I understood, and still do understand, what Gene was saying in his column and
what he was not saying. I never had any mindset that he was "anti-WSJT" or
anything else like that. However, speaking as an extensive user of WSJT/FSK441
for meteor scatter work, and speaking also as an Elmer who has helped many to
get into this aspect of amateur radio, I have to take some issue with the
assumption Gene makes -- that is,
"... FSK441 digital contacts ... while somewhat more difficult to set up,
technically utilize the skill of Joe Taylor, K1JT, as a software author to
complete. Given even a very modest station - 100 W to a small beam - most of
your WSJT contacts are guaranteed if the other station shows up."
In my opinion, this statement misrepresents the reality of meteor scatter work
using WSJT/FSK441.
In the first place, it tends to give credence to the widespread belief that
WSJT
is somehow an "automatic" or "computerized" mode requiring little participation
by the operator. In the case of meteor scatter work using WSJT/FSK441, nothing
could be further from the truth. FSK441 is a "dumb" protocol containing no
forward-looking error correction, array-space collection and averaging, etc.,
etc. A keen understanding of meteor scatter physics and of the limitations of
the FSK441 software are absolutely required for optimum results, and I can tell
you as a fact certain that those who do not have these skill sets do NOT get
good results trying to work MS. I can also tell you that most newbies have to
be
handheld through many contacts before they can manage even the most elementary
contact on their own without screwing it up. :-)
Second, the last sentence in the quotation above is manifestly untrue. A
100-watt station with a 3-element yagi can make MS contacts, but this is about
the minimum configuration that can be thought of as viable even in a casual
operation environment, let alone a contest environment. While such minimal MS
setups can generally be guaranteed successful scheduled QSOs with the Big Gun
contest stations, anything beyond that takes a lot of work and patience. Based
on my own experience with stations running this level of setup from their
homes,
I would say that easily 75% of their QSO attempts using FSK441 are
unsuccessful.
The real number may be even higher.
I don't think WSJT contacts need to be "down-weighted" because they are so
easy,
because they are NOT so easy. And if you also take into account that it can
take
as long as half an hour or more to complete one QSO on MS compared to "run
rates" of three and four QSOs a minute on SSB during a hot Es opening, the idea
seems absurd to me that WSJT QSOs need to be "penalized". If anything, they
need
to be weighted higher because of their difficulty.
Bill W5WVO
Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Tue, 5 May 2009 17:52:00 -0400, "Eugene Zimmerman"
> <ezimmerm@erols.com> said:
>> Nate
>>
>> After reading your post indicating how much I must dislike digital
>> weak signal modes and don't use them, I went back to reread what I
>> had written in
>> the May World Above 50 MHz.
>
>
> I didn't say that Gene. I said "if"... and I've already mentioned
> that I over-reacted which started from me not carefully reading the
> article, and then seeing an over-reaction from someone else -- who
> hasn't really popped back up in this discussion anyway... don't know
> where he went. Oh well.
>
> I guess I'm just touchy about discussion in all these contests about
> making sure there's bejillions of categories ("the 'everyone can win'
> mentality) and also touchy about the lack of use of technology and
> what sometimes APPEAR to be ACTIVE attacks on new tech in
> contesting... across the board.
>
> (Anyone followed the insanity on just about every contest list
> everywhere about CW Skimmer? Yeah... thought so.)
>
> Part of that comes from having gotten too emotionally involved with
> the annual great debates over the rover rules. They completely
> ruined my enjoyment of trying to build a good rover and a rover
> strategy. Maybe I'll go back to roving someday, but frankly it was
> more fun to hang out with friends and claw our way into the top 10 in
> the multiop category last year from W0KVA near Limon, CO. When the
> whole point is to have fun with the hobby... it's hard enough to
> field a rover and call that "fun" some years, when personal time for
> ham radio is short. The endless debates and rules changes that seem
> to be at least being asked for constantly -- even if reality is that
> they don't happen all tha fast -- are a huge turn-off for roving.
>
> Sorry if you felt I "attacked" too soon on this one, without knowing
> the facts. You're right. Again, I apologize. I'm just touchy about
> anything that smells like another new category or exception to easy to
> understand and follow rules. The bigger the rulebook, the less fun I
> have, I guess... because I STUDY the rules and make strategy from
> them! Changes eat up enormous amounts of time and effort in thinking
> about how to make my scores better under the current rules...
>
> Sitting down at an Unlimited Multiop and just working the dang
> contacts with whatever tools we have on hand, is far far simpler --
> and I feel the contest really caters to that type of operation, in
> that it's just GO GET IT DONE style contesting. Roving today, you
> have to think about how many bands you want to claim, whether or not
> you accidentally worked some dude going the other way at a grid
> corner (or worse, if he's caravaning with you, someone will whine and
> moan that you're 'grid circling'), etc etc etc... where's the fun in
> having the rules playing in your head while you're driving through
> the middle of nowhere?
>
> Plop me in the chair at a multi-op and lets get some contacts made!
> (GRIN!) It's more comfortable than my Jeep could ever be. I have a
> passion for roving but some years right now... just not that much when
> the rules change...
>
> The IMPRESSION I had about the WSJT comments was that, "Oh boy -- here
> it comes... any non-human-copyable modulation/format will now count
> for less, and we'll have to write MORE spreadsheets than ever, to
> figure out the best strategy for various band conditions." That's
> why I over-reacted.
>
> Nate WY0X
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|