While Danny may shoot me for saying it, it's great to see so many QRPers in contesting. But it seems that many of them feel they need to send slooooooow and use "words twice" procedure to get their m
that Q, because after the second try you're going to get a quick "R TU" from me and I'll do an <alt-W> and move on. << What type of logic leads you to tell the QRP (or other difficult to copy) statio
Another note for QRPers, and anyone else, for that matter. Please follow instructions. If I say "NR ONLY" don't repeat the whole exchange. If I ask for "suffix only" don't give me your enitre call ag
I have been pleasantly surprised, over the last 10 years or so, to see such rapid improvement in the average quality of QRP ops. A decade ago, a lot of them seemed to be using their left feet, or a b
I agree with all of the recommendations. Many times this weekend the QRPers slowed down when I asked for a repeat, as if the reason I couldn't copy it was because they were sending too fast. Nope...
But it's really cool when they fade out sending your call, they rise up out of the noise for the number and Prec, fade for their call, then rise up once more for the Check and Section.... :>) It happ
I am even more impressed at the quality of some of the QRP signals. Several were over S-9 and one in Colorado was even 20 over 9. Those QRP guys have been doing a lot of antenna work and have really
In my opinion Hans, you should tell the QRPer that you didn't copy his exchange, so there is no QSO at this time. Maybe he will call later and you will get the exchange then. You no doubt want him to
And with the correct procedures, fills are minimal. Ask for what is needed... quickly. And send it once... let the rx station request what ... and only what he needs. I got real exasperated with the
Author: "Warren C. Stankiewicz" <nf1j@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:48:44 -0800
What's interesting to me is that there were a lot of people this past weekend who wouldn't hear me when I sent at 30, but *did* hear me when I slowed down to 26. In fact, it got to the point where I'
I don't normally get involved in these discussions, but I have to ask... Am I really your QSO #160? :-) Just kidding. 73- Steve N8NM _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing
Well put, John...essentially the good old "Golden Rule". Amen & Amen. Over 10% of my SS QSOs were with "Q" stations, and 75% of those were "brain beaters" in trying to copy them way down in the crud.
On a number of occasions I got the impression the request "NR?" meant "NR ES PREC?"... that the op on the other end was surprised (and disappointed) that I replied with "156" instead of "156 Q". Like
Hi Warren, It's not necessarily a matter of deliberately "not hearing". While I can usually copy contest stuff at a bit over 30 under good conditions, if I'm very tired I can't. The beginning of SS o
I got at least one station asking "P ?" I assume this is because Writelog labels the Precedence field as "P" so that's what guys ask for. "PR ?" was much more understandable. 73 - Jim AD1C p.s. no, I
de dl8mbs/mostly qrp Hello Hans et al, from my experience qrq isn´t generally better. In the qsb-case qrq is favourable as well as on a not too crowded 80 or 20m-band with a good signal strengt
That's the wrong way to look at it Hans, you certainly wouldn't want a station to remove you after being told "R TU". Contesting is about working the strong and weak in the time allowed, it shouldn't
Over the years I've figured out that is often the case, and almost always send the fill as NR & PREC...I've even programmed a message memory that way. 73 de Lee -- Lee Hiers, AA4GA Cornelia, Georgia
Agree with Lee. If you miss the number, there is a good chance you also missed the PREC, and PREC is always the worst thing to ask for a fill on. Half the time the other station thinks you meant CK a
Yes, it is because of all the QRO signals nearby. QRP signal must be above the composite noise. Just preparing second VXO TX and 3L20 for another try on 1988 EU record. I need 600 DX so please liste