[RTTY] SO2R

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>
To: "'Robert Chudek - K0RC'" <k0rc at pclink.com>; <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 10:49 PM
Subject: RE: [RTTY] SO2R


> Bob, 
> 
>> What killer antenna system will give me a 40% scoring 
>> advantage? What legal power amplifier will give me a 40% 
>> scoring advantage? What better (single) receiver will give 
>> me a 40% scoring advantage?
> 
> We have a basic disagreement on the level of benefit from the 
> second radio.  AA5AU's experience is probably right in that 
> SO2R might provide a 40% benefit if one has a compromised 
> antenna system for example, Don's attic dipoles when he started 
> SO2R - or even a low tribander compared to the SteppIR stack 
> at K4GMH. 

K0RC - Yes we're zeroing in on it! (level of benefit) This is why I 
was questioning what configuration the top 20 NAQP RTTY 
stations were using. I compared the only example I personally had 
experience (KT0R and myself). And that shows a 41% better score.

> As the station (and operator) get better otherwise, better antennas, 
> more experience with propagation, more knowledge of the operating 
> habits of those rare multipliers who like to hang out in certain 
> out of the way places, SO2R becomes less of a defining factor.  
> Those operators who can command a frequency and have the rare 
> mults come to them see relatively little benefit (perhaps as 
> little as 5 - 10%) from the second radio.  That level of benefit 
> can easily be lost in the "noise" of geography, propagation, 
> weather related noise, etc.    

 K0RC - All true except you give away the SO2R advantage too 
agressively! I can grind away CQing without an answer for 5 or
10 minutes in SO1R. If I take more than 15 seconds to *scout
around* with my only receiver, I quickly loose my run frequency!

>> What is getting lost in the discussion is what the second 
>> radio *really* provides. Multiplexing. None of the other 
>> tools you mention provide multiplexing. SO2R is just like a 
>> duplex circuit which gives you more capacity (in a unit of 
>> time) compared to a simplex circuit. 
> 
> That multiplexing works only up to the capacity of the terminal 
> end (the operator capability).  If the station is otherwise able 
> to generate rates (information flow) sufficient to keep the 
> operator fully utilized, SO2R doesn't add a thing.  Again, SO2R 
> is one more tool to increase the ability to increase the size 
> of the "pipe" but its just one more tool just like bigger antennas, 
> better transceivers, lower noise locations or even better skill. 

K0RC - Bingo! "Multiplexing works only up to the capacity of the
terminal end." Stop right there! That's my point. When I'm grinding
away CQing, I am nowhere near operator capacity. I'm reading an
NCJ! The station is not "otherwise able to generate rates." The 
SO1R station is simply wasting time in *simplex* mode.

K0RC - I do agree SO2R is another tool, but it's a sledgehammer,
not a ball peen hammer tapping out a few more contacts. In my 
example between Dave and me, he had 125 extra Q's, or almost
25% more contacts. During his extra receiver time (while I'm read-
ing NCJ), he found an extra 23 mults, or about 14% more.

K0RC - Am I complaining because he has two towers and I have
one? No! That he has 4 stacked yagis and I have one? No! Please 
consider this, his additional tower and antennas add no advantage 
if he had only one transceiver to operate (and was reading NCJ 
right along with me).

>> On the other hand, how long would you stay interested in playing 
>> golf when you knew *every* time you stepped on the course you 
>> would be buying the beers after the game was over?
> 
> I generally buy the beers when the game is over ... and I still 
> enjoy the game when I get the (infrequent) chance. 

K0RC - Joe, I'm gonna have to take up golf and come on down!  :-)

>> Dividing SO1R and SO2R into separate classifications is clear 
>> in my mind.  Subdividing all the other tools is not.
> 
> To me SO2R is just one more tool in the toolbox ... it simply 
> allows the operator to make better use of the available resources 
> just like going from a vertical to a yagi or a single low yagi 
> to stacks. If you want to separate "advanced" tools, separate 
> *ALL* advanced tools ... if you just have to have "basic" and 
> "unlimited" classes, make that dividing line the vertical/low 
> dipole and single transceiver vs. gain antennas and multiple 
> receivers/transceivers. 
> 
> 73, 
> 
>   ... Joe, W4TV 

K0RC - Joe, I have to guess you're a heavy-duty SO2R operator 
and have a lot of experience under your belt. I think you would 
appreciate my perspective more if you ran an experiment. Run the 
first half of CQWW in SO2R mode, then switch to SO1R mode 
for the second half. Your premise is loosing this one tool (out of 
your many tools) would have insignificant impact. I don't agree.

K0RC - I hope this dialog doesn't come across as "complaining"...
I am not... I am simply vocalizing my perspective regarding SO1R 
and SO2R. I believe this discussion is healthy for the radiosport!

73 de Bob - K0RC