[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
Mike Fatchett W0MU
w0mu at w0mu.com
Wed Jun 18 13:40:10 EDT 2008
What happens when Skimmer is integrated into a bandscope and not called
skimmer and those "spots" are fed to the computer via the radio
directly......I guess any type of code reading should be addressed to? Lots
of programs read code.
This is a very cool advancement.
The old guard cronyism in this hobby needs to go away and needs to embrace
things that will bring me people into our hobby and encourage hams to try
The gov't is making all of the EMS/fire/police change
systems............why.........why else....they can sell that spectrum.
When a business figures out a way to use our spectrum and make money we will
Since there is plenty of cheating already going on just simplify the rules
and have a single class for single ops. Use whatever tools you can the best
way you can. Just don't use other people to man your gear.
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael Coslo
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:00 AM
To: CQ-Contest Reflector
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
On Jun 18, 2008, at 10:07 AM, w5ov at w5ov.com wrote:
> It is neither A nor B.
> The point of these rules is simply that a single operator should do
> everything himself.
> Why is this such a difficult mystery to unravel?
It isn't a mystery. What it is is trying to force a rule to be about
something that it wasn't addressing.
> Such a rule could have been written during spark gap days and it would
> still be valid in 2058.
Because much of what amateur operators take for granted today would
seem like a miracle to a Ham of yesteryear, I'd have to respectfully
disagree. I suspect that hams of that era would consider using a
machine that checks partials and dupes, and automatic antenna tuners
that tune you up as you switch bands, bandscopes that show you where
other signals are on the band, and machines that send your CW
information with the push of a single button as powerful assistance.
We know all the arguments about that. Lots of people from all over
the spectrum, from outright banning to defining it as assisted, to
not another person feeding you the info, so its not assisted.
And I'm not arguing that the Op should have to use only their Rig,
and a pencil and paper and a straight key. I'm saying that the issue
must be addressed.
My point is that reasonable people can disagree, and both sides have
valid points. Someone somewhere will make a decision on this. They
need fed the best opinions in a civil manner to make those decisions.
Then they have to choose.
> I think a review of the wording of the CQWW rule makes all of this
> perfectly clear.
Yet there are many who don't think so, We could either be obtuse, or
maybe there is something to be said for addressing the issue
What I would suggest is allowing evaluation of the device to make an
informed decision about just what the technology is and isn't. I'm
doing that now.
I kinda want to give this whole issue a rest too. We know what the
various players think about it, best to cogitate about it a while,
come up with a plan to address it, and see what happens.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest