At 09:40 PM 11/9/97 -0500, K4OJ@aol.com wrote:
>Sorry Wardster....but he just worked the loud guy up 250 cycles, me.....since
>our exchanges were of similar length you just thought he was working you....I
>know he was working me (or am I making the assumption you are?)
>
>coincidence, I think not!
Strikes me that the surest test of this is the number of dupes in the log
and the number of stations that think they worked you when they did not.
In 1062 QSOs, about 75 percent running, I had one dupe and two guys who
wouldn't work me because they said I was already in their log. I never
sent the other station's call when responding to a CQ. The variation in
sending rates and length of exchange is large enough so that two closely
timed handoffs (3 if you count the "TU" at the end) almost never happens.
Now in CQWW this could be different, but there the run rates are so high
that I figure most times the good ops will be working someone else by the
time I get done sending their call, much less my own.
My bottom line is there's no reason to send the other guy's call in S&P mode.
73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@contesting.com
"That's WEST Virginia. Thanks and 73"
-
---
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|