Granted, however, if you have good antenna systems on both bands (and good
propagation on both) and you’re running dueling CQs, isn’t a potential outcome
of both CQs an answer to each, and the ability to answer each in sequence?
Wasn’t that the point of SO2R in the first place?
I know for mere mortals like most of us, dueling CQs is something to do when
the doldrums set in, but is what’s different here that they aren’t ignoring the
other radio when an answer rolls in?
Having followed, if by no means having mastered, SO2R, it seems to me as though
what ZF2MJ, OH0V, V47T and others have done is combine mastery of pileup
management with mastery of SO2R to achieve its full potential.
That said, if I COULD match what they did, I’m sure my head would explode after
only a few minutes!
> On Dec 6, 2015, at 8:11 PM, Steve London <email@example.com> wrote:
> There is some terminology confusion.
> Dueling CQ's has been built into most contesting software for many years. You
> send a CQ on one band. When the CQ finishes, a CQ is automatically started on
> another band. If someone answers you on the first band, the CQ on the other
> band is automatically terminated, and you complete the usual QSO sequence on
> the first band. If no one answers, the software automatically bip-bops CQ's
> between the 2 bands until someone answers on either band, or you change
> What ZF2MJ, OH0V, V47T, and others have advanced is running simultaneous
> pileups on two bands, with 2 QSO's in progress at the same time, but never
> transmitting on the two bands at the same time. This is quite different from
> the dueling CQ's which many contesters have used for years.
> I propose using the term "simultaneous pileups", not "dueling CQ's", to
> describe what ZF2MJ, et.al., have done.
> Steve, N2IC
> On 12/06/2015 02:04 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> Duelling CQs seems to be a surprise only to those who haven't been paying
>> attention. It's always been part of my lexicon that duelling CQs are just a
>> part of SO2R.
>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 11:54, "Stephen Bloom" <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Interesting ...
>>> I did this for NAQP and SSCW without even thinking of it as anything other
>>> than efficient SO2R (not that it mattered ....I was operating from VE7 and
>>> no technique short of remote xcvrs from another part of the country was
>>> going to make me competive with propagation of the time.) Having said
>>> that, I can't even fathom handling the audio streams the way N6MJ does.
>>> I'm still recovering from the pileups at 9H6A.
>>> Steve KL7SB
>>> p.s. Joined the group recently ..with Rich passing ..thought another KL7
>>> should be here.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Björn SM0MDG
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 1:46 AM
>>> To: Matt Murphy <email@example.com>
>>> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; cq-contest <email@example.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] High Rate Dual Radio CQing
>>>> On 02 Dec 2015, at 17:32, Matt Murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> I agree. It's extremely impressive. Was there a rule change that
>>>> allowed this to happen this year, or did N6MJ and Ct1BOH come up with the
>>> There is no rule prohibiting “duelling CQ”, i.e. running on two bands
>>> simultaneously. This is OK with the rules as long as only one signal is
>>> transmitted at any time. I have checked this personally with the CQ contest
>>> promotor a few years ago before adopting this way of operation.
>>> To me this is useful even at low rates at the end of the contest as calling
>>> CQ on two bands are more likely to increase the rate than working just one
>>> In addition N1MM is set do this with an additional SO2R controller and two
>>> 73 de Björn,
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list