[CQ-Contest] Not real SO2R nor SO5R

[Pete Smith N4ZR]

Charly, I don't think that is right.  I'm sure there are many SO2R 
operators who are using software (as TRLog used to do) which will resume 
CQing when not actively transmitting on the second band.  This gives the 
illusion that the op is listening on the run frequency while he works 
S&P on another band, and I don't particularly like it, but in a contest 
with a short exchange a good SO2R op will not be AWOL on the run 
frequency for very long.  Now, potty breaks are another issue entirely :-) .

As for the short pauses between CQs ... it's been my experience that 
many/most operators rely on timing to determine whether a station is 
calling them or someone else near the same frequency.  If they don't 
hear you *start* your reply in the first half-second or so, they 
conclude that you weren't calling them.  Once they have reached that 
conclusion, there's no reason not to resume the CQ.

73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.

On 2/18/2013 8:04 PM, Charles Harpole wrote:
> Way too many SO2R operations are fake.  That is, too often, the robot CQ
> machine is left on only to hold a frequency while the live operator is
> running on a different band.  Even with the cursed Skimmer and other
> automated nonsense, it is very difficult to work a robot.  I can hear the
> robot station, but no one is at home there.
>
> I hear many contest CQs that leave so little listening time between CQ
> transmissions that sending my call sign takes longer than his listening
> pause.  Ah ha, a robot.
>
> I guess there are stations equipped to hold frequencies with a robot on
> SEVERAL bands at once.
>
> With Skimmers, fake spots, SO5R, multiple remote stations, log-washing, and
> other polution operations, today is certainly not my simple fun teenage
> years of ham radio contesting (1950s).  73,
>