EI5DI wrote: Regardless of how we got here, or how well-intentioned the developers were/are, we should not be here. K6STI and myself agreed in 1991 NOT to launch DSP CW contest robots giving diehard
We were well aware of the robot impact on hamradio hobby! I am glad there is none even today. Mine made 200+ CW QSO in ARRL DX in 1991. Listening to it, I felt like physicist discovering atomic bomb.
N6TJ wrote: Like G3SXW opined, for me now to get on and soon be spotted by the legion of packeteers, all calling on the same frequency, many having no clue as to my callsign, IS NOT FUN. I know sever
K5MO wrote: I'll gladly prefer using a key to turning on a "station" and letting computers blather at one another unattended for a weekend under the guise of "ham radio contesting". Computers are doi
I vividly remember 3 contesting "made" events: 1. 1991 CW DSP robot making 200+ QSO in ARRL DX having problems with polar flutter at 20 m opening. I was "better" knowing active callsigns. It can be i
IARU contest had become the bad showcase of EU nationalism. Only exception known to me is E7HQ which unites 3 local hamradio societies. I wish more EU stations take part in Field Days. Once upon a ti
EI5DI wrote: Does anyone believe that, had these spotting figures been reversed, ES5TV and ES2RR would not be in first place? LU5DX statistics are very selective. K1TTT gives broader view. Cheerleadi
N6TJ wrote: Call CQ. Make a QSO. Then QSY at least 5KHz before CQing again. Tetris was much more sophisticated game but it was "Made in Russia"! Autokey and Writelog with CW decoder enabled are enoug
N6TJ wrote: It's late, and now every time I read the word DUPE, it's increasingly looking like I wrote DOPE. Leave "DUPE"! It makes us Slavs laugh as it means "ASS" in our languages "DOPE" could be b
EI5DI wrote: My hobby is amateur radio contesting. Yours is something else - I suggest internet contesting. ITU definition: A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommuni
N6TJ wrote: Oh to be young again. I should know better, but Tonno, I have no clue as to your age or as to when you started this seriously. Jim, with all due respect, you should know better! I am sure
N6TJ wrote: You may rest assured I'll be changing speeds between test and call this November. Please beware that you would confuse a lot of code readers, wrong DX Cluster spots will follow adding to
K8MR wrote: If you give him a 33(9) and bust his info, it may be partly the other guy's fault for being so weak, or the fault of neither of you that there was so much QRM and QRN, so therefore not so
CT1BOH wrote: With Skimmer reverse beacon network, spotting will rely on robots. Everybody will be spotted about the same for same conditions. It's democracy into packet spots. Jose, I am afraid I am
AA5JG wrote: Right now I just "tolerate" SSB contesting, but skimmer might lead me to become mainly a SSB contester. CW Skimmer is a great development well merged with modern SDR technology! I am sur
Good, old days with tubes in TX and VFO running on lower frequencies generating less wideband noise. I tried years ago to fix FT-1000D for VHF transverter but found wideband TX noise being only -80 d
Pete, can you imagine how much fun EU contesters have fast typing up to 2K QTC for 36/48 hours? Small group of most dedicated ones would ask you for QTC. It is a favour for you as 10 QTC points are m
Hi Pete, You really touched EU nerve :-) You popularity seems to be very high with CW Skimmer. I might save you soon with CW Expert robot. Your propossal about 4 hours EU RTTY type test in CW mode is
EI5DI wrote: To use a CW decoder (including Skimmer) in a CW contest reduces CW to the status of "just another data mode". CW IS digital mode using On_Off_Amplitude_Keying and Morse code. Human brain
Please find enclosed S53MV table about radio digital modes! Progress is about 100 times in 100 years... Mode Year Info BW Efficiency CW 1900 10bit/s 100Hz 0.1 bit/s/Hz RTTY 1950 50bit/s 250Hz 0.2 bit