The following is incorrect. I was never involved with the K5RC (WA5LES)
octopus setup. That was the team of WA5LES and K5LZO.
Be careful of quoting facts from people who already have quoted the facts
incorrectly.
73, Richard
On Sun, 13 Aug 1995, James White wrote:
*> ...........once again ham radio cycles through it's history. > > in the
sixties (& early 70's I think) there was a killer device called the >
octopus which would prevent two rigs simultanesously x-mitting. It was
honed > by some of this reflector's readers. Those being the Sweepstakes'
dynamic > multi-single duo WA5LES/K5PFL (nowadays known as K5RC and
K5NA)....the > interlock would keep one from going from m-s to m-m by
avoiding simultaneous > xmitting (hmmmm - sound familiar to any refelctor
readers????) > > I understand that K5NA is moving back to TX with KU2Q, so
dunno if he is up > and running on the reflector....and I think K5RC
secretly monitors these > posts..... > > If one of them would care to
elucidate on their ole 'pus it would serve to > answer todays needs of the
single op two radio gang - myself included.... > after last weekend and my
fingers constanly going for the ESC key to kill > x-mitting I suspect these
guys could help us keep from re-inventing the > wheel. > > > The octopus
was outlawed back then, but among other things it generated some >
interesting contest-lore....I once heard tale of an operation by the >
Connecticut Wireless Association one Field Day where one of the operators >
was, Mr Voice on your CQ Loop, K1ANV (W3ZZ)... > > Gene was one of the
'phone ops (of course) and he would try and "capture" > the octopus, and
the opportunity to be the next to xmit, by saying over and > over and over:
> > doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou.......... > (and then
when the relay would close) > One Tango X-ray portable one. (W1TX/1) > >
....although it was before my time I can just imagine Gene rolling the >
doubleyous... > > Before we reinvent the wheel lets hear from of the
ocopusses former users! > > Jim, zx k1zx@mcimail.com <k1zx@mcimail.com>*
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:51 AM, <donovanf@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> The then new 1970 Field Day rule eliminated the use of electrical or
> mechanical devices that allowed multiple fully equipped and fully manned
> stations to operate in a smaller transmitter category by making it
> impossible
> to transmit more than one signal simultaneously. This technique had been
> adopted in the 1960s by at least one Field Day competitor, the
> Connecticut Wireless Association W1TX/1 in the 2A Category.
>
>
> See the Jeeves cartoon on page 74 of November 1965 QST.
>
>
> http://p1k.arrl.org/pubs_archive/53793
>
>
> The typical 21st century applications of octopus techniques prevents two
> simultaneous transmitted signals in SO2R stations and prevents two
> simultaneous transmitted signals on the same band in multi-operator
> stations.
>
>
> This is a good opportunity to resurrect a twenty year old thread on this
> topic,
> immediately below my signature
>
>
> 73
> Frank
> W3LPL
>
>
> > From Dr. Eugene Zimmerman" <ezimmerm@DGS.dgsys.com Mon Aug 14 04:26:03
> 1995 Subject: return of the Octopus! Fwd: CW Radio-2 Lockout?
>
> Hi Jim
>
> You have that story correct.
>
> W1TX did use a mechanical octopus to prevent more than one transmitter
> from transmitting at a time. It was built by John Doremus
> W2ADE/W2TA/W0AW and was a fearsome looking thing with a huge aluminum box
> in the middle loaded with relays and a large number of tentacles
> radiating outward from the box. Sort of like a modern day Wouff Hong.
>
> Unfortunately I do not remember what was in the box. And John is no
> longer with us. You might try Roger Corey W1AX/JYH, Gary Foskett W1ECH or
> Pet Chamalian W1RM/BGD - they might remember.
>
> I adopted the operating technique you mention as a defense measure. All
> of the operating at W1TX was search and pounce using the octopus to keep
> you honest. My partner that year on the other end of the octopus was
> Dave Sumner K1ZZ. We sat across from one another and looked at the other
> guy for most of the contest. The most efficient way to operate was to
> find a station to work and then press down the transmit button and gobble
> like a turkey until the other guy was finished transmitting.
>
> Little did I realize how useful that technique would be in meteor scatter
> contacts where the scheduled contacts sound very much like a bunch of
> turkeys or at best a used car auctioneer.
>
> 73 Gene W3ZZ
>
> On Sun, 13 Aug 1995, James White wrote:
>
> > ...........once again ham radio cycles through it's history. > > in the
> sixties (& early 70's I think) there was a killer device called the >
> octopus which would prevent two rigs simultanesously x-mitting. It was
> honed > by some of this reflector's readers. Those being the Sweepstakes'
> dynamic > multi-single duo WA5LES/K5PFL (nowadays known as K5RC and
> K5NA)....the > interlock would keep one from going from m-s to m-m by
> avoiding simultaneous > xmitting (hmmmm - sound familiar to any refelctor
> readers????) > > I understand that K5NA is moving back to TX with KU2Q, so
> dunno if he is up > and running on the reflector....and I think K5RC
> secretly monitors these > posts..... > > If one of them would care to
> elucidate on their ole 'pus it would serve to > answer todays needs of the
> single op two radio gang - myself included.... > after last weekend and my
> fingers constanly going for the ESC key to kill > x-mitting I suspect these
> guys could help us keep from re-inventing the > wheel. > > > The octopus
> was outlawed back then, but among other things it generated some >
> interesting contest-lore....I once heard tale of an operation by the >
> Connecticut Wireless Association one Field Day where one of the operators >
> was, Mr Voice on your CQ Loop, K1ANV (W3ZZ)... > > Gene was one of the
> 'phone ops (of course) and he would try and "capture" > the octopus, and
> the opportunity to be the next to xmit, by saying over and > over and over:
> > > doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou.......... > (and then
> when the relay would close) > One Tango X-ray portable one. (W1TX/1) > >
> ....although it was before my time I can just imagine Gene rolling the >
> doubleyous... > > Before we reinvent the wheel lets hear from of the
> ocopusses former users! > > Jim, zx k1zx@mcimail.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "K5WA" <K5WA@Comcast.net>
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Cc: donovanf@starpower.net
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 9:12:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Field Day SO2R
>
> Frank,
>
> It is very interesting that you didn’t have any issues with the meat of my
> statement to Jim which is that the rule is idiotic in that it stifles
> innovation and is badly written. You even give tacit support to my theory
> that this rule was initiated to target a VERY small (about 1) participant
> pool by bringing in your citation to support my argument. The actual year
> it was implemented is irrelevant if my theory is correct for its reason of
> being instituted. I actually went and looked at the 1970 rules and they are
> different (slightly) than the currently published rules in regard to
> simultaneous transmission. There is no simultaneous transmission in SO2R
> (which is what Jim was asking) as you well know so if this rule should
> continue, it needs to be worded better. In the meantime, my advice to Jim
> (go 2A) was sound based on the spirit of the rule even though the rule is
> flawed.
>
> FD isn’t a contest anyway. ;-)
>
> 73,
>
> Bob
>
> From: donovanf@starpower.net [mailto:donovanf@starpower.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 1:51 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Cc: K5WA
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Field Day SO2R
>
> "A couple of years ago, someone put an idiotic rule into FD which says no
> "octopus" can be used at FD"
>
> A little fact checking is in order...
>
> That rule has been in place for at least forty five years! See the rules
> for the
> 1970 Field Day. The rule was put in place because of the use of octupuses
> by at least one entrant in the 1A category.
>
> http://www.arrl.org/arrl-periodicals-archive-search
>
> 73
> Frank
> W3LPL
> _____
>
> From: "K5WA" <K5WA@Comcast.net>
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:21:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Field Day SO2R
>
> Jim,
>
> A couple of years ago, someone put an idiotic rule into FD which says no
> "octopus" can be used at FD. This had to be a politically motivated rule
> which kills some aspects of innovation at FD (which is an event FOR
> innovation at multiple levels) and was probably targeted at one cross-town
> rival of the rule writer. So, if you follow that vaguely written, poorly
> worded "rule" for this non-contest, you would have to go 2A to comply. Now,
> if you just happen to have a fast antenna switch that doesn't say "Octopus"
> or "Simulcaster" on the side of it, then SO2R your little self away. ;-)
>
> Line 4 in the ARRL FD rules.
>
> The use of switching systems that allow for lockouts in order to use
> multiple transmitters (i.e., an "octopus") in an attempt to enter a
> lower-number-of-transmitters class are prohibited (i.e. using 2
> transmitters
> that can transmit simultaneously, with two operators, and a lock-out system
> and entering class 1A). The use of simulcasting devices which allow a
> single
> operator to key and transmit on more than one transmitter at a time, is
> prohibited.
>
> Have fun at FD. We'll see you as K5TU this year if the Texas floods and 105
> degree heat doesn't get us.
>
> Bob K5WA
>
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:06:36 -0700
> From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Field Day SO2R
> Message-ID: <557F5A7C.80502@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> A small group of us have been doing FD QRP 1A Battery for several years,
> and
> I've recently considered doing it SO2R. The question is, does SO2R put me
> in
> 1A or 2A if there's only a single operator and software insures that one
> one
> radio can transmit at the same time?
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|