Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+SO2R\s+in\s+the\s+CW\s+Sprint\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: Tree <tree@kkn.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:55:27 -0700
Technically - this would be a rules violation. I will argue that you can't use that 20 meter frequency until the "one subsequent QSO is made" and it isn't made until it is completed. And - it is just
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00141.html (8,235 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:45:56 -0600
Tree, You problably all already there, if I read in between the lines in your post, is what I've felt for quite a while: put more of the thinking, planning and stratagy back into the efforts, rather
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00144.html (8,698 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot@n5ot.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:11:36 -0500
It's a fine line, but, yeah, you can't call CQ on the same frequency until the other QSO is finished - not "in process." The whole point is to move. That should be obvious. If you move you can start
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00150.html (7,217 bytes)

4. [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: Scott Robbins <w4pa@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
WC7S: post, >is what I've felt for quite a while: put more of the thinking, planning and >stratagy back into the efforts, rather than brute force. Fewer radios, yes, >fewer band changes, yes, and a q
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00152.html (8,602 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: K4RO Kirk Pickering <k4ro@k4ro.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:56:10 -0500
Tree, could you elaborate on why you feel this way? Is it because you feel that some two radio guys are making pseudo "round robin" QSO's, with the "intervening" QSO starting on another band before t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00153.html (9,267 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:32:23 -0400
Is there maybe a semantic issue here, rather than a real one? I thought Howie was describing something like the following - assume starting with calling someone on 20 while CQing on 40: on 20 N4AF se
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00154.html (9,619 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: PaulKB8N@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:16:35 EDT
SO2R isn't brute force -- it's thinking and strategy. I agree with Scott, and SO2R isn't even something that you need to do all the time. I do not have any of the automatic SO2R features enabled with
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00155.html (9,774 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:14:36 -0600
But you have made K5ZD wait a long time before N4AF responds to him. If I was K5ZD, I probably would have given up on N4AF. You have made N6TR wait even longer for N4AF to respond. I certainly wouldn
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00157.html (9,261 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot@n5ot.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:15:53 -0500
(Sorry Howie for dragging you through all this). Fair enough Pete. Your scenario is not what Jamie originally posted. Jamie said Howie sent a CQ on 20 and got an answer. So, in Jamie's original scena
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00158.html (9,036 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:37:24 -0400
I agree with Steve - none of the "top dogs" would wait that long - in fact, since they would have dropped the call in while calling CQ on another band, they probably wouldn't have waited. On the othe
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00159.html (10,020 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: "ku8e" <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:13:30 -0400
It's interesting this topic came up. Just the other day while having lunch with K4BAI (and talking about the Sprint) I made the comment to John that "I sure had a hard time working N4AF" I think I ca
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00160.html (10,101 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:26:11 -0500
Hi Jeff, Considering sprints are hard enough as it is without a second radio, I agree with most of what you're saying. However, in the interests of understanding this thread, I looked up the Special
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00162.html (13,804 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: "Craig Cook" <craig.n7or@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:26:08 -0700
I think I see now why every time I try a sprint or NS, nobody ever answers me. If I CQ, nothing. If I call while S&P, I get a CQ back in my grill. I remember the time in the mid 1990s that I broke 10
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00164.html (11,792 bytes)

14. [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: Scott Robbins <w4pa@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
This SO2R CW Sprint discussion really is about "it's not how it used to be, or how someone thinks it was intended to be". I have no idea how it used to be or how it was intended to be. My first CW Sp
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00169.html (9,427 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: David Pruett <k8cc@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:44:05 -0400
Jeff, I have to agree with you on this one. I've heard K5ZD say many time that good SO2R is undetectable to others on the band, and its my opinion that this is true for those contesters who are good
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00171.html (12,627 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:39:40 -0400
Perhaps it comes down to a fairly simple rule of thumb - don't CQ on the second radio unless you're prepared to answer when the CQ finishes. In Sprinting, there is zero reason to CQ to "hold a freque
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00175.html (14,251 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:19:04 -0400
David Pruett wrote: "nobody would be complaining (well, nobody except K4WW)." Complain = to express grief, pain, or discontent Conviction = a strong persuasion or belief Dave....I'm very disappointed
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00176.html (8,965 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: rt_clay@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:29:41 +0000
I spent a long time doing the Sprint SO1R, but my scores have really improved since I started doing SO2R. Maybe also now having 4/4 monobanders on 20m and gain on the low bands has helped as well :)
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00179.html (9,028 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (score: 1)
Author: "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot@n5ot.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:02:42 -0500
Warren asked: "...Of course, there's also the issue of when to practice, and how?..." and Ted answered: the NCCC-sponsored Thursday night (and sometimes Friday) sprint practices were started expressl
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00195.html (9,992 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu