There is no mode restriction cited for any ARRL Sponsored VHF contest,
other than those invoked by virtue of one's FCC license. If you think
you can score well using PSK31, AM, ACSSB, RTTY or Packet
(non-digipeated) then use it.
Ev, W2EV
KA0TP@aol.com wrote:
>
> Subj: Re: [VHFcontesting] Digimodes in VHF/UHF contests? Why not?
>
> In summary, there is debate among the VHF community about the use of
> Non-traditional modes including digital mades, etc.
> So the question for the ARRL is what modes are allowed or not allowed?
>
> It seems to be the consensus that HSCW and WSJT are valid modes.
> But there may be some operators that while they are on the computer, find it
> too easy to get an "Internet boost."
>
> 'Operators who are experienced in HSMS techniques, either HSCW or
> more recently with WSJT, generally know the rules, follow them
> carefully, and have been helpfully advising newcomers "don't chat
> while we run, it will invalidate the QSO", or similar words.'
>
> Below are copies of some emails discussing the situation....
>
> In a message dated 9/1/01 5:14:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jomara@erols.com
> writes:
>
> << Subj: WSJT
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: 9/1/01 5:14:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> From: jomara@erols.com (Jack O'Mara)
> Sender: owner-vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
> To: hsms@qth.net, meteor-scatter@qth.net, vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
>
> The W4IY contest group are thinking of trying the WSJT mode
> in the September contest. The thought was to use 144.145
> instead of tying up the calling freq. The timing would be
> 0700Z to 1100Z on Sunday Sept. 9th. We would add our grid
> square between the two reports after our call.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on this pro or con or other
> suggestions. We would like to hear them.
>
> 73
> Jack W4AD
> >>
>
> Subj: Re: [VHFcontesting] Sept Contest
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: 9/2/01 7:32:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> From: k1whs@worldpath.net (DAVID C. OLEAN)
> Sender: vhfcontesting-admin@contesting.com
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:k1whs@worldpath.net";>k1whs@worldpath.net</A>
> To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com (VHF Contest Reflector)
>
> Hi Dave,
> The genesis for my original post was the WSJT mode, which apparently, is
> a step up from the normal high speed meteor scatter. Essentially all of the
> detection is done by the computer. The operator sits there and reads the copy.
> I guess it is like rtty in that respect. It is very effective, but I think
> about the League vs Peter Laakman, WB6IOM and G3LTF (I think) and their non
> allowed 1296 eme QSO. (In the late 60s or early 70's) They did much more
> receiving than a WSJT operator. I was just curious about what folks thought.
> Hey, I'm game to try anything if it is legal and proper. I will get to
> playing with WSJT soon too. but I would agree that, in pursuing all the grids
> thru "automated" modes such as WSJT, the more traditional microphone or CW
> contacts would suffer. I have shied away from HSMS because the operator does
> not have to copy in "real time". Heck, that eliminates the adrenaline flow
> when that big meteor blows by and you fall out of the chair!
> When I was a kid, my first 144 signal heard was a weak and whispery am
> signal. I was holding onto a limb up in the apple tree in my yard. My other
> arm was holding onto a small super regen transceiver I had built and finally
> got working. Straining to hear that signal got me going in ham radio. I guess
> I love the medium that is between the two antennas at either end of the
> circuit. I love the mystery. I love to hear the fading. I like those hollow
> sounds, and always wonder about how it sounds that way sometimes. This is the
> reason ham radio attracts me. I, as you, worry that such days may be numbered!
> Soon we may all be watching computer screens and disconnected from the medium
> that we love. Gosh, progress is a two edged sword!
> I would opt for a separate contest for the automated modes. Of course, the
> downside is that there are too many contests now! Maybe there is another
> answer. I just hate to see activity fall any more than it has now!
>
> Dave Olean K1WHS
>
> Dave Pascoe KM3T wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > At a basic level - having the human ear used for detection of the
> > > signals makes sense. The day might be coming where technology could
> > > replace the human ear with enough performance to make the human
> > > detection method non competitive... I for one would not welcome that
> > > day as I think it would remove most of the fun and make the results
> > > less dependent on operator skill, but rather how well you can program
> > > your DSP. I feel the basic thing that makes ham radio interesting
> > > compared to just sending e-mail is putting on your headphones and
> > > listening.
