[CQ-Contest] Interleaving QSO's

[donovanf at starpower.net]

Hi David, 


Your email suggests that you misunderstand the issue. 


The issue is claiming and defending two frequencies in the same 
band for interleaved CQs, a practice that was developed and 
rejected by considerate contesters thirty years ago 


73 
Frank 
W3LPL 

----- Original Message -----

From: "D Rodman MD" <rodman at buffalo.edu> 
To: cq-contest at contesting.com 
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 4:23:39 PM 
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Interleaving QSO's 

I wanted to make two points about interleaving QSO's, our latest hot 
topic, without either endorsing or condemning the practice. 

First, PJ4G was NOT the originator of this concept. I do not recall, 
however, who developed the idea but it has been used for several years 
at many stations (including PJ4G) without a flood of entrants turning to 
this technology as far as I can see. The fact that many more stations 
have not turned to this practice in order to get the edge on competition 
may be present for many reasons, including insufficient knowledge that 
the practice actually occurred or was even possible, lack of 
commercially made equipment to simplify the process of switching and 
control in the station or lack of HF equipment with variable parameters 
capable of controlling the interleaving interfaces or the complexity of 
band pass isolation permitting the second station to hear on the same 
band unimpeded by the other transmitter. Obviously, not every station 
has the layout both internally and with requisite antennas to accomplish 
this. It can be rather complex sometimes to heap one problem onto 
another with regards to isolation. 

Secondly, any multi station can interleave QSO's merely by putting two 
ops at one radio, splitting the audio connections and sharing the 
microphone time. I admit, this is not as nice as having a second 
transmitter because you are going to have the second operator talking 
into your ear but there are still going to be on air delays caused by 
the other operator transmitting anyway. Having a second transmitter 
really isn't all that necessary at times, especially if the VFO's can be 
split to control separate transmit or receive antennas for additional 
directional coverage. 

Again, I neither endorse nor condemn the practice. I mention these 
issues only to discuss more of the technical features of the situation 
that was brought up with the PJ4G audio recording. 

What we do with all this is now possibly up to the advisors and rule 
makers, now that the "cat is out of the bag" so to speak. 

-- 
David J Rodman MD 
Assistant Clinical Professor 
Department of Ophthalmology 
SUNY/Buffalo 

Office 716-857-8654 
_______________________________________________ 
CQ-Contest mailing list 
CQ-Contest at contesting.com 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest