CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
From: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <nn3w@cox.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:32:31 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew" <ac6wi@comcast.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge


> Mike Fatchett W0MU wrote:
>
>> Skimmer in the local shack is nothing more than an improved bandscope
>> IMHO.
>
> A bandscope does not alert you to DX as it does not decode the callsigns
> for you or highlight that you haven't worked them already.  Therefore a
> bandscope is not DX alerting assistance.
>
Exactly.  This bandscope issue is a load.  A bandscope doesn't tell you if
someone is CQing.  A bandscope doesn't tell you if its someone tuning up or
PSK.  A bandscope doesn't tell you if the station you worked is a new mult.
A bandscope doesn't tell you if the station who is CQing is a dupe or not.
Hell, with a bandscope, during crowded conditions you can't really tell
where one signal begins and where the  next one ents.

Packet certain does some (or all of these things).  So does Skimmer.

73 Rich NN3W


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>