Anyone who is totally against listening UP has never been on the right side
of the pileup.
Now, I think it should be used only sparingly, and when the situation calls
for it. I also think you should KNOW the frequency one up is clear first (I
suspect here lies the concern). Then, when things get more manageable,
bring it back in. I did not know this had become an offense! I recall this
being a pretty normal practice in a time when the cluster dominates.
And, IMHO, if you tune right past these huge pileups, chances are you are
tuning right past the multipliers you should be working.
--
Mike DeChristopher, N1TA
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Prasad VU2PTT <vu2ptt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Although I certainly did not have the pile-ups Jeff had at PJ4A, each year
> I fall victim (sometimes enjoyable) to the packet pileups.
>
> This year I decided not to stop using UP which I had used very sparingly in
> the past and listening to those slightly off frequency did help. Many times
> it was painful to only hear the solid zero beat tone of rock crushing
> signals without anyone being off frequency :)
>
> --
>
> 73 de Prasad VU2PTT
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > N2NL wrote :
> >
> >
> >
> > I did not hear anyone operating split over the weekend, but made the
> > decision to go split myself for a short period of time on two occasions.
> > In
> > both cases, I had apparently just been spotted on packet for the first
> time
> > on a new band, and had a very large pileup calling zero beat. Even with
> a
> > K3 and filters narrowed to 100hz and with the gain backed off, the pileup
> > was a single solid tone and no one was calling a few hz off frequency.
> My
> > rate dropped from 200+/hr to less than 100/hr. Perhaps suprisingly, both
> > times I had to do it with NA pileups - the Europeans seemed to spread
> out a
> > bit more when they called.
> >
> >
> >
> > In both cases I ensured the frequency up one was clear before going
> split,
> > and I was operating relatively high in the band. Propagation to Oceania
> is
> > generally during times when band saturation is not the greatest (which
> > happens on the NA-EU path). As soon as the pileup diminished, I returned
> > to
> > simplex operation.
> >
> >
> >
> > I regret that I possibly missed the chance to work some who did not agree
> > with my decision to listen up, however my rate quickly recovered and I
> have
> > to assume those calling made it into the log more quickly as a result,
> > allowing them to move on to the next station faster. With tact, I feel
> > that
> > operating split has merit at certain times in a CW contest, where there
> is
> > much more room to spread out.
> >
> >
> >
> > The trick of QSYing does not always work for me - I tried it once and my
> > rate plummeted for several minutes until I was re-spotted, causing the
> big
> > pileup to return (and not solving my original reason for QSYing at all).
> > There are just too many contesters out there today who don't tune
> > themselves
> > and spend their time only chasing packet spots. This seems to be more
> > prevalent in NA than EU where there is more activity.
> >
> >
> >
> > On the discussion of call signing; I signed my call after every QSO.
> > Granted, I have a short call but don't feel that my rate suffered as a
> > result (6,300 QSOs). On the contrary, I have heard the opposite with
> those
> > who don't sign - their pileup quickly decends into chaos when no one
> hears
> > the "up" and stations start calling non-stop. Signing your call gives
> your
> > pileup more time to hear you and synch their calls. In the past, it
> never
> > failed me - every time I tried "up" only, I'd have someone loud send
> "CL?"
> > after the first time, covering a weaker station I otherwise could have
> > heard
> > and worked. I highly respect those who do everything to maximize rate
> and
> > do it right - gentleman like CT1BOH - but there are many out there who
> > don't
> > do it right which makes them look like fools in the eyes of their peers.
> >
> >
> >
> > 73, Dave KH2/N2NL (NH2T)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2011, at 1:31 PM, W6SX Hank Garretson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > This email constitutes Official Notification that if I hear you
> >
> > > sending UP in a contest, I will tune right by you.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I consider UP in a contest to be bad form. I think it is unfair and
> >
> > > inconsiderate for someone to take up extra kilohertz of precious
> >
> > > contest spectrum. There are lots of pileup mitigation techniques that
> >
> > > everyone else uses. The good guys were running at much higher rates
> >
> > > than the guys I heard sending UP.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > One mitigation technique that works every time is to QSY. A Northwest
> >
> > > Territory station used QSY to good effect in CW Sweepstakes.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The first rule of contesting is to have fun (but not at the expense
> >
> > > of other competitors).
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > 73,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Hank, W6SX
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hank - W6SX - you probably would think differently if you experienced
> what
> > I
> > did. I had the same exact thing happen to me that N2NL described - just a
> > solid tone zero beat on my frequency from the stations calling me. It
> > became
> > impossible to work anyone at all because of the size of the pileup.
> Because
> > this was seriously effecting my rate I made the decision to listen split.
> > This worked great and when the pileup died down to something reasonable I
> > went back to listening simplex.
> >
> >
> >
> > We had unruly pileups all weekend long at PJ4A and in most cases were
> able
> > to avoid operating split. The really smart guys all know if you call
> > slightly off frequency in these massive pileups you have a very good
> chance
> > of getting thru.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeff KU8E / PJ4A
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|