On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 13:46, Jeff Blaine AC0C <keepwalking188@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
I used to send the exchange 3 times for that very reason given that I
am 10 dB below a kW and my dipole is a good 20' lower than most
tribanders.
Then I realized that *most* people get it first time. If I need to
repeat, I repeat, but that doesn't happen as often as I thought it
would. I also have "longer" and "longest" exchange macros - if I'm
having trouble printing the other guy, I assume he's in the same
situation and send one with 2 or 3 {EXCH} ...
I also forgot to massage my macros before the test Saturday. I had a
- after the useless-but-mandatory RST. That's a good thing when
{EXCH} resolves to "04", like it did in CQ WW, but bad if it resolves
to "OK" as it did in RU.
Anti-LF folks will be happy to hear that I also removed the
macro-ending LFs. Left them in (or added them) when at the beginning.
And what's with the stations sending at a smidgen less than 45.45 baud?
--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|