>I, too, resent extensive contest cq-ing that is (1) on an otherwise busy
>and open band and (2) does not result in a QSO for the caller for long,
>long stretches at a time.
The two seem to be in conflict. If the band is busy and open, why would
cq-ing be unproductive?
> I heard lots of this kind of thing on the 160
>m SSB test. Guys load up at 1.835.25, claim not to be in the window, and
>then call cq with no answers for twenty to thirty minutes at a time.
You sat and listened to folks calling CQ (without an answer) for thirty minutes?
My experience with calling CQ (low power) is that I don't have enough
"oomph" to get sustained runs, but instead get little "bursts" of runs. I
might call CQ for 3 minutes, get a run of 3-5 stations, and then call CQ
for another 3 minutes. I know S & P rates of more than 30/hr are very hard
late in a contest, so I'm loath to abandon this practice until the rates
drop or I just get tired of it.
Now, I didn't operate the 160 (no antennas), but unless you sat there for
the whole time and listened every moment, it is hard to tell whether or not
someone has worked some Qs in the last 30 minutes.
Frankly, I don't see how anyone could sit and mindlessly press F1 for 30
minutes without SOMETHING happening. And it isn't very likely that a second
radio was preoccupying them in a single-band contest.
Of course, it could be they set their DVP to repeat and went to take a nap.....
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
|