[CQ-Contest] Skimmer

[Jack Brindle]

This sounds strangely like  a discussion that W1FB and I had back  
when K1TN and I were colleagues at ARRL (1977). Doug argued that for  
ham radio, computers were in the world of esoterics.  Doug quickly  
changed his mind, as have most of the rest of us. Computers are a  
tool that relieve us from some tasks, allowing us to concentrate on  
other important things. This has been used extensively in the field  
of aviation, where cockpit automation allows pilots to concentrate on  
flying the airplane and look for problems the computers have a  
difficulty identifying. Since the first attempts at automating  
contest stations this has been true also, relieving the op first of  
dupe checking and logging, then progressively of more and more tasks.

Early on it was decided that having the station send the CQs, then  
the actual exchange, was perfectly acceptable. This seemingly simple  
activity is paramount in allowing the use of SO2R in contesting. Was  
the use of programmed keyers in contesting controversial? Yup. But  
since there was no internet for these discussions, they went nowhere,  
and the practice was widely adopted. As it has been pointed out, many  
similar functions have followed, some more controversial than others.  
Few debate the use of automated antenna switching or antenna  
pointing, while SCP, history files, packet spotting and a few others  
have drawn heated debate, some leading to special categories. It is  
very interesting that automated keying did not cause a special  
category, even though it may have created the biggest shift of all  
the functions so far. Perhaps the timing of its adoption is the  
important point.

We know the effects of the use of packet spotting in contests, and  
its uses are well discussed. Some of us like some of the things it  
brings to the party (additional stations to work), or dislike its  
negatives (what a distraction!). The fact that it must be used in a  
separate category definitely causes us to decide whether we wish to  
use it, moving us into a seemingly inferior place of competition. For  
myself, I far prefer being in the low-power class than in the  
unlimited class where everyone beats me up...

Is Skimmer really a function that will change everything, or is it  
another feature that offloads part of our operation, allowing us to  
concentrate on other important things? Many posters here expect it to  
be a major disruptor, but is it any more disruptive than SO2R? Does  
it really offload work for us? Using it means that it is finding the  
potential QSOs for us, but we still have to validate the station and  
work them. In other words, with the exception of sending the actual  
CW, we still have to do the work. Does that rate a separate class?  
Are we too early in trying to limit its use or moving it into a  
separate category?

As for computers, I ended up building the computer I proposed oh so  
long ago, and have built and owned many since. They provide a major  
tool that allows me to do other things. I suspect the same is true  
for Jim as well. I do hope he is out enjoying the weekend, though. ;-)


On Apr 26, 2008, at 6:47 AM, James Cain wrote:

> When I first tried CT, K1EA's groundbreaking contest software, in  
> 1988, I don't recall it being a big deal to get running on my  
> powerful PC XT confuser. CT kept my log for me and sent CW out  
> through an LPT port to a key jack. CT did two things I could do  
> myself; keeping a log and dupe sheet, and doubling as a memory  
> keyer. I published a 4-page QST article on the subject, "The Mind  
> of the Contester."
>
> I don't see how a (local) skimmer can do anything I can't do  
> myself, ie, tune the band. It can't copy, er, decode, CW any better  
> than I. Actually, it apparently isn't close.
>
> If somebody is so sensorily deprived that he needs a skimmer for  
> his single op effort, and is willing to do all the hookups, and the  
> skimmer is entirely local to his station and antennas, I  
> congratulate him on his efforts, and good luck. The log checking,  
> UBN or LCR or whatever, will render the verdict.
>
> This hobby is about radio, not confusers. I get enough of that at  
> work....
>
> Jim Cain, K1TN
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

- Jack Brindle, W6FB (ex-WA4FIB, ex-WB5KQJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
---------------------