----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Coleman" <aa4lr@arrl.net>
To: "Richard Zalewski" <w7zr@citlink.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Not Another Contest Category
> On 1/22/02 1:14 PM, Richard Zalewski at w7zr@citlink.net wrote:
>
> >Now think about the ability of SOME stations being able to alternately
work
> >two bands versus the others limited to one band at a time. There is a
HUGE
> >difference in the potential of these two stations. Then why if we
separate
> >based on power, and number of transmitters in a multi class, and have
power
> >in 3 classes should we not HAVE A SEPARATE CLASS FOR SO2R?
>
> Seems like this comes up a couple of times a year. And it seems like the
> same tired old arguments are made each time. And it seems like the same
> tired old refutations are made each time. So, here we go again.
Sorry to put you to sleep with such a tired old argument but I have received
more notes of support than opposition.
>
> SO2R is a misnomer. Two radios aren't necessary.
Yes, and two radio are not necessary for MS either.
What's necessary are two
> receivers and a frequency-agile transmitter. An FT-1000D has 95% of the
> circuitry needed to do what's required in SO2R operating. The only thing
> missing is the ability to receive on the sub-radio while transmitting.
> I'm sure at some point, the Japanese designers will figure this out in
> some future radio.
>
> SO2R isn't any different as an operating category than a single operator.
> SO2R isn't about equipment. (THIS SEEMS TO BE THE REAL STICKING POINT)
> SO2R is about skill. Just having a boatload of radios or antennas doesn't
> help. You have to know how to make effective use out of htem.
I beg to differ. I give you that certain skills are required for SO2R and
do not take that away from the operators at all. However, we are not
talking skill levels in the "typical" SO2R station. These stations
"usually" have more than one tribander, they "usually" have multiple
transceivers, they "usually" have devices capable of switching audio.
>
> >I take nothing away from those ops who can do the SO2R. I think that
being
> >able to do that requires a certain skill along with a different class of
> >equipment. And equipment is the factor here.
>
> No, equipment isn't the fact. It's skill.
>
> > We class on equipment
> >power....we class on number of transmitters in a multi....then why not
HAVE
> >A SEPARATE CLASS FOR SO2R?
>
> SO2R stations have the same limitations that SO1R operators do. One
> transmitted signal at a time. Power is pretty universial. Multi-operator
> stations are segregated by how many similtaneous signals they can have.
> So, too, single operators -- only one transmitted signal at a time.
>
> There's no need for a new category.
>
> The key evidence is that SO2R operators don't dominate the top-10. There
> are many single radio operators who are firmly entrenched there, and
> don't show any signs of being displaced.
>
>
>
> Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net
> Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
> -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>
>
>
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|