[CW] AR or K after CQ?

Wed Jul 22 07:02:09 EDT 2009

I find it interesting that this prosign stuff comes up about every "full 
moon".  There is always interesting debate and so many reply with "this is 
the way it is, and thou shalt do it no other way".  Obviously, all are not 
correct but in light of the fact that this is just a hobby, a wonderful 
hobby, does it really make a hill of beans difference whether a guy ends a 
CQ with "K", or "AR K" or "PSE K"?  I guess the bottom line question would 
have to be if you heard someone CQing and they ended with any of the above 
(or other possibilities), would you NOT answer his CQ?  Heck, I hear CQ's 
ending with "KN" which does strike me as a bit funny, but I've even answered 
those "KN" CQs which were not CQing specifically like CQ NEVADA then KN.
Yes, I think if you are going to do something, then give it your best and 
that would mean doing it the recommended way, but really, is it a big deal? 
Just get on the air and off these blasted computers and "talk to somebody" 
ON THE AIR, hi.
73 and God Bless You All!
Tony, W4FOA

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "AD5VJ Bob" <rtnmi at sbcglobal.net>
To: "'CW Reflector'" <cw at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] AR or K after CQ?

> Hi Ron
>
> Normally one sends K at the end of a CQ to indicate your listening for any 
> station to reply. Then one should listen for at least the
> length of the CQ message given in case of QSB or poor band conditions.
>
> You can send AR K but it is not necessary to do so.
> You would be saying:
> AR 'end of message' (the CQ message)
> K 'end of transmission' listening
>
> Nothing really wrong with either or both but given together they are sorta 
> like double talk, which some regard as a waste of
> bandwidth and therefore LIDish.
>
> In my humble opinion the one everyone can leave off is the 'PSE' that 
> seems to be gaining in popularity with the automatic sending
> applications that are popular.
>
> It actually began with PSK not CW and to me is a knock off of someone 
> sending with an application rather than a keyer. I normally
> dont respond to those, just from my own personal desire to work a station 
> who is working a key.
>
> Not trying to be elitist here, I just like the sound of human CW, it tells 
> you a lot about the personality you are talking to.
>
> AR is 'end of message'
> SK is 'no reply necessary'
> K is 'end of transmission'
> KN is 'end of transmission listening for only station in QSO'
>
> Sent with a ? any of the above are asking a question of the recieving 
> station of the same defining characters.
>
> Doesn't really matter, as long as the CW is pure, which is not consistent 
> it seems these days for the most part on the bands.
>
> Bob AD5VJ
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cw-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>> [mailto:cw-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Ron Zond
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:56 PM
>> To: CW Reflector
>> Subject: Re: [CW] AR or K after CQ?
>>
>> Don
>>
>> In my 49 years of CW, it always seemed to be either\or and
>> didn't matter.
>> AR usually means end of message, or in traffic, end of
>> traffic, with various suffixes to indicate more traffic or
>> end of traffic, When I send CQ, I end with AR K. I still get replies.
>>
>> Ron
>> K3MIY
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cw-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:cw-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On
>> Behalf Of D. Chester
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:32 PM
>> To: cw at mailman.qth.net
>> Subject: [CW] AR or K after CQ?
>>
>>
>> I got into what turned into a heated debate recently over the
>> use of AR following a CQ.
>>
>> The other person said you should never send anything but K
>> after a CQ, and that it is poor operating to use AR.
>>
>> Isn't AR supposed to mean that you have made a call, and you
>> are standing by, listening for a station you have not yet
>> made contact with? For example, if I had a sked with W9XXX
>> and gave him a call, I would send W9XXX W9XXX de K4KYV AR.
>> Once I hear his reply and we have established contact, I
>> would then send W9XXX de K4KYV K (or KN).
>>
>> When I call CQ and stand by to listen, by definition, no
>> contact has yet been established with the station I
>> eventually contact. So wouldn't the appropriate prosign be
>> AR? To me, K implies that we have established contact and I
>> am telling him to "go ahead".
>>
>> I looked this up in some of my old books both ARRL and
>> non-ARRL.  Some of the more recent editions seem to prefer K,
>> but Handy's first edition of the ARRL handbook from the late
>> 20's used ._._. (AR).
>>
>> I say it is a matter of preference.  Who would be the
>> "authority" in such a matter?  I have heard it both ways in
>> all the 50  years I have been licensed.  To me, AR has a more
>> pleasant swing for ending a CQ, and it seems to better round
>> out the transmission.  K seems too abrupt.  I have never had
>> a problem getting someone to answer my CQ after sending AR.
>>
>>
>> Don k4kyv
>> _______________________________________________________________
>>
>> This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
>>
>> http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/
>> http://gigliwood.com/abcd/
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> CW mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> CW mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.21/2252 - Release Date: 07/21/09 
05:58:00