> So you go with the odds. You give the full call and fills when needed
> rather than two letters and fills each and every time.
> VE4XT
Here's an interesting thought that Kelly's observation sparked - the fewer
letters given by the DX station in the response to the pileup, the larger
the number of plausible returnees. In other words, if I respond with two
letters, the number of people that "have a case" for responding is a lot
higher than if I respond with three, four, or the full call. (This
ignores the base class of morons that call regardless...)
So, by giving the full call - EVEN IF THE DX DOESN'T GET ALL OF IT -
benefits to both ends accrue:
1) The DX station can reduce the number of potential returnees - ideally,
to a single station by giving a full call. This improves rate for
everyone by reducing QRM. It also keeps the exchange short so that the
rhythm is maintained - also crucial for keeping rate high.
2) The calling station maximizes his or her chance of a clean, efficient
QSO. The more of the call the DX station repeats, the fewer competitors
the caller will have when responding. For the 100-watt class operator,
this is significant - we've all lost QSOs to a stronger signal with a
call that "overlaps" ours.
>From a purely statistical point of view - the object of the station
calling the DX is to be identified exactly, not partially, in the minimum
amount of time. The best way to do that is to reduce the exposure to
errors by continually emitting the information that uniquely identifies
the caller - the full callsign. Anything less merely increases the number
of opportunities for disruption.
Imagine - your ravishingly attractive blind date for the evening walks
into the bar and calls out a name. Would you rather it be just your first
name? Or your full name?
73, Ward N0AX
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|