The historical answer is the exchange is the format of the ARRL message
preamble from the days of traffic handling. I hate to sound old, but I
remember when SS also had time and date in the exchange, also part of
the traffic handling preamble. The current exchange is the
"streamlined" version.
Barry W2UP
Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
> "My question is - why MUST the call be part of the exchange
> when it's already "exchanged" as part of the QSO initiation
> process?"
>
> Why not?
>
> The exchange is the exchange. It specifies that certain information be
> provided in a certain order.
>
>
> Yes, the call in the exchange is redundant since you should know the call of
> the station you just, er, called. So? Consider it the equivalent of a
> CRC -- a redundant check to make sure you DID copy the call correctly.
>
> Personally, I say: Them's the rules. Deviate at your own risk.
>
> 73
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:21 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS SSB And Your Callsign In The Exchange
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kutzko, Sean, KX9X" <kx9x@arrl.org>
> .
> .
>
>
>> .. your own call MUST be a part of the standard exchange of
>> information along with the other station's call, QSO number,
>> Precedence, Check and Section.
>>
>
> As a programmer, I try to avoid inconsistency, redundancy
> or repetition :-)
>
> My question is - why MUST the call be part of the exchange
> when it's already "exchanged" as part of the QSO initiation
> process? The second call exchange serves little or no useful
> purpose - it is effectively a handicap imposed on all QSOs.
>
> Of course, exchanging the call twice may help to reduce
> logging errors. This would apply equally to the QSO Number,
> Precedence, Check and Section - but there is no requirement
> to repeat those.
>
> If "own call" is indeed an essential part of the standard
> exchange of information, why then is it omitted from the
> exchange fields in the Cabrillo specification for SS QSOs?
>
> Perhaps I just don't understand? :-)
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI?
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1789 - Release Date: 11/14/2008
> 7:32 PM
>
>
--
Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|