[CQ-Contest] Reverse Beacon Network News - the lost art

[Joe]

actually tweak the XIT.

Ya want to receive the same freq,  but transmit a tad slightly different 
than the multitude.

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/13/2012 12:01 PM, Shane Mattson-->K1ZR wrote:
> Meant to say  'tweak the VFO'!  I'm a LID.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Shane Mattson-->K1ZR" <k1zr at comcast.net>
> *To: *"Joe" <nss at mwt.net>
> *Cc: *cq-contest at contesting.com
> *Sent: *Monday, August 13, 2012 12:05:00 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [CQ-Contest] Reverse Beacon Network News - the lost art
>
> I wish all ops were like Joe.  Point, click and then tweak the RIT to 
> off-set his signal which helps the receiving station differentiate him 
> from the point and click ops.  Now that I'm seriously back into this 
> game after a few years of off-time the one big change that I'm not 
> fond of for use in contests (most importantly the 4 majors) is the 
> Skimmer. Call me old fashioned....call me whatever you'd like however 
> I think the Skimmer takes the spirit out of cw contesting and makes it 
> too easy for everyone.  Manually finding stations and spotting them on 
> the cluster now seems like the pure method (despite busted calls from 
> poor ops)......ironically when packet was introduced it was met with 
> the same resistance the skimmer has received.  The difference is that 
> packet requires a human to find a station and post it on the cluster.  
> In the old days the challenge was to be the first to find a 
> juicy multiplier and decide whether or not you wanted to post it on 
> the cluster or make someone else work for it.  Using automation to 
> find stations and post to the cluster is dumbing down the art of a 
> human being finding unworked stations.  I appreciate the side of the 
> casual op looking to squeeze in some operating time and thus use the 
> Skimmer spots to maximize their score during their limited on-time, 
> however my belief is that the use of such automation will adversely 
> affect the 'art' of the sport in the long run.  Yes, this topic has 
> been beaten to death.....and the contesting community has made very 
> good points on both sides.  I'm all for new technology to help become 
> a smarter, more efficient operator however using technology to find 
> stations during a contest without human intervention is taking it a 
> bit too far.
>
> I absolutely love the use of the RBN s/n analysis tool which I use 
> to compare my signal to other competitors after each contest.  This is 
> great use of technology!
>
> -Shane K1ZR (SO no nothin' forever)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Joe" <nss at mwt.net>
> *To: *cq-contest at contesting.com
> *Sent: *Monday, August 13, 2012 10:16:10 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [CQ-Contest] Reverse Beacon Network News - hopefully 
> of        generalinterest
>
>
> Sig
> On 8/13/2012 7:20 AM, Martin , LU5DX wrote:
> > I surely also understand Jim's concerns about gigantic pile ups with
> > all stations calling exactly in the same frequency due to the RBN
> > spots. I hope it is just a matter of time till ops realize we need to
> > start calling stations a little off the spotted frequency.
>
> Really?
>
> I'm not a BIG contester, But have been contesting since 1975, LONG
> before any of this existed. And as soon as I heard a pileup made by a
> RBN spot I did notice how everyone was "Spot On" (pun intended)
>
> And my first thought if I was to use this RBN network, I would at the
> same time turn on my XIT to slide a tad off the mess some. I thought
> everyone would do that and that this was not a unique thought.  But I
> guess not.
>
> Joe WB9SBD
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest