[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R Category

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R Category
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:57:49 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > The point is IT'S THE ANTENNAS and LOCATION that make the 
> > difference in many cases.  Not SO2R. 

The point I have made for over a year ... SO2R is but one tool 
and certainly not THE tool that is so dominant that it makes all 
others insignificant. 

Again, if you want to give your jihad for a separate SO2R 
(or SO1R) entry class any intellectual validity, start by 
establishing a class that prohibits antennas higher than 49 
feet (15 meters) and with elements totaling no more than one 
half wavelength.  Add a "single transceiver" requirement to 
that class if you want.  Beyond that there is no justification 
for limiting the operator's choice of tools (within the rules) 
- whether it be bigger antennas, SOnR, computer assisted 
logging, memory keyer assisted CW, Voice Keyer assisted SSB, 
or DSP enhanced RTTY - he uses to increase his score.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 5:44 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R Category
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:01:52 -0500, "Edward" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> >The point is IT'S THE ANTENNAS and LOCATION that make the 
> >difference in many cases.  Not SO2R. 
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
> Since your second radio is no help, what kind is it and how much do
> you want for it?
> I didn't think so. :-)
> 73, Bill W6WRT


CQ-Contest mailing list

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