>From trey Tue Aug 5 19:49:08 1997
Received: from hal-pc.org (hal-pc.org [204.52.135.1])
by dayton.akorn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA21492
for <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 19:49:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fatman-195.hal-pc.org (max0-10.hal-pc.org [209.16.24.10]) by
hal-pc.org (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA07411; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 18:48:33 -0500
(CDT)
Received: by fatman-195.hal-pc.org with Microsoft Mail
id <01BCA1CF.CD961AC0@fatman-195.hal-pc.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 18:45:53
-0500
Message-ID: <01BCA1CF.CD961AC0@fatman-195.hal-pc.org>
From: Dale Martin <kg5u@hal-pc.org>
To: "'cq-contest@contesting.com'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>,
"'N6ZZ@aol.com'" <N6ZZ@aol.com>
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW - Value of 2 Radios
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Tuesday, August 05, 1997 10:56 AM, N6ZZ@aol.com wrote:
>I'd be interested in a bit of information from the rest of you that appear to
>be in the top ten in last weekend's CW NAQP. In addition to Jeff, that would
>(currently) include: K3MM, N4ZZ, NM5M, AA3B, K4FXN, N4AF, K0EJ, K6LL and
>K3PH.
Phil,
I am answering/responding/interjecting as one who was intending to
go 2 radio, but let circumstances overtake him during the week and
and ended up going 1 radio. I am also speaking from the standpoint
of being a QRP station, so my operating techniques are probably
vastly different than those operating 'full' NAQP power.
My questions are:
>
> 1. Did you use two radios in a somewhat efficient manner? (Such as CQing
>on one band while listening on another)
>
>If the answer to #1 is yes:
>
Yes. I would have. I was operating QRP, so my QSX times were
probably longer than those for the big guns. I noted many places
in my log (during and after the contest) where I went for extended
periods of time (couple of minutes) between QSO's. Those times
I was S&P'ing, looking for someone new to work, I could have been
calling CQ on another band and maybe making the odd QSO here
and there that way.
> 2. How many additional QSOs do you think you got by using two radios, as
>compared to what you would have gotten had you been using only one radio?
>
Probably 30 or 40. Seems high (~10 percent of my final QSO count),
but then, there were lots of opportunities to be calling CQ while either
waiting for a QSO to finish or looking for a new station to work.
> 3. How many additional multipliers do you think you got by using two
>radios, as compared to what you would have gotten had you been using only one
>radio?
>
Half dozen or more? Lots of mults were S&P'ing. I played leap-frog
with a bunch of them by calling CQ just above their QSO QRG in
hopes they were tuning that direction and would hear and call me.
In a few cases it worked. In more, it did not.
But, I think having the second radio augmenting the on-air presence
cannot hurt.
73,
Dale Martin, KG5U
kg5u@hal-pc.org
http://www.hal-pc.org/~kg5u
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|