Hans, K0HB mention of the ability of the orion to handle limited two radio
function can easily be accomplished now with Software defined radios SDR.
The Orion and the FT1000D allows limited SO2R and now the Orion allows a
second amp and antenna. Even back in the late 60's Hallicrafters SR2000 and
SR400 allowed two frequency operation at once so you could run on say 14155
and tune the band with the other VFO. Both allowed dual RX without switching
between the two VFO's. This can be done (less the dual duplex RX) with
most transceivers. My older FT980's allow me to work satellite on 21.230
and receive on 28.940.
SO2R is easy when you are Single band because there is usually no need for
another amp and antenna. Multi band SO2R is more complicated. Even the
logging software has to be set up properly to record the right rig and band.
On the writelog reflector a common complaint is that the wrong band or mode
was logged and how do you fix??
73 Dave K4JRB
>From Sylvan Katz <jskatz@sk.sympatico.ca> Sun Apr 7 01:08:38 2002
From: Sylvan Katz <jskatz@sk.sympatico.ca> (Sylvan Katz)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] eQSL change of policy
References:
<20020405122256.5465.c002-h015.c002.wm@mail.peoplepc.com.criticalpath.net>
Message-ID: <013601c1ddd0$c00c1d40$6400a8c0@selfsimilar>
> present system or any future system. But the machine can stop an
> individual from fraudulently taking advantage of some else's error. Is
> it worth it the inconvience?
A machine can also obscure a small but pertinent piece of information (e.g.
log entry is local time not UTC) that would allow a human to quickly
identify and verify a questionable qso in a collection of logs. While a
machine can present a barrier to fraud it can also present a barrier to
knowledge. Furthermore, erecting machine barriers of any kind can turn a
system design into an endless exercise of dealing with exceptions -- these
systems can collapse under their own complexity. Wisdom suggests that just
because it can be done by machine does not mean it should be done.
> Anyone got a different solution?
Accept the simple realization that an ARRL award or any other award for that
matter is simply that an award. We do not need to build a Fort Knox to
protect these awards. And yes cheaters will some times get certificates - so
what! Why not build a system that follows an age old amateur radio community
tradition of striving to enable the exchange of knowledge and not hinder it.
A twist. All entries logs submitted to an ARRL contest and verified by the
contest checking software should automatically be accredited to any ARRL
award for which it is considered to be a valid contact. No eQSL or QSL
required! Could be one way of getting more participation in contests as well
as more check logs!
.. sylvan
Ô¿Ô¬
----------------
Sylvan Katz, VE5ZX
Saskatoon, SK
"A Novel Perspective of Amateur Radio Contesting" at
http://www.dynamicforesight.com/~ve5zx
|