Message-ID: <B333AB0EF6D4D4118BAF00508BAED8EA088DA1C7@mms12014.stv.uk.astrium.corp>
From: "OSBORN, Chris" <Chris.OSBORN@astrium.eads.net>
To: "'rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org'" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:08:20 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: RE: Re: QRSS - KN ?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit


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" <Chris.OSBORN@astrium.eads.net>
To: "LF Group (E-mail)" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
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