"Skimmer" Software created by Alex Shovkoplyas, VE3NEA, is an interesting mix
of "old" and "new".

This new application, which depends on the "new" of SDR (Software Defined Radio)
and focuses on the "old" of Morse Code is one of those "gee, why didn't I think
of that" pieces of technology that exemplifies the "tinker and experiment" heart
of Amateur Radio.

Download a functional demo at http://www.dxatlas.com/Download.asp
Read a critical review at http://www.pvrc.org/~n4zr/Articles/Skimmer.pdf
Join an online bbs-style forum at http://skimmer.createforum.net/index.php
Join an email discussion group at
http://dayton.contesting.com/mailman...fo/skimmertalk
--
73, de Hans, K0HB

My oh My,

I just had my first introduction to CW contesting during field day. I
sat and watched a CW operator rack up QSO after QSO at 25 wpm and I
was very impressed. Man, I wanted to do that! I left field day
with a renewed interest in CW thinking that I might try and brush off
the dust and cobwebs from my CW skills and give it a try next year.
Going from a copy speed of nearly zero to contest ready is going to be
a serious problem for me but I can try.

Then I see your post... Oh my. My first thought was "Wow! That would
be great on field day to speed up finding stations to work!" I could
even imagine that it would be pretty easy to automate most of the QSO
process and depend on the computer to find, work and log contacts with
little (if any) operator interaction required. This is, of course, at
the heart of the whole debate over this new tool’s use. Is it fair
to
the operator who doesn't have this tool if I use it?

How the CW contesters will deal with this new technology while keeping
the playing field level? Beats me, but thinking about it leads to a
number of possible solutions (Please folks let's add to this list.)
1. Ignore the new technology and live with the fact that folks who use
it will likely increase their contest scores.
2. Regulate its use by handicapping folks who choose to use such
tools.
3. Make the use of such tools illegal for the contest.

Each approach has its good points and it's bad ones.

Ignoring the technology would be a grave mistake. If it is not
addressed, fully automatic stations during contests would become the
rule and the single operator won't stand a chance. Gone would be the
reward for staying up all night practicing those finely honed
operating skills in an attempt to rack up a winning score. The
winners would be asleep in the next room (or the next state for that
matter) for the whole contest. That would be a bad thing for contests
and for the hobby so we simply cannot ignore this.

Banning these tools from contests would also be a mistake. It would
be like banning transistors, or DSP signal processing. We cannot
ignore or discourage new technology and how it can advance the state
of the art of radio. We must push to integrate new things that enhance
our operating capabilities and encourage innovation in one of the few
open areas left where the home brewing is alive and well. These days
most are not going to build a radio to get on the air because it's
very difficult to build a state of the art rig at home. But you can
write some software at home on your desktop with very cheap and
readily available tools.

That leaves a middle of the road approach. I personally think that it
would be best to regulate this technology's use in contests. We need
to preserve the need for personal operating skills and reward those
who work hard. But we need to recognize that melding technology with
your station's operation in a effective ways is hard work too. I
would push for a "regulation by bandwidth" kind of approach. This
would handicap operators who use automatic spotting tools by some
factor that is related to the receiver bandwidth being used. I would
also clearly state in the rules that 100% automatic operation should
not be allowed, but that there must be some operator interaction
required for each QSO that takes place. The bad point to this
approach is it will lead to more complex rules and make it harder to
keep scores straight.

There should be a place for CW Skimmer in contesting and its use
should be encouraged in ways that also encourage the development of
these kinds of tools, and the integration of this kind of innovation
into good operating practice.

-= bob =-


On Jul 7, 7:32 pm, "K�HB" wrote:
 "Skimmer" Software created by Alex Shovkoplyas, VE3NEA, is an inter
esting mix
of "old" and "new".

This new application, which depends on the "new" of SDR (Software Defined
Radio)
and focuses on the "old" of Morse Code is one of those "gee, why didn't I
think
of that" pieces of technology that exemplifies the "tinker and experiment
" heart
of Amateur Radio.

Download a functional demo athttp://www.dxatlas.com/Download.asp
Read a critical review athttp://www.pvrc.org/~n4zr/Articles/Skimmer.pdf
Join an online bbs-style forum athttp://skimmer.createforum.net/index.php
Join an email discussion group athttp://dayton.contesting.com/mailman/lis
tinfo/skimmertalk
--
73, de Hans, K0HB

"KC4UAI" wrote in message
...

How the CW contesters will deal with this new technology
while keeping the playing field level? Beats me, but thinking
about it leads to a number of possible solutions (Please folks
let's add to this list.)
1. Ignore the new technology and live with the fact that folks
who use it will likely increase their contest scores.
2. Regulate its use by handicapping folks who choose to
use such tools.
3. Make the use of such tools illegal for the contest.

