RE: New concept/tool for CW dxing

[Dave Agsten]

I guess this is a tool for those who either only had
to pass a 5 wpm CW test or none at all. Now they can
QRM the low end CW portions of the bands by pushing a
button and letting their radio send "599" or some
other programmed response that they couldn't do with a
key. It's rather sad.

73 es gud dx
de Dave N8AG


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[CX7TT]

Gentlemen,

I do not think this program is a bad idea and not withstanding comments
from the cw purists, it could actually increase the number and
proficiency of cw operators. When I was just starting out and struggling
with 22 wpm, contesters running at 35+wpm just blew me away. I recall
sitting on their frequencies trying to decipher their SS
exchange....maybe listening to 5 or more Qs to figure out what number,
what Sec, what CK, etc? If a beginner can decipher via software, while
listening, isnt' that a learning experience?
I am an avid cw op, participate in many contests and have been a guest
operator (40m) during CQWWCW at K3LR's super station. Who among us would
not love for more beginners to show up during those sloooooooooww
periods on Sunday afternoon? How many times have you hit F1, just
waiting for new blood.  If a guy, using the program can work me quickly
using this program, move on to the next, etc, then his/her enjoyment
will also increase and maybe, just maybe, be the impetus to learn,
practice and participate in future cw events.
Ciao,
Tom
CX7TT/K6CT
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julian, G4ILO]

cx7tt wrote

Gentlemen,

I do not think this program is a bad idea and not withstanding comments
from the cw purists, it could actually increase the number and
proficiency of cw operators. When I was just starting out and struggling
with 22 wpm, contesters running at 35+wpm just blew me away. I recall
sitting on their frequencies trying to decipher their SS
exchange....maybe listening to 5 or more Qs to figure out what number,
what Sec, what CK, etc? If a beginner can decipher via software, while
listening, isnt' that a learning experience?
I am an avid cw op, participate in many contests and have been a guest
operator (40m) during CQWWCW at K3LR's super station. Who among us would
not love for more beginners to show up during those sloooooooooww
periods on Sunday afternoon? How many times have you hit F1, just
waiting for new blood.  If a guy, using the program can work me quickly
using this program, move on to the next, etc, then his/her enjoyment
will also increase and maybe, just maybe, be the impetus to learn,
practice and participate in future cw events.

I think you (and others) are missing the point of this, as I did when I first read Doug's post. This is not a tool to help those who can't be bothered to learn CW operate in contests. Such tools have already been available for a long time - CWGet, MixW, gMFSK, fldigi, HRD. And even our very own K3 now has a built in CW decoder. No-one other than the purists complain about this, and I believe that many contest ops use such software to help read the very fast code many people use, even if most of them prefer to keep quiet about it. :)

What this software does appear to do is to show the *calls* of every station operating within the passband. This means that an operator using the software will be able to spot someone they haven't already worked, a new multiplier or whatever, much quicker than they would if they had to tune around and listen. All that's needed - if it hasn't been thought of already - is an interface between this program and popular logging software to highlight the calls you most need to work.

The average casual contest participant is not going to pay $75 for this thing. But the really keen, ultra-competitive ops would, because it gives them a competitive advantage over those who don't use it. Except of course that if everyone uses it, it just sets a level playing field at a higher point, and removes some of the skill and fun at the same time.

I'm sure this software was an interesting challenge to write, but it would have been better if the author had kept it to himself.

[Alan Bloom]

It's kind of like watching a foreign-language film with subtitles.  Not
needed for the fluent, but helpful when you are first learning.

