[CCF] FW: [CQ-Contest] RE: SO2R

Wed Jan 29 20:22:34 EST 2003

so2r historiikkia 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Leigh S. Jones [mailto:kr6x at kr6x.com]
> Sent: 29 January, 2003 17:34
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RE: SO2R
> 
> 
> Well, I'm going to have to disagree, Bob.  I know of at
> least one early SO2R operator who made real use of
> the capability.  Now, Vic Clark tuned the second receiver
> in his shack while his mechanical CQ machine cranked
> away on rig one.  Now, Vic didn't make the most out
> of it.  He had one transmitter and two receivers.  When
> he found a new one on receiver two he'd have to take
> a minute out to change bands on his transmitter.  And his
> final used plug-in coils.  But it did mean that his scores
> held a telling advantage.  He never missed an opening,
> however short, and he always found the multipliers.
> 
> The capability to do effective SO2R operating is
> dependent on technology, and technology has developed
> over the years.  But my own early SO2R efforts didn't
> wait for computer logging.  I used a memory keyer that
> I designed and built myself to crank out the CQ's while
> I tuned rig two.  On phone, W6HX built a CQ machine
> out of an "Ans-a-phone" that recorded your CQ message
> on the surface of a metal cyllinder.  But others were using
> simple CQ machines made from tape recorders with little
> tape loops hanging from the record head -- and these
> were effective for both modes (with the audio keying a
> relay on CW).
> 
> And the paperwork wasn't quite the huge burden that you
> suggest.  While CT/NA/TRLog/etc. have made it quite a
> bit easier to do SO2R, that doesn't mean that it wasn't done
> effectively before computers came along.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Naumann - N5NJ" <n5nj at gte.net>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RE: SO2R
> 
> 
> > Modern SO2R ?  Was it really SO2R before then?  I find myself in the
> > somewhat awkward position of partially agreeing with KQ2M.  I don't
> think
> > Bob was the first to use SO2R, but more on that later.
> >
> > I also think that while there were people using more than one radio,
> but I
> > doubt that they were really doing it the way we all have come to
> know and
> > love SO2R as it is defined today.
> >
> > I've been looking at this phenomena for a while, and I believe that
> what has
> > happened here is that some of the more creative operators recognized
> that
> > once CT came along in the mid to late 80's, it was doing all of the
> clerical
> > stuff for us that used to occupy all of our 'free' time.  This was
> an
> > opportunity to do something else with our time and energy.
> >
> > Those of us who were around in those early years, recall the burden
> of
> > writing down the time, callsigns, exchanges, entering them on the
> dupe
> > sheet(s), tracking multipliers, and so on.  The paperwork was a huge
> burden
> > and consumed a lot of energy and focus.  Just keeping it all
> organized was a
> > task in itself.
> >
> > My guess is that we were all too busy doing paperwork to develop
> today's
> > SO2R skills and I believe that computer logging and transmitting was
> the
> > catalyst for SO2R developing into what it is now.  Devices external
> to the
> > computer like CW memory keyers and DVK's, and then later,
> computer-based
> > solutions using LPT ports for CW; and for fone, the DVP and sound
> cards,
> > made it more obvious that the an operator wasn't doing anything
> while the
> > computer and other hardware were transmitting.
> >
> > In my opinion, that while it may have been possible to use a tape
> loop to
> > transmit on fone, calling a CQ perhaps, or use a CW keyer
> transmitting on
> > one band while listening to another, I would be very surprised if
> anyone was
> > actually doing this in a way that even comes close to what SO2R is
> today
> > before computers were introduced to contesting.  As I recall, this
> would not
> > have been until the late 80's at the earliest.  If anyone was able
> to do
> > this without the benefit of computers, I would have the greatest
> respect for
> > that person's dexterity and organizational skills.
> >
> > Some history:
> >
> > As early as 1980 or 1981, I had K2GL's station rigged up to be SO6A
> so I
> > could switch one rig to 6 amplifiers and not have to re-tune for the
> fone
> > SS.  I did have a second radio that I kept on 20m connected to
> another
> > amplifier and another antenna, but did not transmit on one radio and
> listen
> > on the other at the same time however.  I confess that the thought
> never
> > occurred to me, likely because I was actually talking the whole time
> I was
> > transmitting.  I was only able to instantly switch from one band to
> another
> > simply by rotating one switch.  I was also logging on paper back
> then.
> >
> > Around the same time, I built a real SO2R box that I did not use for
> long,
> > but went to one of the perennial winners in the New England area
> that he
> > used quite effectively with a Drake Line on one side, and a
> TS-830/930 on
> > the other as I recall.  I think he won a few DX contests using this
> setup
> > before KQ2M claims that he did.  I built that box originally so that
> I could
> > use both my old SB-102 and my new TS-830 simultaneously from my home
> > station.  This switching system did enable listening to both radios
> at once.
> > I sold the SB-102 shortly thereafter and sold the switching system
> to that
> > person in New England who installed a tower upside down once.  I did
> get the
> > switch box back later on and still have it.
> >
> > All of this was inspired by what I saw N2NT do at W2YV's station
> where he
> > had an SO6R set up with 6 different radios, amplifiers etc.  This
> was in
> > 1981 I believe.  He used a push-button arrangement to instantly
> change from
> > one band to another.  It was a mechanical interlocked pushbutton
> deal.  I'm
> > not sure how effectively he was able to listen on one while
> transmitting on
> > the other.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > N5NJ
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Shohet" <kq2m at earthlink.net>
> > To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:42 PM
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] RE: SO2R
> >
> >
> > > Thanks to K8IA and KR6X for correcting my
> > > mistaken assumption that I was the first to use SO2R
> > > consistently in DX contests.
> > >
> > > I was the first to do MODERN SO2R then.   :-)
> > >
> > > I find it interesting to note that when I actively did
> > > SO2R in DX contests starting in the early 80's, no one else in the
> > > perennial top ten was doing it.   Some had a radio and amp
> > > on each band, but they were not operating SO2R.
> > >
> > > If it had been such a helpful and interesting strategy previously
> > > used by W4KFC, W9IOP, KR6X, and others, why was it
> > > abandoned  in DX contests?  Does anyone know?
> > >
> > > 73
> > >
> > > Bob KQ2M
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>