On Jun 17, 2007, at 12:45 PM, Dale Martin wrote:
> While I still "CQ" in contests, I do mix it up with "kg5u kg5u
> test" 'CQs'.
> I do like the simplicity of 'kg5u kg5u test'.
I for one, can't stand this format, especially for CW contests. While
tuning across, I'll hear "5u test". Whereas, if you had used the
standard format of TEST KG5U KG5U, I might have gotten "5U KG5U" --
in which case I'd have much better chance of making a contact.
> 99% of the people on the air in that part of the band (I'm thinking
> CW and a
> major contest) are in the contest. A good percentage of them are
> S&P'ing.
Which is why the trailing "TEST" is irrelevant. I can tell more by
the cadence of your operating if you are in the contest or not.
Of course, you could be S & P as well trying to call someone I cannot
hear, but it will be easy to sort that out.
> Including CQ once or twice in the transmission only eats up more
> time, time
> better spent giving more pertinent and important information; like
> my call.
Between QSOs, I simply sign my callsign AA4LR. If I don't get
answers, I'll send a CQ: CQ TEST AA4LR AA4LR. The time needed to send
the CQ is minute, since there are no callers waiting.
> Sending "test" at the end of my transmission tells listeners that I'm
> soliciting contest QSO's and not calling a station which had been
> CQ'ing.
I suspect that confusion is rather rare. Whereas, catching the tail
end of a callsign and then "TEST" happens all the time.
> On the flip side, as a frequent S&P'er, I find 'call call test' (or
> even
> 'call test') to be just the QSO solicitation format I need:
I prefer TEST CALL CALL better.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|