Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [dxatlas] Blind Skimmer Option for Unassisted Categories

Expand Messages
  • bill_w4zv
    ... Maybe not minimum ...you still need the dots to be able to click on to send your receiver there. I m sure Alex will come up with something a little more
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
      --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "rt_tclay" <rt_clay@...> wrote:
      >
      > You know you can already use version 1.2 "blind". Just close the
      > callsign spot window, and resize the column where callsign labels
      > appear to its minimum width.

      Maybe not "minimum"...you still need the dots to be able to click on
      to send your receiver there. I'm sure Alex will come up with
      something a little more elegant which has no possibility of
      disqualification for the unassisted category.

      73, Bill
    • rt_tclay
      I don t understand...I just click on a signal in the waterfall display. It tunes the receiver there. You don t have to click on a dot. Yes, sometimes I have to
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
        I don't understand...I just click on a signal in the waterfall
        display. It tunes the receiver there. You don't have to click on a
        dot. Yes, sometimes I have to touch up the tuning with the radio knob,
        but with a little practice you get very close.

        Also, the dots still do show up, so you can click on those if you
        want. The minimum resize width is not zero, but seems to be just
        enough to keep the dots.

        Try it, just resizing the column eliminates all the text display but
        the dots are kept.

        Tor
        N4OGW

        --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "bill_w4zv" <w0zv@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "rt_tclay" <rt_clay@> wrote:
        > >
        > > You know you can already use version 1.2 "blind". Just close the
        > > callsign spot window, and resize the column where callsign labels
        > > appear to its minimum width.
        >
        > Maybe not "minimum"...you still need the dots to be able to click on
        > to send your receiver there. I'm sure Alex will come up with
        > something a little more elegant which has no possibility of
        > disqualification for the unassisted category.
        >
        > 73, Bill
        >
      • rt_tclay
        It can also be argued that clicking on dots in the present version of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the assisted class. Why?
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
          It can also be argued that "clicking on dots" in the present version
          of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the
          "assisted" class. Why? Because the color of the dots indicates
          something about whether Skimmer has decoded and/or verified a call.

          So an "unassisted" mode would need to remove any coloring from the dots.

          I don't see anything wrong with just having the waterfall going, with
          dots and text hidden.

          It would be however possible to distinguish between a carrier and a
          real cw signal based on statistics (signal variability) and not text
          decoding.

          Tor
          N4OGW
        • rt_tclay
          It can also be argued that clicking on dots in the present version of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the assisted class. Why?
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
            It can also be argued that "clicking on dots" in the present version
            of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the
            "assisted" class. Why? Because the color of the dots indicates
            something about whether Skimmer has decoded and/or verified a call.

            So an "unassisted" mode would need to remove any coloring from the dots.

            I don't see anything wrong with just having the waterfall going, with
            dots and text hidden.

            It would be however possible to distinguish between a carrier and a
            real cw signal based on statistics (signal variability) and not text
            decoding.

            Tor
            N4OGW
          • Dave Baxter
            Just an observation on this thread. With Skimmer in Blind mode, I don t see much difference then, compared to if you had Spectran (or any other spectrum
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 31, 2008
              Just an observation on this thread.

              With Skimmer in "Blind" mode, I don't see much difference then, compared
              to if you had Spectran (or any other spectrum waterfall display program)
              showing, other than you can click on a signal to tune the radio.

              Some would no doubt say that feature was "an assistance" too (click to
              tune) There again, I'm not a contesting type these days (been there,
              done that etc).. And I'm sure the purists would say that having any
              sort of bandspread spectrum/waterfall display showing adjacent stations
              was an unfair advantage.

              As an aside, I just wish the contesters would keep the beacon
              allocations clear +- 100Hz or so of a weekend. Here in the UK, 20m in
              particular often has overseas CW, RTTY, even SSB stations working right
              next to (within 10Hz) or on top of the beacons. If you listen with mk1
              ear-ole, it's plain to see (hear) that they cannot even hear other
              people calling them, so they probably cant hear the beacons.

              The quality of some contest signals has to be questioned too, if it's
              not sat directly on top of 14.100, the splatter or sproggies get you,
              often from something 10's of kHz away! I'm fairly happy the RX is OK
              (TS870s with attenuation and AIP on etc) as it's not just some of the
              "big" signals that are bad, many of the less than S9 signals are
              appalling too!

              Still, even under those conditions, Faros (subject change) seems to do a
              remarkable job detecting the presence of a distance beacon that I can't
              even hear through the mayhem. OK so Faros seems to work OK, that is
              when the big signals don't depress the radio's AGC too much. I have the
              rig screwed down to 100Hz bandwidth, and even then it's a problem at
              times.

              Each to their own..

              73.

              Dave G0WBX.



              > __________
              > 1f. Re: Blind Skimmer Option for Unassisted Categories
              > Posted by: "rt_tclay" rt_clay@... rt_tclay
              > Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:10 am ((PDT))
              >
              > It can also be argued that "clicking on dots" in the present version
              > of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the
              > "assisted" class. Why? Because the color of the dots indicates
              > something about whether Skimmer has decoded and/or verified a call.
              >
              > So an "unassisted" mode would need to remove any coloring
              > from the dots.
              >
              > I don't see anything wrong with just having the waterfall going, with
              > dots and text hidden.
              >
              > It would be however possible to distinguish between a carrier and a
              > real cw signal based on statistics (signal variability) and not text
              > decoding.
              >
              > Tor
              > N4OGW
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.