[RTTY] SO2R

[Ed Muns]

Of course.  The more times you send each other's call sign, the more
certain that you have it correct.  Where do you draw the line on how many
times you verify the other station's call?

Almost no one does this in CW or SSB and we seem to be satisfied with our
NIL or busted call results.  Achieving an error-free log check report is a
poor trade-off between accuracy and rate.  Every moment in every contest is
a slightly different situation where the operator needs to apply judgment.

This is a good example of why I suggest a modular message structure.  The
vast majority of time, sending his call again in the TU/CQ message is a
waste of time.  Therefore it should not be included in the basic message.
If a situation warrants adding it, however, all it takes it tapping the
<HIS CALL> key prior to the TU/CQ message.

Ed W0YK


On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 4:28 PM, David G3YYD <g3yyd at btinternet.com> wrote:

> Simple it is the last opportunity that he has to ensure I have his call
> correct (I lose points for incorrect call) and for that station if he has
> QRM to know I have successfully worked him. In a busy contest I find it
> saves working a dupe later on because I am not in his log as he did not
> have confirmation I had worked him that first time. It also reduces the not
> in log count again I lose points.
>
> In a quiet contest it is unnecessary as QRM is so much less, but then you
> have more time between QSOs so may as well leave it in.
>
> So bottom line it can be left out but the risk is more busted calls and
> NIL. It is a trade off a bit longer (about 1.5 seconds) against lost points.
>
> 73 David G3YYD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ken K6MR
> Sent: 28 September 2015 20:18
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] SO2R
>
> I’m still relatively new at this so the answer to this question may be
> “we’ve always done it this way…”
>
> After GM3XXX sends his exchange, why do you send his call again (GM3XXX TU
> M7T QRZ) ? You sent his call, he responded, so you have the call correct.
> Seems like wasted bits and time. And if that TU message gets garbled the
> other station might think you have the call wrong.  A simple TU M7T QRZ
> would appear to be enough.
>
> I see most people do it (I don’t) but I don’t see the reason.
>
> Ken K6MR
>
>
>
>
> From: David G3YYD
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 12:24
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] SO2R
>
>
> As a SO2R operator the CQ call is key. If made too short, for instance CQ
> M7T, then it does not give enough time for a complete reply to my CQ call
> on the other radio to be made. The idea is to time it so as soon as one
> radio has finished it is time to transmit on the other.
>
> As a consequence I use CQ M7T M7T M7T CQ this gives sufficient time for
> someone to call me on the other radio with GM3XXX GM3XXX. Then there is no
> apparent delay in my answer to GM3XXX and it allows me to send GM3XXX 59914
> GM3XXX, While someone is calling me on the other radio in response to my CQ
> call.
>
> Of course it falls apart if someone calls me after a CQ with M7T M7T de
> GM3XXX GM3XXX GM3XXX PSE K which unfortunately too many people do. I know
> my call so please do not send it and de is a total waste of time as for PSE
> K enough said. If you have a call that is GM3XXX then twice is sufficient
> if you have a short callsign like my contest call then M7T three times is
> OK.
>
> Then at the end of the contact I reply GM3XXX TU M7T QRZ again
> sufficiently long to enable someone to call me on the other radio or send
> the exchange so I can reply to them without any apparent delay.
>
> I also make use of the ESC key to cut short messages on a radio so I can
> initiate the reply on the other radio faster. So for instance CQ maybe
> truncated so it becomes CQ M7T M7T.
>
> By the way if you think SO2R is complex then I also operate the radios
> second receivers as well when a contest slows up.
>
> 73 David G3YYD aka M7T in contests
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>