[CQ-Contest] Consider This

[Ford Peterson]

Mike Gilmer wrote:

>
> The right question is:  Does SO2R warrant a separate
> category (and why)?  The number of things providing
> (significant or otherwise) advantage is virtually
> endless and they have been listed here ad nauseum.
> Virtually none of them have a distinct category.  Why
> does SO2R stand out in some minds?  I sense it is not
> simply because it offers an advantage.  To me it
> almost seems like it is simply because it is a
> politically-correct-to-question operating technique.
>

SO2R is to contesting what running two fishing lines is to a fishing
contest.  Two radios does not double the Qs.  It may however double your
score.  Chasing down mults while running a frequency is not rocket
science--especially when the run rate slows.  Checking activity on other
bands with one radio requires giving up a run frequency.

Comparing a station with two radios to a station with one radio is not a
fair comparison.  Comparing a station with a beam and a dipole is very
comparable to a station with 6 mono banders.  In each case, only one antenna
gets used at a time.

SO2R is more akin to multi-multi operation than a multi-single.  To compare
SO2R to a single op-single radio is quite unfair.  There is nothing
"political" about it.  It's simple physics, rudimentary probabilities, basic
ergonomics.

SO2R should be a category on its own, just like the "assisted" notion we now
embrace as "logical."

Ford-NØFP
ford at cmgate.com