Any rule like this will doom CW contesting to an accelerated death. Perhaps 10% of those making contacts in CW contests are currently using "copying assistance" - Writelog's decoder, CW Get alongside
David, The local connections (microphone, headphone, etc.) are necessary and part of amateur radio. When these necessary connections are replaced or extended by commercial means of communication, the
Stan, CW Skimmer is not "automation" but then you don't seem to care about facts, only your inflammatory opinions. I have been contesting for thirty years so dont give me any "holier than thou" bull.
Nobody has even used CW Skimmer "in anger" yet. To be fretting about fully automated stations is an awfully big leap. I have been watching the stuff that comes out of Pete's Skimmer and there is a l
Randy, If you replace "skimmer" with "packet" one has an entirely different situation. With packet the information is coming from another OPERATOR and that, by definition, should place one in the mul
No skimmer network can duplicate the skimmer spots I receive from my own copy of Skimmer running on the S&P radio. That is totally contained in my station and not the product of any other operator.
The significant advantage of Skimmer - particularly in a DX contest, will be to narrow the significant multiplier advantage of those in favored locations. It will allow the "disadvantaged" stations
If you are running Skimmer at your own station and it hears the station, you should be able to work it. Those in 8-land, 9-land, 0-land, etc. often miss short openings because they don't think a ban
Skimmer is no more "assistance" than a memory keyer or computer logging. I'm sure the rules are written on the assumption that assistance must come from another person - either another operator in t
Amen! Amateur contesting is not a competition to see who copies CW better than anyone else. It is a competition to see who can make the most contacts and work the most multipliers in a specific time
So, have you looked at Skimmer output data? I'd like to hear half the rare multipliers that show up in the data from Pete's skimmer (P5, E4, 1S, etc.). The operator STILL needs to copy the correct c
You're correct there is no technological difference between assisted and unassisted - the difference it that another PERSON is providing the information in the assisted class. Where the information
No, they don't do the same thing but ALL TECHNOLOGY is assistance in one form or another. Technology assists he operator to be more efficient - whether it is to listen on more than one place (SOnR),
CW Skimmer is a new application of existing technology (CW decoders, broadband receivers, panadapters, additional receiver, etc.) that allows an operator to be more productive IN ANOTHER AREA of the
One can use CW Skimmer locally without being connected to a wider network just as one can use a second receiver without locating it outside "the circle." One is legitimate, the other is not. The tec
Scott, You have all the "words" but you are not parsing them correctly. The computer is not a person, therefore skimmer (so long as it is local) fits entirely within the single operator category sinc
The only thing Skimmer does is present the data in a different format. It's certainly not the first CW decoder - they've been around for 15 maybe 20 years. It's certainly not the first panadapter -
Jim, I'm sorry you feel that way but the "copy by ear" train left the station many years ago. Not only is CW decoding integral to Writelog, Amateur radio has not required that skill as an entry requi
I'd recognize any of the calls I've held - and entered contests with over the last 30 years - including AD8I, W8IK, K4IK and W4TV at 50 WPM. However, I would certainly not be foolish enough to respo
Ward, The same can be said for automated transmission (using a keyer to call CQ): only a solicitation (calling CQ) can result in a QSO. Unless someone "advertises" that they are on frequency and read