[CQ-Contest] SS CW question

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2010 08 Nov 20:24 -0600, Geoffrey Way wrote:
> N1MM allows the use of control characters to adjust speed on the fly
> within the macro:
> 
> < = faster by 2wpm
>  > = slower by 2wpm
> 
> thus,
> 
> <<<<KA1IOR>>>>
> 
> in the middle of the macro jumps the speed up by 8wpm.
> No more problem. Call gets sent, but far less time in *redundant*
> info in the exchange. I send the call because I can just speed up on it.

For the proficient CW ops amongst us bumping up the speed of your
callsign may not be an issue.  For someone like myself, that bump of 8
WPM when you're already at my brain processing limit of about 25 WPM
just throws me for a loop and your "time saver" will likely result in me
asking for a repeat of your check and section.  Not much of a time saver
for either of us.

I suppose the solution to that problem would be for us less proficient
ops to sit out this contest and let you proficient guys have at it.  Or,
the proficient guys could be thankful for their abilities and realize
that we're not all in your league.  In other words, there are contests
where speeding up part of the exchange is not a big deal, "5NN" comes to
mind as even I can recognize that up to around 40 WPM.  Your call is
new and unique to me as a psuedo random character group so I don't see
the overall benefit of blitzing through a critical part of the SS
exchange making it almost incomprehensible, especially if I'm counting
on that part to be sure I have it correct in the first place.

> The logic in omitting the call *as part of the exchange* is because
> each station has already heard the other's callsign, and if the
> station answering the CQ also sends the other station's callsign,
> each one can also verify it was copied correctly.

This logic falls apart in the face of the rules.  From the 2010
Sweepstakes Rules at http://www.arrl.org/sweepstakes

----------------------------------

Exchange: The required exchange consists of:

4.1. A consecutive serial number;

4.2. Precedence;

4.2.1. “Q” for Single Op QRP (5 Watts output or less);

4.2.2. “A” for Single Op Low Power (up to 150 W output);

4.2.3. “B” for Single Op High Power (greater than 150 W output);

4.2.4. “U” for Single Op Unlimited;

4.2.5. “M” for Multi-Op;

4.2.6. “S” for School Club;

4.3 Your Callsign;

4.4. Check

4.4.1. The last 2 digits of the year of first license for either the operator or the station.

4.4.2. The same Check must be used the entire contest.

4.5. ARRL/RAC Section

4.6 Exchange Example: NU1AW would respond to W1AW’s call by sending: W1AW 123 B NU1AW 71 CT, which indicates QSO number 123, B for Single Op High Power, NU1AW, first licensed in 1971, and in the Connecticut section.)

----------------------------------

Note well that "Your Callsign" is a *required part of the exchange* as
stated in rule 4.3.  Its ommission makes the exchange invalid, IMO.  So 
it's redundant, that doesn't matter, it's *required*.  

It may be interesting to see what happens in phone SS if stations
respond to other stations offering an incomplete exchange with a demand
to send it correctly or not count the QSO.

> I look at this last aspect as half full rather than half empty; if the
> person answering my CQ fails to preamble the exchange with my
> callsign, I can still verify he was REALLY sending to me by asking
> for a verification of precedence if I suspect he's off my QRG enough
> to possibly be working someone else. If he got my callsign wrong, I'm
> not the one who is penalized in the scoring. I rarely send their call
> when I S&P, except for situations like above where it's really messy
> on the QRG and I want him to be reassured it IS him that I am working.

I note that rule 4.6 does show the prepending of the exchange with the
other station's callsign.  Most likely that is a good practice that I
need to adopt.

73, de Nate >>

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html