Al N1AL


On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 00:39, [hidden email] wrote:

> Gentlemen,
>
> I do not think this program is a bad idea and not withstanding comments
> from the cw purists, it could actually increase the number and
> proficiency of cw operators. When I was just starting out and struggling
> with 22 wpm, contesters running at 35+wpm just blew me away. I recall
> sitting on their frequencies trying to decipher their SS
> exchange....maybe listening to 5 or more Qs to figure out what number,
> what Sec, what CK, etc? If a beginner can decipher via software, while
> listening, isnt' that a learning experience?
> I am an avid cw op, participate in many contests and have been a guest
> operator (40m) during CQWWCW at K3LR's super station. Who among us would
> not love for more beginners to show up during those sloooooooooww
> periods on Sunday afternoon? How many times have you hit F1, just
> waiting for new blood.  If a guy, using the program can work me quickly
> using this program, move on to the next, etc, then his/her enjoyment
> will also increase and maybe, just maybe, be the impetus to learn,
> practice and participate in future cw events.
> Ciao,
> Tom
> CX7TT/K6CT
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Vic K2VCO]

G4ILO wrote:

> What this software does appear to do is to show the *calls* of every station
> operating within the passband. This means that an operator using the
> software will be able to spot someone they haven't already worked, a new
> multiplier or whatever, much quicker than they would if they had to tune
> around and listen. All that's needed - if it hasn't been thought of already
> - is an interface between this program and popular logging software to
> highlight the calls you most need to work.

There is already a similar function in most contest logging software,
called the bandmap. The display looks the same, a bunch of calls vs.
frequency. The software generally allows you to click on the call, which
takes your rig to the appropriate frequency.

The difference is where the information comes from. The bandmap in
current software is populated by dx cluster spots, received over a
telnet connection or by a packet network. So before they appear,
somebody has to spot them. And -- significantly -- many contests' rules
state that use of a cluster puts the operator in an 'assisted' class.

This is a big deal. Would the rules need to call this 'assisted' as
well? And if so, how could such a rule be enforced (there are ways to
catch cheaters using clusters)? And how could a rule be written that
would distinguish between software aids that do not constitute
assistance and those that do? I doubt that it's possible.

If this really works -- and if it doesn't today, some day it will -- it
will present a real challenge to contest sponsors. If the distinction
between 'assisted' and 'unassisted' can't be maintained, then someone
who does *not* use the software will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Personally, I always enter contests 'unassisted' because I like finding
my own mults. I hope this doesn't become accepted practice.
--
73,
Vic, K2VCO
Fresno CA
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Steve Ireland]

G’day

For those on the reflector who are wondering what this new ‘tool’ (VE3NEA’s
CW Skimmer) is like from a user’s point of view, see the review of
well-known contester Pete N4ZR at:

www.pvrc.org/~n4zr/Articles/Skimmer.pdf

I have used Alex’s Rocky software for the last eighteen months or so and,
like Pete, am an alpha/beta tester of the big sister ‘CW Skimmer’ software. 
It is an amazing program and was originally designed to help Alex VE3NEA to
increase his operating efficiency in DX pileups when operating his
100W/dipole type station against those running 1.5kW and beam antennas.

It is a fascinating program to use and has already been responsible for
‘spotting’ a new 160m country for me, whilst I was (kindly) working a pileup
of USA and JA stations on the same band.  Whilst CW Skimmer spotted the
station for me (as a packet cluster would have done), I still had to
actually work the station through a large pile-up... ;-)

Unfortunately, using the $75 CW Skimmer isn’t going to help a little pistol
beat the CQ WW score of a big gun contester who has a holiday QTH in the
Caribbean with automatically tuned Alpha linears, stacked monobanders and
four-squares, so let’s not get carried away here.  It also isn’t going to
make big gun operators of this kind any more invincible if they use it than
they probably already are.  ;-)

On the other hand, owing to its speed of operation (when a DX station calls
CQ, Skimmer is going to recognize their callsign very quickly, as long as
their CW is half decent and isn’t smothered in noise), it can help little
pistols to work some new countries.  I really like Skimmer and regard it as
the best operating tool in my DXing arsenal.

Of course, coupled with a K3 and using IF-based Q5er/panadaptor, its mojo
may just be amazing!

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the death of real CW operation now that CW Skimmer
has arrived is “greatly exaggerated.”

Vy 73

Steve, VK6VZ
(FOC #1693)



_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Steve Ireland]

G’day

For those on the reflector who are wondering what this new ‘tool’ (VE3NEA’s
CW Skimmer) is like from a user’s point of view, see the review of
well-known contester Pete N4ZR at:

www.pvrc.org/~n4zr/Articles/Skimmer.pdf

I have used Alex’s Rocky software for the last eighteen months or so and,
like Pete, am an alpha/beta tester of the big sister ‘CW Skimmer’ software. 
It is an amazing program and was originally designed to help Alex VE3NEA to
increase his operating efficiency in DX pileups when operating his
100W/dipole type station against those running 1.5kW and beam antennas.

It is a fascinating program to use and has already been responsible for
‘spotting’ a new 160m country for me, whilst I was (kindly) working a pileup
of USA and JA stations on the same band.  Whilst CW Skimmer spotted the
station for me (as a packet cluster would have done), I still had to
actually work the station through a large pile-up... ;-)

Unfortunately, using the $75 CW Skimmer isn’t going to help a little pistol
beat the CQ WW score of a big gun contester who has a holiday QTH in the
Caribbean with automatically tuned Alpha linears, stacked monobanders and
four-squares, so let’s not get carried away here.  It also isn’t going to
make big gun operators of this kind any more invincible if they use it than
they probably already are.  ;-)

On the other hand, owing to its speed of operation (when a DX station calls
CQ, Skimmer is going to recognize their callsign very quickly, as long as
their CW is half decent and isn’t smothered in noise), it can help little
pistols to work some new countries.  I really like Skimmer and regard it as
the best operating tool in my DXing arsenal.

Of course, coupled with a K3 and using IF-based Q5er/panadaptor, its mojo
may just be amazing!

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the death of real CW operation now that CW Skimmer
has arrived is “greatly exaggerated.”

Vy 73

Steve, VK6VZ
(FOC #1693)



_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julian, G4ILO]

Steve Ireland wrote

It is a fascinating program to use and has already been responsible for
‘spotting’ a new 160m country for me

I think this is exactly the kind of thing that people are objecting to. Taking away the work and the element of chance involved in hunting for the DX removes a lot of the challenge, even if you do still have to work it. And if the big guns are instantly alerted to the presence of any DX on the band, it reduces the window of opportunity for the alert, but un-equipped with this program, little pistols.

[Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy]

Ten out of ten Julian.

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD

Julian G4ILO" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think this is exactly the kind of thing that people are objecting to.
Taking away the work and the element of chance involved in hunting for the
DX removes a lot of the challenge, even if you do still have to work it. And
if the big guns are instantly alerted to the presence of any DX on the band,
it reduces the window of opportunity for the alert, but un-equipped with
this program, little pistols.


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Dan Romanchik KB6NU]

It's all a matter of where you draw the line. This is just more  
technology, and technology is **supposed** to make things easier.  
Following your line of reasoning, we'd have to disqualify those using  
DSP  or beam antennas because it makes DXing harder for those that  
don't have them.

73!

Dan KB6NU
----------------------------------------------------------
CW Geek and MI Affiliated Club Coordinator
Read my ham radio blog at http://www.kb6nu.com
LET'S GET MORE KIDS INTO HAM RADIO!


On Feb 6, 2008, at Feb 6, 1:30 PM, G4ILO wrote:

>
> Steve Ireland wrote:
>>
>> It is a fascinating program to use and has already been  
>> responsible for
>> ‘spotting’ a new 160m country for me
>>
>>
> I think this is exactly the kind of thing that people are objecting  
> to.
> Taking away the work and the element of chance involved in hunting  
> for the
> DX removes a lot of the challenge, even if you do still have to  
> work it. And
> if the big guns are instantly alerted to the presence of any DX on  
> the band,
> it reduces the window of opportunity for the alert, but un-equipped  
> with
> this program, little pistols.
>
> -----
> Julian, G4ILO  K3 s/n: 222 K2 s/n: 392
> G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
> Zerobeat Ham Forums: www.zerobeat.net/smf

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Tom AK2B]

