> I am not talking about where the technology is now, but
> instead where it will go if code reading software and
> all technological improvements associated with is
> are allowed.
Nobody has even used CW Skimmer "in anger" yet. To be
fretting about fully automated stations is an awfully big
leap. I have been watching the stuff that comes out of
Pete's Skimmer and there is a lot of trash ... in the
last hour I see three spots for North Korean stations,
Andaman and Nicobar, one Bhutan, one Macquarie Island,
and probably two dozen other less "rare" multipliers I
know to be badly busted calls.
With that quality of data, I doubt that any automated system
is going to be a challenge to a human operator. Even with
automation, the difference will be in the human component to
do things like clean up the bandmap and make "executive
level" decisions - to so the strategy that is so important
to top contest performances anyway.
> CAN ANYONE NAME A SPORT THAT ALLOWS ALL
> TECHNOLOGY TO BE USED TO IMPROVE THE
> PERFORMANCE OF THE PARTICIPANT?
Look at the changes in golf equipment in the past 40 years.
Club technology has revolutionized nearly every part of the
game.
> Good Point! CW is horse and buggy. That is what makes it
> unique. Is it the most efficient way of communicating
> with someone half way around the world? The answer is no.
> My opinion, probably shared by more than you would think,
> is that it should be preserved for those who enjoy it.
Again Skimmer, and other CW reader technology does not prevent
you (or me) or others like you from copying by ear. It does
allow those who can't (or won't) to participate in CW. It
does not destroy CW, it expands it - just as there is room on
the highway for both 1936 and 2008 models of automobile.
> it appeared to me that with a company motto of Life Is Too
> Short For Manual Operation that you might have a financial
> motive for being so passionate in your views.
That is the manufacturer's motto - not mine as an independent
distributor. The motto predates any of the "skimmer" debates
and refers specifically to the microBand Decoder and antenna
switches which were their first products.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Stan Stockton
> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 1:54 PM
> To: w4tv@subich.com; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Expansion of Skimmer Subject
>
>
>
> ---- "Joe Subich wrote:
>
> >Stan,
>
> >CW Skimmer is not "automation" but then you don't seem to
> >care about facts, only your inflammatory opinions.
>
> Joe - I am not talking about CW Skimmer. I am talking about
> where code readers and technology will take the sport.
> I am worried that it will take it to an Automated QSO
> apparatus which will replace the operator as we know
> it today. Perhaps there are people who still want the
> contest to involve something other, from an operating
> perspective, than for someone to turn on the machine.
> I am not talking about where the technology is now, but
> instead where it will go if code reading software and
> all technological improvements associated with is
> are allowed.
>
> CAN ANYONE NAME A SPORT THAT ALLOWS ALL
> TECHNOLOGY TO BE USED TO IMPROVE THE
> PERFORMANCE OF THE PARTICIPANT?
>
> Do they allow the fisherman in a Bass Fishing Contest
> to use a big net dragged by the boat?
>
> Do they allow a golfer to use a ball that is smaller
> than the standard?
>
> Do they allow a professional baseball player to use
> a bat that will allow him to hit it out of the park every
> time he hits the ball?
>
> It goes on and on. There is no other sport where the
> attitude is that you allow anything and everything that
> comes along to improve the performance.
>
> >If you are going to take the attitude that it's your way or
> >the highway, that will kill CW contesting faster than ANY
> >technology. RTTY will surely replace CW for contesting in
> >five years if that's the case.
>
> My attitude is not that it is my way or the highway. My
> attitude is that IF CW Contesting becomes an automated
> process where the station makes the contact and logs
> the contact that it is no different than RTTY and CW WILL
> be gone. If automated QSOs are not allowed, it will
> continue to be the only form of digital communications
> where the translation from the sound to the log is done
> by the operator.
>
> >Keep riding your horse and buggy but don't cry to the rest
> >of the world when some 18-wheeler turns you into a grease
> >spot on the side of the highway.
>
> Good Point! CW is horse and buggy. That is what
> makes it unique. Is it the most efficient way of
> communicating with someone half
> way around the world? The answer is no. My opinion,
> probably shared by more than you would think, is that
> it should be preserved for those who enjoy it. Let those
> who do not enjoy CW advance automation in digital modes
> where it is not possible for the operator to copy what is
> being sent anyway.
>
> I really don't want to be run over and become a grease spot.
> I love ham radio and love CW contests. I think the only
> thing that is unique about CW is that what is sent has
> generally been translated by the operator.
>
> I apologize if I offended you in any way. I had no idea
> what your two previous calls were or what your motives
> might be. Since my position is against automated QSO
> generation (not specifically Skimmer as it exists in its
> primitive stage), it appeared to me that with a company motto
> of Life Is Too Short For Manual Operation that you might
> have a financial motive for being so passionate in your views.
