[RTTY] The RTTY efficiency myth and SUPERFILL

[john at kk9a.com]

Just to be clear, Since the original post was regarding dropping TU from
the acknowledgement, I suggested not sending the callsign in the last line
of W6SX's example and only sending TU W6SX CQ. Of course you have to send
their callsign the first time when giving a report or no one would know
who you came back to. I agree that there are occasions when an additional
station will also give a report simultaneously.  This happens in all modes
and then sending the worked station's call sign at the end may give a clue
to the other guy that he is not in your log.

"CQ TEST W6SX W6SX CQ
P40X
P40X 599 03
W6SX 599
P40X TU W6SX CQ"


73,
John KK9A



To:	rtty at contesting.com
Subject:	 Re: [RTTY] The RTTY efficiency myth and SUPERFILL
From:	 Bill Turner <dezrat at outlook.com>
Date:	 Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:44:55 -0700
List-post:	 <rtty at contesting.com">mailto:rtty at contesting.com>
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:          (may be snipped)

On 7/17/2014 4:25 AM, john at kk9a.com wrote:
I would eliminate sending the callsign of
the station that you are working.  Sending P40X before TU W6SX serves no
purpose in this example. P40X knows that he is working you and is just
waiting for some indication that you copied his report before spinning the
VFO.

REPLY:

I disagree. Sending the other guy's callsign can help in situations of QRM
or QRN where there are two stations that both think you are working them.
Often neither one of them can hear the other. It happens more than you
might think. Sending only TU W6SX will cause both of them to log you but
one of them will be NIL. Sending P40X TU W6SX CQ reduces the possible
confusion.

73, Bill W6WRT