R or a string of RRRRRRRR's has shown to work better for me.
Mike W0MU
W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net
On 12/13/2011 9:02 AM, N1BUG wrote:
> My $0.02 worth:
>
> A single R is sufficient if signals are strong and QRM is not a
> major factor. In weak signal conditions RRR is more efficient than
> QSL or CFM. There is a reason a long sequence of RRRRRRRRRR was
> chosen for EME many years ago rather than a long string of QSLQSLQSL
> or CFMCFMCFM. The less complex the message, the greater the chances
> it will be received and understood. If a DX station on topband is
> obviously struggling to copy me and asks if he has my call right I
> will respond with RRRRRR as it has proven to be more effective than
> anything else in conveying that indeed he does have it correct.
>
> 73,
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 12/13/2011 10:42 AM, Doug Renwick wrote:
>> I prefer QSL or CFM over R or Roger. In cw if a letter is missed, the
>> missing letter can be 'filled in'. With R, if parts are missed, the missed
>> parts cannot be filled in. The same with SSB, but not to the same extent.
>> When I hear QSL or CFM it gives me a much higher level of confidence than R
>> or Roger.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> I agree with Roger. Both "QSL" and "CFM" are inefficient ways for
>>> indicating solid copy on CW. A simple "R" is all that's needed.
> _______________________________________________
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|