I've been curious as to the recent fuss about some guys using two
radios while single-op. It's not like this is a new concept - guys
have been doing it for many years. You can hardly even call it
innovative anymore. As long as it's done within the rules, (ie. only
one transmitted signal at a time, etc.) go for it!!
Perhaps some guys have just become complacent and thus, lazy.
Now that others are catching up or beating them they want to use
rule changes or "score qualification" to offset their failure to
adapt to the change.
And why do some feel that you have to spend big $$ in order to use
two radios? As WX3N mentioned, I HAVE used my old TS 520 as a
second radio in several contests. You don't have to be using state-
of-the-art equipment in order for it to be effective. You could
always borrow a radio.
It's not totally unlike basketball where the US has been (and
generally still is) the world power. But other countries are
becoming more competitive and are catching up to the level of the
US. It scares the hell out of some people that the US could
actually get beat someday in the world arena and they might have
to actually make some changes in order to maintain the top
position.
So if using two radios isn't fun for you, fine. Don't feel obligated
to buy (or borrow) a second radio. Have as much fun as you can
with one radio. That's what it's all about, anyway!!! But please
don't define how I can have my fun.
73 Mike N0BSH
n0bsh@aol.com
>From Kurszewski Chad" <kurszewski_chad@macmail1.csg.mot.com Tue Sep 20
>12:01:37 1994
From: Kurszewski Chad" <kurszewski_chad@macmail1.csg.mot.com (Kurszewski Chad)
Subject: Dual Simultaneous CQ'ing
Message-ID: <199409201603.AA05484@pobox.mot.com>
>>Personally, I have not observed "dual simultaneous CQing" to be a
>>problem, at least not yet.... --John/K2MM
>Bill Fisher, KM9P
> I can tell you from experience that alternating CQ's on 2 bands
> doesn't work in any contest that I have entered.
Well, entering a contest QRP or low power, the second radio CQ can really pay
off if you can hold both frequencies. When I won SS SSB QRP, I CQ'ed on both
radios (alternating, of course). The rate operating low or very low power can
allow dual CQ's.
For those of you running high power at rates 80-150 per hour, dual CQ'ing
becomes a lot more difficult, and as Bill says, "doesn't work" because the rate
is so high on the one band. But doing an NAQP, or other low power work, there
is a lot of unanswered CQ's. I just double my chances of being heard QRP if
I'm on two bands.
Chad WE9V
kurszewski_chad@macmaiL1.csg.mot.com
>From Willy Umanets <uw9ar@chal.chel.su> Wed Sep 21 03:56:27 1994
From: Willy Umanets <uw9ar@chal.chel.su> (Willy Umanets)
Subject: F2ck/g QSL INFO...
Message-ID: <AAR3wVkyf2@chal.chel.su>
>From rich!Cone-Of-Silence.TGV.COM!tgv.com!owner-cq-contest Tue Sep 20 22:05:54
>1994
Received: by chal.chel.su (UUPC/@ v5.00gamma, 07Nov92);
Tue, 20 Sep 1994 22:05:53 +0400
Received: from Cone-Of-Silence.TGV.COM by survax.rich.chel.su with SMTP id
AA18546
KJ4VH writes in response to sumone:
>Recently, someone asked abt XX9TZ QSLs on this reflector. I don't think
>this is the most appropriate forum for that topic, but ....
Hey, Tim, You got it right, man! This is not the place!
One thing I don't want to flood this reflector is all that QSL mgr. stuff
I pay for what I read, not mentioning I pay for the outgoing messages...
I understand there are all kinds of DX forums around, so lets keep
this place clear of all the QRM other than CONTEST RELATED MATTERS.
Hey, Trey, you are the boss here! PSE guard the contest reflector!
---
73, Willy, UA9BA
----------------------------------------------------------
JV "Challenger Ltd" phone : 351-260-0190
Internet : uw9ar@chal.chel.su fax : 351-237-1756
>From David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629@mcimail.com> Tue Sep 20 17:58:00 1994
From: David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629@mcimail.com> (David & Barbara Leeson)
Subject: More Two Radios
Message-ID: <21940920165812/0005543629NA1EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
Although it is possible to wire an A/B box to CQ on two bands as was once
OK in Sprint, I don't know that anyone does this or who thinks it would be
any advantage. The typical setup that switches the mike or key and the PTT
insures only one signal at a time from two radios.
I think the argument that two radios result in more spectrum usage is
spurious. If you are going to make more Q's, you are going to use more
frequency-time bandwidth by definition. In most contests, the Q's that
make the difference between winning and not are folks who will not call
CQ, but will answer them. Thus, you need to have a high duty cycle CQ
going all the time, which is a fact of life that is irritating to the
casual listener, because it seems that if you don't get answers all the
time you could do just as well to shut up (but of course that doesn't work,
as the key Q will just tune by the empty space without knowing you're
there).
Those who have tried two radios generally conclude that one for CQ, one for
exploratory S&P or checking out the next band, is the best way. And, unles
you've tried it, you wouldn't believe the work it is to listen to two
different bands in stereo, keep from being hypnotized by your own CQing, and
not call on the wrong band or CQ by accident in someone's face after you
have just worked them on their frequency.
If the rate is high in response to CQing (at P40V, Carl and I averaged over
200/hr for 48 hours in this year's ARRL SSB, using 1.0 radio and 1.0 operator
at a time), you don't get any benefit from another radio, only a headache.
My hat is off to guys who do well, whether with one radio like KI3V or K6LL,
or two, like KR0Y, KM9P and WN4KKN. But after you try it and get used to
it, you'll never go back to only one, even if the second is only a very
limited setup. I don't think rules changes in response to marginal technical
advances are very smart; it only penalizes the folks who have the gumption to
work out the new stuff, and sounds like the arguments a few years ago about
restricting the use of computers. Let's lighten up; winning isn't everything
but it's a respectible goal, and learning your way up the ladder is worth
the candle, too.
73 de Dave 554-3629@mcimail.com (I can't remember it either, but my MCI
alias is still goofed up, and mail goes to my namesake in the UK instead)
>From David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629@mcimail.com> Tue Sep 20 18:00:00 1994
From: David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629@mcimail.com> (David & Barbara Leeson)
Subject: L-7 Want
Message-ID: <32940920170023/0005543629NA1EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
Still looking for L-7 for N6KT/HC8A...thanks for the leads to date.
73 de Dave W6QHS 554-3629@mcimail.com
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Tue Sep 20 18:47:43 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: NA & SS reporting question (?)
Message-ID: <780083263.377999.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
> I know as a CAC member that usually the majority opinion will rule on a
> question before the committee. My question to the PLAYERS in the NA and
> the SS contest is:
>
> SHALL A TWO-RADIO OPERATION (in S/O) BE SO ANNOTATED IN THE RESULTS?
Yes, with an asterisk. And if someone uses three radios, they should get
two asterisks.
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
NOT!
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Tue Sep 20 18:52:55 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: NA & SS reporting question (?)
Message-ID: <780083575.31999.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
> I know as a CAC member that usually the majority opinion will rule on a
> question before the committee. My question to the PLAYERS in the NA and
> the SS contest is:
>
> SHALL A TWO-RADIO OPERATION (in S/O) BE SO ANNOTATED IN THE RESULTS?
Oops. Forgot to mention that people using FT-1000's get 1.5 asterisks.
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Tue Sep 20 19:01:45 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: QSL ROUTE CHANGE TO YOUR DB
Message-ID: <780084105.519999.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
> Please make note of the following QSL route change in your databases,
> should you work this station. I am now the QSL manager for: [...]
>
> Please QSL via my current CBA. Self Addressed Stamped Envelopes would
> be appreciated as it cuts down the processing time.
Please do not make QSL route postings to the CQ-Contest mailing list. Thanks.
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Tue Sep 20 19:02:49 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: N3NNU/HR1 QSL Info
Message-ID: <780084169.441999.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
> I am the QSL manager for Joseph Ladd, N3NNU/HR1 who is a captain in
> the marines assigned to the US Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. He's
> very active on 30 meters. If you need his card, an SASE would be
> appreciated. My address is good in any CB since 1985.
Please do not make QSL route postings to the CQ-Contest mailing list. Thanks.
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
>From Kurszewski Chad" <kurszewski_chad@macmail1.csg.mot.com Tue Sep 20
>14:14:49 1994
From: Kurszewski Chad" <kurszewski_chad@macmail1.csg.mot.com (Kurszewski Chad)
Subject: TWO RADIOES
Message-ID: <199409201815.AA27418@pobox.mot.com>
> KEVIN - WA8ZDT wrote:
> Over the weekend, someone mentioned hooking up two DVK's -to- two radios
> and merrily CQing away on two bands at once.
> ....
> Most people don't have interlock switches or special software to lock-out
> the possibility of simultaneous transmission.
>.... If they CQ on two bands at once, oh well, OOPPS!, sorry....
> Even if a veteran contester follows the rules to a "T", there is no
> realistic way to verify that he never transmitted on two bands at once.
