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

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

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

We accept a separate category for "packet/cluster" because it 
represents "participation by other individuals" and is different 
than "ONE OPERATOR."  Skimmer is not equivalent to packet because 
is does not involve any other individual.  

Entry classes are defined by ONLY three criteria: 
   1) transmitter power level
   2) number (one or multiple) or operators 
   3) number of simultaneous transmitters 

There is no basis to say that local skimmer technology is equivalent 
to "involvement of another person."  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of ve4xt at mts.net
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:10 AM
> To: k2db at k2db.org; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CW Skimmer - Don't Change Anything
> 
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com 
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest