K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

I say yes, *if* the definition of SO2R is being able
to operate on two bands almost simultaneously.
Two or more frequencies in the same band
is a different story.

Most stations engineered for SO2R expect the radios to be
on separate bands
(self QRM'ing issues if on same band) but why would you
consider it a "different
story" if both were on the same band?

Suppose I have a rig with two VFOs. I'm hunt-and-pouncing QSOs on one
frequency and listening to the pile on VY1JA on another
frequency on the same band. I toss my call at VY1JA at appropriate
moments. Is that SO2R or not?

Certainly it's not the same thing as two completely separate rigs on
different bands. But it's more than one rig that is on one frequency.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

As background, some consider SO2R an "unfair advantage"
in the SO class, while
purists claim that SO is SO, regardless of how many radios they can man=
age, so
long as only a single transmitter is active at any given point in time =
(In other
words, you can't CQ on your run frequency when working a Q on
your mult radio.)

The difference (to me, anyway) is that multiband SO2R essentially takes
two complete stations capable of simultaneous operation even if they're
both not in transmit mode at the same moment.
That's where the line is - for me.

OTOH, it could be argued that as long as there is only one signal
actually transmitted at any given time, and only one operator, there's
only one "station", regardless of how much hardware is involved.

---

Now for a topic in the opposite direction: How about an "Iron" category
(as in "Iron Chef" or "Ironman", etc.).

One rig at a time, only. No second VFO, receivers or memories. No
computer logging. No memory keyers for voice or code. 150 W maximum
power.=20

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

Suppose I have a rig with two VFOs. I'm hunt-and-pouncing
QSOs on one frequency and listening to the pile on VY1JA
on another frequency on the same band. I toss my call at
VY1JA at appropriate moments. Is that SO2R or not?

No. At best it's SO1.5R.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

The line has already be drawn --- SO. The purists maintain that whatever an SO
can do to improve his ability to run up a score should be allowed. I'm inclined
to agree.

The difference (to me, anyway) is that multiband SO2R
essentially takes two complete stations capable of
simultaneous operation even if they're
both not in transmit mode at the same moment.
That's where the line is - for me.

Would you draw additional lines at SO3R, SO4R, SO5R, etc?

OTOH, it could be argued that as long as there is only one
signal actually transmitted at any given time, and only one
operator, there's only one "station", regardless of how
much hardware is involved.

Seems like a good argument to me!

Now for a topic in the opposite direction: How about an "Iron"
category (as in "Iron Chef" or "Ironman", etc.).

One rig at a time, only. No second VFO, receivers or memories.
No computer logging. No memory keyers for voice or code. 150
W maximum power.

I wouldn't be in favor of such a category. To me, one of the attractions of
radiosport is that it encourages pushing the limits (within good ethics) and
thinking outside the box on several levels: innovative station design, battle
strategy, skill development, and taking advantage of every available technology.
Your "Iron" category seems like putting hobbles on Secretariat in the Preakness.
Diana Moon Glompers, the General Handicapper, would love the category! (Think
KVG/HB)

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Suppose I have a rig with two VFOs. I'm hunt-and-pouncing
QSOs on one frequency and listening to the pile on VY1JA
on another frequency on the same band. I toss my call at
VY1JA at appropriate moments. Is that SO2R or not?

No. At best it's SO1.5R.

Then we agree!

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

The line has already be drawn --- SO. The purists maintain
that whatever an SO
can do to improve his ability to run up a score should be
allowed. I'm inclined to agree.

Yet at the same time, there are usually power classes so the QRP' er
isn't up against the big gun. In some contests, packet spotting puts
you in a different class.

So there is a precedent for different categories.

The difference (to me, anyway) is that multiband SO2R
essentially takes two complete stations capable of
simultaneous operation even if they're
both not in transmit mode at the same moment.
That's where the line is - for me.

Would you draw additional lines at SO3R, SO4R, SO5R, etc?

Sure - but does anyone do those?

What about multiple simultaneous transmissions - say, calling CQ on
more than one band at a time?

OTOH, it could be argued that as long as there is only one
signal actually transmitted at any given time, and only one
operator, there's only one "station", regardless of how
much hardware is involved.

Seems like a good argument to me!

