RST system problem is so many don't understand what any report is other than 599 because that's all they can copy. Ever try sending a C for chirp, or anything less than 9 for T? And ample reason for both. Few will understand.
Sent from my iPad On Jan 22, 2012, at 22:13, k6xt <[email protected]> wrote: > And now we have the longer, lower, wider, heavier, more expensive, FAR > less copiable RST system proposed by N7RR. A typical 120Hz buzz report > might be "PAR". Par for the course? Par for the sending station? PAR for > something nobody understands? I can just imagine. A65XT your signal > report is PAR. Ha. Get a QSL out of that one. And imagine trying to make > it understood between K6XT and A65XT on 160M CW. (What I'd really like > to imagine is A6 anything being strength A in Colorado on 160!) > > Or par for a bad idea stillborn? > > And what's with "...now antiquated RST system..."? Who says? Where's > the documentation to back that one up? > > RST remains alive and well. Its every bit as useful as anything else > with clear definitions in the ARRL op manual. True, the tone part has > fewer exceptions these days but still as nonzero as XRCKO. As to > readability and strength what's changed? Nothing. > > I think I'll keep RST PFX for the future. > > Oh, in case you haven't read it , see Feb 12 QST p. 77. With respects to > N7RR for calling out a foolish idea. Hey, its the OpEd page. Heat - Kitchen. > > -- > 73 Art K6XT~~ > Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm. > > As a matter of fact... > > We have that 'uselss' "T" hanging out there on the end of RST (for CW > ops). One year while on the way to Field Day a component lead broke in > the bias supply filter in my transmitter. My first two contacts gave me > a zero for the T and I retired the transmitter for the weekend. We > really should mention it if we observe a problem. Hams should not feel > offended if they get a report like that and reporters should be matter > of fact about it and not insulting. My experiences with incidents like > that are much better than what has been described in this thread. > > 73, > > Bill KU8H > > _______________________________________________ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
