eHam

eHam Forums => CW => Topic started by: N4RSS on June 30, 2010, 06:45:09 AM



Title: "QSL ?"
Post by: N4RSS on June 30, 2010, 06:45:09 AM
I don't operate CW but could you guys who do please inform the masses that CW operators have the exclusive right to use Q signs and that the rest of us don't want to hear this interrogatory appended to every transmission ?

It would have a lot more impact coming from you all then we SSB folks, thank you for your time


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AE4RV on June 30, 2010, 06:48:01 AM
Q codes on phone sound a little silly during casual conversation, especially if overused, but I'll continue to use QSL(?) during SSB contests.


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: K2PHD on June 30, 2010, 10:08:58 AM
Any way to reduce the transmit time while improving theoverall ability to communicate should be a goal of every operator. Therefore, the use of Q codes makes good operating sense. they should be part of every hams vocabulary.



Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: N2EY on June 30, 2010, 10:29:24 AM
Any way to reduce the transmit time while improving the overall ability to communicate should be a goal of every operator.

The problem is that the use of Q codes on voice often acts in the opposite way.

For example, last weekend on Field Day I heard voice ops saying:

"....seven-alpha, seven alpha, western Pennsylvania, double-you pea ay, QSL?"

What does the "QSL" at the end mean? Why not just say "over" or "go"? On CW, we just sent the exchange, no "QSL?".

Or I hear voice ops talking about "at the home QTH"...why not just "at home"?

Is "QSY" really shorter than "change frequency" on voice?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: N5XTR on July 01, 2010, 08:04:13 AM
I agree with K2PHD.
The Q codes have their place in radio, be it CW or SSB or even digital. 
It really sounds funny when folks use them on FM repeaters, Especially when they use the wrong ones. 

I use them a little on CW and less on SSB, but more on contests.  It is really funny when two stations wrap up a conversation on a UHF repeater and they both give their calls and then say QRZ? instead of QRT.  I hear them do that at least every week, HIHI.


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AA1BN on July 01, 2010, 01:22:01 PM
And that "HIHI" stuff on voice modes, dontcha' just hate that?





Pet Peeves; ya' gotta' feed 'em like any other pet!

Yo, 3's


John



Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: W7ETA on July 01, 2010, 03:14:25 PM
"I don't operate CW but could you guys who do please inform the masses that CW operators have the exclusive right to use Q signs and that the rest of us don't want to hear this interrogatory appended to every transmission ?"

What does that mean?

Inform masses?
Exclusive use of Q sings?
us/we don't want to hear interrogatory appended to ever transmission?

How can "we" not like it when "we" don't understand what you are complaining about?

Bob


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: W7ETA on July 01, 2010, 03:39:24 PM
""QSL" at the end mean?"

It takes the place of "How copy? break"--HW? BK

It can be that ops who started out with CW only developed a pattern of doing something and associating a Q code with it.  For example, going up or down from a present frequency is QSY which accurately and succinctly describes the action.  Switching to a verbal description, changing frequency is a poor definition at best of the action.

Plus, I remember reading that the definition of words change with common usage, words migrate ( it turns out there are a lot of vuvuzela posters on eHam), and new words are created.

So.  The migration of Q-code to modes other than CW makes perfect sense to me.

To me adding verbal descriptors to a Q-code, home QTH, indicates the op doesn't know that QTH means location. It also indicates the op doesn't run CW.

IN the end, I focus on being the best op I can be and don't worry about how others choose to be ops.

73, yup, I use that instead of typing out "Best Wishes", AND I use it on phone too!

Bob


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: N2EY on July 01, 2010, 05:47:15 PM
""QSL" at the end mean?"

It takes the place of "How copy? break"--HW? BK

Except that we CW ops don't do that stuff in a contest.

Here's a typical Field Day QSO on 'phone. W1ABC's transmissions are in parentheses, K2DEF's are in brackets:

(Hello CQ, CQ Field Day, CQ Field Day, here is W1ABC, Whiskey One Alpha Bravo Charlie, W1ABC, Field Day)

[Whiskey One Alpha Bravo Charlie, here is K2DEF, Kilo Two Delta Echo Foxtrot, K2DEF]

(K2DEF this is W1ABC, please copy five alpha, five alpha, eastern Mass, eastern Massachusetts, QSL?)

