I built a box that stores the CW from two sources and releases it
alternating to one radio at a time based on word spaces in the CW.
The problem is people on the other end won't wait for the delay.
Wintest, at least when I tried it, was not very CW thoughtful and did not
have an interlock. I'm not sure if that changed now. N1MM does, and the
interlock works OK.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Art Boyars" <artboyars@gmail.com>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Multi-op rule change in CQWW
>I can't resist.
>
> I have not read all the discussion in detail, but there seems to be a
> near-consensus that dueling CQs is immoral if done on a single band,
> mainly
> because it uses up too much spectrum. (Note that this a problem only if
> the
> CQer is loud.)
>
> So, why is dueling CQs not immoral if done on two different bands -- which
> seems to be the consensus for advanced SO2R, as has been expounded every
> time I complain about the practise. Hey. one signal at a time is one
> signal
> at a time.
>
> I offer again to build a little box that will send "inverted" CW on your
> other freq. That's only one signal at a time. The cost for this box: a
> reasonable explanation as to why that practise should be allowed. It is,
> after all, only one signal at a time.
>
> 73, Art K3KU
> Back under my rock
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|