After playing with this program for a few days it seems obvious that the decoding part of the program is trying most of all to extract a call sign. As a result of this you can see the AI part of the program do what it can to separate all things after “DE” and construct a legitimate call. You can almost see it “think” as it makes those decisions. If you’re looking for a straight CW decoder for ciphering contest calls at mach 3, the K3 will do it as well as any of them and better than most (including CW Skimmer). I just admire Alex’s programming efforts. His unusually simple interfaces always succeed in disguising some very complex programming. The real benefit of this program will be realized with an I/Q receiver on the IF port.
It seems strange that some hams would find this sort of technology objectionable. After all, aren’t we all about technology? Why would we hang around this forum if we weren't looking for a leg up. Just because someone has found a tool to work a new one doesn’t mean anything except to the ham that did it. There are times when I take out my homebrew DC receiver and a homebrew transmitter and pound away. There are times when I like to take my KX-1 to Central Park. There are times when I have three or four ham programs running all connected to my K3 during a contest. I do it because I want to and because its fun. If it wasn’t, I could go play golf (and really make myself miserable).

Tom, AK2B

[Bill VanAlstyne W5WVO]

Tom AK2B wrote:

> It seems strange that some hams would find this sort of technology
> objectionable. After all, aren’t we all about technology? Why would
> we hang around this forum if we weren't looking for a leg up?

It's really very simple -- a matter of the normal distribution of the
variations of human personality.

A substantial proportion of people are naturally conservative. They don't
react well to things being changed. They will make up a lot of very convincing
arguments why this or that change is unwise and shouldn't be allowed, but at
the end of the day, it's just very hard for them emotionally to accept things
becoming different than what they're used to.

Another substantial proportion of people are naturally progressive. They don't
react well to things being left alone to mature and take root. They will make
up a lot of very convincing arguments why this or that isn't good enough and
has to be changed, but at the end of the day, it's just very hard for them
emotionally to settle down and leave well enough alone.

These two forces are in a never-ending circular dance of engagement, even
struggle. This is basically the thesis-antithesis-synthesis process of
Hegelian dialectic, if you remember your Philosophy 101. If either side,
thesis or antithesis, becomes all-powerful, the dialectic process is subverted
and things tend to go wrong eventually.

This is because Nature does have a slight built-in bias in favor of change.
It's called adaptation. An individual, a species, even life collectively
either adapts or eventually becomes extinct. Nothing stays the same forever.
Stasis is not an option in this universe.

This small bit of potentially relevant  philosophy is brought to you as a
brief respite from the ravages of taking some things in our wonderful hobby
way too seriously. :-)

Bill W5WVO

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 2/6/08 2:59:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [hidden email]
writes:


> It seems strange that some hams would find this sort of technology
> objectionable.

Not to me.


After all, aren’t we all about technology?

No. While technology is a big part of ham radio, it's not the only thing. If
it were, we'd have stopped using modes like CW, AM, FM and FSK RTTY long ago.
We'd have channelized, ALE-type rigs, etc.

Why would we hang
>
> around this forum if we weren't looking for a leg up. Just because someone
> has found a tool to work a new one doesn’t mean anything except to the ham
> that did it.

That's fine in everyday operating. But in a competitive situation like a
contest it's a different thing entirely, because competition is a mix of
technology and operator skill.

Some analogies:

What if someone wanted to use a "hybrid" bicycle in the Tour de France? One
that would store the energy from a downhill run to be released on an uphill
climb? For that matter, why aren't mopeds allowed?

I could probably win the Boston Marathon if they let me use roller skates
(and everyone else didn't).

Corked bats in baseball - super-distance golf balls - turbine-powered Indy
cars - lots of ways technology can give someone an edge and change the game
completely.


 There are times when I take out my homebrew DC receiver and a
>
> homebrew transmitter and pound away. There are times when I like to take my
> KX-1 to Central Park. There are times when I have three or four ham programs
> running all connected to my K3 during a contest. I do it because I want to
> and because its fun.

No problem with any of that. The question is, where is the line at which a
contest station is no longer single-operator unassisted?


 If it wasn’t, I could go play golf (and really make
>
> myself miserable).
>
> They call it golf because all the other four-letter words were already taken.


