Ham/Contest meeting in Foxboro, MA area?

HENRYPOL at aol.com HENRYPOL at aol.com
Mon Nov 25 20:53:29 EST 1996

Looks like business is going to take me to Eastern Mass. next week
(12/2-4/96).  Are there any ham or contest club meetings in the area that
week?  I will be staying in Foxboro, MA.

Henry Pollock - WB4HFL
henrypol at aol.com

>From aixxo004 at cmu.chiangmai.ac.th (Jumsai Janhom-HS1NIV/5)  Tue Nov 26 16:31:29 1996
From: aixxo004 at cmu.chiangmai.ac.th (Jumsai Janhom-HS1NIV/5) (Jumsai Janhom-HS1NIV/5)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:31:29 -0700 (GMT)
Subject: Notebook interference
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961126091629.24957B-100000 at cmu>


     I've joined every main contest since I've got my HF ticket 2 years ago.
 I hook my Compaq Notebook using CT to my TS450 for sending and logging.
 I just found out that I missed many many weak station due to the high level
 noise interfered from Notebook.I still knew that it's not from its processor
 but comes from its AC adaptor.Last CWWW96 I quit it so I've got pretty 
 pile up.
     Anyone got problem with using computer interface interference? I do 
 still want to use CT in the contest.How do you manage for the clear noise?

 Log around the clock!!

>From ppvvpp at mixcom.com (Gary Sutcliffe)  Tue Nov 26 02:47:46 1996
From: ppvvpp at mixcom.com (Gary Sutcliffe) (Gary Sutcliffe)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:47:46 -0600
Subject: Single op 2 radio backlash - SUMMARY
Message-ID: <199611260247.UAA12239 at mixcom.mixcom.com>


A week or so ago I posted some questions regarding 2 radio 
operations.  I got a number of replies sent back personally 
to me in addition to the ones posted to the group.

Here is a summary of the main arguments on both sides of the question.
In order to keep things brief, I have not included a number of the
statements that essentailly echo what had already been said.

Several people requested that they not be identified. To prevent me
from screwing up, I have removed the names/calls of all the responses.

******************* Original Questions ****************

1.  A couple of contesters said they resent answering a CQ and being ignored
while the other station is obviously working someone else on the second
radio.  One guy said he actually blacklisted a couple of the top scoring
stations during SS CW when this happened to him.  
Is the resentment I have uncovered to these operating techiniques more 
widespread, or is my (small) sample statisically invalid? 

2. Is it fair for a single operator to tie up more than one frequency?  I
don't have a problem with using a single CQ frequency and S&Ping on a second
frequency. On the other hand, one guy questioned if it is fair to tie up a
CQ frequency if you are only making one QSO every 5 minutes or so.


Good questions Gary.
Clearly there should be a seperate class for multiple transceivers. My 
reasoning is based on my observation as you noted that 
they consume multiple frequencies and/or bands. As evidenced by the 
frequent occurence of AWOL operator when I call them or ask if freq is in 
The AWOL op's delayed reaction happened more in SS CW than in the past. 
Maybe more people are getting into two radios. I didn't note any 
offenders, too busy having fun to get mad. 
Any conclusions drawn regarding two radios should be applicable to three, 
four, or five radios as well. For example when a system is devised to 
allow more than two radios to be calling in sequence alternately between 
more than two bands very quickly, would that be ok? 


I guess the answer is yes.
Someone got the idea that as long as he only transmitted in one
place, he meant the rules.   Maybe he did but that wasn't the
way his peers were playing, hence I'm not sure what the victory
means in that case.....


As for dualing CQ's.  It's a worthless technique.     


If you are good at it, the guys on the other end should never even know 
you are doing 2 radios!

Besides, the improvement in score is worth far more than a few guys 
who decide not to work you.    


2 radio ops are too much work! Dont try it! Tell all your friends not to 
try it either! You are correct, ignoring an answer while QSOing on the other 
radio is very rude!

