Nice work, but I don't believe you can capture relative polar path differences by using just the maximum latitude of the path. It's more complicated than that. There can be dramatic differences in re
Boy, I'd love that. It would reduce the frequency of eye rolling when I miss family time over Thanksgiving or Memorial Day weekend (or our anniversary, which is May 29) for the umpteenth time. I've m
On the one hand, the rate is lower in SS than the major DX contests, so you can use the second radio more. This is especially true on Sunday, when things can get very slow. On the other hand, the lon
Certain issues that are not specifically addressed by the rules come down to personal views. The purpose of the article cited by Steve is to provide a set of guidelines as to what is generally accept
Interesting question. Off the top of my head, I would have said that sending spots is legal for Single-Op stations. I'm certain that I'm not alone in believing that this has been the understanding am
You win $100. If you want to know more about the intentions, take a look at the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee Report on CW Skimmer, which is attached to the CAC's November 2008 semi-annual report t
Big difference? No, maybe and yes. No -- in the sense of the primary benefit provided to the operator. The ARRL has taken the position that local skimmer spots, remote skimmer spots and packet spots
Welcome to contesting, Jim! You've chosen to get involved in the best ham radio has to offer :-) There are a number of problems with your argument: First, as someone else pointed out, it's not necess
As W9RE pointed out, one of the problems with Skimmer is that more stations are zero-beat in your pileup, making it more difficult to separate the signals. It's generally worse when a lot of lower-po
Ed, Several of the Super Multis that hang out at the bottom of the band use a certain brand of radio that, IMHO, doesn't deal with interference as well as other radios. As for relative loudness, the
I'm no longer on the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee, and certainly don't speak for ARRL, but since I led the CAC's deliberations on Remote Operating and CW Skimmer, maybe I can shed some light on th
Well, Bob, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Not surprising: this subject is unlikely to every result in unanimous agreement. I do want to correct one impression you got from my email. I shou
"Come into my trap", said the spider to the fly. :-) You're absolutely correct, Bob. And by that same logic, a local CW Skimmer is legal for Single Op. One operator is doing everything, and he's alo
Brian makes an excellent point that checking propagation via the RBN can result in "false spots" that waste time for Unlimited and Multi-op stations. I wouldn't outlaw the practice for that reason, b
If the CW decoder is used only on the frequency to which your radio is tuned, it's legal for the Single Op (unassisted) category in ARRL contests. If it's part of a multi-channel decoder that provide
There's also a set of Guidelines for HF Operating, aka the "Contesting FAQ", written by the CAC. You'll find it buried on the ARRL website: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HF-FAQ
Don, you are a man after my own heart! I'm totally paranoid about security scenarios, which is one reason LoTW security is so tight. However, I think the scenario you describe isn't plausible. As I u
The problem is that we don't have complete agreement on what means are "inappropriate". During the CW Skimmer debates on the reflector, many held the position that its use should be allowed in the S
It's not as easy to cheat in DXCC as you think. You might be able to get away with a faked QSL or two with non-rare countries, which is pretty meaningless, but it's very difficult to cheat on a semi-
Not true. Without access to AA1AA's log, how exactly would you construct the AA1AA log that has a lower score? Exactly what QSOs would you put in it? Remember, every QSO must match a QSO in another l