You are the one who does not know what he's talking about. K0HB is a former Vice Director of the ARRL from the Dakota Division. It's likely that he has better insight into the ARRL than almost anyon
There is a big difference between pre-emptive QSLing (sending a physical card) to every station you work in a contest and a DXpedition uploading logs to Logbook of the World. With the cards, the cal
RTTY (and PSK31) Skimmer should be trivial. WinWarbler (DXLab Suite) already has a "PSK31 Skimmer" type function (in 3 +/- KHz). 73, ... Joe, W4TV _______________________________________________ CQ-
Well, recording the contest, open logs, complete frequencies in the log, clocks linked to NBS, required posting on Live Scores ... it's all nonsense. Next thing you know every contester will be requi
Unfortunately, that horse is not only out of the barn but out of the pasture and already half-way to town. Writelog has included multiple signal CW decoding for 10 (?) years or more. There are a ver
Because the operator is as much a part of the station as are the transmitters, receivers, antennas and computers. Part of building a station in an advantaged location is being there to operate it -
I don't know how one can consider CW Skimmer, as long as it is running on hardware in the operator's own shack, to be "DX alerting assistance" instead of simply a technological way to operate an inf
The "contacts" are as much with the operator as with the "station." The operator is an integral part of the station and without the operator (at least until CW Skimmer develops the ability to answer
The "unfair" advantages are: 1) the ability to build antennas that that would not be available in normal residential areas, 2) the ability to operate from geographically advantaged locations (e.g.,
No, I don't have "QTH envy" nor do I have anything against guest operators who actually travel to the station they are operating. I do oppose stations in a location where the operator is not present
So you would have no problem if I operated a station on Sable or St. Paul without ever being licensed in Canada (put aside US/Canadian reciprocity for this discussion)? How about PJ4, PJ2, FJ, etc. w
Gerry, Allow me to use your post to explain my reasons for arguing that the operator must be within the 500 meter circle ... It would probably be to my financial advantage to be one of the biggest su
Gerry, I don't disagree with anything you have said. I would even agree that remote technology is "forward progress" but I do not believe that it is "amateur radio" or that it belongs in either conte
Bob, I think if you turn the argument around and compare shooting big game from your easy chair with a remotely controlled rifle and using a remotely controlled station in KP4, C6, VP5 or the coast o
Some additional comments ... Keep your eye on the LP-Pan project by N8LP (www.telepostinc.com). LPPAN would replace the buffer/filter and softrock lite. N8LP's software suite will include a multi-por
and One of these receivers could be coupled with its own antenna - either an active receive antenna or multi-band vertical (e.g., HyGain AV-640). If Alex added a "scanning" function to moved Skimmer
There is absolutely a clear, bright, absolute difference between information (not "spots") that comes from one's own station and information generated by other operators whether it be from packet, t
By this logic ** EVERY ** RTTY operator is "assisted" since I doubt there is a single contester who can copy RTTY in his head with even 80% accuracy. The argument that any machine, no matter how com
There would be no question that CW Skimmer is not assistance if the cluster system were not so widely abused. CW Skimmer is simply the next step in the evolution of contest hardware that started wit
Just as I contend that allowing remote operation via commercial means will surely kill the hobby. The difference is that Skimmer technology will change the hobby and we can adapt to that change. rep