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

[Jozef Hand-Boniakowski, Ph.D.]

My novice was issued Dec 23, 1963 WN2MIC and I don't recall QRL being
part of the operating procedures.  I do remember that listening to make
sure that frequency is clear was.  As for changing common practice,
well, yes, it does work.  Smoking in public places is an example of a
common practice that is so no longer.  Slavery is another.  Denying
women the vote, etc.  And oh yes, at one time it was common practice to
require a CW send and receive test to get a ham ticket.  Those special
interests that felt this common practice should be no more certainly
succeeded.  I suggest that discussions about improving operating
practices are a good thing.  I think that we would all agree that good
operating practices, and common practices, and not the same thing.

73, Jozef WB2MIC

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Fists] USING THE Q-SIGNAL QRL? DUMMY LOADS ANYONE?
Date: 	Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:41:58 -0500
From: 	Ernie Howard <w8eh-Ernie at cinci.rr.com>
To: 	FISTS USA <fists at mailman.qth.net>
References: 	<45A91C3B.50609 at metaphoria.org>



Maybe you missed something along the way, but when I started out as a novice 
(in 1972) I was instructed to always listen on my frequency, the send QRL? 
It is defined in about every CW instruction book that I have as "is this 
frequency in use". I've heard and sent many QRL? signals over the years.

I see that you noticed that it is common practice. Do you expect to change 
common practice, that works?

W8EH


Jozef Hand-Boniakowski, Ph.D. wrote:
> 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. 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks:
> 
> This has been bothering me for some time.  I have noticed that it is
> common practice for CW ops today, many FISTS,  to send either QRL? or
> the CW character for "repeat" dit-dit-dah-dah-dit-dit when checking to
> see if a frequency is busy.  I contend that this is poor operating
> practice.  First, it is an unidentified transmission (if not followed by
> a callsign).  Second, it already has caused unnecessary QRM if the
> answer to the question is "yes".  Third, would one expect to receive a
> reply of "no"?  It is akin to going on a repeater and asking "is the
> frequency in use?"  Listening would reveal that.  A good CW op will
> listen, and then, they will listen again.  And, then again, listen.  Not
> just for 10 seconds.  Or a minute.  But, a good number of minutes, at
> least as long as one typical transmission that a CW station in a QSO
> would make.  FISTS is a good group, and it should be spreading good
> operating practices.  I do not believe that sending QRL? in the blind is
> a good operating practice.  The other good operating practice I would
> like to suggest is using a dummy load to tune up the rig.  If that is
> not possible (not owning a dummy load), how about at least moving off of
> a busy frequency and tuning up on a clear frequency as determined by
> listening as per above (taking as little time as possible), and then,
> identifying?.
> 
> Jozef WB2MIC
> Wells VT
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Fists mailing list
> Fists at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists
> 

-- 

------------------------------------------------------
Ernie Howard, Jr    W8EH    Middletown, Ohio
E-mail: w8eh at arrl.net
How's the weather at W8EH? - http://wx.findu.com/w8eh
Web Page: http://home.cinci.rr.com/w8eh
------------------------------------------------------



-- 

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