Sooner or later, we must believe the contester. We cant have WRTC for every
contest and have a supervisor standing over our shoulder, or take a polygraph
at the local police station and have it notorized by two notary public within
two hours of the end of the contest.
I'm telling you that I NEVER transmitted on two (or more) bands at once during
the NAQP's. Do YOU believe me? Would you believe someone else who says the
same as I? At some point, you have to believe/trust people. How about the
people running A power for SS and claiming Q, or running B power and claiming
A? We don't have any "realistic way to verify" that. People must be trusted
or else other 'scams' will happen.
For example, if you (and many, many others) trust that I will not transmit (CQ,
QRZ?, dumping the call, whatever) on two bands/frequencies at once, I try my
hardest not to let anyone down. Yes, it's entirely up to me, and no, no one
was watching. But people trust me, and I don't want to let them down. So I
follow the rules.
I guess the bad news is, not everyone is trusted, and since they are not
trusted, they feel that they are not letting anyone down by actually breaking
the rules.
Forgive me for rambling. I just think all this score catogorizing (# for 2 tx,
* for low power, & for tribander, etc) and all the rule speculation/changing is
getting out of hand. Before internet, none of this bitching would have
happened. Remember on 3830, the only things discussed were antennas, operating
techniques, and band openings that others may have missed.
Now look at us.
Sincerely,
Chad WE9V
kurszewski_chad@macmaiL1.csg.mot.com
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Tue Sep 20 19:23:54 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: XX9TZ QSL Status
Message-ID: <780085434.152999.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
> Has anyone received a QSL card, or does anyone know the status of
> sending cards, from the Macao DXpedition of March 1994? KU9C is the
> Manager.
Please do not post QSL card inquries to the CQ-Contest mailing list. These
types of inquries are probably more apporopriate for the DXing mailing list
dx@unbc.edu (but then again they might not be appropriate there either).
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
>From oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Tue Sep 20 19:27:05 1994
From: oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Subject: TWO RADIOES
Message-ID: <9409201827.AA17825@astro.as.utexas.edu>
One question is, of course, should people who can't spell the
plural of "radio" be allowed to use two of them?
Re cheating in contests, note the piece by W6GO in the latest
DX Magazine. People who later submitted "s/o unassisted"
scores in SS-ssb, including some who won plaques, were using
his packet cluster asking for spots for sections needed for
a clean sweep. According to him, people who used the cluster
and entered as s/o unassisted included an ex-pres of "a large
contest club", an appointee to an ARRL advisory committee, a
volunteer examiner and a DXCC card checker, all of whom ought
to be cleaner than a random competitor.
If people are going to be this blatant, there are presumably
a bunch more people who are using packet in a more subtle way.
The only cure I can see for this is to dump the unassisted
category, but I know many will disagree with that.
Derek AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu
>From Victor Burns <vburns@netcom.com> Tue Sep 20 19:39:52 1994
From: Victor Burns <vburns@netcom.com> (Victor Burns)
Subject: NA & SS reporting question (?)
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409201150.A25694-0100000@netcom11>
`On Tue, 20 Sep 1994, Trey Garlough wrote:
> > I know as a CAC member that usually the majority opinion will rule on a
> > question before the committee. My question to the PLAYERS in the NA and
> > the SS contest is:
> >
> > SHALL A TWO-RADIO OPERATION (in S/O) BE SO ANNOTATED IN THE RESULTS?
>
> Oops. Forgot to mention that people using FT-1000's get 1.5 asterisks.
>
> --Trey, WN4KKN/6
How about that old Swan I got...do I get 1/2 an asterisk?
vvb
---
KI6IM
>From Peter G. Smith" <n4zr@netcom.com Tue Sep 20 20:00:39 1994
From: Peter G. Smith" <n4zr@netcom.com (Peter G. Smith)
Subject: More Two Radios
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409201111.A21935-0100000@netcom>
I'm inclined to agree, though not from experience with one radio vs.
two. Instead, I reflect on experience in drag racing, where there was a
time that there was a class for virtually everyone. In fact, I once won
a trophy with a 1956 Studebaker flathead 6 with automatic transmission,
because I was the only one absurd enough to bring such a miscegenated
vehicle to the races. So subdividing classes isn't any better than
trying to limit progress by "capping the high end."
Let's remember that Danny was only talking about taking note of the fact
of the use of 2 radios, not limiting, segregating or banning them. I
think that a lot more station information made available in some venue
would be of wide interest. Didn't there used to me a lot more info in
the QST write-ups on antennas, etc.?
73, Pete
N4ZR@netcom.com
"Better, faster,cheaper -- choose any two"
|