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
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
Each to their own..
> 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