I get the feeling that Paul's real objective here is to preclude remote
operation.
73, Pete N4ZR
The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com
The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
On 10/27/2010 7:17 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> On 26/10/2010 21:39, Jack Haverty wrote:
>
>
>> it's very very difficult to draw a line
>> around tools, or how contesters use tools, and describe that line
>> precisely.
>>
> Yes, it's difficult - but it's not impossible, and we're
> getting closer.
>
>
>> Is a tool which converts the RF spectrum into a visual display
>>
> for the op's eyes a communications technology?
>
> It doesn't matter - with my proposals anything is OK (any
> technology whatsoever) within the own property/ 500 metre
> limit so long as the only thing crossing the boundary of
> the property is amateur band RF (corresponding to the
> band(s) and mode(s) of entry).
>
> Having said that, there is one exception - decoders.
> Why, because this includes Skimmer (there are other
> reasons to exclude decoders).
>
> > How about a tool which converts
>
>> the RF spectrum into audio to the ears? One is a bandscope, the other
>> is a receiver. I can see how they'd both be considered to be
>> communications technologies. But are they amateur or non-amateur?
>>
> All OK within the property boundary. Of course, this
> property boundary concept immediately puts remote
> operation into the assisted, if not extreme, class,
> because there is more than amateur-band RF crossing
> the boundary.
>
>
>> Is a contester who somehow borrows a broadcast station's antenna array,
>> figures out how to load it from his rig, and has fun on 160 in a contest
>> using "non-amateur" technology?
>>
> All OK within the property boundary.
>
>
>> What makes a technology "non-amateur"? I suspect there's no easy
>> answer.
>>
> It doesn't matter when it is all contained within the
> property boundary (apart from decoders in CW contests),
> and nothing but amateur band RF crosses the boundary.
>
>
>> Re the CW rule: Communications takes two people - one to talk, one to
>> listen. If you need to decode CW "by ear" to demonstrate that you can
>> understand CW, shouldn't you need to send CW by hand
>>
> This issue has been dealt with already.
> http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2010-October/091930.html
>
>
>> [By the way, I don't use a decoder - don't trust them.
>>
> Whether anyone likes them, or how well they perform, has no
> relevance to the issue.
>
>
>> My point is simply that it's very hard to draw these lines so that
>> there's agreement and no confusion.
>>
> I think we've made progress.
>
>
>> Perhaps the "categories" of contests is the right place to deal with
>> tools. Instead of just power levels (QRP/LP/HP), categories could be
>> defined based on the station's toolbox.
>>
> Sorry, can't go along with that - ultimately, everyone
> would end up in separate categories.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|