[RTTY] SO2R

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> 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.

I don't think you can base a judgment on a "sample of one" - 
particularly a pair of stations that may or may not otherwise 
be matched and without controlling for other variables. 

>  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!

If you grind away for five or ten minutes CQing without an 
answer, I suspect you should be tuning rather than CQing but 
that's my prejudice showing.  Still, I would be using my 
second receiver to tune in the same band at a minimum (and 
no, I don't have a SO2R station). 

I did find the second receiver (Mark V) to be very beneficial 
in ARRL 10 meter contest the last two years.  I could easily 
CQ on CW and tune for new ones on phone at the same time. 
Again, it's not SO2R by any stretch of the imagination but 
it is making best use of the "bandwidth."

> 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.

But you stop too soon ... calling CQ isn't the end all and be all 
of a contest.  If you are not getting answers try a different band 
or start tuning - if your rate is less than 15/hr you are likely 
to do better tuning and if you can't do that S&P the additional 
QSOs aren't there to be worked with SO2R. 

> K0RC - I do agree SO2R is another tool, but it's a sledgehammer,
> not a ball peen hammer tapping out a few more contacts. 

Calling CQ should be the sledge hammer - the SO2R station should 
be the finishing hammer.  

> 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.

I seriously doubt that the top SO2R equipped stations see that kind 
of incremental benefit from the second radio.  My guess is that it 
represents no more than 10 to 15% of their score - less than going 
from an A3 at 50 feet to a pair of TH6/TH7s at 80/45 feet in my 
estimation. 

> 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).

I would expect that his extra antennas would provide more gain 
or more coverage area ... he might not be reading NCJ and might 
be getting more answers to his CQs.    

> 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. 

I'm not a SO2R operator ... I do not currently have a station to 
take advantage of it (one trapped vertical).  However, I can look 
at the scores turned in by other operators, read their comments 
and compare them to others.  I do have some limited experience 
with semi-SO2R on 10.    

> Run the first half of CQWW in SO2R mode, then switch to SO1R mode 
> for the second half. 

If I had the station, I would be far more inclined to run the first 
half of CQWW in SO1R and the second half in SO2R.  For me, what SO2R 
really does is allow the operator to continue calling CQ on a slow 
band when he should really be doing S&P.   

> Your premise is loosing this one tool (out of your many tools) 
> would have insignificant impact. I don't agree.

I don't believe the impact would be insignificant but I believe 
the impact would be far less significant than going from a tribander
and 2 el 40 to a multi-band vertical/end fed wire/low dipoles.  

> 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!

I hope it is healthy.  I would much rather focus on the "haves" 
(whether it be SO2R, moderate antennas, big antennas, etc.) vs.
the "have nots" (those with real limitations) instead of making 
the issue that one station has a little more than another station. 

Going back to the golf analogy ... it's the HOA/restricted 
stations that really need miniature golf - the rest can play 
on the same course whether they have the Wal-Mart clubs or 
brand new (pick your favorite top of the line) clubs. 

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV