eHam

eHam Forums => Misc => Topic started by: TTOMAS59 on September 15, 2012, 07:13:23 PM



Title: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: TTOMAS59 on September 15, 2012, 07:13:23 PM
Instead of calling CQDX in voice, CW, or digital why not send CX.
Wouldn't it make life easier? I don't think anyone would confuse it with calling Uraguay at least not after people caught on.

My 2 cents.

Tim


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: G3RZP on September 16, 2012, 12:22:34 AM
Why call CQ DX at all? What do you mean by 'DX'? A different country, a different continent? Better is an aimed CQ to where the band is open or likely to be, such as CQ JA or CQ EU. Or just CQ.


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: KC4MOP on September 16, 2012, 05:04:26 AM
I've kinda wondered about that too. "CQ DX" lets the locals know I am only looking beyond the country I live in??
I agree CQ is good enough. Let the adventure begin!!!


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: KH6AQ on September 18, 2012, 08:36:54 AM
I like your idea of calling CX! Might the ARRL be able to give this a push?


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: WB2WIK on September 18, 2012, 09:16:11 AM
I think we should all send Bens best bent wire.


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K0OD on September 18, 2012, 09:47:02 AM
And what if the North Korean station looking for a Q on the frequency doesn't understand CX? LOL!

Would a regular CQ just become C? Or a long T?

I'm all in favor of making DX CQs longer and clearer. I do a lot of monitoring and it seems that about 10% of CQ DX calls around the bands are answered by non-DX for various reasons...rarely good ones. Such as, "I just wanted to let you know you're getting out."  (when the CQer is running a KW and big stack). 

Adding "No kids, no lids, no space cadets." might help.

To an experienced DXer the meaning of CQ DX is usually clear from the context. I call CQ DX on 60 meters but that's about the only situation. I usually finish by making it clear that I'm looking outside North America.

General rule: No CQ DX by U.S. stations. Generally it's an unproductive ego trip. A waste of spectrum. Something new hams do. 
   


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K8AXW on September 18, 2012, 10:03:36 AM
Tim:  Go for it!  One other guy got his 15 minutes of fame by getting the world to switch from cycles to hertz. 

Another got the FCC to pass a law saying that hams need to calculate their RF "footprint" to keep from irradiating their families and neighbors.

And the list goes on.

No reason why you can't do this.


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: AG6WT on September 18, 2012, 10:09:35 AM
So what if I'm calling CX CX CX de KJ6AMF K?

Am I calling any DX or do I really want Uruguay?

In general you would want a longer CQ and not shorter. Longer increases the likelihood of being found and the answering station needs time to zero beat. The only time I can think that you would want a shorter CQ is when in a contest in which case you would change it to something like CQ TST or CQP (e.g. California QSO Party).


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K0OD on September 18, 2012, 10:34:56 AM
Quote
One other guy got his 15 minutes of fame by getting the world to switch from cycles to hertz.

Hertz has been the SI unit for frequency since the 1930s I believe. I'm sure WW2 had something to do with the U.S. sticking with the non-political "cycles."  German hams called it "Hertz" long before we did.


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: AG6WT on September 18, 2012, 10:42:57 AM
Quote
One other guy got his 15 minutes of fame by getting the world to switch from cycles to hertz.

Hertz has been the SI unit for frequency since the 1930s I believe. I'm sure WW2 had something to do with the U.S. sticking with the non-political "cycles."  German hams called it "Hertz" long before we did.

The odd thing is that Heinrich Hertz, the German physicist from who the name of the frequency units came from, had a Jewish father.


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K8AXW on September 18, 2012, 10:01:32 PM
OD: I'm really not interested in the history of hertz vs. cycle.  All I know is the term cycle or cycles per second was in use long before I got into ham radio.  It is also a descriptive term which is easy to understand.  "X" number of hertz per second is no different than saying "X" number of Xydnes per second.  Both are nonsense.

But let's not get off subject. OK?  Sorry I commented.  I sometimes get annoyed at nonsensical changes.  Or the desire for nonsensical changes.


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: NI0C on September 19, 2012, 02:25:03 PM
K8AXW wrote:
Quote
All I know is the term cycle or cycles per second was in use long before I got into ham radio.  It is also a descriptive term which is easy to understand.  "X" number of hertz per second is no different than saying "X" number of Xydnes per second.  Both are nonsense.

The unit for cyclical frequency (as opposed to radian frequency) is simply "Hertz."  It's not Hertz per second.  Hertz per second would be the correct units for a sweep rate of some sort.
73,
Chuck  NI0C


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K8AXW on September 19, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
Thank Chuck.  That's good to know.  They should put it on the Extra exam.


