[CQ-Contest] Sending 'test'

Peter Bowyer peter at bowyer.org
Wed Nov 28 08:45:08 EST 2018


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>

> 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
> _______________________________________________________
> 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:
> 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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list