[CQ-Contest] SO2R -- revised opinion?

Art Boyars art.boyars at verizon.net
Thu Nov 10 18:55:15 EST 2005

In an earlier incarnation of the "SO2R should be a separate clas from 'real' single op" discussion, I voted "no."  I felt that if you had the hardware and the skill to jump to the second radio to grab the new QSO or mult there, and to jump back to the "run" radio without losing the freq, more power to you.  (I have also opined that you get darn little slack in reclaiming the run freq.)  However, I might be changing my mind.

I did a lot of slow S&P in SS CW.  I'd get a CQer lined up, and all of a sudden he would stop -- even in the middle of his own call.  After the first couple of times, I realized that these guys were breaking off the CQ to make a call on the second radio.  Harumph! They were costing ME time.  Not veddy proper 'tall.  (I maybe recall somebody interrupting sending me their report; sounded like they had something going on the second radio.)

Then, after SS CW, I saw some people mention the "dueling CQs" mode of a logging program.  Well!  My slow little bulb began its feeble glow.  Alternating CQs on two bands or two freq's.

Neither of these techniques fits my moral understanding of how far we should allow SO2R to go.  Please: second radio is S&P only.  And if you start a CQ, listen for answers.

Disclaimer:  One time K**** and I were working a pretty dead band at W#### in a DX test (CW, of course), with two complete rigs available.  We implemented a "wet ware" version of dueling CQs, one of us near the bottom of the band, one near the top.  It was cute then (we made about three QSOs in 15 minutes), and it wan't really bothering anybody (band completely uncrowded).  But having seen what was going on in SS CW, I'll not do it again.

So, let the discussion begin.

73, Art K3KU

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list