[CQ-Contest] Skimmer and NAQP

[Joe]

I was having a conversation with an old buddy of mine off list on this 
whole thing with Skimmer. And his summation below I feel hit's it 
perfectly in every way.

He isn't a BIG HF contester but does a lot of VHF/UHF contesting and 
work and follows this list because of many thoughts and policies in 
contesting find their way into the VHF/UHF world also. In addition he is 
a much better writer than I.  He wishes to remain annonomous though.

Enjoy his thoughts. And what does the group think?

Joe WB9SBD

But it comes back to my position that*everything*  about radio technology in itself*is*  assisting me to make contacts, singling out skimmer types of technologies I still see as just an arbitrary line drawn around a particular technology.. I really don't see how a narrow roofing filter cannot be considered assistance as well, it clearly assists me in hearing signals that I would not otherwise hear because of the other signals inside a wide passband are blanking the extremely weak ones. Same for a low phase noise RX design. And what about CW keyers and logging SW that fills in calls for you with what it thinks you likely heard, isn't that assistance too? With skimmer it may ID a signal, but you still need to be sure that it did indeed decode it correctly, or you get a busted call. And yes, as skimmer user if you let that busted call happen in your log then you most certainly should take the score hit for it. Skimmer doesn't relieve you from having to
  positively ID the station and making the exchange itself.

Ham radio technology has been continually evolving from day one. The only thing that in my mind that can and should be held constant rule-wise is clearly defining what the station's location is. And in the context of contesting that*all*  information about signals and operators on the bands be solely derived by that station's antenna system and the equipment that is connected to it, AND which are a part of the competition itself. Trying to legislate what the equipment that is connected to those antennas can, or cannot be allowed to do with the signals it hears directly from those antennas runs counter to what ham radio's very foundations are - technological advancement!!

If skimmer types of technology cross some arbitrary line, then why not require that everyone use 2.4 kHz filters only? After all there are numerous people who can copy most all of the signals within that 2.4 kHz without problem at all. How is someone's skill at doing that fundamentally different than someone who masters jumping from signal to signal most efficiently in skimmer any different? Skimmer is a long way from making Q's for you, you do need to know how to use it effectively to make the Q.

And when it comes to bandscopes, with a little practice you can easily identify who is calling CQ or who is running, and do so without ever actually listening to them. This is true even with the mediocre $10K JA brand radio scopes that are out there. The signals (CQ vs. run) each have unique signature patterns, and you can also tell right away when someone new shows up. So If I know I have worked all the runners I can skip tuning to them and focus on the CQ'ers, especially the new ones.  And if you are using a waterfall display you can often "read" the dots and dashes (something that I'm not very good at BTW) on the display directly, so isn't that "decoding" of the signal as well?? So then is that capability close enough to skimmer to deem it also too much like a spotting network and then panadapters and waterfalls should be banned from SO's as well?

I don't recall that there was any uproar over memory CW keyers when they came along, same for computer logging/keying. But yet those who wanted top stay competitive as (unassisted) SO's once those became popular simply took the time to implement, learn, and use them. So why shouldn't skimmer types of technologies be treated the same way today?

And I don't think radio contesting has ever been solely about the operator's skill alone. And skills aspect alone isn't just copying and finding signals, it is also "reading" the broader band conditions and activity trends. Plus it also encompasses the ability to build an effective station. A competitive station is largely defined by its ability to implement new technologies. If the ability to apply new technologies is artificially constrained, then why bother improving stations in the future? Doing that will cause ham radio and ham radio contesting to eventually whither and die. There have been dozens of previous technological advances over the years that could have also been deemed "too disruptive" to be legal for contesting, so why now with skimmer types of technologies?

One thing for sure is that when I first saw CWSkimmer a few years ago I knew it was going to kick up a hornets nest of debate in contesting circles - it certainly has!! I was just surprised at the ratio of "apposed to" vs. those who like me see it as simply an advancement of radio technology. It also led me to fully understand what it was specifically about DX spotting networks that had always bugged me for years. I finally figured out that it wasn't the*technology*  of the spotting networks itself that bothered me, but it was instead the fact that ops could use information from*other*  people's stations to decide whether to try and work a Q or not. And it also really allowed me to hone in on my current position that all technology that is wholly contained within my station is fair game to implement. But also that ideally one should strive to have a "sterile" station environment where the signals themselves are handled by my own, and exclusive to my
  station's equipment, and that any possible Q info only be obtained by those means that my station itself is capable of. So that is why I increasingly shy away from using QSO spotting pages and QSO "chat" pages. Those are unquestionably "assistance", they turn the Q making process itself into little more than an exercise in validating a QSO made on the Internet. Local skimmer types of technologies on the other hand*are*  just me*and*  my station's equipment finding and making the Q's. No other station or op is involved with telling me when/where to look.

In the end if local CWSkimmer must be segregated, then it needs to be its own new category, as it is*not*  the same thing as packet and/or using information from*other*  stations/ops. I'm truly flabbergasted that people can't see the difference between the two.

73,



The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com

On 10/24/2010 10:07 AM, Charles W. Shaw wrote:
> What Tree has already said, and:
>
> Put in a rule that says something to the effect that--no electronic
> systems/devices are permitted to help interpret the CW other than
> speakers, headphones, blinking lights and vibrating panels.  SO, MO,
> makes no difference, same deal.
>
> BUT, I and my same 100 watt radio and copper wires still plan to be
> 'participating' this time as since the beginning and earlier.  I like
> it, it's  fun.
>
> 73,
> N5UL - Chas, '55, NM
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>