SO vs. SOA
jsteinman at aol.com
jsteinman at aol.com
Sun Apr 10 17:48:39 EDT 1994
Barry, W2UP, said:
>For a limited operation (hours, station, etc.) I agree that packet is
>usually an advantage. But when operating full-tilt, I think packet is a
>major distraction (credit to K3WW for coining the catagory >"single-op
>distracted"). I find it really screws up the rhythm, and makes you >think
>twice risking losing a run to chase a mult., especially during the
>first 24 hours.
I would have to agree with K5GN, that an operator with the same station and
propagation, should ALWAYS have a higher score SOA vs. SO. If not, then
something is wrong !!!!!
Yes, you might have fewer QSO's SOA vs. SO, but that difference should be FAR
offset by the extra number of multipliers you pick-up from packet (especially
in CQWW). I think setting up the station for maximization of two radios is
the key to minimizing lost QSOs while maximizing multipliers. If you are only
using one rig, best to maximize those EU runs (which we won't have for
another 3-4 years down here !).
jsteinman at aol.com
>From barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) Sun Apr 10 20:42:36 1994
From: barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 94 19:42:36 GMT
Subject: Single Op? Assisted
Message-ID: <PTXkkc1w165w at w2up.wells.com>
patd at isumataq.eskimo.com (Patrick Dayshaw) writes:
> Personnaly, I feel that packet assisted operating should be allowed
> and even encouraged, but should be considered for what it is, part of
> the Multi Op class. After all, the assistance is real-time and comes
> from other licensed operators not from a bunch of SWL's or other
> interested third parties.
> BTW, I have packet, we have a good network here in the Northwest but I
> don't use it for contesting. I choose to compete as a Single-Op and
> don't need (or want) real-time help from other operators - thank you.
> If I wanted to compete that way I'd enter Multi-Op.
Patrick - I disagree. Is single-op really single-op? I know the rules
address only certain aspects of it, but how do you differentiate
someone cooking your meals and bringing you drinks from the guy who
does it himself? How about the guest op who has his "sponsor" running
in and out of the shack all weekend attending to minor station
problems that might arise, rather than the true single op who has to
get off the air and fix whatever is wrong?
I know these are not original questions on my part, but merely fit
in to the whole argument of what is a single op. As I posted in a note
the other day, there is NO evidence that packet aids the total score
of a top ten type station/operator.
You may be aware that some of the European contests consider a single
op just that - one operator, and with or without packet is irrelevant.
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Usenet/Internet: barry at w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)
>From peterj at netcom.com (Peter Jennings) Sun Apr 10 23:19:10 1994
From: peterj at netcom.com (Peter Jennings) (Peter Jennings)
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1994 15:19:10 -0700
Subject: Questions about Yaesu CAT interface with CT
Message-ID: <199404102219.PAA27294 at mail.netcom.com>
> I have a new Yaesu FT990 I have just started playing with and have run into
> a wall trying to get it to work with the CT (version 8.52) radio interface.
> If you have any experience with this, please take a look at my situation
> here (see below) and let me know what you see that I'm doing wrong. Any
> suggestions would be very warmly appreciated!
> The interface I'm using is a hombrew level shifter which uses the
> MAX232 chip. I built this about a year ago from the circuit given in
> the February '93 issue of QST. Initially, I built it to interface to
> an Icom. But the only difference between the Icom interface and the
> Yaesu interface is that the TxD and RxD lines are brought out separately
> to the Yaesu, whereas in the Icom interface they are OR'd together before
> being fed to the Icom C-IV bus. With the interface I have, if I OR the
> two lines and feed them to my IC-761, it works fine. So I know the level
> shifter is working correctly. I split the TxD and RxD lines apart and
> am feeding TxD from the level shifter to the SI input on the Yaesu CAT
> connector; the RxD on the level shifter is wired to the CAT SO line.
The Yaesu rigs require a resistor on the transceiver TxD line to sink enough
current to bring the logic level low. A 2.2K resistor to ground should do
the trick. Referring to the Feb 93 QST article, insert a 2.2K resistor from
pin 1 of U1 to ground. Then, CT should be able to "hear" the rig.
For some reason, not every Yaesu requires this, but a fair proportion do.
Yaesu tech support are aware of the problem if you get the right guy!
-- peterj at netcom.com
| Netsurfers using DOS should finger peterj at netcom.com to learn |
| about MagicKey, the pop up Internet Help window with autotyping. |
| Over 300 Internet resources available at the touch of a key. |
| Also invaluable for packet addresses, UNIX help, programming... |
>From price at cod.nosc.mil (James N. Price) Sun Apr 10 23:42:38 1994
From: price at cod.nosc.mil (James N. Price) (James N. Price)
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 94 15:42:38 PDT
Subject: C U in Visalia
Message-ID: <9404102242.AA00447 at cod.nosc.mil>
As a quick follow-up to my previous posting on getting
internetters together at Visalia, I have been requested by the
folks who are running the convention to bar-tend for the Friday
eve. cocktail party. So, pse belly up to bar, identify yourself,
and then maybe we can establish a corner of the room or a spot
poolside for us to meet casually. I've been considering making a
little sign to attach to my badge that says "I'm an Internet
junkie" or something like that. But you'll be able to read K6ZH
on my green San Diego DX Club badge in any case.
Be there or be square, 73--Jim, K6ZH
More information about the CQ-Contest