> >
> > I'm familiar with HSCW and WSJT but have personally not operated either
> > mode. I look forward to trying both, from a technical and fun
> > perspective. But, for contesting, I fall in the camp who believes using
> > the human ear for detection ought to be the way to go. I know that there
> > will be some doom-and-gloomers who will come out and say that the only way
> > to get new people interested in doing VHF contesting will be to allow
> > these modes. Well, that may be true, but it's pretty unlikely. There are
> > plenty of ways to recruit without having to depend overly much on whizbang
> > technology.
> >
> > I certainly could see a separate, short contest (like a HSCW or WSJT
> > Sprint) which could be fun and allow interested folks to compete. But I
> > would not want to see the existing VHF contests changed. One of the
> > problems I could see is a substantial shift to these modes, caused by the
> > natural competitive desire to work more grids, which could take activity
> > away from the more traditional modes, making those not inclined to use the
> > new modes lose interest due to decling activity. We do have to do
> > something to increase contest activity, but I'm not sure these new modes
> > is the best route to that goal.
> >
> > 73,
> > Dave KM3T
> >____________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> Subj: Re: [VHFcontesting] Digimodes in VHF/UHF contests? Why not?
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: 9/3/01 1:22:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> From: joe@puppsr13.princeton.edu (Joe Taylor)
> Sender: vhfcontesting-admin@contesting.com
> To: k1whs@worldpath.net
> CC: vhfcontesting@contesting.com (VHF Contest Reflector)
>
> Dave --
>
> Many thanks for your follow-up message. I did not take any of
> your original comments as being unreasonable; it is, indeed,
> interesting to know what the ARRL might think about the use of a
> new mode in League-sponsored VHF contests. And it's useful to
> have some discussion of it on reflectors such as this one, too --
> since to a very considerable extent the "League opinion" is and
> should be a reflection of the views of us all!
>
> Rule 3.10 in the "General Rules for All ARRL Contests" reads as
> follows:
>
> "The use of non-Amateur Radio means of communication (for
> example, Internet or telephone) to solicit a contact (or
> contacts) during the contest period is not permitted."
>
> To me, that means you must make your skeds before the contest
> starts, or perhaps via ham radio on another band during the
> contest. Seems clear enough.
>
> Rule 2.1.3 in "General Rules for ARRL Contests on Bands above 50
> MHz" states that for Single Operator stations, "Use of spotting
> assistance or nets (operating arrangements involving other
> individuals, DX-alerting nets, packet, etc.) is not permitted."
>
> Once again: whatever skeds, etc., you want to make, using the
> internet, do it before the contest -- and disconnect yourself
> from the net when the contest begins!
>
> As for so-called QSOs in which *any* of the required information
> for a QSO is exchanged or hinted at on a chat page, etc., during
> the contact, forget it. That's no QSO!
>
> Operators who are experienced in HSMS techniques, either HSCW or
> more recently with WSJT, generally know the rules, follow them
> carefully, and have been helpfully advising newcomers "don't chat
> while we run, it will invalidate the QSO", or similar words.
>
> As for your shack with few amenities: with the above rules in
> mind, WSJT should work just fine for you during contests. We've
> done HSCW from the PackRats June VHF QSO Party mountaintop
> location, and I expect we'll use WSJT next June. Of course we
> have no internet there. Without really trying very hard, we've
> worked 4-5 extra 2m grids that way in each of the last couple of
> years, using the wee hours of the morning when other activity is
> minimal. With WSJT, that number could easily be doubled, or
> tripled, because QSOs can often be completed in 15 minutes
> instead of taking half an hour or more.
>
> Finally, about the possibillity of "the whole bottom of the 144
> band being filled with blips and burps and see[ing] ssb and cw
> activity drop even more at the same time." That would not be
> good, I agree. The Europeans, with their higher population
> density and higher levels of VHF activity, have I believe more or
> less decided on a band plan that would put WSJT use up around
> 144.370. This does not seem unreasonable to me for North
> America, as well, although heavy use of 144.100 through 144.150
> for WSJT over the past couple of months has caused almost no
> problems, as far as I am aware. That, of course, has been under
> non-contest conditions.
>
> See you on the air next weekend!
>
> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: WSJT
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 20:10:52 -0400
> From: "Jack O'Mara" <jomara@erols.com>
> To: hsms@qth.net, meteor-scatter@qth.net, vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
>
> The W4IY contest group are thinking of trying the WSJT mode
> in the September contest. The thought was to use 144.145
> instead of tying up the calling freq. The timing would be
> 0700Z to 1100Z on Sunday Sept. 9th. We would add our grid
> square between the two reports after our call.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on this pro or con or other
> suggestions. We would like to hear them.
>
> 73
> Jack W4AD
> ------
> Submissions: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
> Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu
> Human list administrator: vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu
|