What I said was that I think it falls within the "INTENT" of a spotting net. When the rules were written, there was no such thing as Skimmer. Since we are using those words that were put in place be
Joe, What's code got to do, got to do with it....What's code, but an outdated mode.....Who wants to operate when a computer will do it for you. Crap, now I'll have that tune in my head for the next w
Perhaps this is something that would have appeal and solve some potential problems. Here is my suggestion - A NEW CONTEST All Band Distance Challenge (ABDC) Mixed Mode, CW Only, Phone Only - One con
George, What I did for 20M was to make two stack matching devices - homebrew using some information T93M gave me. One stack matching unit is on the tower with two 20M antennas fixed on Europe. The ot
About half of the problems with Skimmer (aside from taking away certain operator skills - not a trivial issue) has to do with allowing Skimmer/SDR to be accessed remotely. A SDR is a receiver and, if
Disguise - That is a good idea but I can't take credit for being that innovative in this case. I did not know it would be disguised so you could not tell remote receiver/Skimmer from a human packet s
Instead of trying to explain, I'll instead ask another dumb question and maybe kill 2 birds with one stone. Is there a list of approved "networks" for Assisted, M/S and M/M or would a telnet connect
David (K1TTT), I am going to spell this out as simply as I can. I am going to try to answer my own questions. Let me know if I answer any of my questions incorrectly. 1. Is there anything in the rule
You did miss the point, David. This has nothing to do with single operator Unassisted versus Assisted or local Skimmer setups. It has to do with Assisted, Multi-Single and Multi-Multi and the use of
You are correct in saying that SOA is not competitive as a whole with Single Operator but cannot draw any conclusions as to the benefit or lack of benefit the spotting the assisted stations receive b
You are correct in the history of this, since Skimmer was not developed when the rule was written. However, there are a few questions. 1. Was the rule made so that there would be a category for the
Joe - If I bought into your definition of DX alerting assistance of any kind, but had my viewpoint on Skimmer, I would then argue, using your logic, that if someone put out a very short CQ (which wil
Joe, If you don't agree that "arranging schedules" by a third party is soliciting contacts, that is great. It puts your judgment in question on every other definition you have made regarding this sub
Dick, I agree with Mark and others on this. I believe the intent of the rule was that the single operator would tune his radio to find stations to work. The source that would provide a list of statio
Great analysis, Brett! You are exactly correct. The rules are clear, however it seems there is a desire among some to either use the correct reading of what is written OR twist it into something it d
Good analysis of the problem. However, Skimmer does introduce something new and that is the ability for someone have that "good heart" and spot all the stations calling in the pile-up without having
Although the current rule is pretty clear to me for CQ WW, here is a start. This will hold up somewhere between 10 minutes and 50 years depending on whether it is clear or not. Those stations at whic
Following is an idea that would perhaps please more people: To address the discussions about whether it is fair that this operator can afford two radios versus only one for someone else, whether this
Bob, This category would not compete with the traditional category, and it would not matter whether the winning score is double that of the other category. If I were operating as a traditional single
Mike, Skimmer changes it into something that can be automatic. This is a completely different animal than a "good-hearted" individual sitting there copying callsigns and typing them on a keyboard all