73 de Jim, N2EY



**************
Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
     
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy]

With respect Dan I must agree with Julian G4ILO. As I see it, and to use
your example, DSP and beams are the weapons used during the hunt, but the
hunter must also know when to hunt, where to hunt and know how to approach
the prey, skills gained through experience (apology to any DX who might read
this!). The weapons can be purchased, but once you start to replace the
skills with some form of 'automatic' system or crutch I believe that much of
the appeal in working DX is lost. DX Clusters are bad enough IMHO.

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD
(Who has been hunted)


Romanchik Dan  <[hidden email]> wrote:


It's all a matter of where you draw the line. This is just more
technology, and technology is **supposed** to make things easier.
Following your line of reasoning, we'd have to disqualify those using
DSP  or beam antennas because it makes DXing harder for those that
don't have them.

73!

Dan KB6NU


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Thom LaCosta]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, G4ILO wrote:

>>
> I think this is exactly the kind of thing that people are objecting to.
> Taking away the work and the element of chance involved in hunting for the
> DX removes a lot of the challenge, even if you do still have to work it. And
> if the big guns are instantly alerted to the presence of any DX on the band,
> it reduces the window of opportunity for the alert, but un-equipped with
> this program, little pistols.

But, one needs to consider that for some, the game is all about winning, so any
tool that allows that is far more important than other measures.

I suspect that as long as there are competitions, there will be folks who
produce and use tools that give them a competetive advantage.

There may even be folks who stopped feeling the need to collect merit badges for
their sashes after they ceased being teenagers.

73, k3hrn
Thom,EIEIO
Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer

www.baltimorehon.com/                    Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
www.tlchost.net/hosting/                 Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Dan Romanchik KB6NU]

Sorry, but I still don't see this program as any different than any  
other technical gadgetry that hams use to increase their scores  
during a contest. But just for argument's sake, and because you  
mentioned skills, how about keyers?? Keyers have taken a lot of the  
skill out of sending CW, no? Shouldn't we outlaw them?

73!

Dan KB6NU
----------------------------------------------------------
CW Geek and MI Affiliated Club Coordinator
Read my ham radio blog at http://www.kb6nu.com
LET'S GET MORE KIDS INTO HAM RADIO!



On Feb 6, 2008, at Feb 6, 6:53 PM, Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy wrote:

> With respect Dan I must agree with Julian G4ILO. As I see it, and  
> to use your example, DSP and beams are the weapons used during the  
> hunt, but the hunter must also know when to hunt, where to hunt and  
> know how to approach the prey, skills gained through experience  
> (apology to any DX who might read this!). The weapons can be  
> purchased, but once you start to replace the skills with some form  
> of 'automatic' system or crutch I believe that much of the appeal  
> in working DX is lost. DX Clusters are bad enough IMHO.
>
> 73,
> Geoff
> GM4ESD
> (Who has been hunted)
>
>
> Romanchik Dan  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> It's all a matter of where you draw the line. This is just more
> technology, and technology is **supposed** to make things easier.
> Following your line of reasoning, we'd have to disqualify those using
> DSP  or beam antennas because it makes DXing harder for those that
> don't have them.
>
> 73!
>
> Dan KB6NU
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 2/6/08 4:51:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> A substantial proportion of people are naturally conservative. They don't
> react well to things being changed.
>
> Another substantial proportion of people are naturally progressive.

I would say "change oriented".

All progress involves change, but all change does not involve progress.
>
> These two forces are in a never-ending circular dance of engagement, even
> struggle. This is basically the thesis-antithesis-synthesis process of
> Hegelian dialectic, if you remember your Philosophy 101. If either side,
> thesis or antithesis, becomes all-powerful, the dialectic process is
> subverted
> and things tend to go wrong eventually.

I think there is a third kind of person: the one who is balanced between the
two forces.

> This is because Nature does have a slight built-in bias in favor of change.
>
> It's called adaptation. An individual, a species, even life collectively
> either adapts or eventually becomes extinct. Nothing stays the same forever.
>
> Stasis is not an option in this universe.
>

I don't think we know anywhere near enough about the Universe to say that.

Some forms of life here on earth have remained unchanged for tens of millions
of years, if not longer, because they were and are well-adapted. Others have
changed radically in much shorter times (domesticated animals, for example)
because it was adaptive to do so.

The laws of nature don't seem to change over time - we assume that they are
the same since the Big Bang.

One law of nature that is too often forgotten is the Law of Unintended
Consequences. When one has run afoul of that Law, one tends to be a little
cautious.....

> This small bit of potentially relevant  philosophy is brought to you as a
> brief respite from the ravages of taking some things in our wonderful hobby
> way too seriously. :-)
>
I am seriously tempted to quote the Philosophy Song from Monty Python, but I
will leave that for the reader to look up.

Instead I will say this:

Contesting and DXing are essentially competitive games many of us hams play
because we think they are fun. And like any game, most of the rules are
arbitrary. And it's not life-or-death if a rule is broken, or stretched.

But that does not mean the rukes should not be taken seriously! Just the
reverse.

---

Some posts back I made a reference to a QST fiction article from 1953 about a
ham who built a totally automated SS contest station. It was science-fiction
back then, but not so fictional today. In fact, it may actually be possible
today. We already have Pactor "robots" on the ham bands.....(not going there!)

What if someone actually built a completely automatic contest station? One
that could keep pace with the very best contest ops, would never get tired or
make a mistake, would listen to every band simultaneously and analyze far more
data than any human could to maximize score, would access an enormous database
of info, etc., etc.

Should such a station be allowed to compete in the same entry class with
stations that actually need an operator?

IOW, where is the line drawn?

73 de Jim, N2EY




**************
Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
     
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Alan Bloom]

On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 15:53, Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy wrote:
> ... once you start to replace the
> skills with some form of 'automatic' system or crutch I believe that much of
> the appeal in working DX is lost. DX Clusters are bad enough IMHO.
>
> 73,
> Geoff
> GM4ESD
> (Who has been hunted)

I must admit that I lost interest in DXing when the DX clusters became
popular.  Seems like they devalue operator skill.

Al N1AL


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julian, G4ILO]

Romanchik Dan wrote

It's all a matter of where you draw the line. This is just more  
technology, and technology is **supposed** to make things easier.  
Following your line of reasoning, we'd have to disqualify those using  
DSP  or beam antennas because it makes DXing harder for those that  
don't have them.

No I don't agree. QRO, beam antennas, better filtering are all part of radio, and therefore legitimate ways to improve your success at DXing.

The problem with technology like this is that it takes all the skill and chance out of the hunt. All you have to do is click the mouse and start sending. It reduces the hobby to a pointless exercise. The DX Cluster was the start down this rocky road, but it still relies on someone spotting the DX the hard way, so it doesn't completely ruin the experience.

I think this is a very important issue that affects the value of our hobby. 15 years or so ago people didn't have the internet, and international phone calls were expensive. The ability to talk with someone half way round the world was special and magical. These days, it isn't, and people may start to wonder why we bother using radio when we can use email, Skype or a cheap phone call.

If people start using computer technology to spot what they need to work then the actual radio contact becomes little more than a formality. It devalues the worth of the radio communication considerably. This wouldn't matter so much if you could just choose not to use this technology, but people will still be claiming these huge scores having used it, and the rest will feel either they have to do so too or else give up the game entirely.

A game isn't fun to play if people are cheating.

[Julian, G4ILO]

Bill W5WVO wrote

Tom AK2B wrote:

It's really very simple -- a matter of the normal distribution of the
variations of human personality.

A substantial proportion of people are naturally conservative. They don't
react well to things being changed.

[snip]

Another substantial proportion of people are naturally progressive. They don't
react well to things being left alone to mature and take root. They will make
up a lot of very convincing arguments why this or that isn't good enough and
has to be changed

This would be a very good argument, Tom, applied to any normal endeavour. If I earned my living by working DX then of course I would want to use every tool going that would help me do it more effectively.

But ham radio is a hobby. There isn't a lot of point to it in practical, surviving the real world terms. DXing is supposed to be hard. If you use technologies unrelated to radio to make it easier then it becomes an almost worthless activity.

Basket weaving is another hobby. If you bought a machine to weave the baskets, would that make it a better hobby?