My $0.02 worth:
A single R is sufficient if signals are strong and QRM is not a
major factor. In weak signal conditions RRR is more efficient than
QSL or CFM. There is a reason a long sequence of RRRRRRRRRR was
chosen for EME many years ago rather than a long string of QSLQSLQSL
or CFMCFMCFM. The less complex the message, the greater the chances
it will be received and understood. If a DX station on topband is
obviously struggling to copy me and asks if he has my call right I
will respond with RRRRRR as it has proven to be more effective than
anything else in conveying that indeed he does have it correct.
73,
Paul
On 12/13/2011 10:42 AM, Doug Renwick wrote:
> I prefer QSL or CFM over R or Roger. In cw if a letter is missed, the
> missing letter can be 'filled in'. With R, if parts are missed, the missed
> parts cannot be filled in. The same with SSB, but not to the same extent.
> When I hear QSL or CFM it gives me a much higher level of confidence than R
> or Roger.
>
> Doug
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> I agree with Roger. Both "QSL" and "CFM" are inefficient ways for
>> indicating solid copy on CW. A simple "R" is all that's needed.
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|