Well I will take a stab at this. Lots of difference of opinion. I
was running in this contest low power 100 watts to a butternut, so
antenna is less than optimum.
My exchange is for example. CR N5UWY 599 001 001 space space CR that
works pretty good for me and I have been doing it that way for a long
time. As long as your receive line is wider than 20 characters you
get in on a single line.
Problem is I am just messing around and giving out a few mults. Not a
time serious operation. And someone spots me on the cluster, right
after I worked AD1C, thanks Jim!
well all of sudden bunches of stations show up. Now the above Macro
which I would say in normal KW usage while running works 99% or above
no longer works for me or the stations calling..as those calling are
louder than me and the station I'm going back to can't print
there call. So I quickly change to N5UWY 599 001 001 N5UWY that of
course came into being in DX circles because the receiving station has
a better chance at the end.
So its much more efficient in the above scenario to add the second
callsign with the extra letters figrues keys and letters keys etc,
etc.
Kind of why not call CQ this way. WS7I CQ
Much more efficient, only problem is ? Calling CQ at all is a waste
of time, yet a station running does it how much in a contest? I can
assure you that Ed doesn't send much time CQing into the ether.
As far as Bill and his chasing down the screen. I have been doing
this RTTY contesting much longer with him and never found a problem.
N1MM has a method for getting rid of the CR's if you don't want them.
Writelog I have never had a problem as it moves along. Some people
may disagree.
But it is really not much of a big deal if you ask me.
I see this in a lot of contacts. WS7I DE WV7Y WV7Y K
Sure its more efficient to send WV7Y WV7Y or WV7Y, but I could care
less and actually many thanks for calling me and working me.
Funny but I was looking over the results for the first WPX which Ron
K5DJ and I created not all that long ago. 200 logs and Ron Won with
606,000 SOHP, and I won M/M with 648,000 and Don AA5AU in at 303,000
for LP.
So keep talking about it because its sure a lot more fun these days,
and we certainly can improve things but don't forget that without all
the casual operators coming down from other places, and things it
won't be as much fun.
Jay WS7I
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Peter Laws <plaws@plaws.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 09:24, w6otc@garlic.com <w6otc@garlic.com> wrote:
>> Reply: CQWW RTTY, Sept. 2010, P49X (W0YK) claimed 5024 QSOs as SOAB HP.At
>> 100+/hr for 48 hrs, seconds begin to look significant.
>
>
> I still don't get why the issue of making your own macros as efficient
> as possible is a controversial topic. Why *wouldn't* you want to be
> efficient? As seen above, seconds mean QSOs and for some stations,
> that's the whole point. It is a contest, after all.
>
> Even if you're not going to win (I'm not!), wouldn't common courtesy
> dictate that you respect those who are and work to make your own QSOs
> as efficient as possible?
>
> In the case of adding a char to the end of your macros, these spaces
> are not superfluous, they are critical to efficiently conveying your
> message. As noted, you can skip extra chars at the end, but then your
> message doesn't get through as quickly many times.
>
> I used to have a CR at the end of my macros until someone here pointed
> out the fact that you are making the other operator "chase you" up the
> screen. Now they all have spaces (or should have). I think three is
> probably two too many, but I'll listen evidence that it's not.
>
>
> --
> Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|