Oh, by the way, my first try at 2 radio ops (dueling CQs) netted about 80 
extra QSOs. That was enough to move me from my normal overall number of 
around 30th to a claimed score within the top ten.  


You bet. Let's name names, too. In CW SS I did what I've done every year for
probably the past 15: get on long enough to give the Big Guns a crack at one
more contact, namely, with me. This year I borrowed a radio and strung a
wire around my tiny apartment. 40 meters was the only band I had.

On Sunday afternoon I called W***, who was about 40 dB over S9, at least a
dozen times. I actually went away after half a dozen calls, came back a few
minutes later, and called some more. I never heard the operator there work
anybody. At that time, everyone else I called on the band came back to me.

I chalked it up to "must be one of my enemies operating there and he's just
ignoring me." At this point I had about 100 Qs and I just said screw it and
I quit. There are plenty of other, better things to do than this. I had
worked as many of the big guns as I could find on 40 who heard my puny signal.

Gary,  this was talked about last year, too.  I think that calling CQ
on two bands is piggish and that it should be specifically prohibited.
But, many of the respondents last year said it was legal per FCC and
contest so long as the actual dits and dahs were not being sent at the
same instant of time on two bands, so they were going to continue to do
it.  I think these were the 49% that voted fro Slick Willie........


In my opinion their are two possible though camps regarding SO 2
radio use;

1.  The leading use of all available techniques and hardware resources
to be an leading competitor. ie 2 radio, packet spotting, diverse
reception etc.

2.  Or, fine tuning the playing field to provide a more even playing
field to ensure that the model for these radio games strike
measureability in operator skill.

     Identify the goals of radiosporting. Which will it be ??



I raised some of these same issues on the reflector two
years ago. Unfortunately, the top guys in contesting are
very good at using two radios and are committed to
continuing, since of course it gives them a decided
edge. I was accused of being old-fashioned and not
adaptable to new trends, which maybe is true to some
extent. One guy in the midwest wrote "sure, one radio is
fine for you, in Arizona, with your antennas rusted stuck
on Northeast, but what about us guys in the middle of
the country who have to work two directions at once?"

The bottom line is that to remain competitive, you have to
join the trend. I now do the two-radio thing, but don't
really enjoy it, and would love to see it outlawed, or
made into a separate class of entry. 73.


The SS rules state that you can't "simultaneously transmit on more than 
one frequency".  The dictionary defines "simultaneous" as:

"happening, existing or done at the same time".

I assume that to "transmit" means to emit power from a transmitter.  When 
I operate two-radio, I am 100% certain I do not "simultaneously transmit" 
due to a fool-proof lockout box.  I may, however, occupy two frequencies 
at the same time...

Interesting discussion;  I hope it doesn't lead to more rules, that's 
what we don't need more of.  Let's let people push the envelope and the 
state-of-the-art in contesting and not thwart their efforts with regulations!


Some comments on Gary's two-radio post, from a longtime two-radio 

> 1.  A couple of contesters said they resent answering a CQ and being ignored
> while the other station is obviously working someone else on the second
> radio.

You can't assume that an operator is off working someone else on the 
second radio. Perhaps he really can't hear you, or has some local problem 
in the shack, or whatever. You never know what's happening at his end, so 
cut him a little slack. Even in SS, which is the worst possible case for 
the two-radio thing because of the long exchange, it seldom takes more 
than 15 seconds before the guy is back on the CQ frequency. I solve this 
problem another way--I don't CQ on my "run" frequency while I'm working 
someone on the second radio. (I will respond to a "QRL?" if I'm not 
transmitting at that instant on the second rig, though.)

> 2. Is it fair for a single operator to tie up more than one frequency?

Is it fair for a station to CQ? I think so. That's what this question 
really asks. If you can keep two CQ frequencies and they're both 
productive, and you're really a single-op, then you have to be 
responsible enough to know whether you're handling it well or whether 
you're just making noise on one of the frequencies that someone else 
could be productively using. It's the operator's decision to make, just 
like many, many other fuzzy areas contesters have to make decisions about 
during every hour of every contest.