I have a 4th selection to add to your list, but first some thoughts on
radiosport contesting in general.

I have a general dislike for the notion of "level playing fields". (To help you
understand "level playing fields", read KVG's "Harrison Bergeron" at
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

I think that every serious participant in contesting should be developing
skills, adopting technologies, and engineering his station with an eye on
tilting the playing field to their advantage. Contesting and contesting rules
ought to be crafted in a fashion which encourages innovative thinking, adopting
new ideas, and increasing the pool of good operators and the pool of
technological communications tools, not handicapping those who would do so.

So it would appear that I'm advocating your choice #1 above (basically saying
"let 'em play and get out of the way"). And, yes, I support that mindset.

BUT........

Contesting rules should also preserve a traditional space where "just a boy
and his radio" can compete with other "just boys and their radios". There is a
real concern that technologies like Skimmer can "crowd out" the human factor of
contesting, leaving just a collection of robo-stations duking it out.

SO........

Here's the 4th selection I promised you (and I've asked the major contest
sponsors to consider).

4. Allow new technologies like Skimmer, but in the rules for each CW contest
include a "Classic" single operator category where the operator him(her)self
locates and works the target stations without any "automagic" aids like Skimmer,
packet clusters, or other techniques which locate and identify unworked
stations.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KC4UAI" wrote

I just had my first introduction to CW contesting during field day. I
sat and watched a CW operator rack up QSO after QSO at 25 wpm and I
was very impressed. Man, I wanted to do that! I left field day
with a renewed interest in CW thinking that I might try and brush off
the dust and cobwebs from my CW skills and give it a try next year.
Going from a copy speed of nearly zero to contest ready is going to be
a serious problem for me but I can try.

-----------------------------

Good! Then go for THAT -- not the electronic automatic whiz-bang stuff that
would give me one big yawn. There's real accomplisment and satisfaction
increasing your CW speed and improving your operating skills. But if your
head is being turned by the thought of automation, just recognize that as a
completely different world of operating. I suggest you stay with your
original plan and stay inspired. As far as I can imagine, there's no real
operating skill required for automation.

N7SO

KØHB wrote:
"KC4UAI" wrote in message
.
...

How the CW contesters will deal with this new technology
while keeping the playing field level?

To me, this is a classic example of "hand wringing" which I've seen
repeated over and over with ever new bit of technology to appear.

First it continuous wave, then AM, then SSB then RTTY, packet, PSK
etc. This is amateur radio, not "Freeze Frame" your favorite era.

4. Allow new technologies like Skimmer, but in the rules for each CW co
ntest
include a "Classic" single operator category where the operator him(her
)self
locates and works the target stations without any "automagic" aids like
Skimmer,
packet clusters, or other techniques which locate and identify unworked

stations.

I'm with Hans on this 4th approach. It's really no different than
Field Day where they have single operator battery vs multi-operator
on generator categories.

As it is, nobody's complained, or effectively at least, about the
canned "CQ CONTEST" keyers or voice loops. Used to be, "the big
thing" was to have a panadaptor to see who might be around you.

Short answer, "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the
porch." But they should and do have special categories for the
little dogs too.

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi

KØHB wrote:

4. Allow new technologies like Skimmer, but in the rules for each CW co
ntest
include a "Classic" single operator category where the operator him(her
)self
locates and works the target stations without any "automagic" aids like
Skimmer,
packet clusters, or other techniques which locate and identify unworked

stations.

I like this concept. I think that there is a place in contesting for
people who use no technology except what's between their ears (and radio
equipment, of course) and just as much a place for people who use every
bell and whistle available. Developing new technology and learning to
use it is a goal that contests should support.

I wonder if this could be implemented by adjusting the credit for QSOs
based on how they were made. This is similar to CW contacts counting
more than phone. It needs to be kept simple, but perhaps there's a way.

But the bottom line for me is that both groups should be encouraged --
the "classic" operator, and the technology-aided operator.

73, Steve KB9X

On Jul 11, 4:28 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
My oh My,

I just had my first introduction to CW contesting during
field day. I
sat and watched a CW operator rack up QSO after QSO
at 25 wpm and I was very impressed.

I know exactly what you mean.

Man, I wanted to do that!

You can.

I left field day
with a renewed interest in CW thinking that I might try
and brush off
the dust and cobwebs from my CW skills and give it
a try next year.

You don't have to wait. There are CW contests, QSO parties and
sprints of various kinds all through the year. There are also
software simulators for training between contests.

