[CQ-Contest] SO2R -- revised opinion?

[Rick Tavan N6XI]

Hi, Art. I think you were right the first time. If you develop the skill, it
can help and be reasonably non-intrusive. It's a genuine single-op skill and
should not put you in a different category. Most SO2R ops state the goal of
doing it so smoothly that none of your contacts realize you are doing it.
But most admit that it doesn't work out that well on every Q. I think there
is a necessary ethic that if you lose your run frequency, you lose it. Go
away like a man. I did that several times last weekend but was surprised at
how infrequently it happened. Some people get pretty aggressive about
recovering "their" freq and I think that practice should be berated in the
press and the reflectors. Breaking away from a Q in progress to tend the
other freq should be a no-no, although some guys have figured out how to
insert a seamless "AS" on Rig A in response to a "?" in between
transmissions on Rig B. I think that's pretty slick even when it doesn't
work.

As for dueling CQs, that does have an ethical twinge in that you are
occupying two frequencies and maybe that's greedy. What you did on a slow
band is clearly acceptable (to me). I did some finger-assisted dueling CQs
last weekend but only when at least one of the bands was sparsely populated
and both were very slow. It was surprisingly unproductive. I would tend not
to lobby against this and hope that abuse is minimal. S&P on at least one
band seems to be more productive, at least for me.

FWIW, an algorithmic analysis of my log suggests that I made 207 "band
changes" and 95 "probable second radio QSOs" out of 1088 total QSOs (U). The
ratios there are comparable to N6TV who appears to be in the top 10 (B) with
over 1300 Qs. SO2R is not lucrative but it sure helps to fill in the
doldrums. After 3 or 4 years of beating my head against this wall, it is
finally becoming almost natural.

I thought the overall level of operating behaviour this year was as good as
I've ever seen it despite the increasing use of SO2R.

73,

/Rick N6XI

On 11/10/05, Art Boyars <art.boyars at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>