[W1ABC this is K2DEF, roger, QSL your five alpha eastern Massachusetts, here is three alpha, three alpha western New York, three alpha western New York, QSL?]

(K2DEF, QSL, thank you for the contact, 73,  this is W1ABC, QRZed Field Day, QRZed Field Day from W1ABC...)

And that's a short one, some of them drag it out a lot more.

The same QSO on CW:

(CQ FD FD DE W1ABC W1ABC FD)

[K2DEF]

(K2DEF TU 5A 5A EMA EMA)

[3A 3A WNY WNY W1ABC DE K2DEF]

(R TU FD FD DE W1ABC W1ABC FD)

Same info but not a wasted dit.

Note how the CW sending op doesn't ask if the other op copied the info, nor do the ops repeat what they copied. A simple "R" (meaning "received") does the whole job. Often the the "R" isn't needed, because it's obvious by the response that the info was copied. (K2DEF would not send his info if he hadn't copied W1ABC).

I don't know why 'phone ops drag it out so much, particularly on Field Day.

It can be that ops who started out with CW only developed a pattern of doing something and associating a Q code with it.

But that's rarely the case.

At least I don't hear hams saying "kay" at the end of a transmission...

The migration of Q-code to modes other than CW makes perfect sense to me.

It makes sense to me only if the use of a Q-code or other CW abbreviation actually saves time or clarifies things.

For example, as you point out, "73" has a meaning all its own regardless of mode, and is certainly faster and clearer than "best regards".

But often that's not the case.

73 de Jim, N2EY



Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: N4RSS on July 01, 2010, 05:48:40 PM
"I don't operate CW but could you guys who do please inform the masses that CW operators have the exclusive right to use Q signs and that the rest of us don't want to hear this interrogatory appended to every transmission ?"

What does that mean?

Inform masses?
Exclusive use of Q sings?
us/we don't want to hear interrogatory appended to ever transmission?

How can "we" not like it when "we" don't understand what you are complaining about?

Bob

The linguistically impaired need not respond..or those without a sense of humor


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: KE3WD on July 01, 2010, 10:35:09 PM
So -- You don't want to bother with learning the Q-codes and therefore everyone else should stop using them, is that right? 

Okay.



Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: W5ESE on July 02, 2010, 02:42:15 PM

IN the end, I focus on being the best op I can be and don't worry about how others choose to be ops.


This is the best comment in the entire thread.

73
Scott W5ESE


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: W7ETA on July 02, 2010, 03:54:51 PM
Some people send N2EY de WB1AUW K
Some send HW? BK

Some send R
Some send RRR

Some people append QSL?

Fortunately, they don't say Kay.

In tests I send 5NN BK.  Sometimes I have to send AZ, 2, 7, 1k OR 1tt, but I only send the info once, not AZ AZ.  It seems to work a high percentage of the time.
DX ops get the same report 5NN BK

It all works FB here OT.

10-4; signal report that includes mud or trees; destinated; I'm at the home QTH--I QSY. 
NOTE: I QSY, not change frequency.
NOTE: I still remember what a key click sounds like and the sig report to indicate it.


73
Bob


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: N3QE on July 03, 2010, 01:30:10 AM
I don't operate CW but could you guys who do please inform the masses that CW operators have the exclusive right to use Q signs and that the rest of us don't want to hear this interrogatory appended to every transmission ?
It would have a lot more impact coming from you all then we SSB folks, thank you for your time
Could someone inform the paper magazine folks that only CW ops have exclusive rights to Q signs so they should stop publishing QST for non-code hams?

Could someone inform the paper QSL card manufacturers that CW ops have exclusive rights to Q-signs, so QSL cards should only be sold to CW ops?

Could someone inform the internet police that CW ops have exclusive right to use the Q signs and that qrz.com and qth.net should be taken down?

