Hi David,
Your email suggests that you misunderstand the issue.
The issue is claiming and defending two frequencies in the same
band for interleaved CQs, a practice that was developed and
rejected by considerate contesters thirty years ago
73
Frank
W3LPL
----- Original Message -----
From: "D Rodman MD" <rodman@buffalo.edu>
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 4:23:39 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Interleaving QSO's
I wanted to make two points about interleaving QSO's, our latest hot
topic, without either endorsing or condemning the practice.
First, PJ4G was NOT the originator of this concept. I do not recall,
however, who developed the idea but it has been used for several years
at many stations (including PJ4G) without a flood of entrants turning to
this technology as far as I can see. The fact that many more stations
have not turned to this practice in order to get the edge on competition
may be present for many reasons, including insufficient knowledge that
the practice actually occurred or was even possible, lack of
commercially made equipment to simplify the process of switching and
control in the station or lack of HF equipment with variable parameters
capable of controlling the interleaving interfaces or the complexity of
band pass isolation permitting the second station to hear on the same
band unimpeded by the other transmitter. Obviously, not every station
has the layout both internally and with requisite antennas to accomplish
this. It can be rather complex sometimes to heap one problem onto
another with regards to isolation.
Secondly, any multi station can interleave QSO's merely by putting two
ops at one radio, splitting the audio connections and sharing the
microphone time. I admit, this is not as nice as having a second
transmitter because you are going to have the second operator talking
into your ear but there are still going to be on air delays caused by
the other operator transmitting anyway. Having a second transmitter
really isn't all that necessary at times, especially if the VFO's can be
split to control separate transmit or receive antennas for additional
directional coverage.
Again, I neither endorse nor condemn the practice. I mention these
issues only to discuss more of the technical features of the situation
that was brought up with the PJ4G audio recording.
What we do with all this is now possibly up to the advisors and rule
makers, now that the "cat is out of the bag" so to speak.
--
David J Rodman MD
Assistant Clinical Professor
Department of Ophthalmology
SUNY/Buffalo
Office 716-857-8654
_______________________________________________
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
|