Hmmm. Considering that for better or worse, SO Assisted is already a
separate category, I don't see the point in debating whether or not it
should have become so, nor do I see what said alleged debate has to do with
SO2R.
The point I was trying to make is that SO-A evolved as a separate category
because there was sufficient reason, at least in the eyes of the contest
organizers, to do so. I will not debate whether or not SO-A is an advantage
or a disadvantage over traditional SO -- for one thing, I don't have the
data, for another, as just stated, it is irrelevant.
Is 10% an "overwhelming" advantage? I suspect that if you have to ask, the
answer may be "no"
73, ron wn3vaw
"Doc? You built a time machine... out of a DeLorean?"
"The way I look at it, if you're going to build a time machine out of a car,
you might as well do it with style!"
-- Marty McFly & Dr. Emmet Brown, "Back to the Future"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@r66.ru>
To: "Ron Notarius WN3VAW" <wn3vaw@fyi.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R
> SO Assisted -- ie Packet use -- is a good example of fairly recent
advances
> in technology that evolved into a separate category, and it makes sense as
> such.
> Now maybe I'm wrong, but I have yet to see a body of concrete evidence
that
> SO2R gives an overwhelming edge over SO1R. I'm not saying it is or isn't
> so -- I'm saying, let's see the data first and then draw a conclusion.
Just for the sake of argument... where is the body of concrete evidence that
packet assisted gives the overwhelming edge? If you compare the top results
of assisted and non assisted you may draw the conclusion that assisted in
fact gives disadvantage...
Sure second radio gives one advantage especially at slow rates. Is it
overwhelming?
I do not know.. depends on what you consider overwhelming. Is 10% of total
qso overwhelming?
73, Igor UA9CDC
|