[RTTY] Best request for serial number fills

[Bob I.2.WIJ]

Hi all,
this is one of the best answers I saw in recent times.Please let it circulate in the RTTY contesting environment,in hope it would teach something to many.
And thank you all for the QSO last weekend. 73--
Bob, I2WIJ

 

    Il Giovedì 15 Febbraio 2018 18:46, Hank Garretson <w6sx at arrl.net> ha scritto:
 

 On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Jerry Flanders <jeflanders at comcast.net>
wrote:

When the nr is sent twice and one is garbled, you can't be sure of that
> one. If went three times and one is garbled, no problem.
>

Here is something I wrote for NCJ a few years back.

Some people say send serial number once. Others say twice. Still others say
> three times because if you get it two out of three times, you’ll know it’s
> right. I normally send serial number twice, and below I show how this works
> well. But the real answer is it depends. If you are loud and running,
> people get more than one chance to figure out your serial number, and once
> may be good enough. Caution—this may not work if the running station is
> SO2R where serial numbers might not be consecutive. If conditions are
> particularly poor, three times might be called for. It depends, which is
> why having flexible macros is a plus.
>
> Which brings us to the question of when to ask for a repeat. When do you
> have enough to log a contact? It depends. You don’t have to copy a number
> twice to be confident that you have it right.
>
> If I print 599 005 W6SX, the 599 and W6SX bracketing the 005 tell me it’s
> probably good. I’ll log it unless something else tells me to question it.
>
> One “something” is that you can often tell by ear if an exchange printed
> correctly. Or, perhaps more importantly, you can often tell by ear if an
> exchange is corrupted.
>
> If I print 599 005 0%&*, I’ll probably log 005.
>
> If I print 599 005^*A, I’ll ask for a repeat.
>
> There are lots of scenarios you can build. Contest radiosport is risk
> evaluation. Do I interrupt a 100-per-hour run to be 100% sure of an
> exchange? Or do I evaluate as above and take a chance I’ll lose a low-point
> QSO to log checking? Does my calculus change if it’s a new multiplier I’m
> not likely to find later? Of course.
>

Contest Exuberantly,

Hank, W6SX
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty