[Fists] USING THE Q-SIGNAL QRL? DUMMY LOADS ANYONE?]]]

Sat Jan 13 19:21:39 EST 2007

Thanks John.  Yep.  Seems that way.  That said, rest assured that you
will not be QRM'd by my station sending QRL? 

Jozef WB2MIC

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Fists] USING THE Q-SIGNAL QRL? DUMMY LOADS ANYONE?]]
Date: 	Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:12:30 -0500
From: 	John <Jwh_fla at hotmail.com>
To: 	Jozef Hand-Boniakowski, Ph.D. <jozef at metaphoria.org>, FISTS USA
<fists at mailman.qth.net>
References: 	<45A95D06.4050200 at metaphoria.org>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jozef Hand-Boniakowski, Ph.D." <jozef at metaphoria.org>
To: "FISTS USA" <fists at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:28 PM
Subject: [Fists] USING THE Q-SIGNAL QRL? DUMMY LOADS ANYONE?]]

> Sending CC's may delay your post. If you feel that your post needs to go 
> to more than one destination please send them separately.
>
>
>
> Once again, with all due respect, I do not take "offense" for that would
> indicate taking things personally.  I see the use of QRL? as being a
> source of unnecessary QRM.  I have operated 20 meters CW, often
> intensely, since 1963.  Not once have I found it necessary to use QRL?
> Simply listening for a while will tell me much about the frequency's
> usage or lack thereof.  I suspect that in this age of constant instant
> gratification, the quick fix, QRL?, fits right in.  If you check my
> post  where I referenced N6CQ, I did not refer to or call him an
> expert.  That is a conclusion drawn by others.  Regarding the use of
> QRL? over time, I sense that it's use has devolved more than it has
> "evolved".  It adds little to good operating practices, but does add to
> a good amount of QRM.
>
> Jozef WB2MIC
>
> PS.  Speaking of devolution.  I suspect that with the elimination of CW
> as a requirement for ham licenses, the ARRL will change its sad notice
> column from "Silent Keys" to "Silent Microphones" or "Silent Keyboards"?
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Fists] USING THE Q-SIGNAL QRL? DUMMY LOADS ANYONE?]
> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:32:20 -0500
> From: W2AGN <w2agn at pobox.com>
> To: FISTS USA <fists at mailman.qth.net>
> References: <45A94D55.4070704 at metaphoria.org>
>
>
>
> Sending CC's may delay your post. If you feel that your post needs to go 
> to more than one destination please send them separately.
>
>
>
> Jozef Hand-Boniakowski, Ph.D. wrote:
>>
>> W8FAX presents evidence to support that QRL? fails in its intended
>> purpose.  It is possible that the reason one does not get a response
>> from a QRL? queerie is that the the statione being QRM'd the QRL? is
>> mumbling expletives under their breath. On Sun, 23 Jul 1995 N6CQ
>> bill.lumnitzer at paonline.com wrote:
>>
>>  > QRL and all the other "Q" signals come from CW traffic handling, the
>>  > precedent of contesting. "QRL?" means: "Are YOU busy?" (handling 
>> traffic)
>>  > and was directed to a SPECIFIC station. Somehow, it has been 
>> transformed
>>  > (incorrectly) over the last couple of decades to mean "Is this 
>> FREQUENCY
>>  > busy?".  About half the time, if you send QRL? in a contest, a 
>> passerby
>>  > will respond R and start CQing!
>>
>> See QRL from the 1936 handbook at http://www.cebik.com/tales/qsig.html
>> It's intent was to be used when a two way communications has already
>> been established.
>>
>> Jozef WB2MIC
> The use of QRL? to ask if a frequency is in use has evolved, as have many 
> things since 1936! The idea is, you may not, particularly on 20m, hear 
> both sides of a QSO. A quick QRL? lets the other station respond "C" . It 
> is a courtesy. You are the only one I have EVER heard of that finds 
> offense at this usage. (And perhaps N6CQ, although I fail to see what 
> makes him an "expert." He equates "incorrectly" with "evolved." )
>
> _    _    _    _    _
> / \  / \  / \  / \  / \   John L. Sielke
> ( W )( 2 )( A )( G )( N )  http://w2agn.net
> \_/  \_/  \_/  \_/  \_/   http://www.blurty.com/users/w2agn

Consensus seems to be running against you, OM, and although I strongly agree 
with you on ill mannered "tuning up" on top of ongoing qsos, I just as 
strongly disagree on QRL? Doesn't mean you shouldn't also listen first 
before doing anything else, but for all the good reasons previously given 
plus the potential for quick changes in propagation, QRL? also has a 
legitimate, worthwhile place in our operating toolkit.

73 de John, ks4xn 

-- 

Jozef Hand-Boniakowski, Ph.D
Metaphoria
http://www.metaphoria.org