There's also DX chasing and good ol' CW ragchewing.

Going from a copy speed of nearly zero to contest ready
is going to be
a serious problem for me but I can try.

Not a serious problem if you do a little each day.

Then I see your post... Oh my. My first thought was "Wow!
That would
be great on field day to speed up finding stations to work!" I could
even imagine that it would be pretty easy to automate most of the
QSO
process and depend on the computer to find, work and log
contacts with
little (if any) operator interaction required.

That's not a new idea.

Some time back, there was an article in QST called "The Man Who
Broke The Bank", about a ham who built an automated CW SS
station. He and it (mostly it) made a record score, which would not
be topped for many years.

The article appeared in QST for May, 1953.

This is, of course, at
the heart of the whole debate over this new tool’s use. Is it fair
to the operator who doesn't have this tool if I use it?

Yes and no.

Of course a "Skimmer" can give an advantage. But so can almost
any other tool. Computer logging gives an advantage over paper
logging, paddles or a bug give an advantage over a straight key,
a rig that can transceive gives an advantage over one that can't.
Sharp filters, simplified or automated tune-up, better antennas,
you name it, the issue is the same.

IMHO a line is drawn when operator intervention is no longer needed to
make a QSO. Another line is drawn when the op gets direct outside help
in making QSOs, such as by a packet cluster.

How the CW contesters will deal with this new technology while
keeping the playing field level?

As long as we all have to follow the same rules, the playing
field *is* level. The players may not be equal, though, but
that's what competition is all about.

Beats me, but thinking about it leads to a
number of possible solutions (Please folks let's add to this list.)

1. Ignore the new technology and live with the fact that folks who use
it will likely increase their contest scores.

Like every other tool that has come along...

2. Regulate its use by handicapping folks who choose to use such
tools.

How? Give those who don't use them a bonus or multiplier?

3. Make the use of such tools illegal for the contest.

But where does one draw the line? Should a panoramic display/bandscope
be allowed? Should logging computers
be banned? .

Each approach has its good points and it's bad ones.

Ignoring the technology would be a grave mistake. If it is not
addressed, fully automatic stations during contests would
become the
rule and the single operator won't stand a chance.
Gone would be the
reward for staying up all night practicing those finely honed
operating skills in an attempt to rack up a winning score. The
winners would be asleep in the next room (or the next state for that
matter) for the whole contest. That would be a bad thing for
contests
and for the hobby so we simply cannot ignore this.

But the Skimmer does not make QSOs. It simply tells you where stations
are that you may want to work.

Except in 1B-1 class, the same thing could be done on FD by having an
operator with a receiver tuning the band and writing
down notes as to where the new ones are.

Banning these tools from contests would also be a mistake.
It would be like banning transistors, or DSP signal
processing.

You'd be surprised what can be done on FD without either of
those things....

We cannot
ignore or discourage new technology and how it can advance the state of
the art of radio. We must push to integrate new things
that enhance
our operating capabilities and encourage innovation in one of the few o
pen areas left where the home brewing is alive and well.

Google my call or look on eham.net for a picture of my shack.

These days
most are not going to build a radio to get on the air because it's
very difficult to build a state of the art rig at home.

There are some very high performance kits, though. And the rig
is only one part of the system; the antenna, location, conditions
and operator are all parts too.

But you can
write some software at home on your desktop with very cheap and
readily available tools.

Of course. But when it comes to state-of-the-art software, what is
required?

That leaves a middle of the road approach. I personally think that it
would be best to regulate this technology's use in contests. We
need
to preserve the need for personal operating skills and reward
those
who work hard. But we need to recognize that melding
technology with
your station's operation in a effective ways is hard work too. I
would push for a "regulation by bandwidth" kind of approach. This
would handicap operators who use automatic spotting tools by
some
factor that is related to the receiver bandwidth being used. I would
also clearly state in the rules that 100% automatic operation
should
not be allowed, but that there must be some operator interaction
required for each QSO that takes place. The bad point to this
approach is it will lead to more complex rules and make it harder to ke
ep scores straight.

I think true automatic operation is already not allowed, because there
must always be a control operator. I'm not sure, though.

There should be a place for CW Skimmer in contesting
and its use
should be encouraged in ways that also encourage
the development of
these kinds of tools, and the integration of this kind of innovation
into good operating practice.

Here's an analogy:

I think amateur radio contesting is best described by the term
"radiosport". IMHO it shares a lot with competitive techno-sports such
as bicycle racing or distance running.

In all such sports, technological improvements have made a big
difference, whether it's better running shoes for the distance runner
or a better bike for the bicycle racer.

