[CQ-Contest] NAQP CW + Skimmer
Aldewey at aol.com
Aldewey at aol.com
Thu Dec 23 08:38:34 PST 2010
I would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments on this
subject on behalf of NCJ.
When multi-channel band decoders for CW started to show up several years
ago, there were strong feelings on both sides of this issue. Some felt
strongly that, as long as there was no assistance from any source outside the
station , including the Internet and packet cluster of course, than it should
be treated like any other technological advance. Others felt that is it
indistinguishable from packet spotting assistance and even, perhaps,
superior to it.
Although NCJ does not have an official "Contest Committee", issues related
to the NCJ contests are discussed among all the NCJ contest managers.
Often, input is solicited from others also. Final decisions rest with the
Contest Manager for each of the 6 contests we sponsor. For the Sprints, it was
obvious that the allowing the use of multi-channel band decoders made no
sense because of the QSY rule. It really came down to being an issue for
the CW NAQP. We decided to allow it in the Single Operator Class as long as
there was no connection via the internet or any other outside source. In
2009, the NAQP rule was changed to state:
"Technological methods of copying the information in the contest exchange
are permitted as long as they are entirely contained within the station."
This rule was intended to allow technologies like CW Skimmer as long as
they were self contained within the station. It has been in place for two
years. Ironically, because we did NOT get any feedback on this, we began to
suspect that they rule was unclear. Did some people, perhaps, think this
was referring to MASTERDAT and Contest Exchange Data bases? So, for 2011,
we change the rule to state:
"Technological methods of copying the information in the contest exchange
(e.g. CW Skimmer, Code Readers, etc.) are permitted as long as all
components are entirely contained within the station."
So we have not CHANGED the rule - we have only CLARIFIED it.
Also, we understand the danger of identifying a specific tool such as CW
Skimmer in the rules but, at this point in time, this is what contesters are
aware of. This is why we identified it as an example. As new
technologies arrive, this will have to be revisited. The fact that adding CW Skimmer
as an example rather than just using the words "technological methods" sort
of proves this point.
I realize that this is a very sensitive subject. In fact, I cover this
topic in a little more detail in my editorial for the Jan/Feb , 2011 issue of
NCJ. I also realize that this will not make everyone happy. Personally,
I do not plan to use CW Skimmer myself in NAQP as I enjoy the challenge of
finding the multipliers myself.
73,
Al, K0AD
In a message dated 12/23/2010 6:47:48 A.M. Central Standard Time,
k1ttt at verizon.net writes:
that just goes to prove my point that brand names should be avoided. CW
Skimmer is well known for generating spotting information so many people see
that name and assume that is its only purpose. but it also makes a nice
audio passband code reader. In this case it is lumped in with 'code
readers' for copy 'exchange information', after specifically excluding all
sources of spotting information... so 'obviously' the writer of the rule change
understands that it can be used just as a code reader and wants to allow
that while excluding the user from decoding a whole band for spotting
purposes. While this is an improvement over other ways of writing the rule, it
would still be better to leave off that brand name software and just state
that audio bandwidth code readers are ok for making contacts.
Dec 23, 2010 06:44:53 AM, daven2nl at gmail.com wrote:
I normally bite my tongue when these discussions come up, however
I'm quite surprised and even more disappointed at the apparent rule
change in the NAQP that allows local CW Skimmer usage by single
operators. I am curious how this rule change came about - was there any
previous discussion? Does NCJ even have a contest committee?
Granted, I may not currently have a dog in this fight since I am
currently stationed overseas, however the NAQP has always been a
favorite contest of mine, and I was fortunate to have had a measure of
success over the past decade of participating in the CW event. I most
certainly was planning on participating competitively again upon
reassignment stateside. With some prior knowledge of the NAQP, the way
I see it, there are three basic requirements for a top finish in this
event:
(1) A favorable geographical location with good propagation (I.E West
Coast in January; W9 and W4 in August).
(2) A relatively good station, preferably SO2R capable.
(3) The skill set required to effectively S&P and operate SO2R while
maintaining rate, with an understanding of propagation. Perennial top
ops such as W9RE, N2IC, KL9A, and N6MJ usually rack up anywhere from
200-400 QSOs through effective SO2R technique, which separates them from
the rest. This is a true showing of skill and operator prowess.
By adding a local skimmer, much of (3) is negated. In a minute or
two, the CW Skimmer user can see *every station CQing on every band*.
Every band opening. Every multiplier is shown. Sure - Skimmer picks up
a lot of garbage, but it is easy to know that W0BH is in Kansas and my
skimmer sees him on 10m where I need the state for a mult. It does not
matter how good W9RE or N2IC is at skill set (3) above, because the
computerized 2nd op of the CW Skimmer user will find it first in almost
every instance.
As a result, this rule change has serious implications which puts
it separate from other contesting advances the Skimmer proponent uses as
a defense. CW memory keyers and computer logging does not find QSOs for
you. CW Skimmer does. With the elimination of (3) above, is there
really any point in competing anyway? Sure - there are still some
skills required, such as timing with SO2R, but the unscrupulous op only
needs to blast away without an interlock.
Again, I am disappointed that this change came about without even
consulting with the perennial top finishers who have operated this
contest for years. In my opinion, the change should have been the
addition of an "unlimited" category, which allows single operators to
use packet, a local skimmer, or the Reverse Beacon Network. There are
no certificates issued for this contest, so I don't believe a new
category would cause much heartache for the sponsors. I still fail to
understand the psyche that seemingly portrays "Assisted" category
participants in a negative light. This psyche leads people to either
lie that they were unassisted, or try to force feed these game changing
rules into the "One man and his radio" historical Single Operator Category.
73, Dave KH2/N2NL
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list