Well, I'm going to have to disagree, Bob. I know of at
least one early SO2R operator who made real use of
the capability. Now, Vic Clark tuned the second receiver
in his shack while his mechanical CQ machine cranked
away on rig one. Now, Vic didn't make the most out
of it. He had one transmitter and two receivers. When
he found a new one on receiver two he'd have to take
a minute out to change bands on his transmitter. And his
final used plug-in coils. But it did mean that his scores
held a telling advantage. He never missed an opening,
however short, and he always found the multipliers.
The capability to do effective SO2R operating is
dependent on technology, and technology has developed
over the years. But my own early SO2R efforts didn't
wait for computer logging. I used a memory keyer that
I designed and built myself to crank out the CQ's while
I tuned rig two. On phone, W6HX built a CQ machine
out of an "Ans-a-phone" that recorded your CQ message
on the surface of a metal cyllinder. But others were using
simple CQ machines made from tape recorders with little
tape loops hanging from the record head -- and these
were effective for both modes (with the audio keying a
relay on CW).
And the paperwork wasn't quite the huge burden that you
suggest. While CT/NA/TRLog/etc. have made it quite a
bit easier to do SO2R, that doesn't mean that it wasn't done
effectively before computers came along.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Naumann - N5NJ" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RE: SO2R
> Modern SO2R ? Was it really SO2R before then? I find myself in the
> somewhat awkward position of partially agreeing with KQ2M. I don't
> Bob was the first to use SO2R, but more on that later.
> I also think that while there were people using more than one radio,
> doubt that they were really doing it the way we all have come to
> love SO2R as it is defined today.
> I've been looking at this phenomena for a while, and I believe that
> happened here is that some of the more creative operators recognized
> once CT came along in the mid to late 80's, it was doing all of the
> stuff for us that used to occupy all of our 'free' time. This was
> opportunity to do something else with our time and energy.
> Those of us who were around in those early years, recall the burden
> writing down the time, callsigns, exchanges, entering them on the
> sheet(s), tracking multipliers, and so on. The paperwork was a huge
> and consumed a lot of energy and focus. Just keeping it all
organized was a
> task in itself.
> My guess is that we were all too busy doing paperwork to develop
> SO2R skills and I believe that computer logging and transmitting was
> catalyst for SO2R developing into what it is now. Devices external
> computer like CW memory keyers and DVK's, and then later,
> solutions using LPT ports for CW; and for fone, the DVP and sound
> made it more obvious that the an operator wasn't doing anything
> computer and other hardware were transmitting.
> In my opinion, that while it may have been possible to use a tape
> transmit on fone, calling a CQ perhaps, or use a CW keyer
> one band while listening to another, I would be very surprised if
> actually doing this in a way that even comes close to what SO2R is
> before computers were introduced to contesting. As I recall, this
> have been until the late 80's at the earliest. If anyone was able
> this without the benefit of computers, I would have the greatest
> that person's dexterity and organizational skills.
> Some history:
> As early as 1980 or 1981, I had K2GL's station rigged up to be SO6A
> could switch one rig to 6 amplifiers and not have to re-tune for the
> SS. I did have a second radio that I kept on 20m connected to
> amplifier and another antenna, but did not transmit on one radio and
> on the other at the same time however. I confess that the thought
> occurred to me, likely because I was actually talking the whole time
> transmitting. I was only able to instantly switch from one band to
> simply by rotating one switch. I was also logging on paper back
> Around the same time, I built a real SO2R box that I did not use for
> but went to one of the perennial winners in the New England area
> used quite effectively with a Drake Line on one side, and a
> the other as I recall. I think he won a few DX contests using this
> before KQ2M claims that he did. I built that box originally so that
> use both my old SB-102 and my new TS-830 simultaneously from my home
> station. This switching system did enable listening to both radios
> I sold the SB-102 shortly thereafter and sold the switching system
> person in New England who installed a tower upside down once. I did
> switch box back later on and still have it.
> All of this was inspired by what I saw N2NT do at W2YV's station
> had an SO6R set up with 6 different radios, amplifiers etc. This
> 1981 I believe. He used a push-button arrangement to instantly
> one band to another. It was a mechanical interlocked pushbutton
> not sure how effectively he was able to listen on one while
> the other.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Shohet" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:42 PM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] RE: SO2R
> > Thanks to K8IA and KR6X for correcting my
> > mistaken assumption that I was the first to use SO2R
> > consistently in DX contests.
> > I was the first to do MODERN SO2R then. :-)
> > I find it interesting to note that when I actively did
> > SO2R in DX contests starting in the early 80's, no one else in the
> > perennial top ten was doing it. Some had a radio and amp
> > on each band, but they were not operating SO2R.
> > If it had been such a helpful and interesting strategy previously
> > used by W4KFC, W9IOP, KR6X, and others, why was it
> > abandoned in DX contests? Does anyone know?
> > 73
> > Bob KQ2M
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> CQ-Contest mailing list