Considering the basic website we are spinning off here www.contesting.com has
precious little updates since 2017 we are all guilty of living in the past.
Perhaps we need to get some of the really good ideas from here posted to
Contestingdotcom
Does it function these days? I have sent a few items over the past couple of
years and they seem to disappear into the ether.
We need to encourage more contesters or the hobby dies - A flagship website
that is 5 years old does not strike to the heart strings of the younger
generations.
We can blame FT8 and Facebook for all of that.
73
Trent VK4TS and now WW7TT
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+vk4ts=outlook.com@contesting.com> On
Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: Sunday, 4 July 2021 6:42 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting and the FT8 Revolution
I've corresponded directly with Joe Taylor a few times in the recent past on
this subject, and I have the deepest respect for his credentials (yes, I'm
fully aware that he is a Nobel Prize laureate) and for what he has provided in
the form of WSJT-X for ham radio. He, however, sees no benefit in adapting the
basic signal processing underlying WSJT-X to a form more suitable for
contesting. He doesn't dispute that it is possible ... only that he has no
intention of spending the time and effort on it. We essentially agreed to
disagree.
The fact, however, that 90+ percent of the comments here on the CQ-Contest
reflector are negative toward either FT8 or FT4 as a contesting mode supports
my view on the subject rather than Joe's. We could be reaping the benefits of
much better signal to noise performance for contesting ... with a user
interface that functions more like CW or SSB or RTTY contesting ... if someone
with the right background would just jump in and do it. I guarantee that it is
possible because neither the science nor the programming is unique, but as I
say I'm completely losing faith that it will ever happen.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 7/3/2021 12:29 PM, Jeff Clarke wrote:
> Dave,
>
> With all due respect there are other lists that are dedicated to
> digital modes that this subject can be discussed. It doesn't appear
> that contesting.com has a digital reflector anymore ( see
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.
> contesting.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cf77b86298f6e4c5d468408d93e68af
> 81%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637609441600596926%7CU
> nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha
> WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=i%2BDfmE2dasW6dJ%2B0sY8QoFe%2FH8iyq
> Vy2Z0lE7iz9NpQ%3D&reserved=0) but Groups.io does. See
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroup
> s.io%2Fg%2Fdigitalcontesting&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cf77b86298f6e4c5d468
> 408d93e68af81%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63760944160
> 0596926%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC
> JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=2hRxsZy8euY86Mbe30EypQD2
> %2F5sJQwE%2F3EJ8Y9JSKZU%3D&reserved=0 I bet lots of people like me
> are tired of all the posts about FT8 on the contest reflector. There
> are lists for VHF contesting and top band on contesting.com and you don't see
> those people posting their gripes on CQ-Contest. Since FT8 is also
> specialized mode it should be discussed on a digital reflector and not a
> general contesting reflector. Please note I'm not anti-FT8. I operate it all
> the time on 6 meters and some of the HF bands because no one seems to operate
> CW or SSB outside a contest.
>
> BTW your quote " a mode SIMILAR to FT8 or FT4 but with a different
> interface and some different parameters could and should be an
> excellent contesting mode i/f it was done properly by somebody who was
> smart enough and cared enough to do it/. " seems to be disrespectful
> towards Joe Taylor, K1JT. You're aware he is a Nobel Prize laureate in
> Physics among other honors? (
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wi
> kipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJoseph_Hooton_Taylor_Jr&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cf77
> b86298f6e4c5d468408d93e68af81%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637609441600596926%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Gn%2BpLqs2KvonU5VNJaxXYvEq1LzYQz5nL7YNxYTcuLc%3D&reserved=0.)
> I'm sure he could easily do what you suggest but have you ever thought that
> he didn't envision FT8 to be used for contesting?
>
> Jeff
>
> On 7/3/2021 02:57 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>>
>> The answer to your question ... for the umpteenth time ... is that a
>> mode SIMILAR to FT8 or FT4 but with a different interface and some
>> different parameters could and should be an excellent contesting mode
>> if it was done properly by somebody who was smart enough and cared
>> enough to do it. That you and the majority of hams seem to think as
>> you do is why it isn't likely to ever happen, but that doesn't make
>> it a complete shame that it won't.
>>
>> Dave AB7E
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/3/2021 9:36 AM, Jeff Clarke wrote:
>>> Again for the umpteenth time... Why are people talking about this
>>> subject on a CONTESTING reflector? Neither FT8 or FT4 are contesting
>>> modes. I guess this is more proof that FT8 has totally taken over
>>> ham radio? I guess people are really bored and can't help
>>> themselves? Hello Mr Moderator can you please tell people to stop!
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.contesting.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcq-contest&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cf77b86298f6e4c5d468408d93e68af81%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637609441600596926%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Yn1Gffjhd8SFC9GVhhFwtYNmjbvevOQYN%2B2To5ruNa0%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|