[CQ-Contest] Skimmer and M/2, M/M

Mark Beckwith n5ot at n5ot.com
Fri Jun 13 11:28:12 EDT 2008

Gosh Hal, should I be embarrassed to be your teammate?  Such a diabolical 

:) just kidding.  Kudos for putting it out here on the table.

It seems like this sort of thing you suggest is unsportsmanlike and should 
not be allowed by the rules.  It's a well understood fact that since the 
"soon-to-be-dropped" idea of "assistance" came up in the first place, 
sponsors felt they had no choice but to allow a free-for-all at Multi 
stations.  Yet whereas most multis have ready access to all the spots they 
could want, some don't, and there are others who would just prefer not to 
play that way but feel like they have to in order to keep up.  The skimmer 
klooge recycles all of the same arguments/feelings/opinions and takes it all 
to new depths.

So, consistent with how spots were handled years ago, I think it's a 
foregone conclusion that multis will use skimmer right up to the limit of 
advantage they (we) can wring out of it, and still not get beat up too bad 
by their peers.

I am not seeing anything presently "illegal" in what you suggest.

Mark, N5OT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hal Kennedy" <halken at comcast.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 7:25 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer and M/2, M/M

> The discussion has been centered on single op so far and on finding
> mults - but there are tremendous potential ramifications for M/2 and M/M
> as well as run frequency assistance in single op - and this needs some
> thought as we ponder new rules.  M/S, M/2 and M/M categories have always
> been allowed packet, consistent with the thought that they are multi-op
> categories by definition and packet is simply adding more ops.  If we
> are going to allow Skimmer in any single op category, then by extension
> it will be allowed in M/S, M/2 and M/M.  Here is a scenario that's
> troubling me:  I head off the PJ4O (like I did this past February) and
> leave a Skimmer running on a receiver at home - at N4GG.  It's on a
> receiver I can control, but it feeds spots into the packet network, or
> as a minimum its URL is published so that it is public and anyone can
> log into it.  The bandwidth is 1 KHz and the receiver is always on my
> run QRG at PJ4O, making it invaluable to me and useless to everyone
> else.  Taking an audio feed from the N4GG receiver is against the rules
> - the receiver is outside the 500 meter circle of PJ4O.  But taking a
> packet (or Skimmer) feed - one that is public - is okay by existing
> rules.  With this Skimmer feed I can raise my 160 total at PJ4O from 300
> Qs to 900 Qs in a weekend - no problem.  Well, actually it's a big
> problem unless we develop some Skimmer rules for the multi categories.
> This scenario may not even need a dedicated receiver at home.  If I can
> find a really good 160 Skimmer in operation in the US, then as a DX
> multi station Ill be able to run the all those 100W stations I never
> could copy before.  This also applies to big-gun single op stations in
> run mode.  A good Skimmer in EU will boost the run rate of a single-op
> station in the US, particularly on bands like 80 and 160.  Skimmer may
> be more helpful (destructive?) in run mode than it is in S&P.
> Hal N4GG
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1501 - Release Date: 6/13/2008 
> 6:33 AM

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list