Of course it's ironic. It also shows that this challenge is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to change. It is a rear guard action by those who have not accepted that "proficiency in CW by ear" is no
A locally operated Skimmer is completely different than a network of skimmers. Data from outside is assistance, data from one's own station, unless it is generated by a second human operator, is not
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
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
That train has left the station ... the ITU and every other national administration have decided that CW has no unique status or value. There may be those who would like to perpetuate the "art of CW
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
Richard and many others continue to raise the specter of "robot wars" as a result of Skimmer technology. I do not believe that is - or needs to be - the end result of skimmer evolution. Instead, cons
Interpreting the CQ rules as you propose would make SO2R operation and bandscopes "DX Alerting Assistance" - both provide assistance in finding new stations and identifying band openings (e.g. DX).
George, Since you are dealing with monoband antennas the least expensive solution might be in "Improved Stack Switching with Invisible Stubs" by N4TZ/9 - NCJ Nov/Dec 2004. Optimum matching for "any o
Stan, The only use of skimmer technology I have ever supported is with the receiver in the "magic circle." If the automatically derived spots are ported to or delivered by packet, internet, etc. they
There is no doubt that technology of any kind provides "assistance" to the operator. That applies to productivity enhancing technologies like memory keyers, digital voice keyers, computer logging, co
Kelly, You do not have the right to define the debate on your own terms. "Assistance" has always been a shorthand to define a situation where information was provided BY ANOTHER OPERATOR who was not
I am not redefining the debate on my own terms as you have done. I keep trying to bring the debate back to the traditional frame of reference. "Assisted" is simply a shorthand for defining the parti
The word "assisted" has always been shorthand for "single operator plus cluster" and those who persist on focusing on "assistance" rather than the "involvement of another person or persons" miss the
We accept a separate category for "packet/cluster" because it represents "participation by other individuals" and is different than "ONE OPERATOR." Skimmer is not equivalent to packet because is doe
Dick, That's correct - it involves other individuals and is therefore multi-single. No, the real reason the cluster spawned a new category was because those who used the cluster did not want to compe
You may not be suppressing it but it is certainly not being promoted. It gets treated as a "necessary evil" for the multi-op classes. There is no need to consider the value of the information produc
Dick, Sorry, you need to research the history of the so called "assisted" categories. In the late 70's and early 80's before clusters you would see an occasional entry in multisingle labeled "K7ZZZ +
It simply DOES NOT MATTER whether you like it or not - if you don?t like it, don't use it. The rules do not prohibit technology or we would not have memory keyers, computer logging, history files an
Stan, Rather than completely "tossing over" the traditional categories, it would be easier to adopt a simplified EIRP calculation for "power" and perhaps one additional category based on "number of r