>
> 73...Stan, K5GO
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stan Stockton [mailto:k5go@cox.net]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 11:19 AM
> > To: w4tv@subich.com; cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Expansion of Skimmer Subject
> >
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> > Everyone has an opinion. Mine is that I would rather see
> > CW Contesting stay like it is for another ten years and then
> > DIE than have it change to a fully automated mode in two
> > years so the only possibility of winning would be for you to
> > have an automated QSO machine.
> >
> > What would be the purpose of CW remaining as a contest
> > mode of operation if it became automated. Why not just
> > abolish CW Contesting ASAP since RTTY is farther advanced
> > in terms of automation. It is fine for casual contest operators
> > to use a code reader and have some fun. I am not proposing
> > that it be "illegal" to use a code reader, only to make it against
> > the rules of the contest for the purpose of eliminating the
> > automated QSO machine.
> >
> > Speaking of automation, my viewpoint comes
> > from someone who has spent forty years working CW.
> > After a few minutes of puzzled research it appears
> > your viewpoint comes from someone who sells
> > equipment and software to automate the process.
> >
> > 73...Stan, K5GO
> >
> > ---- "Joe Subich wrote:
> > >
> > > Stan writes:
> > >
> > > > The only way I can think of to prevent full automation in CW
> > > > Contesting is to have a rule against using a computer
> or machine
> > > > to copy code. I know this is going to upset some people. Sorry
> > > > but, in my opinion, the day a station wins a CW Contest and the
> > > > operator listed cannot copy CW is the day CW Contesting will be
> > > > ruined.
> > >
> > > Any rule like this will doom CW contesting to an
> accelerated death.
> > > Perhaps 10% of those making contacts in CW contests are currently
> > > using "copying assistance" - Writelog's decoder, CW Get alongside
> > > N1MM Logger, MixW, Ham Radio Deluxe and DM780, etc. I
> see requests
> > > daily in logging software the forums for
> > > the inclusion of CW copying by amateurs ranging from groups
> > > as diverse as those with medical conditions that make copying
> > > a single tone difficult, new amateurs who want the "crutch" to
> > > learn code, and new amateurs who don't want to learn Morse
> > > but simply want to join in the fun of the "most popular digital
> > > mode."
> > >
> > > RTTY will replace CW in contesting in less than 10 years if
> > > participants cannot use "a computer or machine" to copy
> CW. New CW
> > > contesters are coming from the population that is using computers
> > > ... some will eventually become proficient at coping by
> ear but most
> > > will not. Contesting must adapt to changes in then regulatory
> > > environment (no CW requirement for licensing), changes in
> > > demographics (older operators who can no longer hear
> > > - or manipulate paddles as well as they once did) and changing
> > > technology. If CW contesting does not adapt it will die.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > > > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> > Stan Stockton
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 12:21 AM
> > > > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > > > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Expansion of Skimmer Subject
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It would be easy for the rules' makers to look at the
> technology
> > > > available today, incorporate Skimmer, for example, into the
> > > > assisted category and go on.
> > > >
> > > > I think in every class of operation for CW Contests
> > > > there must also be consideration of a much
> > > > larger scope of technology - total automation.
> > > >
> > > > I know how I feel about the following scenario and what
> > > > rule I would put in place. How do you feel about it?
> > > >
> > > > Scenario:
> > > >
> > > > The single operator station has several rigs.
> Mulit-operator has
> > > > several per band The station can be set up so one of them is
> > > > transmitting at all times or one per band for
> > > > Multi-Multi. So far so good. Many people are
> > > > able to do this now.
> > > >
> > > > How do we feel about an automated system with the
> computers making
> > > > and logging the contacts with the operator never actually never
> > > > hearing the stations that are logged? How will you like
> to hear a
> > > > pileup of stations calling at 150 WPM or more and automated
> > > > stations working each other at that rate. How about multiple
> > > > transceivers scanning the bands
> > stopping
> > > > on stations found, reading what they are sending with a
> > > > code reader, and then making and logging the contact for you?
> > > > I'm hoping for a logical ruling regarding Skimmer but also
> > > > to address full automation in CW Contesting.
> > > >
> > > > The only way I can think of to prevent full automation in CW
> > > > Contesting is to have a rule against using a computer
> or machine
> > > > to copy code. I know this is going to upset some people. Sorry
> > > > but, in my opinion, the day a station wins a CW Contest and the
> > > > operator listed cannot copy
> > > > CW is the day CW Contesting will be ruined. .
> > > >
> > > > Yes, technology moves forward. All of it is
> > > > interesting. The question is where the line is drawn
> > > > so that contesting remains a fun thing to do.
> > > >
> > > > There are many modes and many contests running in
> > > > each mode over the course of a year. The RTTY
> > > > mode is one where the only way you can operate is to
> > > > have a machine copy what is being sent. It would
> > > > seem that full automation in RTTY would be a more
> > > > logical step than full automation in CW.
> > > >
> > > > It is good to see a few additional people who actually work
> > > > contests express their views.
> > > >
> > > > Stan, K5GO
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|