RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] The RTTY efficiency myth and SUPERFILL

To: <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] The RTTY efficiency myth and SUPERFILL
From: "Ian White" <gm3sek@ifwtech.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:28:45 +0100
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
>On 7/17/2014 4:25 AM, john@kk9a.com wrote:
>> I would eliminate sending the callsign of
>> the station that you are working.  Sending P40X before TU W6SX serves
no
>> purpose in this example. P40X knows that he is working you and is
just
>> waiting for some indication that you copied his report before
spinning the
>> VFO.
>
>REPLY:
>
>I disagree. Sending the other guy's callsign can help in situations of
>QRM or QRN where there are two stations that both think you are working
>them. Often neither one of them can hear the other. It happens more
than
>you might think. Sending only TU W6SX will cause both of them to log
you
>but one of them will be NIL. Sending P40X TU W6SX CQ reduces the
>possible confusion.
>
>73, Bill W6WRT
>

This unending debate between 'speed' and 'security' is why advanced
operators are moving towards modular messages that can be optimized on
the fly.  Program the default signoff message for speed, leaving out the
other guy's call. If you have a <specific> reason to believe there is a
risk of confusion, simply tap [F5] to drop in his call before sending
the signoff.

But if you find yourself tapping [F5] too often, it's probably time to
reprogram the default message to shift the balance away from speed, and
back towards security for a while.


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>