> > If you banish the distinction between the two - you have now
> > put the top operators into the position of having to adopt
> > the technology in order to not lose to other top operators
> > who are adopting it.
> >
> >
> > Tree N6TR
> > tree@kkn.net
> > _______________________________________________
>
>
> Now I believe I understand Tree. Is this something like the technology of
> SO2R?? Since contest rules do not create a new category for SO2R and forced
> the top operators to adopt it, do you think it might be possible for
> operators to adopt another technolgy too?
I think the difference between SO2R and packet is that the majority of people
think that SO2R technology still leaves just the single operator in the
equation. Is it an advantage - yes - but it isn't human assistance in
operating or spotting.
Using packet to find stations to work is - well - having other people
involved in the operation. It is also an advantage.
Using stacked beams is also an advantage.
Thus far - the "status quo" has defined SO2R as single operator and using
packet as "assisted". The number of beams you use also doesn't affect if
you are assisted or not.
So - I am not sure what SO2R has to do with the fact that more serious
operators enter unassisted than assisted.
It should probably be noted that most competitive assisted stations are
essentially using two radios - in that they can tune in a packet spot and
listen to it in one ear while still running on their frequency. When they
pounce on the packet spot - they are doing exactly the same thing you would
do if you were SO2R after finding a station to work.
How could anyone argue that getting assistance isn't going to improve the
score in a SO2R station? You essentially have a team of people telling
you where to tune the second radio.
Tree
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|