[CQ-Contest] High Rate Dual Radio CQing

Eric NO3M no3m at no3m.net
Mon Dec 7 13:53:51 EST 2015

I'm not disputing Steve's observation on how many operators use dueling 
CQ, but to run dueling CQs without expecting at least a steady stream of 
stations to work on both radios seems to be a waste of the second radio, 
when it could probably yield a higher rate doing efficient S/P a-la 
"classic SO2R" style.

As far as I know, current software implementations are not conducive to 
the concept of actually running both sides, and using two (2) PCs with 
lockouts is more effective in such a case, even though there is more 
physical movement.  I haven't run N1MM in a couple years after switching 
the shack PC to Linux, but from what I remember, once a QSO is started 
on one radio, the focus stays there until the QSO is complete and 
resumes dueling CQs.  If there is a station to work on the other radio, 
you can toggle back and forth with an extra keypress.  Anything extra is 

When I submitted patches to N4OGW to add dueling CQ to his 'so2sdr' 
logger, a different approach was taken.  During dueling CQ, entry focus 
is automatically opposite the transmitting radio, just like N1MM, 
et.al., however, when a QSO is started on one side, the logger drops 
into "Toggling ESM" mode.  Every subsequent <enter> keypress toggles 
transmit between radios.  Function (Fx) message keys are no longer 
on-demand, rather they become queued for the next <enter> keypress.  
This allows for a clean, normal ESM flow between radios, no extraneous 
keypresses needed, and with the function key queuing, one can perform 
fills or fill requests easily.  If more time is needed on one side, an 
empty message can be "sent" on that radio to force a dummy toggle while 
still maintaining pace on the other.  Despite even these optimizations 
to the operation of dueling CQs / simultaneous runs, two (2) PCs may 
still be more effective when there are decent pileups, unless things are 
flowing perfectly, then one can just keep pressing enter until their 
finger falls off.  (ESM ops, check out USB footpetals, ie. XKeys... map 
switch to <enter> key and use foot instead or in combo).

At any rate, dual runs can be exhausting and tricky.  The CQing operator 
has to maintain cadence, control, etc.  N6MJ, et.al., demonstrate a 
wonderful mastery.

73 Eric NO3M

On 12/06/2015 09:11 PM, Steve London wrote:
> There is some terminology confusion.
> Dueling CQ's has been built into most contesting software for many 
> years. You send a CQ on one band. When the CQ finishes, a CQ is 
> automatically started on another band. If someone answers you on the 
> first band, the CQ on the other band is automatically terminated, and 
> you complete the usual QSO sequence on the first band. If no one 
> answers, the software automatically bip-bops CQ's between the 2 bands 
> until someone answers on either band, or you change strategy.
> What ZF2MJ, OH0V, V47T, and others have advanced is running 
> simultaneous pileups on two bands, with 2 QSO's in progress at the 
> same time, but never transmitting on the two bands at the same time. 
> This is quite different from the dueling CQ's which many contesters 
> have used for years.
> I propose using the term "simultaneous pileups", not "dueling CQ's", 
> to describe what ZF2MJ, et.al., have done.
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list