[CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics

Michael J. Clarson mclarson at rcc.com
Wed Aug 3 11:10:30 EDT 2005

 Steve: Repeating a call back, to me is key to knowing the exchange was
successful. Numerous times, on ssb, I call a "high-rate" station, we go back
and forth a few times,  and each time he gets my call incorrect (but copied
my exchange). Then, on next go round, he comes back with "QSL, QSL" without
repeating my call. I get the feeling he blew me off to get back to keeping
his rate up. So I log it based on what I heard, he does not because he never
got my call correct and blew me off, and, I lose the QSO! Maybe I'm just
paranoid--but that doesn't mean its not happening. --Mike, WV2ZOW
(Yeah--call is worth a few dB in the prefix contest, but its an albatross in
the rest!)

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve London
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 1:51 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics

Let's take this scenerio a half-step farther....

NN2I1CIK (2 stations, very similar calls answer) IK 5NN A5
N1IKN2IC5NN5NN45  (2 stations, N2IC and N1IK respond, both give exchanges)

You haven't clearly made a QSO with either N1IK or N2IC !

I can foresee your response - you're going to say that if you think there is
any question as to who you were working, you would have confirmed the QSO by
signing "N1IK TU".  But what if N2IC was 20 dB weaker than N1IK (a not
uncommon occurance !) ?  You would have simply ignored the weak "background"
signal of N2IC and sent "TU", leaving N2IC and N1IK thinking they have both
worked you.

IMHO, not signing the corrected, complete call of the station you were
working is another example of poor, high-rate operating, done at the expense
of those who work you.

Steve, N2IC

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list