[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] down the path with Dave

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] down the path with Dave
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 15:37:04 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>


While I've never used CW Skimmer to decode callsigns or text in a contest, I have played around with it in that mode (local) and in general I don't find it to be as accurate as the spots I can get from DX Summit or other cluster. In my opinion, the only thing that makes CW Skimmer more "powerful" for a contest is the aggregation capability that has been secondarily developed to do things like forcing three different CW Skimmers to agree on the callsign, etc.

The part about CW Skimmer being better because it can be local is somewhat debatable, again in my opinion. I don't usually operate assisted, but when I do I typically snag spots from DX Summit to load the N1MM bandmap. Even though I might not be able to hear a station at the time of the spot I get alerted to the fact that he's on the band, and I can periodically check to try to catch him even if he would be too weak for CW Skimmer to reliably pull him out of the noise. In that respect I could almost make a case that DX Summit is considerably more "assisted" than is CW Skimmer.

I really believe that all this angst over CW Skimmer is way more emotional than objective. Hell, CW decoders by themselves are even legal in any contest I know of for UNASSISTED operation. I firmly believe that using CW Skimmer puts a station in the assisted category, but aside from that I'm having a really hard time understanding why it is any more insidious than any other spotting assistance.

Dave   AB7E

On 12/2/2012 11:05 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
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 think it is more powerful too, especially when the skimmer is good and local. The problem is having the skimmer hear as well as a receiver and the main ears.

I was simply trying to refute
Charly's argument that it takes all the skill out of operating.

Well, it does remove some of the skill requirements. It can be like a second spotting op.

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.

I'm a performance perfectionist, so I think it should decode all the time. Plus some people have two transmitters running without gaps. Besides, who ever stops sending to listen?? :-)

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>