CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Poaching SO2R

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Poaching SO2R
From: "Art Boyars" <art.boyars@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:33:20 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I saw W4PA's reply to AH3C's suggestion on the Web at work this morning.  I 
don't like to use Uncle Sam's e-mail for ham radio, so I did not reply right 
away.  Most of what I wanted to say has been said, but I feel that I have to 
second some of those opinions.

Remember, first, that I myself do NOT think that SO2R should be a separate 
class.  If you can juggle the two radios, good for you.  Nonetheless...

The essence of SO2R is being able to interrupt your run/CQ smoothly enough to 
grab the QSO on the 2nd radio and get back BEFORE YOU LOSE THE CQ FREQ.  Any 
time you stop CQing -- for any reason -- you risk losing the freq.  Yes, the 
other op's do have to give you "normal" time to listen for replies, but not 
anything longer than that (somewhat subjective).

What, are we going to tolerate "My bagel fell on the floor; I only stopped to 
pick it up"?  Or, maybe, "I've been here for fifty minutes; I only stopped to 
go to the bathroom!"

If somebody goes "QRL?" on the CQ freq, and if you are not quick enough to 
interrupt the other QSO to dump in "Wait" (or .-...) on the CQ freq, then you 
just lost it.  And if you try to force your way back, that's deliberate 
interference.

So ...  Don't drop the bagel!  Get a relief tube!  Develop your SO2R hardware 
and skills so that you don't leave an occupiable gap on the CQ freq.  And don't 
take the advantage of extra hardware and operating techniques without accepting 
the risks.  (I challenge you all to enter my new operating class: low power, 
low dipole, no computer.)

73, Art K3KU
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>