[CQ-Contest] Skimmer musings
Joe Subich, W4TV
w4tv at subich.com
Mon Apr 28 09:13:02 EDT 2008
Ward,
> Dealing with automated reception differently than automated
> transmission is appropriate because only reception can initiate
> a QSO; whether in response to a solicitation (CQ) or from tuning
> to a solicitation (S&P). Reception is qualitatively different
> in this regard than transmission.
The same can be said for automated transmission (using a keyer
to call CQ): only a solicitation (calling CQ) can result in a
QSO. Unless someone "advertises" that they are on frequency
and ready to answer any response, there can be no QSO. In that
regard, the use of automated transmission is a unique advantage.
In any case, the "automated reception" ship has already sailed.
With up to twelve decoders integrated into Writelog, CW decoding
in MixW (with contest capability), and the availability of CW Get,
CW DecoderXP, MRP40, MultiPSK, and many others, there is no way
to put the "automated reception" genie back in the bottle. The
capability has existed for nearly 10 years although many are only
now waking up to its existence.
While the top tier operators have typically not made use of
automated reception its use has not been prohibited or restricted
to certain entry classes. In that regard, the argument over
automated reception is like the old joke that ends: "young lady
we have already established what you are, we're simply haggling
over price."
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list