But at the same time, there's a clear line drawn of where an
improvement becomes "unfair". Putting even a small motor on
a bicycle means it's not a bicycle anymore. Rollerblades are not
a new form of running shoe. In amateur radio contesting, we need
the same sort of mindset.

There's another angle, too.

Very few bicycle riders can qualify for a world-class race, let alone
win one. Few runners can qualify for the Boston or New York Marathons,
let alone win them. Yet many will ride bikes and run
marathons even with no hope of winning or placing significantly.

The reasons they do it are many, and I will only cover a few.

1) To simply prove they can do it. My first marathon was like that; I
just wanted to know I could run one in under four hours, and I did.

2) Because it is fun in and of itself. In the past few weeks I got the
ol' 10 speed out and started riding. It was tough at first but now I'm
up to 20 miles at a clip. Tomorrow I try for 25 miles. I'm not fast or
fancy and the hills of Radnor make it a challenge, but it's great fun
to go flying down the other side!

3) As training to get better.

4) To see how good one can do within one's own limitations. I'll
probably never win any race, nor any contest, but that's not the
point. Back in 1995 the rig you see in my shack pictures and I made
629 CW FD QSOs in class 1B-1, with simple antennas.
While that's not a world record, it's a personal one that I hope to
better someday.



73 es GL de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
...

How the CW contesters will deal with this new technology while
keeping the playing field level?

As long as we all have to follow the same rules, the playing
field *is* level. The players may not be equal, though, but
that's what competition is all about.

Competition is NOT about "level playing fields". True competition is about
working (within the rules) to tilt the playing field to your own advantage.
Things like honing your skills, improving your station, and seeking out new
(legal) tools that your competitors may not have gained access to.

1. Ignore the new technology and live with the fact that folks who
use it will likely increase their contest scores.

Like every other tool that has come along...

"Skimmer" isn't "like every other tool that has come along". It is an instant
game changer; in military tactical terms a "force multiplier".

But where does one draw the line? Should a panoramic
display/bandscope be allowed? Should logging computers
be banned?

In terms of the classic "boy and his radio" category of contest participant, I
believe the line must be drawn on the south side of Skimmer.

A panoramic display simply gives a general idea of conditions and activity
levels on a band. It's a handy tool but doesn't identify a single call sign, or
replace any CW copying skill.

A logging computer simply provides a more efficient means of "book-keeping".
It's a handy tool but doesn't identify a single call sign, or replace any CW
copying skill.

Skimmer, on the other hand, is like having dozens and dozens of assistant
operators scanning the bands from top to bottom and in real-time feeding you the
callsigns and the QRG's of EVERY STATION THAT IT HEARS ON EVERY BAND IT
MONITORS, and "nudging you in the ribs" when it identifies a needed multiplier.

For this reason, I believe that every major contest sponsor must maintain one
category "Skimmer free" where humans can compete with humans, finding,
identifying with their own ears, and working the stations that go into their
log.

Outside of that "classic" category, let Skimmer roam free.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Howard Lester wrote:
"KC4UAI" wrote

I just had my first introduction to CW contesting during field day. I
sat and watched a CW operator rack up QSO after QSO at 25 wpm and I
was very impressed. Man, I wanted to do that! I left field day
with a renewed interest in CW thinking that I might try and brush off
the dust and cobwebs from my CW skills and give it a try next year.
Going from a copy speed of nearly zero to contest ready is going to be
a serious problem for me but I can try.

-----------------------------

Good! Then go for THAT -- not the electronic automatic whiz-bang stuff that
would give me one big yawn. There's real accomplisment and satisfaction
increasing your CW speed and improving your operating skills. But if your
head is being turned by the thought of automation, just recognize that as a
completely different world of operating. I suggest you stay with your
original plan and stay inspired. As far as I can imagine, there's no real
operating skill required for automation.

N7SO



I, too, realized that my CW skills have faded from underuse, and I
promised to get back up to speed for next year's Field Day. It's fun to
do simple stuff, with simple radios: it reminds me of how much I learned
and hard hard I worked to get my license, and also about how much magic
their is in a good antenna and rig.

But it's also fun to innovate and try out new things like SDR or CW
Skimmer or Packet Radio or the next killer app. It's important to
remember the past - it teaches us that fortune favors the prepared - but
it's also important to welcome change, and I don't think that putting
restrictions on automated operation or machine-aided reception would be
either enforceable or productive.

There is, as always, the issue of compexity: being good at managing an
automated computer system does _not_ mean you'll be good at allocating
supplies and anticipating demands when all you have to work with is a
clipboard. We could argue that any added complexity reduces our capacity
to react and to be productive in a disaster, when things tend to break
and simpler is almost always better. However, telling a curious ham
"NO!" is a sure-fire way to make sure he does it anyway, so let's assume
that hams who use CW Skimmer or other software will make intelligent
decisions about how to best use their assets in an emergency.

