Chet
I will try to explain my perception of the contest identification issue.
Some stations have figured out ways to speed up the contact rate by
shortening the information that is passed.
Some stations believe that by leaving out some of the information during the
exchange is a FCC rule violation and do not shorten the exchange.
Now here is the problem: Stations that have higher rates are sure to
accumulate more contacts using a shorter exchange than the stations that do
not leave out part of the information. This appears to me as double exchange
standard.
Again from my perception, Marshall is saying that we all need to be clear
on how the exchange should be handled. I don't think he cares how it should
go, as long as everyone in the contest is using the same exchange format to
make the competition equal.
Does that make more sense now?
Ron
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Chet, N8RA <chetsubaccount@snet.net>wrote:
> Well put Paul.
>
> I didn't see a problem needing a solution.
>
> 73 all,
> Chet, N8RA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Paul Kiesel
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:41 AM
> To: VHF Contesting; Marshall Williams
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Concerning Tilton's Rule
>
> Hi Marshall,
>
> I applaud you for your positive approaches to the betterment of VHF
> contesting and operating in general.
>
> I respectfully disagree with you regarding "what constitutes a VHF QSO."
>
> As I mentioned while commenting on another thread today, I don't think that
> we need to necessarily hold to Tilton's layout of what should constitute a
> VHF QSO. Tilton certainly had his reasons for coming up with the structure
> that he did and it made sense to have it that way then.
>
> But this is 2009, not 1950. Virtually all transmitters use VOX now and the
> bands are no longer filled with screaming heterodynes when the propagation
> gets good. For most operating conditions, a streamlined operating procedure
> makes sense.
>
> Now, let's cut to the chase. FCC requires that you send your call at least
> once during a QSO. If, during a contest QSO, you say your call and the
> other
> station says his call, the FCC is fully satisfied that it's rules about
> signing have been followed. (Longer QSOs require that each station signs at
> least every 10 minutes and at the end of the QSO.) On SSB or CW, here is no
> practical need to say the other station's call IF IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU
> ARE CALLING HIM. (I apologize about the caps, but I don't have the use of
> italics for email.) I can think of only one occasion where I had to ask if
> a
> station was responding to me. We got it answered and continued. So, for
> normal and contest QSOs, there is no need to follow Tilton's QSO
> construction.
>
> I do think that there should be exceptions to the above. The exceptions are
> for meteor scatter and EME QSOs. The reason that regimentation in calling
> is
> needed during these activities is that it isn't always clear that
> information you copied is being sent to you. Also, operators know what the
> expect to hear next if there is a specific structure to QSOs. This is
> important when dealing with extremely weak or momentary signals. In these
> two cases, I would continue to hold to the standards already set up for
> meteor scatter and EME QSOs.
>
> During contests, it just makes sense to get all NEEDED information across
> as
> quickly as possible. Let's say you call CQ and another station responds.
> Since you know that the other guy is calling you, why would you need to
> hear
> him say your call? The answer is you don't need to hear it. It would be
> just
> a waste of time for him to say it. All you need to hear is his call only!
> This is one of the ways successful contesters operate. You keep is short
> and
> move on.
>
> So, to wrap it up. Legally, you need only send your own call. Beyond that,
> contest rules state what is needed to be sent in the exchange. And that is
> the way it needs to stay! There is no need at all to slow things down by
> insisting on sending information that is already known!
>
> So, instead of asking what should constitute a VHF QSO, we ought to be
> asking why in the world do VHF QSOs have to be different? With the
> exceptions that I mentioned above, they don't.
>
> 73,
> Paul, K7CW
>
> --- On Mon, 3/16/09, Marshall Williams <k5qe@sabinenet.com> wrote:
> From: Marshall Williams <k5qe@sabinenet.com>
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Concerning Tilton's Rule
> To: "VHF Contesting" <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Monday, March 16, 2009, 7:30 PM
>
> Hello again to the VHF contesters on the list....
>
> A month or so ago when I posted my first thoughts on this, I made a point
> of
> following a careful definition of what constitutes a valid VHF contact.
> Ron, W4WA, has elicited several responses on this on this reflector on this
> matter. It is clear that this idea needs to be revisited carefully. We
> need to have a standard and we need to follow it. If the VHF community
> wants to permit contacts like those done in HF contests, that is OK, we
> just
> all need to be sure of exactly what is the correct procedure.
>
> In the HF world, the following is accepted procedure:
>
> ME: CQ CQ K5QE K5QE over
> DX: W1XYZ
> ME: W1XYZ EM31
> DX: ROGER FN10 FN10 -- Sometimes this is just abreviated to FN10 FN10
> ME: QRZ Contest from K5QE over
>
> It is clear that several elements of Tilton's Rule for a valid VHF contact
> are missing here. I never received my call from W1XYZ and he never
> received
> a ROGER from me. If the abbreviated version of line 4 is employed, then I
> never got a ROGER from the DX station.
>
> A much better version of this is:
>
> ME: CQ CQ K5QE K5QE over
> DX: K5QE W1XYZ
> ME: W1XYZ K5QE EM31
> DX: ROGER FN10 FN10
> ME: ROGER QRZ Contest from K5QE over (Variations: ROGER ROGER QRZ from
> K5QE over and ROGER your FN10, QRZ from K5QE over)
>
> Here, W1XYZ has given my call, and I have given him a ROGER. I believe
> that
> the required elements are all here. W1XYZ his given both calls, a grid,
> and
> a ROGER. I have given the same information. It looks like we have added
> about 3 sec to the entiere contact time. I realize that when 6M is wide
> open for hours and hours, this procedure will cause a few less contacts to
> be made in an hour. There are some advantges here too....The DX station
> has
> given my call and I have given my call as part of the exchange. That
> allows
> other stations to know who I am and to get ready to work me. Don't you
> just
> hate it when you hear an HF station running stations like crazy and he does
> not give his call for a very long time(or that fact that he is actually
> listening up 20KHz!!!).
>
> I believe that this is the correct form for a VHF contact, but I am not
> trying to "force" this particular version on anyone. What I believe we
> need
> to do, is for the community to carefully consider this problem and to come
> up with a "standard procedure" that we can all follow. We can
>
> agree that the HF form is acceptable when 6M is wide open and you are
> working stations like crazy. We can also agree that this form is not
> acceptable on 2M and up where huge runs don't normally occur and things are
> more "leisurely". We can agree that Tilton's Rule must be followed
> carefully on schedules. We can agree on whatever we want as long as
> everyone is on the same page.
>
> Personally, I would like to see Tilton's Rule upheld. For historical and
> practical reasons, it is a good definition of what constitutes a valid
> contact. Tilton's Rule has served us well in the past. It is interesting
> that the MS and EME folks(digital and CW) are VERY strict on these things.
> If you don't get all the required elements, it is not a contact. ANECDOTE:
> When I was in Oklahoma City in the late 70's, I had
> 49 states worked and was running with RI for my WAS. I thought that the
> contact was complete and I called the other station on the phone after
> about
> 10 min of RRR, RRR, RRR. He told me that he did not have my ROGER and that
> since we had talked on the phone, we would now have to start over. I was
> heartbroken over this as the moon had gone beyond my window. I never got
> RI
> from OKC and I still need that state for a non-digital WAS on 2M. For want
> of a single R, my 2M WAS was lost--however, the guy on the other end was
> just following the correct procedure. He did everything right--he just
> needed a better set of ears...HI.
>
> As on my previous posts, rational thoughtful comments are appreciated.
> Flames -----> bit bucket. I must compliment everyone on their thoughtful
> replies to the previous issues. Keep it up guys!!
>
> 73 Marshall K5QE
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|