CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] down the path with Dave

To: "Pete Smith N4ZR" <n4zr@contesting.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] down the path with Dave
From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Reply-to: Tom W8JI <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 10:29:59 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Charly, the only thing that Skimmer replaces is the physical act of tuning the radio.

For me, the objectionable part of skimmer is the removal or lessening of operator skill. I equate it to using a code reader. Local skimmer, used in single op, replaces the three acts of tuning the radio, copying the call, and entering the call in a data base. It gives the local station a form of automatic spotting system.

The local technical requirements of isolating the receiver from the transmitter are significant on lower bands with high power, but it is possible to do. A conventional SDR here overloaded badly from the transmitter on 160 meters, but I'm sure that could have been cured. On 80 meters and up a local SDR here can get into noise floor without local transmitter problems. The result would be a window filled with locally generated "spots" that require no operator assistance.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, but it sure seems to be contrary to real single-op unassisted. With a low noise floor, a bandmap could fill with hundreds of useful locally generated spots. There isn't much difference between that and using a cluster.

73 Tom
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>