The current headline from Radio-Sport.net indicated the Skimmer will be allowed in the IARU by S/O competitors. Assuming that is correct, that is a total game-changer. The WPX was not a contest where
Jim .... The IARU allows skimmer, not the ARRL. They say they are NOT one in the same. Well ..... that's what they say. In any event, I agree with you. 73 Hank K8DD -- 'Never argue with an idiot. The
The camels nose (more like an elephants nose) is now in our tent. This is not league contest and the rules should not be subject to BoD or any other ARRL policy branch like CAC. I'm disappointed that
The rules say: "Use of spotting nets or packet is not permitted." The quote from K1ZZ reported on Radio-Sport.net is: "The 2008 rules are as published," was the succinct reply from ARRL Chief Executi
Spotting *nets*. Local Skimmer, where the equipment is on your premises, is not a "net". Nor is it "packet". Nets and packet presume stations established by others, set up by others, whose operating
Perhaps what is needed is a new Class rather than trying to resolve the debate about Skimmer and the existing ones quickly. Suppose we establish a new, Single Operator No Skimmer class. [SONS] Then t
"Now, if the contest community decides local Skimmer for SO entries is a bad idea, we should certainly reasonably expect contest sponsors to consider changing the rules to ban it. (I think that's a b
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
Oh, c'mon. We've only seen ONE contest that may or may not have had a signifcantly significant use of the skimmer, and already there's complaints about it's use and non-use, and implications of boyco
Stan, Back off and stop letting your prejudices overrule logic. Local Skimmers are NOT in any way shape or form a "Spotting net." They are not a network, they are not packet and they are not the inte
"The sum of an operator is his ability to integrate ALL of the tools: technology, experience and operating skill. A contest measures all of that - not simply the operator's ability to copy CW by ear.
Joe, What's code got to do, got to do with it....What's code, but an outdated mode.....Who wants to operate when a computer will do it for you.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
No! It does not fall within the "intent" or a spotting net. A spotting net is ASSISTANCE FROM OUTSIDE THE STATION - not a LAN within the station. Get it through your head, Skimmer when run on a rece
Agreed. In way of comparison, I recently bought a new mobile radio which I connected to my computer to run Ham Radio Deluxe. Nice free program, I suggest checking it out. One of it's features is a ba
CW skimmer also decodes and identifies the stations for you. CW skimmer does something that a human can not do - it decodes hundreds of CW signals across the band segment it is listening to. All of t
Joe (W4TV), I would like for you to cite your source for your definition of what assisted means. "The use of DX alerting assistance of any kind places the station in the Single Operator Assisted cate
Sorry to disagree (and still doing a lot of paper logging, i.e. when guest-op at a friendīs house for a few hours). Computer logging make things much easier and faster (calls need not to be written a
Prior to Skimmer, the only way to detect DX stations other than by tuning across them with the main or second receiver was information from another human operator. In the CQ rules, "of any kind" is
Bob, The stations competing as WRTC participants all have basically the exact same station and antennas as I understand it. This is not true in "real world" competition. Then there is the real estate
Hi George: Some interesting information [from my point of view] in your email. I really agree with this: I noticed this almost immediately after I started operating from Idaho in the early 2000's . I