"Dueling 2 Radio TX"

[JSTEINMAN at aol.com]

K6LL wrote:

>Phone SS. 10 and 15 are dead, 75 is still closed. Everybody in the >contest
is concentrated on 20 and 40. A two-radio station is calling >1500W cq's on
both 20 and 40 meters, using duelling voicekeyers. >Those TWO frequencies
(and anything within +/- 3 Khz of those >frequencies) are not available for
anyone else to use.

Sorry Dave, you've flunked your first 2 radio contesting
test. The object of 2 radios is to increase your score, yes.
But I haven't found from personal experience that you do that
by calling alternating (rules don't allow simultaneous) CQ's on 2 bands. In
your example, 20 and 40 will be *VERY* crowded. There is simply no way you
can expect to keep two frequencies clear while you work stations on different
bands. 

The goal of the second radio is to *TUNE* a second band looking
for stations to work. As a serious Phone SS entrant, you probably
CQ 100% of the time, as do others. Unless you tune around, how
are you going to work the other big guns ? I used a second radio
in the 1992 SSB SS and made about 75 QSO's on it, which was
accounted for the margin I beat N5RZ by.

Food for thought.

KR0Y
jsteinman at aol.com


>From w6go at netcom.com (Jay O'Brien)  Sat Sep 17 02:31:49 1994
From: w6go at netcom.com (Jay O'Brien) (Jay O'Brien)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 18:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: ..
Message-ID: <199409170131.SAA26156 at netcom4.netcom.com>

review


>From Patrick Collins <pcollins at freenet.columbus.oh.us>  Sat Sep 17 03:55:46 1994
From: Patrick Collins <pcollins at freenet.columbus.oh.us> (Patrick Collins)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 22:55:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Arrl September VHF Contest comment
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9409162244.A20615-9100000 at acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>

On Fri, 16 Sep 1994, george fremin iii wrote:

> I dont think this score should be allowed to stand
> for a new record - if the above did occur.  Maybe this
> group should even be DQed. 


I believe that they should do the proper thing and submit the score as a
check log.

73 Pat,nz4k





>From Tom Frenaye <0002349723 at mcimail.com>  Sat Sep 17 04:50:00 1994
From: Tom Frenaye <0002349723 at mcimail.com> (Tom Frenaye)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 22:50 EST
Subject: 2 radios; station info
Message-ID: <73940917035037/0002349723PK3EM at mcimail.com>

>From W1 I'm not sure there is much advantage to two radios in the Sprint,
at least I haven't figured it out yet (nor have I seriously tried it).  It
does seem to help in SS - I figure 7-8% of my QSOs in the SSB SS came from
radio #2 last year (first time I tried 2 radios).

I'm curious about station information also.  Mine changes a lot from year
to year (hopefully better each time).  I'd like it if someone would
figure out how to gather station info from as many people who would
provide it.  I'd suggest a common format of some sort (even if roughly drawn)
would be helpful.  On RTTY I think this same thing is call a "brag file" or
something like that.  I'd be happy to swap mine for yours.  Or, even better,
I'd like to send a message to the N6TR robot and retrieve your most recent
brag file...

Back on two radios.  I think there is something worth thinking about when
the strategy late in the contest (SS or other) is to alternately call CQ
on two bands.  It does hog spectrum.  The contest format (incentives, length,
etc) should be designed to encourage the predominant activity on the air to
be making QSOs, not solicting them.  Back on my soapbox about the Q/M (QSO to
multiplier) ratio.  The higher it is, the less incentive to call CQ and the 
more incentive there is to go looking.

Related to the less-than-ideal operating techniques used in the recent VHF
contest reported by others, one technique I find annoying at best is the
use of packet to solicit QSOs.  That ought to be on the can't-do-it list for
any contest.  

End of soap.

73 Tom  K1KI  2349723 at mcimail.com

>From Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207 at mcimail.com  Sat Sep 17 13:49:00 1994
From: Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207 at mcimail.com (Douglas S. Zwiebel)
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 94 07:49 EST
Subject: single op/2 rigs
Message-ID: <60940917124906/0006489207PK3EM at mcimail.com>

I'm usually considered very conservative by most who know me, but even I
don't think there is a PROBLEM with one guy using two rigs (but not 2 sigs
simultaneously).  Do we need to indicate if the guys has 2 towers? 2 amps?
mono vs tribanders?  NAH.....it's all single op.  2 rig guys are just up
front in skill & desire.  Bet there will be 3 rig types soon, esp with
10 so lousy, that you can set ur rig up to scan the band and still work the
"other" 2 rigs as being done now.   de Doug/KR2Q

>From Charles Fulp Jr <0006313915 at mcimail.com>  Sat Sep 17 13:52:00 1994
From: Charles Fulp Jr <0006313915 at mcimail.com> (Charles Fulp Jr)
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 94 07:52 EST
Subject: Multi-single something different
Message-ID: <21940917125212/0006313915PK2EM at mcimail.com>

The ten minute rules and their various interpretations and applications
have been with us for some time now.  I remember when the official ARRL
position on Multi Single was that if a backup transmitter was on the 
premises, the final tubes were to be removed to prevent any temptation to
use a second transmitter.  Ten minute rules came along to constrain those
who could not resist the temptation to have extra transmitters, or when 
transceivers came along.  
Band changing once was a challenge. My first amplifier used plug in coils,
and finding 15 meters on my S20R could take 5 or 10 minutes. I never did
find 10 meters!  Things have changed.  A good single operator can control
several radios either simultaneously or in various tandem arrangements.
The Multi Single class seems to me to be almost an anachronism.  A team of
guys huddled around a single transmitter. Obviously few serious entrants
come close to that image, but the name of the class certainly conjures it
up.  If 1 transceiver is barely enough for the enthusiastic single operator,
how can we expect a team of such people to use one transmitter.  We do not,
of course.  Instead we have rules to simulate something along the lines of
a single transmitter capable of rapid, but limited band changing.  This
can provide interesting competition, but limits innovation.  I feel in the
assisted (unlimited class is my preference) class, and the multi op classes,
innovation should be encouraged.
Why not have a LIMITED MULTIOPERATOR CLASS.  1 signal working (running or
s/p) on a single band during any 10 minute period (that would be from last
entry on band A, through any entries on band B, until the first entry on
band C a full 10 minutes must pass)  NEW MULTIPLIERS could be worked on ANY
OTHER BANDS, no limit to band changes etc.
What would differentiate a limited multioperator station from a Multi Multi
where 6 stations would be transmitting full time but only 1 station taking
all comers?  Simple, A LIMITED MULTIOPERATOR STATION COULD HAVE NO MORE THAN
THREE OPERATORS.  I would prefer 2 but some people like to sleep during 
contests.  What about the 4 op teams?  If it takes 4 operators to do Multi-
Single then the word Single is really corrupted, or you are not a serious
group.  If you are not serious. Multi Multi is much more fun, everyone can
attempt to run or s/p without worrying about who they are working.  You
will be beaten by W3LPL or N2RM or K1AR instead of KC1XX or W3BGN or K1AR
(John likes to bounce between all classes to break different hearts each
season).
                 DE Chas, K3WW    CFULP at MCIMAIL.COM