Ham Radio is, of course, a hobby - but so was skateboarding when Tony
Hawke started doing it. We all start out as amateurs, and it's only by
pushing the envelope that we learn what's possible when we look further
and try harder.

--
Bill Horne

(Remove QRM from my address for direct replies.)

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:28:35 -0400, KC4UAI wrote:
I just had my first introduction to CW contesting during field day. I
sat and watched a CW operator rack up QSO after QSO at 25 wpm and I
was very impressed. Man, I wanted to do that! I left field day
with a renewed interest in CW thinking that I might try and brush off
the dust and cobwebs from my CW skills and give it a try next year.
Going from a copy speed of nearly zero to contest ready is going to be
a serious problem for me but I can try.

Then I see your post... Oh my. My first thought was "Wow! That would
be great on field day to speed up finding stations to work!" I could
even imagine that it would be pretty easy to automate most of the QSO
process and depend on the computer to find, work and log contacts with
little (if any) operator interaction required. This is, of course, at
the heart of the whole debate over this new tool’s use. Is it
fair
to
the operator who doesn't have this tool if I use it?

Please don't let this technology put pause to your desire to kick up your
manual CW skills!

Really, HF ham radio itself is an obsolete skill.

Not that that's a bad thing. There are still millions who build model
railroads (I'm sure there are more model passenger trains than real ones
these days!); who restore 1957 Chevys; there's a special season for
hunting with black powder rifles here in Tennessee.. and we've got plent
y
of Civil War re-enacters. People enjoy doing things their ancestors did.

Sending (and receiving) Morse is no different.

As a brief aside, in the current implementation, Skimmer does NOT replace
the human CW operator for most contests. Skimmer only copies calls. (an
d
whether a station is calling CQ or not) It doesn't copy the class - the
"2A" "3F" "2C" part. That said, I'm sure it would be trivially easy to
add this capacity if someone wanted it.

Also, in the current implementation, Skimmer is designed only to find
CQers to call. It really isn't useful for allowing you to call CQ & copy
those who respond. Only in QRP categories do you stand any chance of a
competitive score without extensive CQing.

How the CW contesters will deal with this new technology while keeping
the playing field level? Beats me, but thinking about it leads to a
number of possible solutions (Please folks let's add to this list.) 1.
Ignore the new technology and live with the fact that folks who use it
will likely increase their contest scores. 2. Regulate its use by
handicapping folks who choose to use such tools. 3. Make the use of suc
h
tools illegal for the contest.

And there has been a rather heated discussion of just this topic over on
the cq-contest reflector.

(I should emphasize, my comments below are with regard to a "local
Skimmer", where the Skimmer equipment complies with the existing 500m
circle rule - all equipment is within a circle of 500m diameter.
"Distributed Skimmer", where multiple Skimmers are connected over the
Internet, should make one a multioperator or "assisted" entry.)

Personally, at the root, I don't think Skimmer is anything radically new.

We've been allowing automation to take over various functions of our
operation for a long time.

Automatic Morse transmission dates back to the early 1980s. (for some
stations, much earlier)

It used to be important to know the difference between a VP5 and a VP6,
and the beam headings to their countries. Today, the computer will tell
you what country they're in; that the VP6 is worth more points than the
VP5; and which way to swing the beam to work either one. If you have the
right rotor controller you don't even have to swing the beam yourself.

Most operators are using a super-check-partial database, widely
distributed on the Internet. Hear "C4UA" & type it into the window, and
it automagically suggests you're listening to KC4UAI.

Yet automation is not perfect. The operator who trusts everything his
computer tells him is going to get screwed when he takes the
super-check-partial database's word for it & doesn't bother to copy the
rest of C4UA's call. He might just miss a double mult when the RAF issue
s
ZC4UA. The operator who passes up VE1XR/1 - the .cty file says it's just
Canada - may regret it when he learns the guy was portable on Sable Islan
d.

And Skimmer doesn't get it right all the time. It's pretty good (and wil
l
get better) but you really MUST verify what it's copying. Especially in
those contests that have an additional penalty for "busted calls".

Personally, I think to a large degree we *can* ignore this technology. I
t
is not so radically different from technologies we consider commonplace.
Maybe if we want to discourage it, the best method would be to increase
the penalty for busted calls. Say, for every incorrect call in the log,
the four subsequent valid QSOs are removed as a penalty. (and any
multipliers that those QSOs may have reflected)