[CQ-Contest] CW Skimmer - Don't Change Anything

[ve4xt at mts.net]

Paul,

Why are those arguing to treat something that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a 
duck as a duck "whiners"?

I am not whining about Skimmer: I celebrate the advance in technology and software that has allowed 
its development.

I hope it moves into widespread use in contesting. In a way that allows those who wish to go without to 
continue in a class similar to what they have now. JUST LIKE WITH PACKET!

Would you say that anyone who supports a 100-watt class is a whiner? Would their support of a 100-
watt class mean they are opposed to the use of amplifiers by others? No.

We can accept a class for packet. Why is it so hard to accept it if Skimmer is deemed to be equivalent to 
packet?

73, kelly
ve4xt




> 
> From: "Paul Mackanos - K2DB" <k2db at k2db.org>
> Date: 2008/06/13 Fri AM 08:14:58 CDT
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] CW Skimmer - Don't Change Anything
> 
> We already allow CW decoders.
> We already allow packet spots.
> Skimmer does both.
> Don't change any rules until we have reliable data to change them.
> 
> What's the problem?
> Let me answer my own question, the problem is CHANGE.
> Most everyone is afraid to CHANGE; they are comfortable with things staying
> the same.
> If you like and embrace change, then this is a new technology that you will
> check out. 
> If you don't like change, then we will continue to hear the whining, and all
> that goes along with the bottom line - I don't want to change, so I will
> whine so they change the rules to favor ME.
> 
> >From my LIMITED experience with CW Skimmer I see the following:
> 1) You need a newer SDR (software defined radio) to get the bandwidth needed
> to make Skimmer efficient. I use an Icom 746Pro, and skimmer is USELESS on
> it.
>  I built one of the Softrock kits for 40 meters and it gives me 7.032 to
> 7.080. That's great, now in order to get 7.000 to 7.032 I need to upgrade
> and get a new sound card that samples better. (This would be the case on any
> band you choose - limited bandwidth)
> 2) I can see the signals and click on them and watch them decode, that's
> good, but it makes MISTAKES and my ear copies much more than it decodes on
> the weaker sigs.
> 
>  Unless I am wrong, and I have been wrong before, this is a new technology
> that will be refined and work better in the future than it does now, and it
> will not go away.
> a) Single ops will be in a debate (whining) about it.
> b) Multi-Ops will check it out and possibly use it as another tool. 
> 
> The stations that click on a spot, work it and log it without checking out
> the spot for the accuracy, ie: right call sign, will still do the same with
> a skimmer spot, so nothing changes.
> Single ops that take the time to check out all those wonderful spots from
> skimmer will not have time to be CQing and running a frequency, so they will
> lose. (You ain't winning if you ain't CQing).
> 
> Don't change anything until the data supports it.
> 
> Paul K2DB
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>