G3LDI/GW4SKA/GU0SUP/K4JIK et others:
You preface your statements that "this is not a criticism" and
yet go ahead and couch your comments as such.
As one who does indeed operate SO2R I take this as a criticism
of my chosen operating technique. I checked my log and none of
you are in the 1800+ Q's I made in the test. Now maybe you
exercised your right as an free man and tried to work me but
were unable to make contact and moved on. That is your right
and I don't criticize you for that.
There are other reasons the stations you reference didn't,
couldn't work you; you were not loud enough to break the pile
up, the propagation was one way, or the station was looking
for new multipliers and a new one was calling on the other
frequency, there was tremendous QRM due to close packed
stations (20 and 15 meters for example). This is not rude or
indifferent behavior, the station was trying to maximize
his/her score and was taking advantage of the opportunity as
it presented itself.
How does the SO2R have any more frequency than the SO1R, there
can be only one signal at any time so the station doesn't
occupy any more frequency on each band that is being worked as
a SO1R on each particular band. As far as being inconsiderate,
how is it inconsiderate if the station is trying to put in a
serious effort, rate is king that is why SO2R is used, I
believe it is called a contest with scoring and such. SO2R is
an operating technique to maximize the number of possible Q's
in a given time period.
If a station's operating method causes you grief then move on
and work someone else, it is that other station's loss. I know
I sure would have like to work more 3 pt Gx calls in the test
and maybe you were one I missed because of my operating
technique.
I do not have to apologize to anyone for my choice of
operating technique or desire to maximize my effort over the
30 hours I was on. I had fun, it was exciting and guess what,
I had to go to work the next day so that is how important this
all is, it is a hobby not life or death.
Ciao and 73
Hank / KR7X
-----Original Message-----
From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Roger Cooke
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:29 PM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY
OK, maybe two seconds is a bit impatient! However, I don't
think
that we should support the run rate of an SO2R station by
sitting looking
out of the window waiting on his reply. There is another way
of looking
at this. Band occupancy is tight anyway, so why should SO2R
have any
more frequency than the poor Luddite SO1R? I even saw someone
say
on here that he was going to use SO3R... What????
I only have one brain with input from two ears. How the
heck can
anybody work SO3R? Must be a joke....
Oh, and by the way, yes I do hit the wrong key sometimes
and that
puts me into a panic!
73 de Roger, G3LDI
On 16/02/2010 20:52, k3mm@verizon.net wrote:
> Well, I think you have to understand that usually in SO2R
you can set up a rythym and it appears seamless. However,
when someone you are working gets long winded or you need a
repeat it's easy to get messed up. So when both QSO's break
at exactly the same time, you have to make a choice which one
gets the first call and the other has to wait. The savvy SO2R
op can minimize this pain a lot of times, but there is no way
to eliminate it completely. I think it's also likely that
some of this is single TX stations that just "lost it" or got
befuddled. I've had them completely disappear mid-QSO and
then come back 5 minutes later like nothing wierd happened.
>
> My general rule is if someone comes back slowly and is
holding me up on the other radio, I make them wait for their
confirmation rather than making the fast guy pay.
>
> However, if someone comes back to me and just gives me a
"599nnn" with no callsign and no repeat, they will have to
wait...and they may have to wait for me to say "agn agn "
because I wont normally accept a number sent one time on a
weak or crowded signal as correct. So take 5 seconds to send
a proper exchange sending the number at least twice...and
please correct the callsign if it isnt correct!
>
> 73, Ty K3MM
>
>
> Feb 16, 2010 03:16:51 PM, ska@bartg.org.uk wrote:
>
> Phil and all,
>
> It's about time someone said it.
>
> I have nothing against most of the SO2R operations and
intend to run that
> way myself in the future. It's just a few who are really
inconsiderate and
> are just thinking of their own run rate, while completely
breaking the
> rhythm of the other station.
>
> Several times my CQ was answered, I sent the report, then
had to sit and
> wait while the other station finished their other QSO.
>
> The same thing happens when you answer a CQ then wait a long
time before
> getting the report. Surely if someone sends 'CQ' they should
be ready to get
> that contact going right away. They are actually saying 'I
am using this
> frequency; please call me back and I will answer when I am
ready'
>
> Thankfully it is only a minority and maybe they are just new
to SO2R; it
> must be hard to get up to speed when starting.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John GW4SKA
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Cooper"
> To: "RTTY"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:41 PM
> Subject: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY
>
>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just an observation, rather than any sort of criticism, but
I note that
>> quite a few SO2R op's were VERY slow in responding to calls
and exchanges
>> during this WPX. And by slow, I mean in the order of 10
seconds or more!
>>
>> Whilst I am not necessarily in favour of SO2R (as part of
the single op
>> class), I understand why you want to do it, and good luck
to you.
>> BUT, I really think you should be a little quicker on the
replies, and
>> maybe
>> consider those of us on the other end.
>>
>> Having said that, there were a few SO2R ops that were
amazing, and
>> responded
>> very quickly, so it can be done.
>>
>> Obviously, if it is your run frequency, you have the
control, but I don't
>> particularly like waiting too long for that TU QRZ while
you work a mult
>> on
>> another frequency.
>> When I was CQ'ing, I had some callers that were obviously
busy elsewhere,
>> and it really did screw up MY run on occasions when I
replied to you, but
>> you were busy on your run frequency. One several occasions,
I sent again,
>> only to hear the end of your message to me. That meant
other callers tried
>> to get in, figuring I wasn't going to work you, so they
called over you.
>>
>> Did anyone else notice the delay in responses?
>>
>> As I said, these thoughts are just an observation, and not
a criticism!
>>
>> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>>
>>
>> ---
>> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
>> Virus Database (VPS): 100216-1, 16/02/2010
>> Tested on: 16/02/2010 19:41:43
>> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2692 - Release
Date: 02/16/10 11:35:00
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|