Bill,
RTTY contesting is clearly a different animal. I also have made comments
previously on rtty contesting, apparently in agreement with your concerns,
that some of the practices and technology may have already crossed the line
of having an OSC - or "Operator Surrogate Computer" functionally taking the
place of a second operator.
My OSC comments yesterday were directed towards future developments for SSB
or CW operating.
It seems that we share the same concerns, but the timeline for those
concerns to be applied to the various modes is somewhat different, with RTTY
being in the present, and the other modes becoming a concern in the future.
73,
Bob W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Turner [mailto:dezrat@copper.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:47 AM
To: Robert Naumann
Cc: 'CQ-Contest MailList'
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting in the Sunlight [was: SO1R and SO2R]
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:01:30 -0500, you wrote:
>The other thing you don't seem to understand is that it is impossible for
>even the very top competitors to listen to the other radio for even a
>majority of the time. It is impossible to operate at very high rates on one
>radio and listen to the second radio a lot - if at all. The effect is that
>it sits dormant - certainly providing no advantage during those times.
------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------
Your comments are correct for CW and phone, but I am primarily a RTTY
contester and I should have made that clear. Sorry.
For RTTY contesting, it is easy to copy while transmitting because the
print is right there on the monitor and transmitting is generally done
with pre-written macros. This discussion originated on the RTTY
reflector and somehow migrated to this one.
I shall defer to your expertise on CW/phone.
Bill, W6WRT
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|