceptance or rejection of the
technology. Through clear thinking and actual experience, we should be able
to evolve radio-sport optimally.
73,
Ed - W0YK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ward Silver
> Sent: Monday, 28 April, 2008 09:17
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer musings
>
> >> Dealing with automated reception differently than automated
> >> transmission is appropriate because only reception can initiate a
> >> QSO; whether in response to a solicitation (CQ) or from tuning
> >> to a solicitation (S&P). Reception is qualitatively different
> >> in this regard than transmission.
> >
> > The same can be said for automated transmission (using a
> keyer to call
> > CQ): only a solicitation (calling CQ) can result in a QSO. Unless
> > someone "advertises" that they are on frequency and ready to answer
> > any response, there can be no QSO. In that regard, the use of
> > automated transmission is a unique advantage.
>
> You can cast the lure as much as you want, but if no fish
> bites, you have not caught a fish. There must be a reception
> event to trigger the process by which a QSO is conducted.
> Both reception and transmission are necessary, but neither is
> sufficient. Transmission events soliciting QSOs typically
> outnumber reception events many-to-one. (Which key on your
> keyboard is the most worn - F1 or Insert?) Thus, reception
> is the critical element in allowing the transaction to proceed.
>
> > In any case, the "automated reception" ship has already sailed.
> > With up to twelve decoders integrated into Writelog, CW decoding in
> > MixW (with contest capability), and the availability of CW Get, CW
> > DecoderXP, MRP40, MultiPSK, and many others, there is no way to put
> > the "automated reception" genie back in the bottle. The capability
> > has existed for nearly 10 years although many are only now
> waking up
> > to its existence.
>
> To quote our Vice President, "So?" Realigning and creating
> categories (or not, should that be the decision) based on
> advances in technology is always in order. There were no
> categories for power division until affordable amplifiers
> became widespread. QRP was added when large numbers of those
> stations entered the competition. Amplifiers and flea-power
> rigs had always existed - it was not until they created
> distinct populations within the contest community that
> categories for them became necessary - and useful - in
> maintaining peer-based competition.
>
> > While the top tier operators have typically not made use of
> automated
> > reception its use has not been prohibited or restricted to certain
> > entry classes. In that regard, the argument over automated
> reception
> > is like the old joke that ends: "young lady we have already
> > established what you are, we're simply haggling over price."
>
> What we are talking about is a significant qualitative
> advance in the capability of the technology, not disputing
> whether it has or has not been used in the past. I maintain
> that a technology capable of extracting the crucial
> contact-initiating information from many more channels
> simultaneously than even the most skilled human can process
> is definitely worth evaluating as to whether it creates a
> statistically distinct population warranting a separate category.
>
> There may be no line of reasoning that definitively answers
> the question.
> We may have to undergo a period of evaluation during which
> this sort of technology is evaluated for its effect on actual
> scores. This will be difficult because the technology won't
> "hold still" long enough for a true evaluation, but at some
> point it will become clear whether multi-channel information
> extraction actually creates a new class of stations.
>
> Using history as a guide, there are three contradictory
> examples: power, spotting networks, and SO2R. Power
> differences clearly create distinct populations of scores.
> Spotting networks have not been shown to provide a
> competitive advantage - the top SO scores regularly exceed
> the top SOA scores. (What spotting information does
> accomplish is to increase scores of smaller stations,
> compressing scores upward from the bottom of the
> population.) SO2R does increase the competitive advantage of
> top SO stations more than spotting networks, but not so much
> as power. The open question is whether SO2R, if extended to
> SO-infinity-R, would cause a distinct population of stations
> to appear or is it just a limiting case of SOA that has
> already been shown not to convey the distinct advantage it
> was originally thought to confer? We can not answer that
> question at this time.
> As the Magic 8-Ball would say, "Ask Again Later".
>
> So it comes down to making a case to the contest sponsors who
> will then make a decision based on their accumulated
> understanding of the game, the history of the effects of
> technology on the game, and the requirement for the game
> itself to satisfy the Basis and Purposes of the amateur
> service. They're going to have to lead this target a bit,
> but they're usually a pretty good shot, so let's see what happens.
>
> 73, Ward N0AX
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|