Now for a topic in the opposite direction: How about an "Iron"
category (as in "Iron Chef" or "Ironman", etc.).

One rig at a time, only. No second VFO, receivers or memories.
No computer logging. No memory keyers for voice or code. 150
W maximum power.

I wouldn't be in favor of such a category. To me, one of the
attractions of
radiosport is that it encourages pushing the limits
(within good ethics) and
thinking outside the box on several levels: innovative station
design, battle
strategy, skill development, and taking advantage of every
available technology.

Yet at the same time, there are power classes, and packet spotting
puts you in a different category.

Your "Iron" category seems like putting hobbles on Secretariat
in the Preakness.

Not at all! No one would have to be in that category if they didn't
want to be. It would be optional - an alternative only.

----

How about this:

Suppose someone builds a true robot station - automated sending and
receiving. Sure, it won't handle QRM well, but when things aren't
jumping in a domestic contest like SS, it could do the job on a slow
band while the op eats, goes QWC, or takes a rest. Or maybe works
another band.

Or maybe not a total robot station, but rather a "new one finder".
Computer-controlled receiver scans up and down each band, looking for
callsigns that are not in the log already. Alerts the op to a new one
automatically. There could be several of them, scanning each band
simultaneously. (Useless early in the
contest, but as time goes on they could be very helpful).

How about putting the entire FCC callsign database in the computer in
such a way that the op is given "pointers"? These "pointers" could be
things like "callsign not in database", section/state/country, etc.
Could give best-guesses from partial callsigns too.

Would those things be OK in SO?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

Yet at the same time, there are usually power classes
so the QRP' er isn't up against the big gun.

Makes sense to me. I don't think a 5W station out to be required with a 1500W
station. But within those power classes each operator ought to be able be a
creative as he desires in how he configures his station.

In some contests, packet spotting puts you
in a different class.

Packet spotting is a form of outside assistance, in effect a "Multi-Op" effort.
An SO entrant ought not be required to compete with Multi-Ops.

What about multiple simultaneous transmissions - say, calling
CQ on more than one band at a time?

No contest (that I know about) allows that in SO category. "Single transmitted
signal" is what defines SO.

Suppose someone builds a true robot station - automated
sending and receiving.

It would be a novelty, but not competitive. There is in fact a standing
"challenge" (side bet) for anyone who can field a robo-contester in one of the
popular events, maybe ARRL DX. Forget the details, but it must be able to
"participate" in the contest for some minimum time (6 hours?), and submit it's
own log untouched by human hands.

Or maybe not a total robot station, but rather a "new one
finder". Computer-controlled receiver scans up and down
each band, looking for callsigns that are not in the log already.
Alerts the op to a new one automatically. There could be
several of them, scanning each band simultaneously. (Useless
early in the contest, but as time goes on they could be very
helpful).

That's a logical extension of SO2R, and I believe that the station designer who
makes it work ought to remain in SO category and not be "punished" for his
innovation and design effort.

How about putting the entire FCC callsign database
in the computer in such a way that the op is given
"pointers"? These "pointers" could be things like
"callsign not in database", section/state/country, etc.
Could give best-guesses from partial callsigns too.

Would those things be OK in SO?

Similar things already exist. CT and NA both have a feature called "Super Check
Partial" which provide "matches" from a database of calls harvested from
previous contests. For example, if you enter the partial call "K0H", it will
show you several choices of calls like K0HA, K0HB, SK0HL, IK0HBN, all of which
contain the sequence "K0H". Because that's information not gathered "off the air
during the contest", purists consider it "outside assistance" and feel it should
disqualify the entrant from SO and place them in an assisted category.

Purists draw only this line between SO and "multi-op" or "assisted". Every bit
of information which goes into an SO log must be gathered off the air during the
contest period by a single operator and his equipment without outside assitance
such as packet clusters, harvested data-bases, and similar aids.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
wrote


Yet at the same time, there are usually power classes
so the QRP' er isn't up against the big gun.


Makes sense to me. I don't think a 5W station out to be required with a 1500W
station. But within those power classes each operator ought to be able be a
creative as he desires in how he configures his station.


In some contests, packet spotting puts you
in a different class.


Packet spotting is a form of outside assistance, in effect a "Multi-Op" effort.
An SO entrant ought not be required to compete with Multi-Ops.

