Tom, I think maybe you misunderstood where I'm coming from. Unlike Joe,
W4TV, I believe that using Skimmer is just like using a cluster, only
more powerful. I have never argued for Skimmer use *not* putting
someone in the assisted category. I was simply trying to refute
Charly's argument that it takes all the skill out of operating.
One of the interesting things about CW Skimmer is that it is cumulative.
For a single op, that means that you can mute the Skimmer SDR while
you're transmitting, and it will pick up with spotting as soon as you
stop. I see this happen all the time here - Skimmer will spot a station
or two as soon as I am not transmitting any longer.
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
On 12/2/2012 10:29 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
Charly, the only thing that Skimmer replaces is the physical act of
tuning the radio.
For me, the objectionable part of skimmer is the removal or lessening
of operator skill. I equate it to using a code reader. Local skimmer,
used in single op, replaces the three acts of tuning the radio,
copying the call, and entering the call in a data base. It gives the
local station a form of automatic spotting system.
The local technical requirements of isolating the receiver from the
transmitter are significant on lower bands with high power, but it is
possible to do. A conventional SDR here overloaded badly from the
transmitter on 160 meters, but I'm sure that could have been cured. On
80 meters and up a local SDR here can get into noise floor without
local transmitter problems. The result would be a window filled with
locally generated "spots" that require no operator assistance.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, but it sure seems to be contrary
to real single-op unassisted. With a low noise floor, a bandmap could
fill with hundreds of useful locally generated spots. There isn't much
difference between that and using a cluster.
CQ-Contest mailing list