The wise thing to do when in S&P is not to send your exchange until you're
confident the runner has your call correct. Send your call 2/3 times (whatever
your standard call reply is) until you see your call print correctly in
response. Of course, I haven't the discipline to do this consistently, so when
I see ?B2ZY or AB2TY decode, I usually send my normal exchange and press the
"My call" button once or twice, so TU 599 385 385 becomes TU 385 385 AB2ZY
AB2ZY.
When running I added a button that sends "UR CALL??" or I go manual and send
IK4?? IK4?? as appropriate if I'm not sure. The problem is worst with weak
signals; for me that would JAs on 20m mid-late afternoon local time.
Al
AB2ZY
________________________________________
From: RTTY <rtty-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Salvatore Irato
<iw1ayd@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 5:11 AM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: [RTTY] RTTY] Simple thing that seemed to improve my S&Ping
Yes Jim, you right but there are alternative(s), isn't?
First of all anyone have to change the way as to send out back his
call more times depending when, in a QSO, we get the clue that the
other end had mismatched UR call.
Then anyone could interact in a different way at any different or same step.
When the mismatch is perceived at the start of the QSO: i.e. the S&P
station get his call back on the exchange he is receiving. Then it's
easy to send back 3 times the right call without, as calling in.
Well, several peoples there send back a complete string as:
IW1AYD DE XX00AA XX00AA XX00AA
With the deprecated heading of the RUN station call :-( ... usually
when aslepp I know my call, please, please get rid of it.
I mean, on:
XX00BA 599-001-001 XX00BA
Then the S&P station as in the example before, the deprecated one soul answer:
XX00AA XX00AA XX00AA ( XX00AA)
(Yes I use the somewhat deprecated #-# stamp, I know the problem that
may arise, but those problems are so not often present, so I prefer
tightening the exchange. But having my REPeat Rapport in the other
form. But this is another tale)
I, the RUNner in this case, will interpret it as a correction, as it
is. The fourth HISCALL is optional and make a even more strong
recognizable pattern, a different screen footprint, more different
than any exchange pattern.
This is quite often the best method. The recognizable pattern is
different from any exchange, hopefully, even in the worst QRM or with
the weakest signal. Means that sometimes, 3 or 4 decoders and some
knowledge on who is on air may help. Isn't?
JA usually leave untouched the TX waiting for "standard" intervals in
between QSO exchanges to dry up: festina lente.
This other technique in not that wrong, usually the RUnner station,
when well asleep, recognize that delay and ask QRZ. Or UR CALL? JA5???
UR CALL??, if him have some clues on whom is calling in.
It's this second technique more time wasting?
My answer is, clock on hand: yes it seems to more time wasting.
This second techniques may have an advantage: it doesn't add noise to
noise and permit a full reset of the QSO phases and phases timers in
our mind.
But not all the answers will fit in all the times, as usual there are
different situation and difference in our mental states ... well
asleep ... just relaying on automated habits ... QRM from near ends
... QRM from far ends. Ours mileage will be variable, as usual.
There are some other examples of other different techniques that may
apply on further QSO steps. Some may not work at all ... leaving a non
timer to dry up at the end of a QSO is a nonsense ... after the TU the
only way to get some results is to frantically send in a:
XX00AA XX00AA XX00AA XX00AA
And to way and hope any further hook from the RUNer station ... but
just one or two times.
There another technique that may will not work before but will be
effective at the and of a QSO whe the RUNner get your call wrong is
simply to call again in as the first time or the redo it after some
time.
There are several other examples in the other steps, but I am already
using too much real estate here. At the end:
we have to try it again, any technique could fail at the far end; some
techniques are applicable on in some step of a QSO; we have to be
ready for any; we have, on both ends, to understand and try (in this
order) each one of those > have macro ready or modular test on the tip
of a click to use what may apply on the case we judge to be.
... I also hope that my poor English will make all this sounding ...
73 de iw1ayd Salvo
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:55:35 -0800
> From: "Jim W7RY" <w7ry@centurytel.net>
> To: <k0rc@citlink.net>, <rtty@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Simple thing that seemed to improve my S&Ping
> Message-ID: <4BB343F705C443648E95D4C149B2D274@JimsLaptop>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
> reply-type=response
>
> I send my call several times with the report. That is all I can do.
>
>
> And many have my call wrong since I have both WW7RY and W7RY. Which brings
> up another point. Sometimes when others send my call, I print on one decoder
> W7RY, and on
> another decoder, it prints WW7RY.
>
> 73
> Jim W7RY
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Chudek - K0RC
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 1:28 PM
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Simple thing that seemed to improve my S&Ping
>
> A quick question, Jim. . . If you worked P5AA and he sent your call
> wrong, what would you do?
>
> 73 de Bob - K?RC in MN
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 2/15/2016 11:35 AM, Jim W7RY wrote:
>> Jim... Just because the logging software sent it wrong, doesn't mean that
>> I haven't corrected it in my log.
>>
>> And I haven't wasted time sending corrections back and forth.
>>
>>
>> 73
>> Jim W7RY
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Jim Preston
>> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 8:25 AM
>> To: rtty@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Simple thing that seemed to improve my S&Ping
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> But if you haven't corrected it in your log, and you do have my call
>> wrong, then you lose credit for that contact. By sending the correction,
>> I am trying to help you, not me.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Jim N6VH
>>
>>
>> On 2/7/2016 8:37 PM, Jim W7RY wrote:
>>> Agreed!
>>> Don?t hold my time hostage because you THINK I have your call wrong.
>>> Just because I have sent it to you wrong, doesn't mean I haven't
>>> corrected the log after I have logged the contact.
>>>
>>> Band contacts happen all the time. Get over it and go work more stations!
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Jim W7RY
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
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
|