I'm aware of stations who use packet spots during contests and who claim
SO status. There's no real way to put that genie back into the bottle.

What about multiple simultaneous transmissions - say, calling
CQ on more than one band at a time?


No contest (that I know about) allows that in SO category. "Single transmitted
signal" is what defines SO.


Suppose someone builds a true robot station - automated
sending and receiving.


It would be a novelty, but not competitive. There is in fact a standing
"challenge" (side bet) for anyone who can field a robo-contester in one of the
popular events, maybe ARRL DX. Forget the details, but it must be able to
"participate" in the contest for some minimum time (6 hours?), and submit it's
own log untouched by human hands.


Or maybe not a total robot station, but rather a "new one
finder". Computer-controlled receiver scans up and down
each band, looking for callsigns that are not in the log already.
Alerts the op to a new one automatically. There could be
several of them, scanning each band simultaneously. (Useless
early in the contest, but as time goes on they could be very
helpful).


That's a logical extension of SO2R, and I believe that the station designer who
makes it work ought to remain in SO category and not be "punished" for his
innovation and design effort.

I disagree. The robot is, in effect, a second op.

How about putting the entire FCC callsign database
in the computer in such a way that the op is given
"pointers"? These "pointers" could be things like
"callsign not in database", section/state/country, etc.
Could give best-guesses from partial callsigns too.

Would those things be OK in SO?


Similar things already exist. CT and NA both have a feature called "Super Check
Partial" which provide "matches" from a database of calls harvested from
previous contests. For example, if you enter the partial call "K0H", it will
show you several choices of calls like K0HA, K0HB, SK0HL, IK0HBN, all of which
contain the sequence "K0H". Because that's information not gathered "off the air
during the contest", purists consider it "outside assistance" and feel it should
disqualify the entrant from SO and place them in an assisted category.

I don't even have the files in CT and I'm with the purists on this one.

Purists draw only this line between SO and "multi-op" or "assisted". Every bit
of information which goes into an SO log must be gathered off the air during the
contest period by a single operator and his equipment without outside assitance
such as packet clusters, harvested data-bases, and similar aids.

I'm with K3ZO on the SO2R scene: It is a lot of extra work and trouble
and I'm of the opinion that a good SO can usually equal or beat the 2R op.

I don't think automation has necessarily been a good thing for
contesting. Computer logging aside, it has removed a good bit of the
"fun factor" in contesting. I've never even used the keyboard or
computer for sending during a contest and don't do much with a memory
keyer. I'm beginning to think that Father Time and automation have
combined to reduce my interest in going for score in most contests. I
find that my interest in single band efforts is increased, mostly
because it allows me to get some sleep.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote


I'm aware of stations who use packet spots during contests and who claim SO
status. There's no real way to put that genie back into the bottle.


If that so, an examination of their log side-by-side a print out of the cluster
log is an easy DQ. Rather than put the cheater (genie)back in the bottle, a
quiet note to the contest sponsor with evidence will expose them.

That's a logical extension of SO2R, and I believe that the station designer
who makes it work ought to remain in SO category and not be "punished" for
his innovation and design effort.

I disagree. The robot is, in effect, a second op.

We'll have to disagree.


I'm with K3ZO on the SO2R scene: It is a lot of extra work and trouble and
I'm of the opinion that a good SO can usually equal or beat the 2R op.


SO2R has a huge learning curve (more like a learning "cliff"), and a casual or
inexperienced operator whose station isn't optimized for SO2R will flounder.
Having said that (and god forbid I disagee with Fred) but a skilled/experienced
SO2R op in the chair at a well engineered 2R station will bury an equally
skilled/experienced SO.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Dave Heil wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote


I'm aware of stations who use packet spots during contests and who claim
SO status. There's no real way to put that genie back into the bottle.

Actually the contest sponsers have gotten pretty good at detecting
those bad boys. They've developed software which automatically combs
thru logs and looks for patterns which indicate who did what when spots
show up. Lotta those guys scores have been tossed.

That's a logical extension of SO2R, and I believe that the station desi=
gner who
makes it work ought to remain in SO category and not be "punished" for =
his
innovation and design effort.

I disagree. The robot is, in effect, a second op.

