Return-Path: Received: (qmail 57970 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2005 13:12:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-mxcore01.plus.net) (212.159.14.215) by ptb-mailstore02.plus.net with SMTP; 11 Feb 2005 13:12:14 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1Czaby-0002y9-JU for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:13:30 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1CzaZH-0001d2-JF for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:10:43 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1CzaZH-0001ct-5B for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:10:43 +0000 Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.12.198]) by relay.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CzaZB-0000Zi-Fb for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:10:43 +0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Main) (Alan.Melia@81.131.92.62 with login) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2005 13:10:30 -0000 Message-ID: <000601c5103b$0a3b4ae0$6507a8c0@Main> From: "Alan Melia" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:10:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 217.12.12.198 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of btinternet.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=failed,none Subject: LF: Re: RE: Re: QRSS - KN ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Hi Chris the abbreviation often used in place of "73" by many ops is "TU" .... presumably "Thank You " The other usage that I am sure you have seen is after a CQ call the reply uses the suffix letters of the CQer only. After that suffixes only are used. "?" was also suggested in place of "QRZ"...."Q" codes are not very "economical"!! Cheers de Alan G3NYK ----- Original Message ----- From: "OSBORN, Chris" To: Sent: 11 February 2005 11:08 Subject: LF: RE: Re: QRSS - KN ? > > Many thanks Alan, > > All noted with interest. > I am always apprehensive that I may not 'see' a DX station and inadvertently > call over the top of him. > Thus I tend to reply on a frequency some way removed from the calling > station... probably not ideal ! > > Good idea about the abbreviated CQ and I wondered about truncating '73'. > Perhaps there's a case for publishing a separate QRSS 'Code Book' using > only short duration characters (?) > > 73 Chris G3XIZ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Melia [mailto:Alan.Melia@btinternet.com] > Sent: 11 February 2005 10:01:AM > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Subject: LF: Re: QRSS - KN ? > > > Hi Chris, I wondered about that some time ago, but the answer seems to be, > "dont be hung up on courtesy" ...send a call slightly off frequency so you > dont clash with possible DX answer. The sending station will probably see it > as well and any station he is working and you save a whole over by not > requiring the preliminaries. There was a period when it was suggested that > CQ was a bit long and "?" was adequate but that fell from use. > > Cheers de Alan G3NYK > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "OSBORN, Chris" > To: "LF Group (E-mail)" > Sent: 11 February 2005 08:52 > Subject: LF: QRSS - KN ? > > > > > > > > > > LF Group > > > > Just a thought - having used QRSS-3 for a few weeks I notice that K > > is used exclusively and KN not at all. > > I often catch the end of a transmission and consequently cannot tell > > whether the station is sending CQ or already in a QSO. > > I therefore have to wait several minutes to see whether the station > > repeats a CQ before replying. > > > > Is there not a case for using KN if passing transmission to a > > specific station, as in normal CW ? > > The additional time in sending the N is surely well worth removing > > the ambiguity of the situation. > > > > 73 Chris G3XIZ > > > > > > > > This email is for the intended addressee only. > > If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, > disseminate or otherwise deal with it. > > Please notify the sender by return email. > > The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS > Astrium Limited. > > Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or > obligation. > > > > EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 > > Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, > England > > > > > This email is for the intended addressee only. > If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. > Please notify the sender by return email. > The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. > Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. > > EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 > Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England >