This is not the same as the analysis I do... the spotting being discussed here is someone spotting stations calling you in your pileup, not spotting you so others can find you. This would not make s
Except that if those really were PRIVATE spotting nets, then neither Dave nor anyone else would be able to see what was happening on those nets. It would be totally undetectable. If the rules really
Agreed....... Skimmer in the local shack is nothing more than an improved bandscope IMHO. You still need to verify the callsign of the stations that are shown. You still need to tune to that staion,
Exactly my point. You did not copy the callsign. Thanks for making it crystal clear. 73, kelly ve4xt _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Mike, Skimmer changes it into something that can be automatic. This is a completely different animal than a "good-hearted" individual sitting there copying callsigns and typing them on a keyboard all
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:54:20 -0500
Hi Kelly, Not so. A local Skimmer tells me what MY station can hear but the Cluster tells me what others can hear. Moreover, it requires action on the part of another person to feed me that informati
{with skimmer} Hi Mike. I'm confused. With packet you don't have to verify the stations that are shown, but with Skimmer you do? I think part of the original thread was people who can't read fast CW
A bandscope does not alert you to DX as it does not decode the callsigns for you or highlight that you haven't worked them already. Therefore a bandscope is not DX alerting assistance. How so? With D
Perhaps. Although I am skeptical that knowing which inaudible stations are calling me would be quite so beneficial. Even if I'm being fed callsigns (assumed to be correct), once I get a callsign, I'm
Exactly. This bandscope issue is a load. A bandscope doesn't tell you if someone is CQing. A bandscope doesn't tell you if its someone tuning up or PSK. A bandscope doesn't tell you if the station yo
Does anyone want to argue that using a "Code Reader" is NOT assistance. I can think of no greater poster child for DEFINING Assistance than a code reader. Lets just put an end to the endless debate b
No we haven't. Read the CQWW rules which clearly state "The use of DX alerting assistance of any kind places the station in the Single Operator Assisted category". The key part of that is "DX alertin
Sure, I'll argue that! You are arguing that a piece of software/hardware that operates slower and less accurately than your brain is 'assistance' in a contest environment, bull! I consider a code re
As literally read this places any operator that turns their dial to alert themselves to the presence of dx in the assisted category. So2r operators are way into the assisted category since they can
If you consider a code reader to be assistance, why not a memory keyer or computer generated cw? For that matter, computer logging. All of those give the operator as much assistance as a code reader.
but obviously if you don't turn your dial you can't be alerted to the frequency or calls of stations not on your cqing frequency, so you are assisted by turning the knob... having a second knob so y
Sorry, but if the operator tunes the radio and finds stations to work, he is not receiving assistance. He is doing the job himself.. A more legitmate arguement than this one could be made to those w
Sure they are - but only to those who believe that CW is just another data mode. The rest of us know better. 73, Paul EI5DI _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-
I wasn't clear exactly about what a code reader is, but if it's something like a PK232 which decodes Morse into text, then I think the same as Dave. My feelings on them are that I'd never use one mys
'assistance' in Come on Dave! With all due respect, your brain, my brain and our peer's brains are certainly not capable of simultaneously listening to and decoding every signal within a 48 kHz, 96