CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW + Skimmer

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW + Skimmer
From: Hank Greeb <n8xx@arrl.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:54:07 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I see the day of "Zero Operator, Multi Transmitter" classification 
coming very soon.

Why not?  if a skimmer can decode the entire band, why can't it be 
configured to control the transceiver, call CQ, respond to calls 
received, decode what is received, place it in a log, etc.

"May the best programmer of the computer robot software win" in this new 
category.

73 de n8xx Hg

On 12/23/2010 3:00 PM, Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> wrote:
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:43:20 -0500
> From: Pete Smith<n4zr@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW + Skimmer
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Message-ID:<4D13A658.3020305@contesting.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> The Skimmer CW decoder is great, but when it is decoding one signal, it is 
> also simultaneously decoding anything else that is within its passband, 
> whether that is 3 KHz or 192 KHz.  Only one signal is decoded at the bottom 
> of the page, but you can read the others, including retrospectively, simply 
> by clicking on them.  Moreover, it can't keep itself from decoding the 
> callsigns of stations that are within its passband.
>
> As Al has re-stated the rule, the example of CW Skimmer is perfectly 
> appropriate, because it cannot be used in a single-signal mode solely to 
> decode exchange information.  It also happens to be the only extant example 
> of its type, but who knows what may be coming next?
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> <snip>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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