[Cwo] Update needed

[Peter Chamalian]

The plaques and trophies that I saw in the photo that Alan had looked great
and I think that photo should be incorporated in announcements somewhere or
other.

 

I've found skimmer has its own vagaries - stations not on the frequency
reported, calls wrong, etc., but it's no different than packet spots.

 

It wasn't reported in the results, but I wonder if any of the winners did
not do SO2R.  For me, that's the breaking technology - I don't have it and
never will.

 

Alan, I thank you and the team for all the hard work both in getting this
event organized as well as working with all the logs and results.  If you
listen with an ear to the East you will hear a faint voice yelling Bravo!

 

Pete, W1RM

 

From: Alan Maenchen [mailto:ad6e at arrl.net] 
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 2:30 PM
To: Hank Garretson
Cc: cwo at kkn.net
Subject: Re: [Cwo] Update needed

 

I'll give you my personal view.

In CWO packet was a loser.  Well, not so much a loser, but ineffective since
almost no one was posting spots. Had folks been posting spots that might
change things.  Skimmer was useful for at least a couple of people
(including Hank) who told me about it.  K5OT was adamant against it.

Personally, I think technology such as Skimmer is an advance on the state of
the art .. especially if it's a local Skimmer running on your own station.
Global Skimmer (or packet) is a different matter as that is direct
assistance from others. In CWO, I can see how it can help.  

On a positive note, most of the CWO Session winners did not use any form of
assistance .. or at least they didn't claim to.  That brings up the other
side of the coin;  a ban on packet/skimmer is unenforceable. 

Let's wait for a month or so before making any decisions about this. I want
to see if there is any ground swell of support/opposition from the populace.


Alan






On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Hank Garretson <w6sx at arrl.net> wrote:

 

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jim Talens <jtalens at verizon.net> wrote:

I don't think packet makes much difference in this one, and I would think as
a separate classification it would complicate adjudication.

 


You're right. Packet wouldn't make much difference for CWO. But ...

I can tell you from experience that Skimmer spots coming via Telnet from RBN
made a huge difference for me. Every time a new call popped up, I saw it
immediately and was able to click on it and work the guy without losing my
run frequency. It helped me know which bands had the action. I estimate that
one third of my QSOs came from Telnet RBN spots. Whether I would have
eventually worked the guys anyway is another question. Telnet RBN increased
my CWO enjoyment a big bunch.

This is a double edged razor. During the last session, Telnet RBN also told
me when I had worked each band clean and prompted me to pull the big switch
early.

Please don't disallow Telnet RBN.

Packet is dead. Long live Skimmer.

(As a fifty-five-year contester, I never thought I'd be saying what I just
said. I always poo-pawed those poor guys who used the assisted crutch. Goes
to show, never say never.)  



Ski Exuberantly,

Hank, W6SX

Mammoth Lakes, California

Elevation 8083 feet in John Muir's Range of Light


_______________________________________________
Cwo mailing list
Cwo at kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20111206/28de618c/attachment.html