CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Re: Packet Dupes & Blown calls

Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: Packet Dupes & Blown calls
From: geoiii@kkn.net (George Fremin III)
Date: Wed Mar 3 13:55:27 1999
W5ASP@aol.com writes:
> 
> Now why did I end up with over 160 dupes.... many, if not most, from the East
> Coast and mid West. I imagine that a large part of the answer is Packet and
> CAT. It's difficult for me to believe that the majority of those who duped me
> miscopied my call on the initial contact... simply because they must have
> called me in response to my CQ (with my call nearly always given after each
> QSO.) And as I mentioned, I think I had a distinctive, clearly readable
> signal.  

I do not understand why you think it is packet that is causing the dupes.
I do not think it is packet.  Packet might be one of the reasons but
consider the following:

1. There were dupe QSOs BEFORE packet radio.
2. Not eveyone can copy the code.
3. Not eveyone uses a computer to log or even a dupesheet if
   they are using paper.  I bet that many of your casual contacts
   are NOT using any sort of dupe checking.
4. Not eveyone is on packet.

I will give you an example.  I did FD in 1994 on 20m ssb only.
In fact I was on 14.226+/- 1 kHz.

I made about 2800 QSOs in 17 hours.  795 of those QSOs were dupes.
I am willing to bet that I was NOT spotted too many times on packet.

I will concede that the ARRL Field Day is an extreme case of 
poor dupesheet usage - but really dont buy the idea that packet 
is causing dupe QSOs.  We really did have them BEFORE packet spotting.


- -- 

George Fremin III                 
Johnson City, Texas             "Experiment trumps theory." 
K5TR (ex.WB5VZL)                            -- Dave Leeson W6NL
geoiii@kkn.net                             
830-868-2510                      
http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr                   


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>