[CQ-Contest] Sending 'test'

[Peter Bowyer]

Chris

If there's no trailing synchronisation token at the end of the CQ (which is
what the 'TEST' is), the calling station is more likely to hesitate before
calling and/or not call until after the next CQ. This, to some extent, the
degree of which is arguable, reduces efficiency and increases the
likelihood of a caller doubling with your next CQ. These are bad things.

However, it also spreads out the start of the CQs from a pileup of callers
a bit, which can well be a good thing. Just like (can of worms opening...)
a bare 'TU' instead of a 'TU <MYCALL>' will. Uncertainty can play in your
favour sometimes.

I don't think there's a single right answer.

73 Peter G4MJS

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 13:08, Chris Tran GM3WOJ <gm3woj at christran.net>
wrote:

> Hello all
>
> Thanks for the responses, both on and off reflector.  I’d like to pick up
> on Vlad VE3TM’s comment (see below – thanks for the QSOs!)
>
> Hopefully not reopening any previous threads, I rarely operate Assisted,
> so I’m very aware that poor / selfish operating by some stations not IDing
> regularly makes my Unassisted life difficult.  Our RSGB HF contest rules
> have the rule ‘You must send your callsign at least every 3rd QSO and no
> less often than once a minute’ – the CW WW rules define as Unsportsmanlike
> conduct ‘Running stations not identifying in a timely manner (i.e., 1
> minute)’   One Zone 40 station was particularly unsportsmanlike during CQ
> WW!
>
> This links to Vlad’s point specifically – during the contest – except on
> Sunday evening when I was tired or no-one was responding - I would just
> send (once) ‘CQ GM2V’, listen for about 3s, then ‘CQ GM2V’ again.  I’ve
> calculated that this ‘CQ GM2V’ takes about 2.5s to send at 40wpm, so no-one
> has to wait longer than 6s to hear both the next CQ and the callsign.
>
> Anyone can operate however they like, but I use these short CQs on our
> DXpeditions (a very different scenario of course) and they work well.
>
>
> 73   Chris
> GM3WOJ / GM2V
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Hello Chris,
>
> 1. If there is no trailing TEST, then how would people distinguish a CQ
> call from a S&P call?
> Look at this:
> CQ GM2V GM2V (a CQ call)
> GM2V GM2V (you call somebody else).
> The only difference is the short CQ in the very beginning. If I miss it, I
> have to stop and wait for your next full CQ call to make sure, it is really
> CQ, and I don't disrupt your S&P call. As a result, I waste my time, and so
> do you.  Having heard your TEST in the end, I would call you right away,
> and instead of making another CQ call you would already have another QSO
> conducted.
>
> 2. If you call like this:
> CQ GM2V GM2V GM2V
> Then how do I know WHEN your CQ call is over, if there is no clear "stop"
> sign? Are you sending your call once, twice, or more? I simply don't know
> that and I have wait not just to the end of your CQ call, but somewhat
> longer until it becomes clear, your call is over and I can finally call
> you. Once again, both you and me are wasting time.
>
> If you want to make your CQ call shorter, you may better omit the starting
> CQ but keep the trailing TEST, instead.
> GM2V GM2V TEST would be perfectly fine.
>
> Thanks for all the QSOs.
>
> 73,
>
> Vlad VE3TM
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>