It has long been my opinion that a good single op unassisted effort will always
prevail over an assisted effort THAT OVER EMPHASIZES USE OF PACKET. By that I
mean that, for several reasons, not all packet spots are useful. You may not
have propagation to the spotted station. You may have to sit in a pileup to
work the station. You may not need the station. The only advantage I can find
is that you may pick up a few (probably very few) multipliers you have missed
otherwise. To get these, you may pay a small penalty in QSOs missed.
This game is a lot more fun without packet anyway.
73 de Jim
"David L. Thompson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Packet usage is the accepted method for multi ops and has its good and bad
>points. Many find that you can spin up or down the band
>working stations faster than if you just try to work the packet spots. If
>you use two transceivers at each multi op position this spinning is done
>while maintaining a run frequency.
>K1AR pointed out several years ago that a multi million score could be made
>in say the CQ WW just by working the packet spots. But many of us have
>found that this requires a new skill and except for guys such as K3WW few
>ever take full advantage of this. This is why the Assisted Single op scores
>are not any higher than single op unassisted scores. The average score is
>higher as the assisted stations tend to work longer at the contest.
>In multi op stations using packet (or the internet web pages) is best
>utilized when some member of the team stays on top of the spots
>plus the stations are wired to pick up the spots without the main op
>thinking too much!
>Hats off to N2RM and others who choose to not use packet spots....and its
>nice to have a choice.
>73 Dave K4JRB
>CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
>Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com