S/M

[Robert Neece]

Dave, W6QHS, writes:

>I learned in 20 years of auto racing experience that misguided attempts to
>legislate against technology improvements result in bland competitions that
>aren't worth the effort to learn how to win.  I don't think that a separate
>S/M class would attract any interest; it certainly wouldn't be something
>I'd walk down the block for.

Years ago, Mario Andretti nearly blew away
the field at the Indianapolis 500 with a
radical, turbine-engine racer.  

The sponsor of the Indy 500, the United
States Auto Club, was wedded to piston-
engine technology.  Andretti's performance
so alarmed USAC that the club in effect
legislated turbines out of existence for
Indy by ruinous restrictions on the size
of the intake port.

Dave, did this anti-technology move by USAC 
make the Indy 500 noncompetitive and boring?

Is anti single-multi sentiment motivated by
a desire to preserve an accepted "flavor" of
competition, a la USAC?  Or is it, rather, 
mere Luddite-ism?

Bob, K0KR

>From Obermann Mark" <obermann_mark at macmail1.cig.mot.com  Wed Mar 30 19:51:17 1994
From: Obermann Mark" <obermann_mark at macmail1.cig.mot.com (Obermann Mark)
Date: 30 Mar 1994 13:51:17 -0600
Subject: single/multi
Message-ID: <199403301950.AA26565 at pobox.mot.com>


I am not sure how one equates transmitting one signal at a time (which is
what we are talking about) with consuming more bandwidth.
May I propose a new category:  retro-contesting for those who want to compete
with others using straight keys, paper and HW-101's w/o filters.  How does
the ability to simultaneously use two radios differ from using a computer to
simultaneously log, check dupes, check for mults and send code at the same
time?  This helps you make more points.  Or using a memory chip in your keyer
so you have time to write things down and make more points?  Or building a
more sophisticated antenna system to help you make more points? 

Some of us cannot press the CQ button all day long and have an endless run of
people answering.  Those who can will ultimately dominate a single-op/single
transmitter category in many contests.  What other technique will you then
try to disallow to maintain your advantage?


regards,
Mark, AG9A

>From H. L. Serra" <hlserra at teetot.acusd.edu  Wed Mar 30 19:54:15 1994
From: H. L. Serra" <hlserra at teetot.acusd.edu (H. L. Serra)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 11:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: CT M/S S/N Interim Fix
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9403301115.F10472-a100000 at teetot.acusd.edu>

 Re the serial numbering problem some stations experienced in Multi-single
category for WPX (i.e., S/Ns were NOT consecutive without regard to band,
as required for WPX M/S):

1. My older CT version 8.19 in the M/S set up does the M/S S/Ns
CORRECTLY (consecutive without regard to band changes).

2. My CT version 8.41 does NOT do the S/Ns correctly for M/S in the M/S
set up, but does them CORRECTLY (consecutive without regard to band
changes) when I use the M-2 (Multi-2) category set up. It also prints logs
CORRECTLY after "WRITELOG" command in the M-2 set up.

3. Try either 1 or 2 above for WPX CW M/S, then just change the category
on your summary sheet to "MULTI-SINGLE" from "MULTI-TWO."

Ken will likely fix it for CT version 9.0, but won't do any more fixing
of earlier versions (per AD1C).

73 Larry N6AZE


>From modular!eric at cs.arizona.edu (Eric Gustafson)  Wed Mar 30 20:06:54 1994
From: modular!eric at cs.arizona.edu (Eric Gustafson) (Eric Gustafson)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 13:06:54 MST
Subject: Heil Pro-Set
Message-ID: <9403302006.AA02623 at modular>

Jay,

Well, I dont either like it or hate it.  I was just curious to see if your
experience would confirm the story Larry Pace, N7DD told me.  He called
Heil on behalf of KF7NR's problem getting sufficient noise free audio from
either his Heil boom mike or his Heil headset mike.  Ostensibly, Heil's
(also personally handled) response was for Larry to tell his customer that
the ICOM input circuit was all screwed up and that Ed (KF7NR) should dump
his old junk 781 and get a Yaesu to fix the problem.  I got this from Ed
while I was replacing all the UNSHIELDED wiring on the Heil audio products
so Ed can turn up the mic gain without getting a lot of noise and RF
feedback.

