[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