The use of “TEST” at the end of a CQ seems to have evolved out of style. I just
use the rule that if I hear the callsign twice, it was a CQ.
“Dit-Dit” is now a sort of “73” after a comment beyond normal QRZ. As in
somebody says “TU JIM” after digging out my super weak 160 signal, I’ll send
“DIT DIT”.
In Sprints and such, I like “R” as the QSL message. It doesn’t get lost as a
single DIT does, and takes half as long as a “TU”. I don’t use it in a normal
QRZ message - TU K8MR is clear, R K8MR gets me confused with a Russian station.
73 - Jim K8MR
> On Dec 2, 2016, at 6:07 PM, Gerry Treas K8GT <k8gt@mi.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I dunno Dave, seems that I always remembered it from when I started
> contesting in CQWW CW 1989, that most were sendint TEST at the end of a CQ,
> but I agree with you, I usually also step on it and it throws my timing off.
>
> The DIT DIT is supposedly faster than TU but I find that it gets lost in QRM
> and QRN especially when conditions are poor like CQWW CW was. While I prefer
> TU, it's not a big deal, so whatever floats anyone's boat is fine.
>
> 73, Gerry, K8GT
>
>
> On 02-Dec-16 12:54, n1ix@n1ix.com wrote:
>>
>> Speaking of things that drive me nuts:
>>
>> Sending an additional "TEST" at the end of a CQ. IE "CQ TEST N1IX N1IX
>> TEST"
>>
>> This seems to be a rather recent phenomenon. I do mostly S&P and invariably
>> I send my call on top of the last "TEST".
>>
>> It would be a lot easier if everyone sent a standard "CQ" string.
>>
>>
>> Also, what's with the "dit dit" in response to a successful QSO.
>>
>>
>> Dave N1IX
>>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|