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

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:

I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:

1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware, i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting, and
perhaps some others,

-and-

2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.

Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.

The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its present
form.

Comments welcome.


the rules of contests are up to the individual sponsors. contact the
specific organization that runs the contests if you want to try to convince
them to change their rules. general discussions in open groups do little
besides generating lots of messages that aren't getting to the targets that
can make the changes. you might also want to look at the details of some of
the larger contests, there are some that have things like a 'tribander and
wires' catagory, or the 'limited multiop', or 'band limited single op', and
even the various single band or single mode entries for those who either
can't or don't want to compete with the all band guys... and then of course
most contests have low power and qrp catagories where there is much less of
the so2r type of operation.

"Dave" wrote


the rules of contests are up to the individual sponsors. contact the specific
organization that runs the contests if you want to try to convince them to
change their rules. general discussions in open groups do little besides
generating lots of messages that aren't getting to the targets that can make
the changes.

I don't think we expect that this discussion will be acted on by the radiosport
sponsors, but can't we have the discussion, just for discussion sake? (You
don't need to participate if you'd prefer not to.)

and then of course most contests have low power and
qrp catagories where there is much less of the so2r type
of operation.

Actually the LP layer (100-150W) is where the greatest number of stations
specifically engineered for SO2R seems to be. Surprising on the surface, but
makes a lot of sense when you consider the issue of self-induced noise.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Turner" wrote

Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must spend a small
fortune to be competitive..........

I don't think money is what makes you competitive. Innovation and thoughtful
design of your station, honing your skills, and picking the fights you can win
are what make a station competitive.

I'll use my station as a prime example. In the major contests in which I
compete I have an excellent record of success with lots of section and division
wallpaper and walnut on the wall. Any time I get whupped it's due to better
operators, not the cost of the station.

My SO2R setup consists of a 10-year-old Icom run rig and a 17-year-old mult rig.
The city-lot antenna farm consists of a single tower with a tribander, a
selection of wire antennas, and a couple of verticals. Station control is an
8-year-old 'consumer grade 486', CT by K1EA (freeware), and homebrewed
SO2R-relay/wiring system. "Hamfest value" of the entire station is well below
the "small fortune" level.

You only need a "small fortune" if you're adverse to a little "sweat equity" and
decide to buy it all at 1-800-rigs-r-us.

In fact, if you depend on "rigs-r-us" to win I'd guess your station probably
could benefit from some thoughtful design efforts, not more money.

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

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jim Hampton" wrote


ps - I'll getcha for this, pal

"Old and devious" trumps "young and enthusiastic" every time!

dit dit ----- Reverse Farnsworth "I"
de Hans, K0HB




Hello, Hans

Reverse Farnsworth "I"? I thought it was American Morse for "O".

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Bill Turner wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "K=D8HB"
wrote:
Let's go beyond the SO1R/SO2R question and look
at the bigger picture.

OK

I think it's time to revise the basic structure of
contest competition.
Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small
fortune to be competitive, and I think that is hurting
contesting itself.

That depends on what you mean by "competitive" and "a small fortune".

For some hams, "competitive" means winning outright, or at
least making the Top Ten. For others, "competitive" means
winning their section, or maybe division, or maybe getting into
the top ten of same.

And for others it's simply doing better than last year.

In similar fashion, cost is relative. A $5000 station is small
change to some and beyond others' wildest dreams. Same for many
other spending levels.

Just a few years back, having a dedicated computer in the shack
was a major expense. Not any more!

I believe there are two general groups of contesters:

1. People who like the head-to-head competition on a
personal level and
are not motivated by having large amounts of expensive
hardware. These
people focus on operating skill, knowledge and strategy instead of equi=
pment.

-and-

2. People who will do anything legal to maximize their score,
including
spending huge amounts of money on rigs, antennas and any other hardware=
which gives them an advantage.

I disagree strongly!

I think there are many more basic groups, from the casual types
just putting in a few hours and maybe picking up a new state
or country, to the all-out multi-multis, to the middle-of-the-
pack folks, to the special-interest ones (like the QRP types
with incredible antenna farms).

On top of this is the fact that the superstations require
operating skill, knowledge and strategy just like the 100 W
and dipole folks.

Both groups have good points and neither is superior to the
other.

Agreed!

In fact the superstations need the little guys in order to make super
scores. And the little guys need the superstations.

What
is wrong with contesting today is both groups are combined into one when
it comes to competing, and that is hurting contesting.

Well, there's division by power level, by multiop vs. single, and
packet spotting.