How about we tell Abba that they have to invent a time machine, go back to the 70's, and kill themselves before they record their mega-scandanavian-pop-hit "SOS" because that is only a CW distress call, and only for maritime emergencies?

I personally feel that using Q-codes and prosigns outside of CW communications (OK, maybe RTTY) is somewhere between stupid and excessively cutesy but it happens. And the Q-codes are mis-used by many CW ops too.

Tim.


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AA1BN on July 03, 2010, 06:44:36 AM
Ok, on to other peeves:

Giving an RST multiple times:
UR RST 599 599 599 5NN 5 N N

GOOD GAWD.  With 599, it only has to be sent once. How
much better can the reception get? It's like me standing next
to you, yelling: "LOOKIN" GOOD" five times.

And then..... they tell you their QTH is: "Coucamongilinaberry", once!

HOLY ^%%$** when will it end?


Ok, Next?


73  SK


John


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AA4PB on July 03, 2010, 07:12:12 AM
So -- You don't want to bother with learning the Q-codes and therefore everyone else should stop using them, is that right? 

QSL


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: W7ETA on July 03, 2010, 05:33:47 PM
Well.....Let's see.

I'm tryin out my new 6L6 rig on 40 M and the other op is running 1.5K.  He sends 359 QRN and I send 5NN 5NN 5NN.

Can I get your permission to do that Dad?  Can I please please please???

Here is what works for me, I take notes on what is sent.  If I don't like what the op is sending or saying, I bid 'em 73 and QSY.

With the advent of the internet and cheap web sites, one can set up a site telling other ops how to operate their stations, what they can and cannot say cause that is the way you want it, and they outta operate to please you.

73
Bob



Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: N3QE on July 04, 2010, 04:42:33 AM
Well.....Let's see.
I'm tryin out my new 6L6 rig on 40 M and the other op is running 1.5K.  He sends 359 QRN and I send 5NN 5NN 5NN.
Can I get your permission to do that Dad?  Can I please please please???
Here is what works for me, I take notes on what is sent.  If I don't like what the op is sending or saying, I bid 'em 73 and QSY.
With the advent of the internet and cheap web sites, one can set up a site telling other ops how to operate their stations, what they can and cannot say cause that is the way you want it, and they outta operate to please you.

Second class operators club motto: "Competence is tolerated but not encouraged".

http://www.qsl.net/soc/

Especially check out their suggested Q-codes:

          QLF     I am sending with my left foot.
          QLF?    Are you sending with your left foot?
          QRC     Warning, rag chewer on frequency.
          QRC?    Are you a rag chewer?
          QOK     Your last transmission was Okie Dokie.
          QOK?    Was my last transmission OK?
          QFH     This frequency is MINE! - go elsewhere.
          QFH?    Is this frequency hogged?
          QBS     It's getting deep in here.
          QBS?    Did I tell you about the one that got away?
          QZZ     I fell asleep at the mike.
          QZZ?    Is that a 60Hz hum, or are you snoring?
          QBA     My antenna is BIG!
          QBA?    How big is your antenna?
          QHI     I am jumping in quick to say hi, then going QRT.
          QHI?    Are you leaving after only one transmission?
          QBO     Don't sit next to that gyu in the meeting.
          QBO?    Buddy, can you spare some soap?
          QNO     I am sending through a non-standard orifice.
          QNO?    Are you sending through a non-standard orifice?
          QCW     I am going to whistle Morse Code on FM (or SSB)
          QCW?    Why are you whistling Morse?
          QET     Phone home.
          QET?    Has anyone called me from another planet?


I for one, have been operating CW for only 31 years now, and know for sure that I've never been invited to join FOC :-)

Tim.


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AA1BN on July 04, 2010, 05:33:48 AM

With the advent of the internet and cheap web sites, one can set up a site telling other ops how to operate their stations, what they can and cannot say cause that is the way you want it, and they outta operate to please you.

73
Bob


We all have "Pet Peeves", and reciting them are not directives, all they are, are comments.


