RadioBanter - SO2R Policy?

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - SO2R Policy? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/72596-so2r-policy.html)

In major contests like SS, CQWWDX, etc., should SO2R be a category seperate from
SO?

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
In major contests like SS, CQWWDX, etc., should SO2R be a
category seperate from SO?

Good question!

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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?

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 manage, 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.)

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...
In major contests like SS, CQWWDX, etc., should SO2R be a category
seperate from
SO?

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hello, Hans

Nothing like a Chief to figure a way to beat the odds, eh?

:))

Best regards (and respect, as well)
Jim AA2QA
ps - I'll getcha for this, pal ;)

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

"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

Jim Hampton wrote:
"K=D8HB" wrote in message
ink.net...
In major contests like SS, CQWWDX, etc., should SO2R be a category
seperate from
SO?

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hello, Hans

Nothing like a Chief to figure a way to beat the odds, eh?

:))

Which USN CPO holds the all-time high number of Acey-Duecy wins?

Best regards (and respect, as well)
Jim AA2QA
ps - I'll getcha for this, pal ;)

wrote

Which USN CPO holds the all-time high number
of Acey-Duecy wins?

Don Rickles? (aka CPO Steve Sharkey)

dit dit
de Hans, K0HB