RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] The RTTY efficiency myth and SUPERFILL

To: "'Hank Garretson'" <w6sx@arrl.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] The RTTY efficiency myth and SUPERFILL
From: "Ian White" <gm3sek@ifwtech.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:06:56 +0100
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
W6SX wrote:

>
>Absolutely. Keep the TU.
>
>Indeed, TU is equivalent to QSL.
>
>CQ TEST W6SX W6SX CQ
>P40X
>P40X 599 03
>W6SX 599
>P40X TU W6SX CQ
>
>My TU to P40X says Thank You AND QSL, the contact is complete.
>
>Keep the TU.
>

Absolutely! 

A QSO is not complete until BOTH stations have received an
acknowledgement of the information they have sent - which means that the
run station must <send> that final acknowledgement before moving on to
the next caller. Without it, the QSO is incomplete.

Acknowledgement can take many different forms (examples from other modes
include "R", "Roger", "QSL" or "Thank you"). We can debate about how
many characters we wish to spend on this, but we always have to send
something, so the bottom line is at least ONE character. Sending
nothing, just moving on to the next caller, is the wrong side of that
line.

This practice of skipping the "ack" comes largely from individuals who
feel that their QSO rate is more important than everyone else's
uncertainty about having made a good QSO. This selfish practice can
easily be stamped out by working those individuals but not logging the
QSO. 


73 from Ian GM3SEK


_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>