> Denny's suggestion is the only viable solution.
Another solution would be to not CQ on top of each other or leave more than
50Hz space.
Most of what I heard this weekend surely weren't stations who couldn't hear
each other. When I call one station who is S9+20dB and 3 stations of about
the same strength come back to me, thats not the case.
Being that loud here, they were usuall all east coast stations who heard
each other very well.
Its not the case of a narrow filter either, as if they hear me calling the
other station 50Hz away then they should hear the other station (again, I'm
talking about w1/w3 stations who will be booming to each other, not w1/w6
stations who may be weak to each other).
hmmm.... Denny's solution is that I put use the callsign of the station I'm
calling in my reply. But,
1. It may not always work. For example:
W1AA: cq test w1aa
ME: ni1n
W1XYZ: ni1n 5nn ri (at 30wpm)
W3???: ni1n tu 5nn wpa (at 24wpm)
ME: w1aa 5nn va
Between the longer reply and the slower speed, the W3 who I am not calling
may not hear the "w1aa" in my reply. He may flip back to rx just in time
for the "5nn va". Perhaps its a rare case, I don't know if anyone knows for
sure.
2. If I'm trying to s&p at 100 qsos/hr or more, why should I have to slow
myself down because people CQing can't play nicely with each other?
It seems to me the real solution is for those CQing to leave more space. If
they don't, they risk putting people in the log that didn't call them.
But, I suppose one can do that math and figure that if only 1 in 20 submit a
log, there is a 2 qso penalty for nils, etc. (using whatever the real
numbers are), that at some point the rate at 1825 vs. 1865 makes it worth
the risk? I don't know why else they wouldn't spread out a wee bit more.
I guess thats good for the score, but two thoughts on that... 1) perhaps
the rate is lower at 1865 because you're only working the stations actually
calling you instead of stations calling you and the people on both sides of
you. 2) if you're going to use that approach, when people call you again
later, work them again instead of saying "qso before"; they were probably
working someone else, not you. Don't assume they are a paper logger and
don't know what they're doing.
I must be in the mood for some flame mails today.
73,
Tom, NI1N
----- Original Message -----
From: <W0uo@cs.com>
To: <ad4hk2004@yahoo.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dupes during the ARRL 160
> All:
>
> Denny is right on.
>
> There are two parts of the problem.
>
> First, two (or many more) stations on the same frequency who cannot hear
> each
> other
>
> Second, operators who cannot place their signal on the frequency of the
> station they are calling
>
> Denny's suggestion is the only viable solution.
>
> 73 de Jim
> W0UO/5
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|