Yep, Mike, am familiar with the standard. Was proposing a change to it that doesn’t disrupt the cadence. As you can see, it keeps the CQ’er on his even/odd cycle and provides a valid QSO also. Just shorter. The final 73 is a courtesy, and usually works out as an invitation for the next caller.
Thanks for the comments! George J Molnar KF2T | AFA9GM Twitter: @GJMolnar SUPPORT HR-1301 & S-1685 http://www.arrl.org/amateur-radio-parity-act > On Apr 5, 2016, at 08:50, Michael Black <[email protected]> wrote: > > As the manual shows (took me a while to get used to it) here's the > standard exchange > > CQ KF2T DM25 > KF2T KX7XX DM26 > KX7XX KF2T -16 > KF2T KX7XX R-16 > KX7XX KF2T RRR > KF2T KX7XX 73 > > Then you can call CQ on the next minute without missing a beat. It's > the last 73 from the caller that's not required as it's implied in the > RRR > > RRR > Mike W9MDB > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:15 AM, George J Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: >> A modest proposal to shorten JT-mode QSO’s without compromising their >> integrity or cadence. >> >> Example: >> CQ KF2T DM25 >> KF2T KX7XX -16 >> KX7XX KF2T R-12 >> KF2T KX7XX 73 >> KX7XX KF2T 73 >> >> Cuts the time required for a valid QSO by a minute, which could be helpful >> in certain situations, and may help alleviate congestion on the bands. >> Of course, greater adoption of JT9 and “fast modes” would make this less >> necessary, but perhaps it could help? >> >> Dropping the caller’s grid makes sense to me since we are using computers >> for this mode anyway, and almost everyone is connected to the internet, so >> QTH information is readily available without needing to be sent. It could be >> dropped from the CQ as well, but since it does no harm there, and may be >> useful for quick decision-making on whom to call, no reason to remove it. >> >> RRR seems to be the exchange that gets most people’s goat, and often gets >> replaced with RR73 or something else, which can disrupt cadence, >> particularly if automatic sequencing takes hold. I suspect few will mourn >> its loss. By advancing to the next message, the QSO partner implicitly >> acknowledges the previous step. >> >> In the interest of efficient standardized usage, I’m wondering if we should >> take the free text option out of the TX5 slot and make it a separate option >> below the CQ/TX6 slot? So it only really comes into play when there’s a >> special need? >> >> Something to think about, and probably not something to rush into “today.” >> Just my two cents for the modes I’ve really come to enjoy. >> >> 73, >> >> >> George J Molnar >> KF2T | AFA9GM >> Twitter: @GJMolnar >> >> SUPPORT HR-1301 & S-1685 >> http://www.arrl.org/amateur-radio-parity-act >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> wsjt-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