73,


John



Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: NK6Q on July 04, 2010, 04:23:37 PM
Tim's Q-signs are hysterical!  I got a good laugh out of them. 

That's what this ham community needs: a little bit of lightening-up and a lot less stuffiness.

Congrats, Tim.  You rule!  QYR!

Bill in Pasadena


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: W7ETA on July 04, 2010, 10:26:18 PM
Pet Peeve, ie complaint, about what someone else does, how they live their life.

"HOLY ^%%$** when will it end?"

So whose got the problem?  The other op or the one complaining?

Me.  I QSY.
My perspective is I can't manage my life perfectly--trying to run somebody else life would have far worse results.

73 OT
Bob


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AA1BN on July 05, 2010, 06:10:48 AM
Re:

"HOLY ^%%$** when will it end?"


The trouble with sarcasm, is that it's wasted on those that
have thin skin.


I personally can give a rat's rectum regarding this topic; I have
bigger fish to fry than who says: HI HI, QSL?, 73's, or giving
an RST fifteen times to someone that just told them they were
a 599 also. (But... band conditions can run out during long-winded
redundancy). (-that- was "sarcasm", btw)


I'm thankful for a cw qso with someone that's patient enough
to help me get back up to speed with this hobby.


Ham radio used to be fun. What happened to the sense of humor
that once permeated our hobby?


Seventy three'S


John



Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: N2EY on July 05, 2010, 10:21:03 AM
W7ETA writes: "Pet Peeve, ie complaint, about what someone else does, how they live their life....So whose got the problem?  The other op or the one complaining?"

Depends on the situation. It's not wrong to have standards.

W7ETA: "Me.  I QSY.
My perspective is I can't manage my life perfectly--trying to run somebody else life would have far worse results."

One doesn't have to be perfect before commenting on someone else's behavior.

The comments here aren't about any particular person; they're about concepts and behavior that could be improved.

AA1BN writes: "Ham radio used to be fun."

It still is, for many of us. But a lot of what makes it fun is having standards of behavior.

AA1BN: "What happened to the sense of humor that once permeated our hobby?"

It's still there. It's one of the standards I was talking about. Trouble is, not everyone gets the joke because they don't know the standards.

----

What I find most amusing is the logical contradictions that are missed by so many.

For example, one ham says it bothers him when 'phone ops use Q signals, HI HI, 73's, etc.

Another ham says that the first ham shouldn't try to control others' behavior, it's just a hobby, etc.

But the second ham doesn't realize that by telling the first ham not to comment, he (the second ham) is trying to control the first ham's behavior. And to a much greater extent!

Hilarious, really.

(btw, "73's" is wrong in two ways. Or maybe not at all)

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AA1BN on July 05, 2010, 11:52:23 AM
You're right "de Jim", there is too much knit-pickin' around.


(I remember a ham giving me an RST while on Pactor.... go figger?)


Seriously Jim, I thought it was contained to these forums, since
it's not always easy to get a point across using text alone; the nuances
of facial expressions, etc, are not there to indicate one's attitude
and intent.


But it's not just on the forums, we find discourse on all the bands
and modes also, and on the streets...


It's just people being people; misunderstanding one another,
firing a few rounds over some heads, waking up sleeping babies,
kicking pregnant moms.... and complaining about a "q" code.


QSL?


(By the way, you're text is a solid 599, 599, 599, 5nn)


(har har)


73

John



Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: N2EY on July 05, 2010, 01:26:49 PM
You're right "de Jim", there is too much knit-pickin' around.


(I remember a ham giving me an RST while on Pactor.... go figger?)


Seriously Jim, I thought it was contained to these forums, since
it's not always easy to get a point across using text alone; the nuances
of facial expressions, etc, are not there to indicate one's attitude
and intent.

Which is really an indication of a couple of things:

1) people who aren't good writers, but think they are. There's a lot more to good writing than simply writing down what you would say in a face-to-face discussion. Good writers don't need smileys, either.

2) similar to 1) except on the reading end.

3) Some folks don't really know what they're actually saying.

