[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: Saturday, July 22, 2006 1:25 AM
Subject: RE: [RTTY] SO2R


> 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 - True, a sample of one is not adequate.

> 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). 
> 
> 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 - It's not a matter of Run vs. S&P strategy. It's a matter 
of time available to find more stations. Let's say your transmitter 
is "on" 25% of the time during a contest (or pick a number). In a 
48 hour period that gives a SO2R station 12 more hours of 
receiver time.

> 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 - This is my point, all the aluminum in the world won't make 
up for an additional 12 hours of receiver time. In SO1R, when I'm 
transmitting, I'm not receiving.

> 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 -  Agreed.

> 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.   

K0RC - Okay, you saw through my *experiment*. I also am not a 
SO2R operator, but I suspect the 2nd radio is more effective at find- 
ing multipliers than boosting the rate. Maybe that's why the guys call 
them the "multiplier" radio?

> 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 - Joe, I guess we're back where we started! :-) We agree 
in principle, it's just the degree of impact. I don't believe slapping 
a second radio in everyone's station will boost their score by 40% 
either. But granting an additional 48 hours of uninterupted receiver 
time is significant enough to warrant a distinction in classes.

> 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. 

K0RC - I think this is a separate discussion. There are levels of 
engagement in contesting, from the "I am disgusted these **** 
contesters drive me off my bands on the weekends" to the "I 
need that plaque to complete my personal wall of honor", and 
everything in between!

K0RC - I think the idea behind a "wires and dipoles" category 
was aimed to increase the envolvement and enjoyment of 
the *casual contester*. They could care less about the SO1R or 
SO2R topic here.

> 73, 
> 
>   ... Joe, W4TV 

K0RC - Joe, I've enjoyed our discussion and I think we've 
both articulated some interesting points. The volley has been 
enjoyable for me! I'm gonna go mow the lawn now and come 
back later to see if this horse is down for the count. :-)

73 de Bob - K0RC