Funny story - I worked one guy toward the end. He had his callsign in a
macro that was overly optimized for speed. Meaning there was not a space or
anything between his calls. And it was one of these newer callsigns where
you are not sure what the lettering is in the traditional sense.
SO the reply for NF1V (not the actual call, sorry NF1V) looked like F1VNF1V
or something. With the QSB on 80, it took 3 resends before I could tell
what his call was.
Maybe he had a non-printing character in there and my terminal ignored it
rather than just mapping it to a space. Hard to know... But drove me nuts
as the final minutes ticked down. Suppose the massive amounts of coffee and
limited sleep had something to do with it as well...
My thought is that there should be a balance in these exchanges - where we
should provide enough initial redundancy to avoid unneeded repeats - I had
to hit quite a few guys for a repeat because they sent all their info one
time only. It seems to me that the time wasted in resends, or waiting for
the guy to try to decipher your decode with the noise/qrm/qrn can work
against you in the long run.
Of course, if you are running a 5-element monoband at 120' with a KW, you
probably won't get many repeat requests. The other guy can probably hear
you well and you him. But each of us really needs to consider just how much
of a flame we are throwing - because there are too many guys trying to make
it go with a single itteration of data, when upon hitting their QRZ page
featuring the 100W + G5RV @ 30', one can guess why their signal is hard to
decode in one go-around.
Call it rookie frustration. :) Happy New Year to everyone.
73/jeff/ac0c
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|