4) Some folks use the online world to say things they'd never say in person. When you see someone write something really nasty with a smiley on the end, it tells ya something about their real intent.

5) And some folks just can't take a joke - particularly if they're on the receiving end.

IOW, "ZBM2"

(now watch the fur fly!)
 

But it's not just on the forums, we find discourse on all the bands
and modes also, and on the streets...


It's just people being people; misunderstanding one another,
firing a few rounds over some heads, waking up sleeping babies,
kicking pregnant moms.... and complaining about a "q" code..

Yup. Signs of the apocalypse. Dogs and cats living together...

 

QSL?


R TU

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: W7ETA on July 05, 2010, 06:03:01 PM
This is my demurrer, the basil driver, seminal motion for a pet peeve is that others or someone doesn't live their life they way you think they should.  Personal standards are chosen; imposing your choices on other hams--pointless.

If you don't like someone's rig, amp, coax, antenna, rotator, antenna, mic, key, SWR meter, house, wife, operating desk, chair, Q-codes they use lack jargon or jargon they use, tests they took, use of crimp on connectors, net participation etc, my view is that you have the problem.

I post this to challenge your beliefs--what you decide has no effect here in the Sonora Desert.

73-73-73 HI hi
Bob


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: N2EY on July 06, 2010, 02:06:48 AM
This is my demurrer, the basil driver, seminal motion for a pet peeve is that others or someone doesn't live their life they way you think they should.  Personal standards are chosen; imposing your choices on other hams--pointless.

That's *your* personal standard...

If you don't like someone's rig, amp, coax, antenna, rotator, antenna, mic, key, SWR meter, house, wife, operating desk, chair, Q-codes they use lack jargon or jargon they use, tests they took, use of crimp on connectors, net participation etc, my view is that you have the problem.

But...your saying that I have a problem is just a way of voicing one of *your* pet peeves...

I post this to challenge your beliefs--what you decide has no effect here in the Sonora Desert.

73-73-73 HI hi
Bob

Exactly


73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: W7ETA on July 07, 2010, 12:20:53 AM
My mind is feeeble.  To understand I build as simple a model as possible. I reduce a complicated subject, the inner sanctum of peoples reactions, complaints, to a nexus of not liking what they see.  When it pertains to other people's actions, not like the way someone else behaves or lives their life.  If we assume the "others" are doing their best to live their lives, where is the problem?  Can the problem be in the "others?  Or in the person whose reaction is the "others" SHOULD or OUTTA change, what we don't like it.  To me, its human nature, others OUTTA change, live their life my way.

Any one is free to make up a story about my personal standards.
You can make up a story that my challenging SHUDDA and OUTTAs are a pet peeve.

Carry your complaints; carry your pet peeves; carry your stories about me--they aren't a burden here.

This is my standard: during the first sunspot cycle one can wonder about what is going on in ham radio; during the second sunspot cycle one can start formulating questions; during the third sunspot cycle one can start answering questions about the ins and outs of ham radio.  I imagine that during the fourth sunspot cycle one has the wisdom to just smile at the antics of all of the others.  HI hi  Maybe at the peak of this sunspot cycle I'll have wisdom?

73
Bob, three down; maybe one or two more to go?

Who was it that said anger/resentment is like taking a poison pill and hoping the other person drops dead.



Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AB7KT on July 09, 2010, 10:27:09 AM
I got an opinion too  ;D

I look at Q-Signals the same way as I look at abbreviations (or whatever they are called) that are commonly used with texting or internet instant messaging. When you are typing out a message, especially on a cell phone keyboard, you quickly learn to use as few characters as you can to get the meaning across. This is the same thing "they" realized in the early days of CW.
However, when you are talking to someone in person, on the phone, or on ham radio voice modes, there is no reason to use these abbreviations. To me, they sound silly. How ridiculous would it be to be talking to someone on the phone and say LOL LOL instead of just laughing. Or saying to someone in person, FWIW, instead of just saying For What It's Worth. IMO, using Q-Signals on phone amounts to the same thing.