Editorial comment: For a long time I've been opposed to the *general*
prohibition of single ops having two signals on the air simultaneously--I
think that if an operator can handle two run frequencies, then he's a
pretty damned good operator and should be allowed to do it. On the other
hand, the way most people implement this is to simultaneously key rigs on
more than one frequency, and they *can't* handle two answers at once,
technically or skill-wise. Therefore, the prohibition is livable for me.
(My two-radio setup won't let me key two rigs at once anyway.)

> I do have a problem with the dueling CQs, alternating CQs on separate bands.
> With conditions the way they are now, is it fair to tie up two frequencies
> when only a couple of bands are open? Especially on phone where there is not
> much space.  One guy who uses this technique said that they are not "really"
> using two frequencies since they are only transmitting on one frequency at a
> time.  Would they give up the frequency if someone asked if it was in use
> while they were not transmitting on it? If not, then are they really using
> only one frequency? On the other hand, how hard is it to hold two CQ
> frequencies on crowded bands?

I think you answered your own question with the last question. It's very
hard to hold two productive frequencies. To answer another of your
queries, an operator who's CQing on two bands, even with interleaved,
nonconcurrent CQs, is *undeniably* using two frequencies. But unless 
you're listening to him in two receivers at once, how could you ever know 
for certain that he's doing it?

> My question to the group: Is the resentment I have uncovered to these
> operating techiniques more widespread, or is my (small) sample statisically
> invalid? 

Good questions. I think resentment of contesters is widespread, but mostly
not within our own ranks. I think only relatively inexperienced contesters
begrudge two-radio operation on the majority of skilled, responsible
contesters. Some toad will always screw things up for the rest of us, but
as I pointed out earlier, when people assume that someone isn't answering
them because he's working someone on the second radio, it's not fair to
that operator. Things often go wrong in contests. And, as K3ZO pointed
out, some of us keep frequencies warm during pee breaks by letting the
keyer run--but never for very long. I don't do this myself, but I don't 
think it's a big deal.

This should be an interesting discussion. Maybe we'll all learn something 
about two-radio techniques in the process.


Your comments/question are quite timely. I've given a bit of thought to the
2-radio concept, both the hardware/software, and its practical use on the
air. So for "what it's worth"....

1. I am now using the "two radio setup" regularly in contests such as SS,
NAQP, CQP,  WAE, WPX ... (not in Sprint ... I'm not quick enough)  Lately
I've been SO/SB on my trips out of the country for ARRL DX  and CQ WW, so I
use only a single rig.

2. I use TR and NA. (CT only for M/S in DX contests). I stick with TR for CW
and use NA for Phone and Mixed. TR is GREAT for CW and does ALL the neat two
radio things. NA is fine for Phone now that I have a NA Switch Box. (Dave
added a new feature in Ver. 10.12 that allows me to keep the W9XT card on
LPT2, use the LPT1 for the Top Ten/Dunestar FIlter, and take the NA 2-radio
control from LPT1.

3. On those occasions where I'm S&Ping and run across a "big time contester"
CQing and obviously using the 2-Radio technique, I drop my call in, and if I
get "put on hold" I just pass him by. Figure he'll be around for the entire
contest and later is as good as sooner. I don't see any problem with the
2-radio use to "Run" and S&P. Only one freq. is "occupied" and even if the
rate is down, the situation is no different that it was prior to the 2-radio
era. Actually it's better since other CQing stations have a greater
"audience" upon which to draw.

4. NO QUESTION Dueling CQs are at the margin of acceptable operating
practice. Two frequencies are being occupied simultaneusly. And with limited
band options, as they are currently, it's a very questionable practice. But I
can't see any rational way to limit it. In a sense it does add another
possible contact to one of the bands for others to work. As I have real
problem with the big multis endlessly CQing on a freq. night and day even
with no response, I find it hard to be too critical on the dueling CQ

5. In my mind there are only a limited number of Ops able to really handle
the 2-radio setup efficiently, especially when both bands are realtively
active. My experience with S&P on the 2nd radio while CQing it that only half
the time am I successful in picking up a S&P station while running on another
band. Seems like about the time I drop in my call on Radio 2, someone answers
my CQ on Radio 1. But as I say, I'm just not QUICK. For the guys who can
handle it, I say let'em have at it!

6. I DON'T use dueling CQs... just as I don't use the independent Super Check
Partial databases. It's my choice to avoid these practices as I am not 
comfortable with the ethics involved. BUT it's my personal choice and not 
one I would impose on others.

7. Perhaps the best thing is what you're doing. Bring the question out in the
open. Get a good solid "thread" going. Then summarize the responses, and use
that to guide the contest community in making choices as to what they wish to
do as individuals.

8. For my part I've decided to stay with 2-radios anytime I can. But my
purpose in having the 2nd radio is to watch the other bands, looking for
openings, working any multipliers I can, and picking up the odd Q when it's
convenient. I don't look upon the 2nd radio as a source of "higher rate" in
an all out effort to "win". That's for the guys who have the skill and drive
to get to the very top of the pack.  

Hope you can "stir up the pot" and see what boils to the top. 


.......snip     Subject:        SO 2 radio backlash?
other contesters about it.  Now I am hearing some resentment to the 
techinique.  1.  A couple of contesters said they resent answering a 
CQ and being ignored ................snip

COMMENT +++++++++++++++++
that's not my favorite situation, but I can live with it.  it's pare 
to learning to utilize your time in a contest

2. Is it fair for a single op to tie up more than one frequency?

COMMENT +++++++++++
To me, that's a real problem.  For us casual contesters, especially 
low power guys, it's hard to find a crack in the spectrum to run ... 
and that's part of the fun.  So taking up two frequencies is real 

.................snip ....... frequency. On the other hand, one guy 
questioned if it is fair to tie up a CQ frequency if you are only 
making one QSO every 5 minutes or so.

COMMENT +++++++++++++++++++
seems OK to me, but kind of counterproductive ... anyway, most 
ops seem to give up on calling CQ when their rate drops below 30 or 
so, but if somebody wants to waste time, then so be it.  I guess I 
feel that everybody is entitled to 1 frequency at a time

where there is not much space.  One guy who uses this technique said 
that they are not "really" using two frequencies since they are only 
transmitting on one frequency at a time.

COMMENT ++++++++++++++++
they ABSOLUTELY are tying up 2 freqs - INTENTIONALLY.  if they weren't 
trying to use one and protect the other, then why are they doing it?

My question to the group:  Is the resentment I have uncovered to 
these operating techiniques more widespread, or is my (small) sample 
statisically invalid? 

COMMENT +++++++++++++++++
To me, the use of spectrum is the issue.  Dealing with un-answered 
CQ's is an operating / contesting skill ... but using up double 
amounts of spectrum (by holding off others with meaningless CQ's) 
hurts other competitors and should be penalized.  By the way, the FCC
authorizes only 2-way communications, not broadcasting ... the FCC 
also permits (not sure of wording) brief one-way transmissions to 
attempt to establish 2-way communications (i.e. it's OK to call CQ) 
FREQUENCY (or two or three)!!!!!  THAT's BROADCASTING, and IS NOT 


The bottom line is two radios increases your score and that is the goal!

By the way, I've tried dueling CQs and it doesn't work for me. I use the
second radio exclusively for S&P, and there aren't always two bands open
well enough for that to work.


Hi Gary,

re: Beef #1:
I've had similar experiences. If it takes longer than I'm willing to wait,
I move on. However, life's too short to worry about blacklisting. As my
short-term memory fades out, I tend to not remember who annoyed me earlier
in the contest, so I work them later. Actually, I make no effort to
remember them.

re: Beef #2:
I believe only a certain percentage of contesters can work single op two
radio before it will have an adverse affect. It will not be effective for
everyone to operate in this mode (has nothing to do with skill). In these
years of particularly low solar activity, we all end up on 20m or below, so
a spot to call CQ is hard to come by -- particularly if you're running low
or QRP power. Yes, a two-radio op is technically not occupying two
frequencies at the same time (i.e. they are within the rules). However,
they are effectively occupying two frequencies when they alternately CQ on
two different bands. Once we hit the saturation point of two-radio ops, I
expect we'll see more frequency fights, as other contesters "take over" a
SO2R's frequency when he goes to other radio.


I too ran across the problem of answering a very loud CQ just to
have them call CQ again & again. One station in particular I called 4
times because I couldn't believe he didn't hear me. It then dawned on
me he was probably using two radios and working someone on the
second radio. This happened about a dozen times or more during
the SS CW test. This brings up another point. I understood you 
can't transmit on two frequencies at the same time. Are some
of these stations working the second rig and hitting F1 for the
first rig just to keep the frequency clear? I can't believe the
guy I called four times was only calling CQ while he copied the
exchange of the guy on the second rig. It seems to stay truly
competitive as a single op you now must run two rigs. Will that
mean we will answer more and more CQ's will no luck because of
the second rig? Is it time to have a single op, two rig category?
(That comment should start a interesting thread.)


What works for me with respect to using two rigs, is to put one on a busy
band and tune the other for S&P on a less-busy band.  Or vice-versa.  Use
of dueling CQ's hasn't been that productive, although it has produced
little spurts of about 50% over what CQ-ing on one band would produce.
Using dueling CQ's on two busy bands generally causes more trouble than
it's worth.  It's a similar trade-off to chasing packet spots while trying
to run; few can make it work like it's supposed to and come out ahead.

I don't think it should be banned, but as we get a more sophisticated
understanding of the issues involved, we will probably see such tactics
used more appropriately.


        Sometimes the "pounce" on the second radio takes much longer than
was expected.  Therefore the CQ seems to go on forever despite answers.  I
definitely resent this if I am one of the answering stations.  From my
standpoint this is no different than if the CQer was gone on a pit stop and
a short trip to the refrigerator to build a sandwich--meanwhile trying to
hold his frequency.

>2. Is it fair for a single operator to tie up more than one frequency?  I
>don't have a problem with using a single CQ frequency and S&Ping on a second
>frequency. On the other hand, one guy questioned if it is fair to tie up a
>CQ frequency if you are only making one QSO every 5 minutes or so.
        The operative may be "tie up".  By alternating CQ's on two
frequencies on the same band or on two or more bands--using a computer,
etc.--we would be doing what is not allowed in single-op, ie: "using
assistance".  Another operator sending one of the CQ's would not be allowed,
why is a machine different?

>I do have a problem with the dueling CQs, alternating CQs on separate bands.
        I also.  And on *one* band taking up one freq on the lower part
(fast) and one up higher (slower) by rapid alternation--then answering one
or the other.       

>My question to the group:  Is the resentment I have uncovered to these
>operating techiniques more widespread . . ..
        Probably not widespread, yet.  But if abuses grow, it will be soon.


No resentment here. However, I don't appreciate it when I don't get an
answer to my search and pounce, and it's pretty obvious that what is
happening is due to 2 radios.  I plan to try the 2 radio technique myself as
soon as I can prioritize the purchase of the other rig. 


That it!  Thanks for the responses!  

My own conclusions:

1)  Single OP - 2 Radio operating can be effective.  One needs to 
consider when and where to do it.  I plan to go to this technique 

2) I (still) believe that the dueling CQ method, while not against 
the rules if done properly, is at best unsportsman-like.  Fortunately
it does not appear to be an effective tactic, and will not become too

Thanks again for your comments!  73 - Gary

>From AD1C at tiac.net (Jim Reisert AD1C)  Tue Nov 26 01:52:37 1996
From: AD1C at tiac.net (Jim Reisert AD1C) (Jim Reisert AD1C)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 96 21:52:37 -0400
Subject: CT-USER list is back on-line
Message-ID: <199611260252.VAA26247 at mailnfs0.tiac.net>

The CT-USER at ve7tcp.ampr.org list is back on-line after a long absence.  I
have updated the country and master callsign files on the FTP site (
ftp://ve7tcp.ampr.org/software/ct or
http://ve7tcp.ampr.org/ftp/software/ct/ ).

If you're not subscribed, and you want to be, send E-mail to
ct-user-REQUEST at ve7tcp.ampr.org and put the command SUBSCRIBE in the body
of the message.

The replacement site @databook.com will go away when I get into work
tomorrow.  Please use ONLY the VE7TCP site from now on.

I will try to maintain backup copies of the files at

One note:  you will no longer be able to download the master callsign
database files via E-mail.  If this is a problem for anyone, please let me
(not the reflector) know.

73 - Jim AD1C

Jim Reisert <AD1C at tiac.net>                    http://www.tiac.net/users/ad1c/

>From aa9ax at iglou.com (Steven Sample)  Tue Nov 26 03:19:11 1996
From: aa9ax at iglou.com (Steven Sample) (Steven Sample)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 22:19:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: More on New Icom IC-756
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961125220642.3246A-100000 at iglou1>

Bob (with HRO):  (Sorry I accidentally canned your e-mail address)

Was talking to my friend this evening and passed along your comments
regarding no plans to import the 756 to America, no FCC acceptance, etc.
He wonders why you feel there is no plan to import this radio while at the
same time you have it showcased on the back cover of your current catalog?
As I mentioned, AES also has it showcased on the inside page of their
current catalog, and there seems to be too much happening for a rig that
is "not gonna happen"!

He told me that if the new 756 isn't on the shelf in the U.S.A. within 45
days, he will personally buy me a ticket to any spot I want for the ARRL
DX Test.

This seems to conflict with the info you have received.  What do you think
could be the problem?  

I think this radio is hotter than a firecracker, and the only reason you
won't see any in U.S. dealers' showrooms is because they are SOLD OUT!!!

Like you, I can't wait to see (and have) one.  It will make an excellent
baby brother for my 781.

Steve / N9FD 

>From AD1C at tiac.net (Jim Reisert AD1C)  Tue Nov 26 02:46:06 1996
From: AD1C at tiac.net (Jim Reisert AD1C) (Jim Reisert AD1C)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 96 22:46:06 -0400
Subject: Internet DXCC reflector at VE7TCP is back on-line
Message-ID: <199611260346.WAA05859 at mailnfs0.tiac.net>

The reflector DX at ve7tcp.ampr.org is back.  Please no more DX traffic on
the CQ-Contest reflector.

For more information, send a message to dx-REQUEST at ve7tcp.ampr.org and put
the word INFO in the message body.

73 - Jim AD1C

Jim Reisert <AD1C at tiac.net>                    http://www.tiac.net/users/ad1c/

>From k1vr at juno.com (Fred Hopengarten)  Tue Nov 26 06:34:17 1996
From: k1vr at juno.com (Fred Hopengarten) (Fred Hopengarten)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 01:34:17 EST
Subject: 40m condx??
References: <Pine.3.89.9611251712.A24081-0100000 at sprite>
Message-ID: <19961125.233707.5495.6.k1vr at juno.com>

Fred Hopengarten, K1VR
Six Willarch Road * Lincoln, MA 01773-5105 * 617/259-0088
e-mail:  k1vr at juno.com

Big antennas, high in the sky, are better than small ones, low.

On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:09:09 -0500 (EST) jtolbert at gremlan.org (Jamie
Tolbert) writes:
>Whats the general opinion of 40m condx this past weekend?

Sunday afternoon I was calling CQ around 7057 and VU2PAI answered.  From
here, that's a "real man's" contact.  He wasn't loud, rather weak in
fact.  But that's a LONG short path QSO.

Most any East Coast station with a beam worked JA long path Saturday
afternoon, but Sunday morning I worked an OH long path peaking  SW (over
USA, the Pacific and then up again).  It was a better path than straight
North into darkness (which is where I looked first).

Don't ya just love this propagation stuff? -- Fred K1VR

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list