I'm betting that all of these "techniques" have already been totally automated
by someone out there.
How about a "No Operator" category? That appears to be the inevitable future of
contesting.
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 5/24/15, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Preview of CQWW Rules 2015
To: john@kk9a.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
Date: Sunday, May 24, 2015, 3:03 AM
Be careful when you make statements
like this. " I do not see any
competitive advantage to using [CW decoder]..."
Let's say that a CW single op wants to try to run on two
bands at the same
time. He sets up his dueling CQ macros so that while he is
copying the
exchange on one radio, he is transmitting a CQ on the
other.
This works, but it is difficult to shift concentration
between the two
radios, especially when you have stations calling at the
same time you are
finishing copying an exchange.
Now let's say he puts a CW decoder on the audio output of
one or both
radios. While he finishes copying the exchange, a list
of calls is
appearing in the CW decoder or in his logging
software. He clicks on a call
or hits a macro function key to grab the call and start
sending the
exchange. He may never have heard the station that he is
responding to.
The future is going to have more and more of this kind of
software
automation and technology convergence. Things are never what
they appear
when first introduced. SCP is a good example. We
might classify it
differently if it appeared today.
Ultimately, I see a future where all single ops are the in
the same class
and free to use whatever technology they can handle.
At the same time,
there will be a protected category where the "boy and his
radio" guys can
identify themselves and compete against like-minded
contesters.
Until then, we have to draw lines.
Imagine another future where simply putting your mouse over
a signal in an
SDR starts decoding the CW. Or what if the software
defined radio included
displaying a text waterfall rather than signals? You could
just read the
band! The mind boggles.
I had never considered using a CW decoder to put an op in
assistance until
the scenario above not only happened, but clearly
demonstrated an advantage!
We need to decide what skills a contest should test.
Randy, K5ZD
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of
> john@kk9a.com
> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 6:32 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Preview of CQWW Rules 2015
>
> So using a CW Decoder now puts you in the assisted
category? I do not see
> any competitive advantage to using one and it allows
less proficient
> operators to enjoy the contest. Will a RTTY decoder be
allowed in CQWW
> RTTY?
> Certainly using Super Check Partial or prefills offers
more assistance
> than a CW decoder.
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Preview of
CQWW Rules 2015
> From: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
> Reply-to: n2ic@arrl.net
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 07:56:31
-0600
>
> On 05/21/2015 11:10 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> Comments on CWWW Rules 2015:
>
> VIII. DEFINITION OF TERMS
>
> 2. QSO alerting assistance
>
> The only thing the change does is prohibit
single-frequency CW decoders,
> which provide no competitive advantage and may be
needed by ops with
> hearing problems.
>
> It doesn't "prohibit" single-frequency CW decoders, it
just means that
> use of a single-frequency CW decoder places you in the
Assisted category.
> What's so bad about that ?
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|