Now that doesn't mean I pull my hair out or refuse to talk to the guy. But, I still see no point in it.


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AA4PB on July 09, 2010, 12:06:26 PM
How ridiculous would it be to be talking to someone on the phone and say LOL LOL instead of just laughing.

I hear the granddaughters talking to other kids face to face and using many of their abbreviations. Its just that amateur radio is many years ahead of the new technology  ;D


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AB7KT on July 09, 2010, 01:32:12 PM
How ridiculous would it be to be talking to someone on the phone and say LOL LOL instead of just laughing.

I hear the granddaughters talking to other kids face to face and using many of their abbreviations. Its just that amateur radio is many years ahead of the new technology  ;D


Right
Back when the Q-Signals were invented, that was new technology. And both things serve the same purpose for the same reason.


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: W7ETA on July 09, 2010, 09:05:40 PM
We had a better smiley face than the internet came up with.  Unfortunately if novice ops pick up CW we might start getting bombarded with LOL instead of HI hi.

QSL?

Bob


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AA1BN on July 09, 2010, 09:16:03 PM
We had a better smiley face than the internet came up with.  Unfortunately if novice ops pick up CW we might start getting bombarded with LOL instead of HI hi.

QSL?

Bob


QLMAO


Best Regardses

John


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: STAYVERTICAL on July 10, 2010, 12:23:58 AM
I hope propagation conditions improve soon so that we can be on the air more and internet less.
Lets hope the kids don't discover Q codes for sms texting or eham will melt down with flames.
Q codes were a natural development to speed communications in the early days of telegraphy, but since communications should be what the name suggests, not style points, what is wrong with saying QSY up 25khz?
I was taught in elementary english classes that language is like a spotlight which illuminates the message.
When the spotlight is shone in the eyes of the audience, it detracts from the message and focuses attention on itself.
Surely that is what communications is about, the sensible application of the media (language) to enable the message to be passed.
Whether in the local drinking house, meeting your boss, talking technical jargon with engineers or communicating via CW, Phone or digital modes, selecting the appropriate language is desirable.

Being an essentially technical hobby, Amateur Radio has jargon integrated into its culture.
Trying to make it politically correct by not offending one group or another and dumbing it down to a watery soup of hyperbole and common language seems an exercise in futility.
Personally, being many years in the hobby and having spent much time at sea, saying the QTH is xxx is much more natural than saying my home is xxx or I am presently at xxx.
Language defines tribes, geographical origin and social standing amongst others, so why should it not be used to define our hobby and its adherents?
Just a thought.



Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: K5TEN on July 10, 2010, 10:38:54 AM
Ok, I have one too.

I call CQ, well spaced, well fisted (if I do say so myself) and then sign "K", and the next thing I hear, zero-beat, is "??" sent at three times the speed of my CQ.

Is "??" some kind of new callsign?  Last I heard if someone sends CQ and then "K"--you simply send your callsign as a response if you wish to work a station. "??" seems incredibly rude, lazy, and not to mention illegal as "??" or "?" is not legally identifying your station.  

From now on, every "?" and "??" I hear will be ignored, even if they do slow down and sign their call afterward.


73

Bruce

**(Edited to fix typo)


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: N2EY on July 10, 2010, 01:17:24 PM
I call CQ, well spaced, well fisted (if I do say so myself) and then sign "K", and the next thing I hear, zero-beat, is "??" sent at three times the speed of my CQ.

Is "??" some kind of new callsign?  Last I heard if someone sends CQ and then "K"--you simply send your callsign as a response if you wish to work a station. "??" seems incredibly rude, lazy, and not to mention illegal as "??" or "?" is not legally identifying your station. 

From not on, every "?" and "??" I hear will be ignored, even if they do slow down and sign their call afterward.


G'day Bruce

Never heard that one myself.

Maybe the person sending "??" only heard the tail end of your CQ and doesn't know if it's a CQ, a call to another station, or what. "??" is quicker than "PSE RPT"

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: W7ETA on July 10, 2010, 01:34:52 PM
May be the ? means what mode was that?

