Adage

[cmschonewaldcox at ucdavis.edu]

Actually W3GRF (in the mid-60's) said: "He who calls the most CQ's
is an idiot unless he wins".
K3EST

>From David O. Hachadorian" <0006471356 at mcimail.com  Thu Mar 31 03:48:00 1994
From: David O. Hachadorian" <0006471356 at mcimail.com (David O. Hachadorian)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 22:48 EST
Subject: single/multi k6ll #2
Message-ID: <00940331034800/0006471356PK2EM at mcimail.com>

In my first message, I suggested that we outlaw single/multi, or at least
the part where a station calls cq on rig 2 while he is still involved in a
qso on rig #1. One reason I cited is an increase in spectrum utilization.

Several of the ensuing comments have questioned how increased spectrum use
can occur, since only one signal is being transmitted at a given time by a
particular station. To illustrate the point, I suggest a careful reading of
N6TR's excellent article on page 22 of the latest NCJ regarding use of two
radios in the cw sprint.

One recommendation made in the article is to cq on radio 2 while the
operator is searching for stations in the s&p mode on the primary band. If
everyone who is currently using one radio, silently cruising the band in the
search mode, also now simultaneously fires up another radio cq'ing, we have
more signals on the air, right?

Another recommendation made in the article is for a station
Ever wonder why more and more stations in the sprint fail to send the
customary "dit-dit" or "TU" before they vacate the frequency? It's because
they are already on another band working somebody, right after copying your
serial number, with the computer filling in name and state. For some reason,
that one really frosts my buns.

A simple rule change, such as "no cq'ing until the qso is over" would solve
part of the problem. Please think long and hard on this subject, and express
your views to contest sponsors. This development is not in the same category
as memory keyers, computers, big antennas and amplifiers. When single/multi
gets to be practiced by a larger number of stations, it has the potential to
turn a pleasant contest into a kinky, quirky, qrm-filled mess for everybody
on the band.

Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
k6ll at mcimail.com

>From Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM  Wed Mar 30 17:37:00 1994
From: Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM (Skelton, Tom)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 09:37:00 PST
Subject: FW: single/multi
Message-ID: <2D9A72EE at admin.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM>



 ----------
From: 0006471356
To: cq-contest
Subject: single/multi
Date: Tuesday, March 29, 1994 8:00PM

Why don't we all save ourselves a lot of trouble and outlaw single/multi, or
at least the practice of calling CQ on one frequency while involved in a QSO
on another frequency?

<rest deleted>

In my utter simplicity of thought, I had assumed (without checking the 
rules)
that single op stations were not allowed to transmit simultaneously on
different bands.  (Matter of fact, the whole concept of 2 radio single 
op'ing
was unknown to me until I subscribed to this reflector.)  I had thought it
was OK to be CQ'ing on one band, and when that CQ was done CQ on another
band or be scanning another radio looking for mults.  However, I did not
think you could do the simultaneous QSO on 15/CQ on 10!

Comments/suggestions/corrections/flames???

73,  Tom WB4iUX
Tom.Skelton at ClemsonSC.NCR.COM