This is a late response to Gary, I am sure others have told you that almost
always there is only one band being cq'd on in two radio contesting.
The hot or run band is where the cqing is going on...as we all know that
isn't always productive...don't we wish someone always came back:-)
If you have one rig and you are cqing on that band again and again trying to
get some business you are flat out wasting over 50 percent of your brains
duty cycle.....or do you need to listen to every one of your cq's being sent
to ensure that CT didn't flub your call?
OK so radio 1 is cq-ing on the main workhorse band, while it is doing that
you are free to use your brain to do something else like tune another
band...S-ing and P-ing (P as in pounce, not Dr Pepper).
As you tune up the band on that second radio you hear someone calling cq that
you need. When your cq stops on the run band you call him....sometimes this
takes a while to synch out....or you can simply abort your cq on the cq band
for an instant while you call the other guy on band two.
When he comes back to you and gives you a report if you are cqing on the run
band you are lining up (hopefully) another qso.
BUT that lining up of another QSO is still on the same band you were CQing on
in the first place....so how can you be accused of using up two frequencies?
This technique is highly successful due to the fact that those who use it
usually have hardware intensive stations and are seldom asked for
repeats....repeats are the rhythm downfall of this system....as long as you
aren't asked for a repeat you are only "away" from your cq frequency for a
moment....and certainly NOT 4 CQ's worth! I suspect someone was running to
the can for the other kind of P-ing....
I used to spend weekends listening to thousands of my CQ's...now I have found
something a lot more interesting to listen to............its not quite as
predictable! Try it you'll like it...to those who poo-poo it - I bet they
still think that someone is CQing on two seperate bands......NOT!
k4oj
x-k1zx
>From kw4t@erols.com (Dan Weisenburger) Wed Nov 20 01:03:12 1996
From: kw4t@erols.com (Dan Weisenburger) (Dan Weisenburger)
Subject: Start the bullets flyi
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961117221155.4849A-100000@iglou1>
Message-ID: <329258D0.F62@erols.com>
I'll try to be brief here.
My understanding of the ARRL rules includes that each station abide by
the governmental rules of their country (In this contest FCC or DOC).
One particularly loud station was giving only NR Precendece, Check &
Section. No Call sign before, during, or after the Q. for many QSO's
this went on.
As a slow motion little pistol I check for DUPES before calling and only
DUPE typos. This one particular station was apparently ashamed of his
callsign or just being a real pain. Many of us will forget to do
something from time to time like the wrong VFO trick, or properly
signing but this was repeated and repeated.
I'm actually debating whether to delete the QSO although I told him that
his exchange was incomplete and that I need his call, I wonder if it was
SLIM. Guess I'll call the licensee tomorrow just to see if he was really
on this last weekend.
All in All we had a BALL! GO PVRC!
73 from Lake Moneysgone - Dan - KW4T
>From oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Tue Nov 19 05:39:25 1996
From: oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Subject: Incomplete exchange
>As a sidenote: I'd be interested to know how many of us
>Sweepstakes types actually have handled "traffic " (with a
>message number) in the last year. I know I haven't. ( Shame on
>me) While we retain this exchange as a part of the contest, its
>relevance to its original intent probably has been lost on
>contest types. Rob VE4GV
In the same vein, I had to ask a while ago on this reflector why all
QSOs in SS count 2 points, instead of just 1 (or 17, or 42). I guess
it's like women's clothes buttoning in the opposite direction to males'
clothes - the original reason became irrelevant a long time ago but we
still do it.
Derek AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu
>From aa7bg@3rivers.net (K7BG Matt Trott) Tue Nov 19 05:44:34 1996
From: aa7bg@3rivers.net (K7BG Matt Trott) (K7BG Matt Trott)
Subject: QSO B4!!
Message-ID: <199611190544.WAA16238@sun.3rivers.net>
>Have you ever called someone who refused to work you, saying
>you were a **DUPE** when you knew that you were not? This is
>far more frustrating than just working a guy who YOU think
>is a **DUPE**. If the computer will sort it out without effort,
>why would you risk a Q (With penalties) by insisting it is a **DUPE**
>when you cannot possibly know for sure? Why would you even waste
>time considering it??
>
>73 Gene N2AA
This happened to me on one Q in the CW SS in reverse. I told the op he was a
dupe. He said, "You're not in my log." I had another Dr. Pepper and worked
him. I didn't go back and tell him when I logged him the first time. Why
should I? Justs wastes time.
My question: When scouring my log (if indeed the ARRL will) what will
happen? I suppose the first time I "worked" the guy, that Q will be removed
because I'm not in his log at that time. Now what? What will happen to the
second Q I have for him in my log? It shows DUPE and has ZERO points awarded
to it. Is one supposed to go into his text log file and edit it before
sending it in? This would throw all the serial numbers off for every Q after
the bogus one.
I'm not one for pruning my log after contests. Partly due to laziness and
partly due to notions of impropriety. But, am I out a Q in this case or what?
Delerious minds want to know!
Matt--K7BG
BTW, SS SSB results: 444 x 75 (missed PR,ND,NNY)
>From aa8u@voyager.net (AA8U) Tue Nov 19 05:53:19 1996
From: aa8u@voyager.net (AA8U) (AA8U)
Subject: "Worked All Dupes" etc.
Message-ID: <199611190553.AAA20563@vixa.voyager.net>
Since I consider this contest related and of possible interest to
many....well here it is.
This weekend, whenever my CT program indicated "dupe", I made a concerted
effort to work the station calling me. I usually indicated "you are already
in my log, am I in your log?" Then, I said "lets make sure" and proceeded to
give a new exchange (a full exchange as always). I know it slowed me down
some, but I am sure this year my log will be more accurate than my previous
entries.
I occasionally heard others blow off dupes in a rather abrupt manner. I
consider this not only foolish, but rude. Winning isn't all there is to it
folks. If I am not in their log there is likely a real good reason for it,
usually my fault in the first place. By working the "dupe" again at least
I'm confident I have one good Q for the effort. Also, there are still a lot
of casuals that log with a pencil and paper. After they start having fun and
have filled a couple sheets their dupe checking gets inaccurate. This is
easy to understand as I have "been there, done that, got the T-shirt"......
Let's not discourage them by calling them a DUPE and brushing them off. I
need them in my log next contest too!
This time I noticed a great many casual entrants, as indicated in part by
low serial numbers even late in the contest. I tried to let them know I
appreciated them calling me. This takes time too, but I think passing out a
few "warm fuzzies" will in the long run benefit our "sport".
I too had to step many casuals through the exchange. Each time I wondered if
I had helped create another contester. Gee I hope so. Down side, even more
crowded bands on contest weekend.
I also heard some "big guns" with great Q totals operating in a similar
fashion. Not all the rate crazy operators blow off the beginners. Now I just
have to improve my skills to the level they are at without sacrificing good
manners.
My hat is off to the folks that provide the "super check partial" data base
used in CT. It really comes in handy at times! With all the recent call sign
changes, it was not as accurate as it will be next time. I look forward to
getting an updated version for next SS.
It is a bit embarrassing to hear "Hi Bruce" followed by an exchange......so
many new vanity calls to learn. Anyone else have this happen? A lot I bet.
Thanks to all that worked me this time. I had a blast as usual and next time
I hope to do better.
73 to all,
Bruce
aa8u@voyager.net
Check 62 MI
:')
|