[CW] Re: CQD / SOS

[John Alcorn VK2JWA]

Hi Ed.
Thank you for you posting.
The word definitions applied are not valid, probably memory joggers.
These are derived from folklore myths that have grown up over years.

At the first Wireless Telegraph Conference held in Berlin in 1903 it was
discussed that a form of distress signal be established.
The Italian Gov suggested  SSSDDD, not adopted but DDD was adopted in 1906
directing that all stations must cease sending.
They left it to a committee to decide.
Like most committees, nothing happened.

In 1904 the Marconi Company, after much fruitless prompting, got sick of
waiting and introduced their own signal -  CQD.
This was from the General Call to any  station   CQ   plus D for distress.

Later applied words were simply folklore or possibly memory prompters.

In 1905 the German Govt introduced  SOS  as an Inquiry Call  and SOE  as a
Distress Call.

At the Second Wireless Telegraph Conference in 1906 these were discussed.
Details are not recorded but discussion was that the final E (dot) of SOE
might be lost in noise etc and missed.
SOS was adopted as being easily recognised and a combination unlikely to
occur in ordinary traffic.
Words attributed to SOS are purely mythical or memory reminders.
SOS was not immediately adopted,  eg - UK 1908, USA 1912.
CQD, well known, remained in use for many years. Titanic used both in 1912.

For more details goto -
http://www.qrz.co.il/news.php?pid=113&pin=5

73,
John Alcorn, VK2JWA
vk2jwa at sarc.org.au
http://www.nor.com.au/community/sarc/phonetic.htm




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.16/225 - Release Date: 9/01/2006