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

[Vladimir Sidorov]

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
> >
> > --- 
> >
>