Well, the WWROF just created what they hope is a 4th CQWW major contest,
the WW-Digi contest, and they've been publicizing it heavily here on the
reflector with webinar and practice session announcements. If they
don't mess it up it is likely to be fairly popular for the following
reasons:
1. It is weak signal so contacts that might not otherwise be possible
will be available, making the available pool of points and multipliers
greater, especially with the current lack of sunspots.
2. Big signals don't necessarily dominate. A +10 signal and a -15
signal both show up equally in the activity window. That's appealing to
hams with lesser stations or who live in propagation-challenged locations.
3. WSJT-X offers a sort of native pileup management in a structured
format. Casual contesters who might be hesitant to run a frequency on
CW or SSB have relatively little downside to doing so in FT8 or FT4,
which again should be appealing to them. They just click on the next
callsign.
My station isn't terrible and I'm not afraid to run, so for me the
interesting aspect will be to explore how to optimize runrates. I'd
classify myself as being more curious than excited at this point, but I
have to admit to being pretty curious. I suspect that people smarter
and more creative than I am are going to come up with ways to turn FT4
into a pretty hectic activity by juggling overlapping contacts and
coming up with ways to use multiple simultaneous streams that don't
pollute with IMD.
I agree that FT8 can get boring, but a contest with a lot of interest is
still a contest and I haven't seen any list guidelines here that try to
put a cap on related discussions based upon mode.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 8/7/2019 7:50 AM, Jeff Clarke wrote:
Didn't someone create a FT8 contest reflector? It would be nice to
take all these comments over there. Seems like FT8 is monopolizing the
contest reflector just like it is on the air.
Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting FT8
first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't the
future of ham radio.
BTW I do operate some FT8 because I'm working on a the digital DXCC.
(because there is hardly any RTTY activity outside of contests) Now
that I've reached 100 countries I'm starting to get bored with it.
Jeff
On 8/7/2019 04:31 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
Then why don't the WW-Digi rules simply state that such operation
(multiple QSOs on the same band using Fox/Hound mode) is not
allowed. Most contesters are NOT going to be aware of, or maybe not
even care about, any splatter caused by their own operations. Most
FT8/4 operators have no easy means of monitoring their own transmit
quality, and that should be obvious from watching the spectrum
display at almost any time of day or night.
Expecting participants in the contest to understand that they
shouldn't use Fox/Hound based upon the webinar doesn't make much
sense. You'd be lucky if a third of the participants in the contest
even watched the webinar. They're going to (hopefully) go by the
written rules, which currently do not specifically outlaw multiple
simultaneous signals, and that means that people familiar with
Fox/Hound mode are going to be inclined to use it. You specifically
say below that multiple parallel QSOs WOULD be OK if they didn't use
Fox/Hound to achieve it ... so why don't your rules simply say that?
I disagree that Fox/Hound is the only way to transmit multiple
signals at the same time. I'm pretty certain I could do it with
multiple rigs and running multiple instances of WSJT-X (which WSJT-X
allows) on the same computer. All it would require is different com
ports and rig assignments for each instance of WSJT-X, and the
outputs would be independent and therefore clean barring any
nonlinear combining of RF past the rigs.
I just don't understand why you don't write the rules to clearly
prohibit that which you don't want to happen. It's like you're
posting a DO NOT ENTER sign on the back door of the building.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 8/6/2019 8:48 PM, Ed Muns wrote:
This is an example of the DXpedition "Fox and Hound" mode where the
DXpedition station is the Fox and transmits 2-5 distinct audio
frequencies within his TX passband using a single suppressed carrier
at the radio dial frequency.
The WW Digi rules are written to allow multiple parallel QSOs. This
is appropriate for this narrow-band multi-channel signal
technology. As of today, the only technique I'm aware of for
achieving this is the Fox and Hound mode described above. However,
in a multiple-Fox scenario like contesting, this method of parallel
QSOs is unacceptable.
The reason is that two or more audio signals are effectively
transmitting a Two-Tone (or Multi-Tone) IMD test on the band. The
narrow, vertical-skirt FT signals are thereby turned into wide,
flared-skirt signals that will QRM neighboring QSOs on both sides.
In the DXpedition scenario with just one Fox, that IMD can be
contained in a small area of the pass band, say 400-500 Hz, while
all the DXers (Hounds) calling in can spread out in the rest of the
passband.
In a contest scenario where there will be many Foxes, all trying to
increase their QSO rate, the FT sub-band will be wall-to-wall IMD
QRM. This is a flagrant betrayal of the exceptional signal design
in the basic FT GFSK signal. Not to mention unsportsmanlike
operating in general.
Therefore, the pertinent WW Digi rule is:
XII.A.5. Poor signal quality that interferes with other stations’
ability to operate. This includes, but is not limited to: signals
with excessive bandwidth (e.g., splatter, clicks, IMD), harmonics on
other bands, and excessive audio levels.
One purpose of this rule is to rule out the current Fox and Hound
method in WW Digi, among other signal quality issues like
overdriving the TX audio. It is easy to spot parallel QSOs in a log
and any such cases will be reviewed with SDR recordings. Don't use
the current Fox and Hound implementation in this or any other
contest. Some of the software packages don't allow Fox and Hound
mode when the contest mode is selected, to help participants follow
the rules.
The WWROF webinar the past Sunday, replayed Monday evening NA time,
explained this with spectrum images of clean and ugly FT signals.
The presentation PDF is linked from the WW Digi home page, and the
webinar video recording will be linked there and on the WWROF
webinar archive page later this week.
Ed W0YK
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of
David Gilbert
Sent: 06 August, 2019 12:10
To: 'CQ-Contest@contesting. com' <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
Although it is certainly implied, the rules listed on the WW-Digi
website do not specifically prohibit using more than one signal at the
same time ON THE SAME BAND for the single op category. They say that
transmission can only be on one band at a time, but they don't say you
can't make multiple transmissions at the same time on the same band.
The reason I bring this up is that I just witnessed 5T5PA making three
separate FT8 transmissions on 20m to three different stations all
within
the same fifteen second window. A short time later I saw two separate
transmissions from him to two different stations (and different
stations
than the previous three), again all within the same fifteen second
window. Each simultaneous transmission was spaced exactly 60 Hz apart,
and the software cleanly decoded all signals as if they were from
different callsigns. 5T5PA expertly managed all the QSOs cleanly.
Interestingly enough, even though I've worked 5T5PA before, JTAlert
only
labeled one of the three as a dupe.
I can think of more than a couple of ways 5T5PA could be doing this,
and
for casual operation I see no problem with it. For a DXpedition, it
might even make a lot of sense. I don't remember it being against
FCC/other laws, but I could be wrong about that. In any case, it seems
to me that it could open up the possibility for some controversy in a
contest.
Or maybe I'm just crying wolf here ...
73,
Dave AB7E
_______________________________________________
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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
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
|