I'm not disputing Steve's observation on how many operators use dueling
CQ, but to run dueling CQs without expecting at least a steady stream of
stations to work on both radios seems to be a waste of the second radio,
when it could probably yield a higher rate doing efficient S/P a-la
"classic SO2R" style.
As far as I know, current software implementations are not conducive to
the concept of actually running both sides, and using two (2) PCs with
lockouts is more effective in such a case, even though there is more
physical movement. I haven't run N1MM in a couple years after switching
the shack PC to Linux, but from what I remember, once a QSO is started
on one radio, the focus stays there until the QSO is complete and
resumes dueling CQs. If there is a station to work on the other radio,
you can toggle back and forth with an extra keypress. Anything extra is
inefficient.
When I submitted patches to N4OGW to add dueling CQ to his 'so2sdr'
logger, a different approach was taken. During dueling CQ, entry focus
is automatically opposite the transmitting radio, just like N1MM,
et.al., however, when a QSO is started on one side, the logger drops
into "Toggling ESM" mode. Every subsequent <enter> keypress toggles
transmit between radios. Function (Fx) message keys are no longer
on-demand, rather they become queued for the next <enter> keypress.
This allows for a clean, normal ESM flow between radios, no extraneous
keypresses needed, and with the function key queuing, one can perform
fills or fill requests easily. If more time is needed on one side, an
empty message can be "sent" on that radio to force a dummy toggle while
still maintaining pace on the other. Despite even these optimizations
to the operation of dueling CQs / simultaneous runs, two (2) PCs may
still be more effective when there are decent pileups, unless things are
flowing perfectly, then one can just keep pressing enter until their
finger falls off. (ESM ops, check out USB footpetals, ie. XKeys... map
switch to <enter> key and use foot instead or in combo).
At any rate, dual runs can be exhausting and tricky. The CQing operator
has to maintain cadence, control, etc. N6MJ, et.al., demonstrate a
wonderful mastery.
73 Eric NO3M
On 12/06/2015 09:11 PM, Steve London wrote:
There is some terminology confusion.
Dueling CQ's has been built into most contesting software for many
years. You send a CQ on one band. When the CQ finishes, a CQ is
automatically started on another band. If someone answers you on the
first band, the CQ on the other band is automatically terminated, and
you complete the usual QSO sequence on the first band. If no one
answers, the software automatically bip-bops CQ's between the 2 bands
until someone answers on either band, or you change strategy.
What ZF2MJ, OH0V, V47T, and others have advanced is running
simultaneous pileups on two bands, with 2 QSO's in progress at the
same time, but never transmitting on the two bands at the same time.
This is quite different from the dueling CQ's which many contesters
have used for years.
I propose using the term "simultaneous pileups", not "dueling CQ's",
to describe what ZF2MJ, et.al., have done.
73,
Steve, N2IC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|