[Skimmertalk] Brief experiment with Skimmer and 40 MeterSoftRock at Field Day

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> Thanks for the confirmation of the fact that the SO/No Sklimmer 
> and SO+Skimmer are in different classes.

That's not what I said ... As long as SO1R and SO2R are in the 
same class, then SO+Skimmer and SO/No Skimmer are the same class. 
There is no difference between a SO2R station - particularly a 
SO2R station using Writelog - and a skimmer station in terms of 
the "resources" in the station.  Both are two receiver stations 
with a single operator and no "outside participation."   

> The matter is, some No Skimmer operators want to compete to 
> eachother and they don't want to be in the same class with 
> SO+Skimmer...

The matter of fact is that SO21R operators want to compete with 
each other and don't want to be in the same class as SO2R but 
that ain't happening.  Low power/non-gain operators want to 
compete with each other and don’t want to be in the same class 
as a 100 watt station with stacked yagis but that ain't happening 
either.   

Until contest sponsors want to start adding restrictions on the 
ability to use duplex capable receivers, or start defining "power" 
in terms or EIRP, there will always be one group that thinks the 
other groups has an "unfair" advantage.  

SO2R and Skimmer equipped stations have exactly the same equipment 
- how they choose to use it is up to the operator.  If contest 
sponsors want to say "no duplex receivers" it knocks out both 
SO2R and skimmer ... if contest sponsors want to say no computer 
processing, it knocks out computer logging, SCP and skimmer.  BUT 
it is just plain wrong for contest sponsors to reject a specific 
piece of software or one particular type of receiver. 
   


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Sidorov [mailto:vs.lists at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:57 PM
> To: Joe Subich, W4TV; skimmertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [Skimmertalk] Brief experiment with Skimmer and 
> 40 MeterSoftRock at Field Day
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation of the fact that the SO/No Sklimmer and
> SO+Skimmer are in different classes.
> The matter is, some No Skimmer operators want to compete to 
> eachother and they don't want to be in the same class with 
> SO+Skimmer...
> 
> You say, the way of CW decoding is irrelevant. Let me remind 
> you of the fact that CW is a part of astronauts' preparation 
> program. Then, MARS has recently included CW again into the 
> official modes list (see a recent ARRL Letter). The reason is 
> simple, CW is sometimes the only mean of communications in 
> emergency and therefore CW skills have a certain value. 
> Therefore, in order to retain the whole existence of the 
> "true" CW operators as a class, they should stay within their 
> own rules. I am affraid, NASA and MARS would decline to 
> employ Skimmer regardless the fact that this technology is 
> more advanced than human decoding. Why should we? I mean, why 
> should we MERGE the two classes for an account of possible 
> degradation of operators' CW skills?
> 
> I can see no corellation between Skimmer and SO2R. An 
> operator can easily use 2R or any quantity of receivers at 
> once, provided, he decodes CW himself. The Skimmer decodes 
> hundreds of signals at once, eventually makes some error 
> check and verification of the call-signs with SCP/callbook 
> database and provides the operator with a ready made list of 
> stations placed along the bandmap. No SO2R/SOnR operator can 
> even approach that.
> 
> If you want to take care of deaf people and beginners, there 
> is always a window for them, provided, they don't get any 
> advantage against SO-human decoding. There used to be no 
> complaints against Writelog and those small pocket CW 
> decoders, because, inlike Skimmer, such decoders could only 
> decode a single signal a time, exactly what a normal SO does 
> by ear. So let them keep on using the one-at-a-time decoders.
> 
> Once again, thanks for your acceptance of the fact that SO/No 
> Skimmer and
> SO+Skimmer are not equal. I believe, it's a nice step forward.
> 
> 73,
> Vladimir VE3IAE
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>
> To: "'Vladimir Sidorov'" <vs.lists at gmail.com>; 
> <skimmertalk at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 8:27 PM
> Subject: RE: [Skimmertalk] Brief experiment with Skimmer and 
> 40 MeterSoftRock at Field Day
> 
> 
> >
> > > The station A should either tune to every of the 50 stations and 
> > > decode each of them (how long will it take?), or to 
> employ help of 
> > > 50 other boys and their radios to make it quickly. The station B 
> > > gets the bandmap full instantly and effortlessly. Do you suggest, 
> > > the inputs at the two stations are equal?
> >
> > The "inputs" are absolutely the same - both stations have access to 
> > computer logging, duplex receivers and CW decoders.  If one station 
> > chooses to not use a CW decoder or not use a duplex 
> receiver, that is 
> > the operator's decision in the same way it is the 
> operator's decision 
> > to not use high power or not use a memory keyer.
> >
> > The "inputs" or resource options are the same for both 
> operators. One 
> > operator should not be punished simply because he elects to use the 
> > available resources in a new and more efficient way.  In 
> the end, it 
> > is still one operator with a given number of receivers and 
> any number 
> > of ways (by sound, by light, by touch, or by
> > silicon) to decode CW.
> >
> > If you want to say "CW decoded by ear" you had better be willing to 
> > justify excluding the deaf and newly licensed operators.  
> If you say, 
> > "no duplex receivers" you must understand that SO2R and Skimmer are 
> > opposite sides of the same coin.
> >
> > I have no objection to limiting the resources available in a given 
> > class - that is there are valid reasons for power based classes 
> > (particularly if they were based on EIRP).  However, I do 
> not believe 
> > it is any more appropriate to treat different types of receivers or 
> > different methods of decoding CW differently any more that 
> I believe 
> > that tube amplifiers should put the operator in the high power 
> > category but solid state amplifiers should be legal in the 
> low power 
> > category.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Vladimir Sidorov [mailto:vs.lists at gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:00 PM
> > > To: Joe Subich, W4TV; skimmertalk at contesting.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Skimmertalk] Brief experiment with Skimmer and 40 
> > > MeterSoftRock at Field Day
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Classes should never be based on "effect" they should 
> be based on 
> > > > "inputs."  When the inputs are the same, no matter how the
> > > inputs are
> > > > combined, the class should be the same.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe,
> > >
> > > You made it perfect. Classes should be based on inputs.
> > >
> > > Let's take an example. There are two stations, the 
> station A is "the 
> > > boy and his radio", and the station B employs a Skimmer, 
> as well.  
> > > The both of them operate on a band with 50 active 
> stations. The both 
> > > of them want to fill up a bandmap. The station A should 
> either tune 
> > > to every of the 50 stations and decode each of them (how 
> long will 
> > > it take?), or to employ help of 50 other boys and their radios to 
> > > make it quickly. The station B gets the bandmap full instantly and
> > > effortlessly. Do you suggest, the inputs at the two stations
> > > are equal?
> > >
> > > 73,
> > >
> > > Vladimir VE3IAE
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> >
>