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: N9AOP on September 20, 2012, 02:12:12 AM
Early on I was told that when someone calls CQ DX, they are looking for a contact outside the country of their call.  What I would really like to know is what the record time of a CQ DX is.  In June I heard one that seemed to go on forever.  When the op called again I timed it and got 46 seconds from start to finish.


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K8AXW on September 20, 2012, 09:53:02 AM
AOP:  That my friend is either automation or desperation!  Probably desperation!   :D


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K3OWZ on September 20, 2012, 03:03:53 PM
Never confuse change with progress.


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: N9KX on September 20, 2012, 03:41:09 PM
Never confuse change with progress.

QSL!


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K7KBN on October 03, 2012, 07:11:38 AM
And what if the North Korean station looking for a Q on the frequency doesn't understand CX? LOL!   

There's one of my pet peeves:  "looking for a Q".  A QTH? QSY? Question? QSL? Quasar?

If "QSO" is what is meant, it's only two more keystrokes.


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: N2EY on October 03, 2012, 11:11:37 AM
"CX" means "Classic Exchange", an operating activity/contest involving using older equipment.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K0OD on October 03, 2012, 12:09:18 PM
Quote
"If "QSO" is what is meant, it's only two more keystrokes."

What if the N Korean is on phone where Q-signals shouldn't be used, according to some? LOL

Actually I think the meaning has evolved where QSO now tends to be used for "conversation" while Q implies a minimally "legal" contact, such as in a contest or pileup.


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: KK4CPH on October 06, 2012, 09:08:17 PM
Early on I was told that when someone calls CQ DX, they are looking for a contact outside the country of their call.

So would an op in Maine object to an answer from an op in San Diego or Fairbanks?
How about scanning the bands for a foreign station calling CQ and answer them?
Just a thought.   ;)

Eric


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: G3RZP on October 07, 2012, 04:48:29 AM
According to the UK 'Handbook for Radio Operators', aimed at the old maritime service, the use of Q codes on radio telephony is permitted: where it is a question (QRM? on CW) it is 'QRM RQ' on telephony.

The reasoning is that it permits communication, admittedly probably with some difficulty, in situations where there is no common language.


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K0YHV on October 10, 2012, 08:10:38 AM
And what if the North Korean station looking for a Q on the frequency doesn't understand CX? LOL!   

There's one of my pet peeves:  "looking for a Q".  A QTH? QSY? Question? QSL? Quasar?

If "QSO" is what is meant, it's only two more keystrokes.

Wow, working a Quasar!  Now that would be some DX!  Might take a long time for the QSL to arrive, though.

John AF5CC


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K8AXW on October 10, 2012, 08:51:24 AM
This whole discussion reminded me of a story a comedian told.  He said he attended a Comedian Convention.  The guest speaker, instead of making the classic type of speech was simply saying, "57, 101, 96,4, and so on."  With the utterance of each number the audience would respond with howls of laughter.

When someone asked about this, he was told that all the comedians in the audience knew all the jokes which had been assigned numbers and the speaker was imply giving the them number of the joke and they laughed.

So, with that thought, why not shorten and simplify our QSOs with, "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., each representing something like name, QTH, signal report and so on?


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: G3RZP on October 10, 2012, 10:26:44 AM
So figure what numbers for

The name is Nebuchadnezzar, the QTH is Milngavie  (pronouced 'Mulguy'), the rig is a KW2000B, the antenna is a G8KW trap dipole......

It would be 6 digit numbers for each part!


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K8AXW on October 10, 2012, 10:06:43 PM
Peter:  No.....nyet...... it would be 1 al, 2 keyser, wv, 3 RST is.....4, etc, etc.  No words, no Q signals......see how the contact could be shortened? 

Maybe this guy is on to something!


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: G3RZP on October 11, 2012, 03:03:57 AM
half the time, you get your call followed by '5NN 5NN K'  anyway!


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K0OD on October 12, 2012, 08:39:58 AM
Quote
When someone asked about this, he was told that all the comedians in the audience knew all the jokes which had been assigned numbers and the speaker was imply giving the them number of the joke and they laughed.

Here's how the full joke goes [two versions]... So the guest decides to tell his own joke. Picking a number at random, he yells out "77."  The room becomes dead quiet. Puzzled, he looks at his host for advice, who replies:

1) "We've heard that one."

2) "Some people just don't know how to tell a joke."



Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K8AXW on October 12, 2012, 09:49:26 AM
OD:  Very funny!!   :D


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: KE7VZW on October 13, 2012, 10:28:15 PM
Calling CQ DX is a major turnoff IMO


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: W8JI on October 14, 2012, 05:31:13 AM
People need to get over worrying about other people.

I call CQ DX any time when I am looking for foreign contacts. It is virtually always productive, and tells stateside people I am looking for quick longer distance contacts. The last thing I want to do in the common DX areas of any band is work across town when the band is open for 10,000 miles.

As a matter of fact, it is wasteful to work 1000 miles on prime frequencies that are populated and usable for much longer distances.

As for just waiting for DX, that depends on if the DX is transmitting and can be found. As a general rule the stronger station should initiate a random frequency random calling long distance QSO. It is different for skeds or planned operation, but for randomly initiated contacts it is far more effective for the higher ERP station to start the ball rolling.

In the 1960's, when power was limited on 160 meters and antennas and equipment were generally poor,  USA stations called CQ DX on the even first parts of 5 minute periods, and DX called on the start of odd 5 minute periods. That was standard operating. It was agreed to world wide by anyone wanting to work across the ocean to NA.

Somehow someone gave people authority to disparage and dictate what great Lids people are when they qualify where or who they really want to work, and somehow we gave authority to people to say operating habits that are actually pretty reasonable and effective are not good because someone finds they don't work for them, or they personally just don't like the method.

Many larger stations have been the first DX contact for 100's of smaller stations on 160 meters, and it is because of CQ's followed by careful listening for DX signals down in the noise. It is almost impossible to do it the other way, and find a noise floor signal that is calling CQ for their first ever DX contact.

I'm sure this applies for other bands, too.

73 Tom


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: G3RZP on October 14, 2012, 06:45:55 AM
>It is almost impossible to do it the other way, and find a noise floor signal that is calling CQ for their first ever DX contact.<

It was by no means my first 160m DX contact, but that was what the VK0 on Heard Island was doing when I worked him - and he was WEAK!

But it doesn't happen very often.......


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K0OD on October 14, 2012, 08:43:12 AM
Quote
I call CQ DX any time when I am looking for foreign contacts. It is virtually always productive

I'm making a wild guess that most U.S. stations calling CQ DX aren't using 200'-300'+ tall arrays and such.  From where I am, in the center of the country, calling CQ DX on a small  inverted L on 160 would be pure ego-trip and a waste of spectrum.  

http://www.w8ji.com/transmitting%20antennas.htm


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: STAYVERTICAL on October 14, 2012, 02:06:06 PM
To me, when I hear a station calling CQ DX I just assume he/she wants an "out of country" contact, not specified.
If they are after a specific continent, I hear them calling CQ EU or CQ NA or CQ VK or whatever else they want.

I am not against CQ DX being called since it flags that station does not want domestic QSO's at this time.
This avoids me wasting his time, and having an awkward QSO.

Personally I never call CQ DX, since I am happy to talk to anyone, anywhere, for as long as they like.
But that is not everyone's interest in ham radio, and I understand that.
For example, I dislike contests, and so on those weekends, I retreat to the WARC bands and leave them to their melee.
Like living in a big city of millions, there are lots of different activities available - we have the luxury of picking and choosing.

73 - Rob


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: K4DPK on October 14, 2012, 09:17:51 PM
No


Phil C. Sr.
k4dpk


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: W8JI on October 15, 2012, 12:28:00 AM
When we all started on 160, the typical antenna and power was a dipole at 30 feet and 100 watts. No one knew much about anything, and LORAN limited power. The Brits were allowed 10 watts plate input power, like most European countries.

Timed CQ's were of great value, or very few QSO's would happen.

CQ's have equal or more value today, because in order to make a contact SOMEONE has to call to get things rolling. If no one calls, no one will answer. Not only that, there no longer is a small DX Window. A DX station can be almost anywhere within a wider range now.

I think the general guideline is when no contacts are being made, someone has to call. It doesn't do much good for 10 people to call CQ, but someone has to. It doesn't do any good if no one calls.

73 Tom


Title: RE: CX instead of CQDX
Post by: G3RZP on October 15, 2012, 01:26:03 AM
<The Brits were allowed 10 watts plate input power, like most European countries.>

Despite which, with a genuine ten watts, a couple of guys worked VK.

A bigger problem I've had is deliberate QRM from people who can't work DX and so want to stop others working it. It seems to be getting more of a problem, too. That didn't used to be the case.