OK, maybe two seconds is a bit impatient! However, I don't think
that we should support the run rate of an SO2R station by sitting looking
out of the window waiting on his reply. There is another way of looking
at this. Band occupancy is tight anyway, so why should SO2R have any
more frequency than the poor Luddite SO1R? I even saw someone say
on here that he was going to use SO3R... What????
I only have one brain with input from two ears. How the heck can
anybody work SO3R? Must be a joke....
Oh, and by the way, yes I do hit the wrong key sometimes and that
puts me into a panic!
73 de Roger, G3LDI
On 16/02/2010 20:52, k3mm@verizon.net wrote:
> Well, I think you have to understand that usually in SO2R you can set up a
> rythym and it appears seamless. However, when someone you are working gets
> long winded or you need a repeat it's easy to get messed up. So when both
> QSO's break at exactly the same time, you have to make a choice which one
> gets the first call and the other has to wait. The savvy SO2R op can
> minimize this pain a lot of times, but there is no way to eliminate it
> completely. I think it's also likely that some of this is single TX stations
> that just "lost it" or got befuddled. I've had them completely disappear
> mid-QSO and then come back 5 minutes later like nothing wierd happened.
>
> My general rule is if someone comes back slowly and is holding me up on the
> other radio, I make them wait for their confirmation rather than making the
> fast guy pay.
>
> However, if someone comes back to me and just gives me a "599nnn" with no
> callsign and no repeat, they will have to wait...and they may have to wait
> for me to say "agn agn " because I wont normally accept a number sent one
> time on a weak or crowded signal as correct. So take 5 seconds to send a
> proper exchange sending the number at least twice...and please correct the
> callsign if it isnt correct!
>
> 73, Ty K3MM
>
>
> Feb 16, 2010 03:16:51 PM, ska@bartg.org.uk wrote:
>
> Phil and all,
>
> It's about time someone said it.
>
> I have nothing against most of the SO2R operations and intend to run that
> way myself in the future. It's just a few who are really inconsiderate and
> are just thinking of their own run rate, while completely breaking the
> rhythm of the other station.
>
> Several times my CQ was answered, I sent the report, then had to sit and
> wait while the other station finished their other QSO.
>
> The same thing happens when you answer a CQ then wait a long time before
> getting the report. Surely if someone sends 'CQ' they should be ready to get
> that contact going right away. They are actually saying 'I am using this
> frequency; please call me back and I will answer when I am ready'
>
> Thankfully it is only a minority and maybe they are just new to SO2R; it
> must be hard to get up to speed when starting.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John GW4SKA
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Cooper"
> To: "RTTY"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:41 PM
> Subject: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY
>
>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just an observation, rather than any sort of criticism, but I note that
>> quite a few SO2R op's were VERY slow in responding to calls and exchanges
>> during this WPX. And by slow, I mean in the order of 10 seconds or more!
>>
>> Whilst I am not necessarily in favour of SO2R (as part of the single op
>> class), I understand why you want to do it, and good luck to you.
>> BUT, I really think you should be a little quicker on the replies, and
>> maybe
>> consider those of us on the other end.
>>
>> Having said that, there were a few SO2R ops that were amazing, and
>> responded
>> very quickly, so it can be done.
>>
>> Obviously, if it is your run frequency, you have the control, but I don't
>> particularly like waiting too long for that TU QRZ while you work a mult
>> on
>> another frequency.
>> When I was CQ'ing, I had some callers that were obviously busy elsewhere,
>> and it really did screw up MY run on occasions when I replied to you, but
>> you were busy on your run frequency. One several occasions, I sent again,
>> only to hear the end of your message to me. That meant other callers tried
>> to get in, figuring I wasn't going to work you, so they called over you.
>>
>> Did anyone else notice the delay in responses?
>>
>> As I said, these thoughts are just an observation, and not a criticism!
>>
>> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>>
>>
>> ---
>> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
>> Virus Database (VPS): 100216-1, 16/02/2010
>> Tested on: 16/02/2010 19:41:43
>> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|