I also disagree because when you get right down to it it's functionally
the same as using the spots. If it worked well enough though it would
probably be better than the spots because it would be "operating" under
the same propagation/reception condx as the rest of the station.

You can waste a lotta time chasing spots even if they are posted by
locals. Sure, the guy three Zip codes over with his 3EL 40M beam @ 150
feet can easily pick off that JT. But I'm sitting here with my weenie
dipole @ 40 feet and I can't hear a peep from the JT. In the meanwhile
I've wasted two minutes on a spots-induced wild goose chase.

Similar things already exist. CT and NA both have a feature called "Su=
per Check
Partial" which provide "matches" from a database of calls harvested from
previous contests. For example, if you enter the partial call "K0H", i=
t will
show you several choices of calls like K0HA, K0HB, SK0HL, IK0HBN, all o=
f which
contain the sequence "K0H". Because that's information not gathered "of=
f the air
during the contest", purists consider it "outside assistance" and feel =
it should
disqualify the entrant from SO and place them in an assisted category.

If I'm not mistaken those files can be used with all the mainstream
loggers these days.

I don't even have the files in CT and I'm with the purists on this one.

Purists draw only this line between SO and "multi-op" or "assisted". E=
very bit
of information which goes into an SO log must be gathered off the air d=
uring the
contest period by a single operator and his equipment without outside a=
ssitance
such as packet clusters, harvested data-bases, and similar aids.

I'm with K3ZO on the SO2R scene: It is a lot of extra work and trouble

It's certainly a lot of extra work and trouble I wouldn't even think
about getting into. But I'm not "everybody", involves the mindsets of
the specific ops. The hardcore types could care less, to them it's just
one more hill to climb to get even-up with their competitors. In many
cases they actually *enjoy* all the complexity & work. Money be damned.


and I'm of the opinion that a good SO can usually equal or beat the 2R op.

Published scores trump opinions David.

I don't think automation has necessarily been a good thing for
contesting. Computer logging aside, it has removed a good bit of the
"fun factor" in contesting.

Depends on where the op gets his jollies. One of the local EEs doesn't
do much operating but he's the guru of gurus nationally when it comes
to designing/building wonderous 2R and M-M black boxes and running the
Spider spots network. Different strokes for different folks top to
bottom in contesting.

I've never even used the keyboard or
computer for sending during a contest and don't do much with a memory
keyer. I'm beginning to think that Father Time and automation have
combined to reduce my interest in going for score in most contests.

You have a *huge* amount of company on this one. My iron-bottom days
are *long* gone. Geez, dunno how many times I did 40-48 hours at some
multi-multi or another back when. Back when I was 30-40 something of
course. These days my critical piece of "automation" is my alarm
clock.groan.

I
find that my interest in single band efforts is increased, mostly
because it allows me to get some sleep.

Less hassles all 'round. I have antenna installation restrictions and
electrical noise here but I'm hoping to squeeze a 20M antenna up and go
100W S&P mode simply to keep the my dust & rust level down.

Dave K8MN

w3rv

wrote

I also disagree because when you get right down
to it it's functionally the same as using the spots.

No, it's not functionally equivalent. If you use cluster spots, then you are
using information the some OTHER RADIOMAN at a DIFFERENT STATION provided. If
you have your own robo-hound searching FROM YOUR STATION then you acquired the
information of the air without assistance from outside sources.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote:

The difference (to me, anyway) is that multiband SO2R essentially takes
two complete stations capable of simultaneous operation even if they're
both not in transmit mode at the same moment.
That's where the line is - for me.

That's seldom the case, there are usually two xcvrs networked into the
overall system with a single fast-bandswitching amp and usual
relay-switched antennas. Or a tribander for the high bands.

OTOH, it could be argued that as long as there is only one signal
actually transmitted at any given time, and only one operator, there's
only one "station", regardless of how much hardware is involved.

One guy in one seat is SO end of.

Now for a topic in the opposite direction: How about an "Iron" category
(as in "Iron Chef" or "Ironman", etc.).

One rig at a time, only. No second VFO, receivers or memories. No
computer logging. No memory keyers for voice or code. 150 W maximum
power.

That's you're normal mode, you da pro there. Take it into the next CQ
WW bash and show 'em how it's done. Maybe you'll impress the contest
desk enough with your results that they'll go for your category.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv