[CQ-Contest] SO2R IS A Seperate Entry Class

thompson at mindspring.com thompson at mindspring.com
Thu Jun 1 16:02:32 EDT 2000

John W2GD brings up a good point on SO2R.  I feel that good definition of
the situation would be required before
making this a separate category.    On one hand some would say this is just
use of technology.  Others say this is really "assisted"
operation.    Again we stand ready to create a new class that would be hard
to confirm.   Its already hard to confirm that single ops are not assisted
especially with packet available on the web so no sign on signature is
required.   Its also hard to confirm QRP or low power.  I also get
complaints about operators holding a freq while quickly QSYing to work a
mult on another.   With split VFO/PTO transceivers this is easy to do.

SO2R type operation was possible in past ages with equipment such as the
Drake line.  I ran a Ten Tec with TR-4 attached on 40 in the late 70's so I
could listen on my freq and tune the DX SSB region.   Gosh even the
Hallicrafters SR-2000 and SR-400 allowed dual
freq operation at the flip of a switch.  The FT1000D allows dual receive.
So perhaps the definition should be limited to two (or more!)
separate transceivers.  If we do this why limit these to one band?   Is it
not use of technology to be running on 15 while scanning 10 for new mults?
Ideas for thought.

73 Dave K4JRB

CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list