CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R -- revised opinion?

To: "Art Boyars" <art.boyars@verizon.net>,<CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R -- revised opinion?
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:42:00 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
At 06:55 PM 11/10/2005, Art Boyars wrote:
>In an earlier incarnation of the "SO2R should be a separate clas from 'real' 
>single op" discussion, I voted "no."  I felt that if you had the hardware and 
>the skill to jump to the second radio to grab the new QSO or mult there, and 
>to jump back to the "run" radio without losing the freq, more power to you.  
>(I have also opined that you get darn little slack in reclaiming the run 
>freq.)  However, I might be changing my mind.
>
>I did a lot of slow S&P in SS CW.  I'd get a CQer lined up, and all of a 
>sudden he would stop -- even in the middle of his own call.  After the first 
>couple of times, I realized that these guys were breaking off the CQ to make a 
>call on the second radio.  Harumph! They were costing ME time.  Not veddy 
>proper 'tall.  (I maybe recall somebody interrupting sending me their report; 
>sounded like they had something going on the second radio.)
>
>Then, after SS CW, I saw some people mention the "dueling CQs" mode of a 
>logging program.  Well!  My slow little bulb began its feeble glow.  
>Alternating CQs on two bands or two freq's.
>
>Neither of these techniques fits my moral understanding of how far we should 
>allow SO2R to go.  Please: second radio is S&P only.  And if you start a CQ, 
>listen for answers.
>
>Disclaimer:  One time K**** and I were working a pretty dead band at W#### in 
>a DX test (CW, of course), with two complete rigs available.  We implemented a 
>"wet ware" version of dueling CQs, one of us near the bottom of the band, one 
>near the top.  It was cute then (we made about three QSOs in 15 minutes), and 
>it wan't really bothering anybody (band completely uncrowded).  But having 
>seen what was going on in SS CW, I'll not do it again.
>
>So, let the discussion begin.
>
>73, Art K3KU

It all depends on how SO2R is done, in my opinion.

First, let's clear something up - "dueling CQs" have been a reality in 
situations like SS Sundays for at least a decade, maybe longer. Like many SO2R 
practices, they can be done right or wrong, at the right time or the wrong 
time.  In many cases, the wrong time means being counterproductive, not simply 
impolite.  On Sunday during SS, I think almost anything that results in more 
QSOs, for both the SO2R op and the people he/she works, is by definition a good 
thing.

I think that SO2R and SO1R can coexist just fine so long as both groups of ops 
behave themselves.  For the SO2R ops, that means not being unreasonable about 
insisting "this is my frequency" when returning from an extended sojourn on the 
other radio.  For the SO1R ops, it means not cutting SO2Rs *less* slack than 
you would another SO1R with regard to grabbing a run frequency.

I ran dueling CQs for most of SS Sunday afternoon (no off time left to give, 
but that's another story).  I *never* had answers simultaneously on both 
radios, and even with the lengthy SS exchange, I never had a run frequency 
wrested away from me.  Things just weren't busy enough, and SO2R was the only 
thing that made it interesting enough to keep going.  Now on 15 and 20 on 
Saturday morning during CQWW, it wouldn't work, but a sensible SO2R op wouldn't 
try it then anyhow.

73, Pete N4ZR  

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>