73,  Eric

>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu  Wed Mar 30 20:09:37 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 12:09:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: single/multi
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9403301237.A22506-9100000 at bach>

It may seem like an oxymoron, but QRP single/multi is a big help and sure
cuts down on the antenna separation requirements :-)  It makes Sunday
afternoon of SS a lot more interesting.  Even a temporary R5/R7/dipoles in
a lash-up and a pair of DPDT switches for audio and mike PTT will do it. 
It helps to have twins in the family to train your ears to sort out the
receivers, though!
7733, Ward N0AX




>From Steven.M.London at att.com (Steven M London +1 303 538 4763)  Wed Mar 30 20:21:00 1994
From: Steven.M.London at att.com (Steven M London +1 303 538 4763) (Steven M London +1 303 538 4763)
Date: 30 Mar 94 20:21:00 GMT
Subject: Single/Multi
Message-ID: <9403302015.AA24454 at bighorn.dr.att.com>

Maybe I'm trying to split hairs, but I see two flavors of Single/Multi:

(1) One radio CQing, the other radio doing nothing but search-and-pounce.

   This is the more common form of Single/Multi that has been around since at
   least the 70's.  If you can put the search-and-pounce radio on any kind
   of reasonable antenna (a trap vertical or better), you don't need a 2nd
   amplifier, since most of the guys will hear your peanut-whistle.  When
   the going gets tough, and the peanut-whistle can't break the pileup,
   you can quickly QSY the "main radio" to the search-and-pounce frequency.

   Conclusion: A small incremental investment is required.

(2) Two radios CQing, with time multiplexing in insure they aren't both
   transmitting at the same time.

   As pointed out in other postings, this time multiplexing could conceivably
   be taken to an extreme, where, from a receiving point of view, you are
   CQing on two (or more) bands simultaneously.

   This is the newer form of Single/Multi.  For two CQing stations to be
   effective requires two modern radios, amplifiers and antenna systems.

   Conclusion: A large incremental investment is required.
  

>From my viewpoint S/M (1) looks reasonable.  Maybe I'm willing to say that
because I already can do it.  Leave S/M (1) in the current single-op
category.  To enforce S/M (1), you could have a rule like CQWW M/S - only
new multipliers can be worked on other bands.

Within a year or two, S/M (2) will look very close to a single op transmitting
CQ on 2 or more frequencies simultaneously.  This should either be outlawed,
or put in its own category.


I know that this is not popular viewpoint amongst the world-class operators who
can already do S/M (2).  I would hope that you could at least agree that when
S/M (2) evolves to the point that you are time multiplexing on a 1 millisecond
basis, so that you are effectively transmitting on 2 bands simultaneously,
something needs to be legislated in the rules.

Steve London
N2IC/0 

>From howie cahn <howi at world.std.com>  Wed Mar 30 20:33:18 1994
From: howie cahn <howi at world.std.com> (howie cahn)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 15:33:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NCJ error
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9403301551.A1250-0100000 at world.std.com>

Well, my NCJ finally arrived. For those who complained about being 
geographically discriminated against, here I am in Boston, a good New 
Englander, about 100 miles from Newington as the car drives, and I seem 
to be one of the last in the country to have gotten it.

In it was a letter I wrote. Actually, it was something I posted here that 
Trey asked to use in NCJ. You may remember I tried to do an analysis to 
predict contest score potential based on effective station power. I used 
as data points the results from four stations, at widely different power 
levels, including my own. I reported that I'd made 234 QSOs with 3W. 
Unfortunately, due to an errant TAB character, it came out as 23 Qs with 
43W. Granted, 234 Qs is pitiful but 23 is totally pathetic. I can stand 
being thought of as pitiful but not as totally pathetic. So, thanks for the 
bandwidth here to allow me to try to salvage my honor.

BTW, thanks also to those who have cited my post as being useful to them. 

73... howie, wb2cpu
wb2cpu at world.std.com