Or, ?? means my code reader couldn't copy that?

Could mean "I can't copy CW but I like to send it."

If you are on 10 meters, it could mean "Get off the truckers channel!"

QSL OT?

Best Best 73
Bob



Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: K4DPK on July 10, 2010, 10:59:16 PM
N4RSS said:  "I don't operate CW but could you guys who do please inform the masses that CW operators have the exclusive right to use Q signs and that the rest of us don't want to hear this interrogatory appended to every transmission ?"
***********************

OKIE  DOKIE,

Does this also mean we must stop calling CQ, and simply ask, "Hey, does anybody hear me?" ?

Phil C. Sr.
k4dpk










"


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: STAYVERTICAL on July 12, 2010, 05:55:51 PM
Nasa now:

SHUTTLE:
Houston, IXMP alert indicated, L2Warn annunciator.

HOUSTON:
Cancel IXMP, warning logged.


Nasa under no jargon rules:

SHUTTLE:
Hey Houston, I got this flashing thing going down and this really annoying ringtone in my hood.

HOUSTON:
Yo! Rad man, put that sucker down and chill.



Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AE4RV on July 12, 2010, 05:59:33 PM
 :D


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: W5HTW on July 13, 2010, 06:07:00 PM
Some people send N2EY de WB1AUW K
Some send HW? BK

Some send R
Some send RRR

Some people append QSL?

Fortunately, they don't say Kay.

In tests I send 5NN BK.  Sometimes I have to send AZ, 2, 7, 1k OR 1tt, but I only send the info once, not AZ AZ.  It seems to work a high percentage of the time.
DX ops get the same report 5NN BK

It all works FB here OT.

10-4; signal report that includes mud or trees; destinated; I'm at the home QTH--I QSY. 
NOTE: I QSY, not change frequency.
NOTE: I still remember what a key click sounds like and the sig report to indicate it.


73
Bob

A long time ago they DID say "Kay" but that was back in the AM days, before SSB became really popular. 


What gripes me is to hear somethiing like this.

Bill:  Yeah, QSL, Tom, I'm going to the flea market.  QSL?
Tom:  QSL, Bill, I'll be there early, QSL?
Bill:  QSL, Tom I'll be there by seven, QSL?
Tom:  QSL, Bill, I'll be there by eight, QSL?

Doesn't that make you sick? 

I think this "QSL" garbage came from CB.  As new hams, they substituted "QSL" for "ten four?"


Probably got chewed out for using ten four on HF, so they tossed in QSL instead.  Whatever the reason, I wish it would go away.  Sounds terrible.

If speaking on SSB, just pause.  No "KAY" no "over" no "QSL?"  The other guy, if he is awake at all, will realize you paused.  Unless you have put him to sleep.

With smooth CW technique, we don't do the "OK, NOW BK TO YOU, OM, HOW CPI?"

We just send "going to the flea market? " and pause.   That's all it takes.  Other guy says "I'll be there at 7."  Pause.  OK, we might end a transmission with "K" but no BK, no long drawn out bunch of words to cover "K". 

This "QSL" stuff got into ham radio in the last few years.  Before that it was always "roger", a ham approved word.  Maybe that was too close to "ten roger" so we got rid of it???

Yeah, QSL, I'll be on the super slab tomorrow, looking for the smokies.  QSL?

Ed


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: W7ETA on July 13, 2010, 10:38:07 PM
"Doesn't that make you sick? "

NOPE.  If I don't like what I hear. I don't continue listening.

For me BK has a distinctive cadence--no confusion what it means.  With K, one has to wait to see if another letter follows it.  In DX pile ups, with many USA ops having calls either starting with K or K in them, I send BK to the DX op.

If others approve or disapprove of it, it doesn't effect how electrons flow here in the Sonora Desert.

QSL?

73
Bob


Title: RE: "QSL ?"
Post by: AA1BN on July 14, 2010, 05:51:45 AM
QSL Bob, and tnx!

I always wondered why the guys were dropping ads for Burger King
at the turn-around.....



73s's

John

(over?)