This weekend was my first experience using CW Skimmer (in a M/M operation). Boy was it an eye-opener! The most important thing I learned is this: If you receive spots from the skimmer network, there
In my opinion, Jim has it exactly right. 73, de Hans, K0HB I don't care if you built the skimmer setup yourself without any outside help, and you're only getting spots from your own skimmer. I don't
A long time ago, mid-70s to be exact, I was part of a research project to see if a computer could be programmed to understand hand-sent Morse. From a computer science viewpoint, Morse was an interest
I'm confused regarding the point here. In what major contest is the use of CW Skimmer allowed for unassisted categories (other than in Blind Mode)? Isn't all of that already covered in the rules? Kin
Times change. There is no going back on technology. Personally I love it. I was just running RTTY on 10m with a howling EU pileup and had 24 receive channels open. It allowed me to work stations much
Hi Dave: Yes. Some contests, including WAE, don't have "unassisted" categories. There are people advocating the elimination of "unassisted" categories in the other contests. 73, Mark, KD4D __________
It is also worth pointing out (again) that there is a BIG difference between allowing only "local" skimmers at one's own station, and allowing connection to a worldwide network of other people's skim
Hi Tor: I, for one, don't agree - I see little difference between "local" skimmers and the worldwide network. To the operator, they look the same during a contest. 73, Mark, KD4D ____________________
Hi, Mark. Yes, I am aware of all that, but I still don't think the original comment was actually trying to address a rule issue, particularly becauseeliminating unassisted categories covers a lot mor
Aye. I second Mark's view. Amount of data equals a networked device, but only with stations that are heard at the location. Very powerful tool ! And, a fair-play based rule is the Skimmers should be
Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion; it is not necessarily representative of the official position of any contest committee I may be a member of. 1) I also do not see *ANY* difference between a l
Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion; it is not necessarily representative of the official position of any contest committee I may be a member of. Dave, It is my opinion that there is no circumsta
Hi, Bob. I pretty much expected to get some "feedback" from that comment, and from my own personal bias I might want to argue the same thing. I was merely trying to illustrate that CW Skimmer isn't r
Dave, The point is if you're operating alone, you're a single operator and if you're not operating alone, you're a multi-operator by definition. It's really that simple. -Bob ________________________
No, it really isn't that simple. What's the difference between operating together by network versus operating together by physical proximity. If anything, networked collaboration is less work. The on
Disclaimer: (repeated) This is my personal opinion; it is not necessarily representative of the official position of any contest committee I may be a member of. Dave - Thanks for the reminder - yes,
I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying that having another guy in the shack helping you do anything is not multi-op. I'm pretty certain it is. What I am arguing is that the distinction betwe
Dave, (continuing my non-official disclaimer) I'm seeing your point exactly, and this conundrum is precisely why I keep trying to re-focus the discussion back on the basic definition of what it means
There's a pragmatic issue, too. I doubt if there's any way for the log checkers to distinguish between those using local skimmers vs. the RBN, as was the case several years ago when they came up with