Iain N6ML,
Thanks for the clarification on the UnShift on Space. I had it confused
with number exchanges and agree there is no need for a dash for this text
only exchange contest.
On Tuesday7/14/09 5:04 PM, "Iain MacDonnell - N6ML" <ar@dseven.org> wrote:
>
>
> Dick Kriss wrote:
>> I just setup the fldigi-3.11.6 macros for the NAQP-RTTY
>> contest this weekend and recalled some recent discussions
>> about the use of a dash in a two part Exchange to compensate
>> for stations that do not have UnShift on Space set correct.
>>
>> The way I currently have it setup is my S&P response will be
>>
>> QSL DICK TX AA5VU TU
>
> Including both "QSL" and TU" is a bit redundant. I'd go with:
>
> TU DICK TX AA5VU
The reason I use both QSL and TU for the S&P exchange is I am
responding to the CQ station's report. First, I QSL to let him know
I copied his report okay..... I then send my report to him and close
with the multi-meaning TU. I consider the TU as a "Too You"
meaning it is his turn to QSL my report and call QRZ for the next
station. It is just a short form of the old BTU
> You could include the call of the running station at the start, so he
> knows you're really calling him and not someone else running on or
> close to his frequency, if you want.
If I run into copy issues I will consider adding the CQ station's
call. Most of the time this is not necessary as he has send me a
report and just wants to know if I got it and to listen for my
report to him.
>
>
>> and for runs it will be
>>
>> <HisCall> Dick TX <HisCall>
>>
>
> The unshift-on-space thing should be moot for this contest, since there
> are no numbers (and hence no shifting) in the exchange. The dash is
> likely to create errors, if anything, in this case. I say leave it out.
>
QSL..... I was confused
>
>> What are others planning to use?
>>
>> Soapbox: Hopefully, the stations calling CQ will use call signs
>> for reports. It may save the CQ station some time but really
>> confuses the S&P stations when the CQ send a report without
>> a call sign.
>
>> It's like saying I will QSL the first and loudest station responding
>> with a QSL. Several stations have been using this practice and
>> it just causes QRM due to requests for repeats. I may be alone
>> but I consider this as a rude operating practice.
>
> Not sure what you mean by that. The running station must send the
> callsign of the calling station as part of the exchange - otherwise
> how would the "pile-up" know who was chosen??? Someone running and
> not sending callsigns in the exchange is not likely to be very
> successful in the contest.
It is the most RUDE practice I have observed and I hope we will not
see it this weekend. I don't know what software package sends the
reports without a call sign but has been used in recent RTTY contests.
If you send you call again, they then respond with a normal exchange.
I agree the CQ station should include the call when sending the
report but some do not. They send out report and then QSL the
station that responds with the strongest signal. It is a sneaky way
some operators must feel will increase their QSO rate. All is it does
is create confusing as the S&P stations have no idea who should
QSL the report.
>
> It's good practice to send the other station's call at the start
> of the exchange and again at the end (as you have above), in case the
> start got covered up by the pile-up.
>
> GL!
>
> ~Iain / N6ML
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|