I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:

1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware,
i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting,
and perhaps some others,

-and-

2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.

Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power
level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would
remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.

The trouble is where the lines are drawn.

What does "one radio" mean? Is a second receiver allowed? How
about if the second receiver is built into the rig?

One antenna per band could work a hardship on even some modest
stations. At my previous location I had an inverted V for 80/40
that could be made to work on 20. Also had a 20 meter vertical
with elevated radials. 100 W homebrew transceiver. Hardly a
superstation but I did pretty well.

On 20 the vertical was usually better, but sometimes the inverted
V would do the trick. "One antenna per band" would eliminate that.

The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has
acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its
present form.

I don't see it that way at all. I think we need an "iron" class for a
very different reason.

One thing that makes a contest fun (for me) is the competition.
It's radiosport, pure and simple. I think the message that needs
to be emphasized more is that you don't need a superstation to
have a good time.

I know too many hams with "100W and dipole" stations who think
contesting with such a setup isn't practical. And compared to
the results of superstations, they're right. But if they could
see how they did against similar setups, we might get more of
them - which is a good thing all around.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Bill Turner wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:
Let's go beyond the SO1R/SO2R question and look
at the bigger picture.


OK

I think it's time to revise the basic structure of
contest competition.
Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small
fortune to be competitive, and I think that is hurting
contesting itself.


That depends on what you mean by "competitive" and "a small fortune".

I don't agree with the basic premise, Jim. The operator is a lot more
important than the equipment.

For some hams, "competitive" means winning outright, or at
least making the Top Ten. For others, "competitive" means
winning their section, or maybe division, or maybe getting into
the top ten of same.

And for others it's simply doing better than last year.

And if they keep it up, they will eventually become the top dogs.

In similar fashion, cost is relative. A $5000 station is small
change to some and beyond others' wildest dreams. Same for many
other spending levels.

Just a few years back, having a dedicated computer in the shack
was a major expense. Not any more!


I believe there are two general groups of contesters:

1. People who like the head-to-head competition on a
personal level and
are not motivated by having large amounts of expensive
hardware. These
people focus on operating skill, knowledge and strategy instead of equipment.

-and-

2. People who will do anything legal to maximize their score,
including
spending huge amounts of money on rigs, antennas and any other hardware which gives them an advantage.


I disagree strongly!

I think there are many more basic groups, from the casual types
just putting in a few hours and maybe picking up a new state
or country, to the all-out multi-multis, to the middle-of-the-
pack folks, to the special-interest ones (like the QRP types
with incredible antenna farms).

On top of this is the fact that the superstations require
operating skill, knowledge and strategy just like the 100 W
and dipole folks.


Both groups have good points and neither is superior to the
other.


Agreed!

In fact the superstations need the little guys in order to make super
scores. And the little guys need the superstations.


What
is wrong with contesting today is both groups are combined into one when
it comes to competing, and that is hurting contesting.


Well, there's division by power level, by multiop vs. single, and
packet spotting.

I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:

1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware,
i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting,
and perhaps some others,

-and-

2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.

Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power
level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would
remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.


The trouble is where the lines are drawn.

What does "one radio" mean? Is a second receiver allowed? How
about if the second receiver is built into the rig?

One antenna per band could work a hardship on even some modest
stations. At my previous location I had an inverted V for 80/40
that could be made to work on 20. Also had a 20 meter vertical
with elevated radials. 100 W homebrew transceiver. Hardly a
superstation but I did pretty well.

On 20 the vertical was usually better, but sometimes the inverted
V would do the trick. "One antenna per band" would eliminate that.

The whole concept is way way way to complicated. Also unenforceable.
Will the contest committee send out Hamcops to ensure compliance?


The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has
acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its
present form.


I don't see it that way at all. I think we need an "iron" class for a
very different reason.

One thing that makes a contest fun (for me) is the competition.
It's radiosport, pure and simple. I think the message that needs
to be emphasized more is that you don't need a superstation to
have a good time.

No you don't.

I know too many hams with "100W and dipole" stations who think
contesting with such a setup isn't practical.

100 watts and a dipole is only about 90 percent of contesters!

And compared to
the results of superstations, they're right. But if they could
see how they did against similar setups, we might get more of
them - which is a good thing all around.

My experience is that contests have two different aspects. Operator
skill and power. This is assuming that the operator has a receiver of
adequate performance. If you have to get rid of one parameter, go with
operator skill.

- Mike KB3EIA -