Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

CQ U/D method

Expand Messages
  • wb3bel
    I saw Al s and others responses to the Random QSO threads advocating use of U/D method when calling for randoms on the calling frequencies. I d like to weigh
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I saw Al's and others responses to the Random QSO threads advocating
      use of U/D method when calling for randoms on the calling frequencies.

      I'd like to weigh in with a few observations and opinions.

      I most often call CQ using U/D methods.

      Sometimes I don't and here is why:

      1. A lot of stations don't seem to understand the U/D method.
      Calling U/D means that the station calling CQ is listening for
      replies up or down from the frequency on which he is calling by some
      integer number of kHz. So if you decode a station sending CQU7 or CQ
      U7 while you are monitoring 50.260 this means the caller is listening
      up 7 KHz and you should call them and listen for them on 50.267. If
      the CQing station hears you they will switch to TX and RX on 50.267.
      This is NOT a conventional split operation like you hear DXpeditions
      use. The CQing station will change frequencies when he hears a
      reply. The replying station should TX and RX on a single frequency in
      this example 50.267. CQD7 or CQ D7 similarly means you should reply
      on 50.253. The advantage of this U/D method is that it allows more
      users access to the calling frequency with less interference. A
      second advantage of the U/D method is that it allows use of SH tones
      with less ambiguity of whether they are intended for the recipient.
      Use of SH usually allows for faster QSO completion as the WSJT
      decoder is much more sensitive to SH messages. It is considered poor
      operating practice by most to send SH on the calling frequency and
      rely on a DF indication to provide some indication that it is coming
      from the station you are working. I agree that it is not a good
      practice in general although I think sending the 73 SH is acceptable
      under some circumstances.

      2. Some of the downside to U/D method is that if there is very light
      use of the calling frequency those monitoring in the shack are less
      likely to hear one or both sides of the contact and attempt a follow-
      up QSO.

      3. A second downside is that use of the U/D method means that the
      station replying to the CQing station is blind to hearing the CQing
      station or other stations on the calling frequency. So what can
      happen is that the CQing station does not hear the calling station
      and decides to quit or turn the antenna to a different azimuth. The
      replying station is sending both calls on the U/D and listening there
      as well. After a while with no response to the reply, the replying
      station may decide to listen again on the Calling frequency. With
      Murphy's law this will be just when the CQing station ping arrives on
      the U/D frequency. I hope that Software Defined Radio and future
      version of software allow simultaneous decoding multiple frequencies
      to resolve this issue.

      4. A third downside is that the U/D method means you need to have a
      longer ping to decode the whole CQ sequence with callsign and U/D
      data to know how to respond.

      5. There is more chance of operator error using U/D. Failure to
      switch to the U/D frequency. Math error calculating the right
      frequency etc.

      So in summary, my opinion is that if there is significant activity
      then use the U/D method. This includes Meteor showers, Contests,
      Well published grid activation etc. It may also include peak periods
      of the day when there are lots (hopefully) of operators.

      The times I sometimes don't use U/D is if I am portable, rover or
      mobile during non-contest periods and there does not seem to be any
      activity. I think it will slightly increase my chance of making a
      QSO.

      Hopefully activity will pick up and we will all be using U/D but as
      it appears on the East Coast now it's all a bit academic due to lack
      of pressure on the call frequencies.

      73 -Harry WB3BEL
    • Harry Popov
      ... This seems to be very complex for many of us. This was the reason European Letter system failed years ago. Now in Europe we do use very simple method: CQ
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 30, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 15:56 +0000, wb3bel wrote:

        > 1. A lot of stations don't seem to understand the U/D method.
        > Calling U/D means that the station calling CQ is listening for
        > replies up or down from the frequency on which he is calling by some
        > integer number of kHz. So if you decode a station sending CQU7 or CQ
        > U7 while you are monitoring 50.260 this means the caller is listening
        > up 7 KHz and you should call them and listen for them on 50.267.

        This seems to be very complex for many of us. This was the reason
        European "Letter" system failed years ago. Now in Europe we do use very
        simple method:

        CQ 267 LZ1BB

        It means LZ1BB is listening for callers on 50.267 (if we operate 50Mhz).
        Symple and easy. Actually reading this discussion group I really wonder
        why NA amateurs are ignoring long term established MS practice of
        Europeans? All such details are very well established already in Europe
        by MS enthusiasts on 144 Mhz. You could just follow and use without any
        problem.

        Ignoring European experience and starting from scratch the MS procedures
        is mistake. You are just loosing time. It is not necessory to strugle
        all children deseases we already passed. I will give you an example.
        According all specialists Bulgarian alphabet is the most perfect
        alphabet in the world. Why? The answer from specialists is very simple:
        Because it was the last created alphabet in the world and took all the
        best features from all already known alphabets. (Many call Bulgarian
        alphabet Russian alphabet. Even Bill Gates. This is very wrong as
        Russian alphabet does never exists. The alphabet was created much before
        Russia was existing on the map as a country.)

        So looking for different MS procedures then those well established in
        Europe seems to have political reasons but not practical as EU
        procedures are very well proved and passed the examen of the time.

        Another thought. Who has interest from different standards of MS
        procedures in EU and NA? It will be better to have one standard isn't
        it?

        73, Harry LZ1BB
      • Dave Miller
        Thanks Harry, That does sound like a good system, and some of us do use that format for our random and contest operations. However, here in the US we try to
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 30, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Harry,

          That does sound like a good system, and some of us do use that format
          for our random and contest operations. However, here in the US we try
          to complicate things as much as possible to make it more challenging
          to complete the QSO. So we try not to standardize on anything that
          might serve to diminish the thrill of making a contact.

          Some of us actually switch to vertical polarization just to make the
          signal weaker during band openings. And I myself am trying to make my
          first EME QSO on the pre-rising or post-setting moon, well before the
          proverbial 6db of free gain makes it far too easy!

          But thanks for your helpful advice and I look forward to working you
          one day on SunBounce!

          73's de N9SS, Dave

          --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, Harry Popov <lz1bb@...> wrote:
          >
          > On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 15:56 +0000, wb3bel wrote:
          >
          > > 1. A lot of stations don't seem to understand the U/D method.
          > > Calling U/D means that the station calling CQ is listening for
          > > replies up or down from the frequency on which he is calling by some
          > > integer number of kHz. So if you decode a station sending CQU7 or CQ
          > > U7 while you are monitoring 50.260 this means the caller is listening
          > > up 7 KHz and you should call them and listen for them on 50.267.
          >
          > This seems to be very complex for many of us. This was the reason
          > European "Letter" system failed years ago. Now in Europe we do use very
          > simple method:
          >
          > CQ 267 LZ1BB
          >
          > It means LZ1BB is listening for callers on 50.267 (if we operate 50Mhz).
          > Symple and easy. Actually reading this discussion group I really wonder
          > why NA amateurs are ignoring long term established MS practice of
          > Europeans? All such details are very well established already in Europe
          > by MS enthusiasts on 144 Mhz. You could just follow and use without any
          > problem.
          >
          > Ignoring European experience and starting from scratch the MS procedures
          > is mistake. You are just loosing time. It is not necessory to strugle
          > all children deseases we already passed. I will give you an example.
          > According all specialists Bulgarian alphabet is the most perfect
          > alphabet in the world. Why? The answer from specialists is very simple:
          > Because it was the last created alphabet in the world and took all the
          > best features from all already known alphabets. (Many call Bulgarian
          > alphabet Russian alphabet. Even Bill Gates. This is very wrong as
          > Russian alphabet does never exists. The alphabet was created much before
          > Russia was existing on the map as a country.)
          >
          > So looking for different MS procedures then those well established in
          > Europe seems to have political reasons but not practical as EU
          > procedures are very well proved and passed the examen of the time.
          >
          > Another thought. Who has interest from different standards of MS
          > procedures in EU and NA? It will be better to have one standard isn't
          > it?
          >
          > 73, Harry LZ1BB
          >
        • ab3bk
          You speak as though Europe has been doing MS longer than NA? Radios were invented after the new world was discovered. In fact, well I won t get into that
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 30, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            You speak as though Europe has been doing MS longer than NA? Radios
            were invented "after" the new world was discovered. In fact, well I
            won't get into that :-)

            Politics has nothing to do with it, although you would like to think that.

            You method is very similar, see below

            CQ 267 LZ1BB
            CQ LZ1BB U7

            I like yours better, but we are pretty established already.

            73
            Dave NZ3M



            --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, Harry Popov <lz1bb@...> wrote:
            >
            > On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 15:56 +0000, wb3bel wrote:
            >
            > > 1. A lot of stations don't seem to understand the U/D method.
            > > Calling U/D means that the station calling CQ is listening for
            > > replies up or down from the frequency on which he is calling by some
            > > integer number of kHz. So if you decode a station sending CQU7 or CQ
            > > U7 while you are monitoring 50.260 this means the caller is listening
            > > up 7 KHz and you should call them and listen for them on 50.267.
            >
            > This seems to be very complex for many of us. This was the reason
            > European "Letter" system failed years ago. Now in Europe we do use very
            > simple method:
            >
            > CQ 267 LZ1BB
            >
            > It means LZ1BB is listening for callers on 50.267 (if we operate 50Mhz).
            > Symple and easy. Actually reading this discussion group I really wonder
            > why NA amateurs are ignoring long term established MS practice of
            > Europeans? All such details are very well established already in Europe
            > by MS enthusiasts on 144 Mhz. You could just follow and use without any
            > problem.
            >
            > Ignoring European experience and starting from scratch the MS procedures
            > is mistake. You are just loosing time. It is not necessory to strugle
            > all children deseases we already passed. I will give you an example.
            > According all specialists Bulgarian alphabet is the most perfect
            > alphabet in the world. Why? The answer from specialists is very simple:
            > Because it was the last created alphabet in the world and took all the
            > best features from all already known alphabets. (Many call Bulgarian
            > alphabet Russian alphabet. Even Bill Gates. This is very wrong as
            > Russian alphabet does never exists. The alphabet was created much before
            > Russia was existing on the map as a country.)
            >
            > So looking for different MS procedures then those well established in
            > Europe seems to have political reasons but not practical as EU
            > procedures are very well proved and passed the examen of the time.
            >
            > Another thought. Who has interest from different standards of MS
            > procedures in EU and NA? It will be better to have one standard isn't
            > it?
            >
            > 73, Harry LZ1BB
            >
          • David Ackrill
            ... It would seem that, in both cases, an attitude of Not Invented Here prevails. Oh great, that means nothing will change and confusion will still occur.
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 30, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              ab3bk wrote:
              > You speak as though Europe has been doing MS longer than NA? Radios
              > were invented "after" the new world was discovered. In fact, well I
              > won't get into that :-)
              >
              > Politics has nothing to do with it, although you would like to think that.
              >
              > --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, Harry Popov <lz1bb@...> wrote:
              >> On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 15:56 +0000, wb3bel wrote:
              >>
              >>> 1. A lot of stations don't seem to understand the U/D method.

              >> So looking for different MS procedures then those well established in
              >> Europe seems to have political reasons but not practical as EU
              >> procedures are very well proved and passed the examen of the time.

              It would seem that, in both cases, an attitude of 'Not Invented Here'
              prevails.

              Oh great, that means nothing will change and confusion will still occur.

              Situation normal, as in the rest of life, then?

              Dave (G0DJA)
            • Dave Miller
              To the contrary, Dave, Please do not interpret my attempt at satire as any disrespect for the European community s ideas, discoveries, and accomplishments.
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                To the contrary, Dave,

                Please do not interpret my attempt at satire as any disrespect for the
                European community's ideas, discoveries, and accomplishments. Most of
                what I've learned about VHF weak signal work has come from the wealth
                of information that is available from European websites and your
                selfless pioneers who have so graciously shared their knowledge with
                the world.

                I am sure there are some who feel as you say, but I would hope they
                are a minority. One only needs to review the VHF QSO history on
                VH6VQ's excellent website to see the fruits of the European labors in
                terms of thousands of Aurora, ES, MS,.... contacts that are made each
                year by an impressive army of VHF enthusiasts!

                I myself think that we here in the US have much to learn from the
                European amateur radio community who have been the epitome of true
                electronics pioneers and experimenters. So from the US to Europe let
                me just say, thank you, and keep up the great work!

                de N9SS, Dave

                ps. Oh yes, and thank you that Yagi guy and to the rest of the world!



                > It would seem that, in both cases, an attitude of 'Not Invented Here'
                > prevails.
                >
                > Oh great, that means nothing will change and confusion will still occur.
                >
                > Situation normal, as in the rest of life, then?
                >
                > Dave (G0DJA)
                >


                my previous post:

                Thanks Harry,

                That does sound like a good system, and some of us do use that format
                for our random and contest operations. However, here in the US we try
                to complicate things as much as possible to make it more challenging
                to complete the QSO. So we try not to standardize on anything that
                might serve to diminish the thrill of making a contact.

                Some of us actually switch to vertical polarization just to make the
                signal weaker during band openings. And I myself am trying to make my
                first EME QSO on the pre-rising or post-setting moon, well before the
                proverbial 6db of free gain makes it far too easy!

                But thanks for your helpful advice and I look forward to working you
                one day on SunBounce!

                73's de N9SS, Dave
              • Randy Tipton
                Dave I use the CQ 267 LZ1BB method for JT6M mode. I don t really have a reason, just a habit I guess. When trying to work weak e s across the pond I think
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dave I use the CQ 267 LZ1BB method for JT6M mode. I don't really have a
                  reason, just a habit I guess.
                  When trying to work weak e's across the pond I think it's best to use the
                  method Eu is using rather than risk losing a contact. For FSK441 I use the
                  U/D method on both six and two meters.

                  The Up/Dn method is explained very well in the SOP. That link is on the PJ
                  page. There is really no excuse for "not knowing" or am I too hard?

                  I generally combine the CQXX together without a space then my call. The
                  shorter the message the better for two meters pings. CQD5_WA5UFH vs.
                  CQ_D5_WA5UFH

                  The other day I was calling CQD6 and a station called me D5. He probably
                  decoded 5 instead of 6. Not a problem just moved up and worked him after
                  hearing the off freq. ping.

                  Tip



                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "ab3bk" <dave@...>
                  To: <wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:55 PM
                  Subject: [wsjtgroup] Re: CQ U/D method


                  > You speak as though Europe has been doing MS longer than NA? Radios
                  > were invented "after" the new world was discovered. In fact, well I
                  > won't get into that :-)
                  >
                  > Politics has nothing to do with it, although you would like to think that.
                  >
                  > You method is very similar, see below
                  >
                  > CQ 267 LZ1BB
                  > CQ LZ1BB U7
                  >
                  > I like yours better, but we are pretty established already.
                  >
                  > 73
                  > Dave NZ3M
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, Harry Popov <lz1bb@...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >> On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 15:56 +0000, wb3bel wrote:
                  >>
                  >> > 1. A lot of stations don't seem to understand the U/D method.
                  >> > Calling U/D means that the station calling CQ is listening for
                  >> > replies up or down from the frequency on which he is calling by some
                  >> > integer number of kHz. So if you decode a station sending CQU7 or CQ
                  >> > U7 while you are monitoring 50.260 this means the caller is listening
                  >> > up 7 KHz and you should call them and listen for them on 50.267.
                  >>
                  >> This seems to be very complex for many of us. This was the reason
                  >> European "Letter" system failed years ago. Now in Europe we do use very
                  >> simple method:
                  >>
                  >> CQ 267 LZ1BB
                  >>
                  >> It means LZ1BB is listening for callers on 50.267 (if we operate 50Mhz).
                  >> Symple and easy. Actually reading this discussion group I really wonder
                  >> why NA amateurs are ignoring long term established MS practice of
                  >> Europeans? All such details are very well established already in Europe
                  >> by MS enthusiasts on 144 Mhz. You could just follow and use without any
                  >> problem.
                  >>
                  >> Ignoring European experience and starting from scratch the MS procedures
                  >> is mistake. You are just loosing time. It is not necessory to strugle
                  >> all children deseases we already passed. I will give you an example.
                  >> According all specialists Bulgarian alphabet is the most perfect
                  >> alphabet in the world. Why? The answer from specialists is very simple:
                  >> Because it was the last created alphabet in the world and took all the
                  >> best features from all already known alphabets. (Many call Bulgarian
                  >> alphabet Russian alphabet. Even Bill Gates. This is very wrong as
                  >> Russian alphabet does never exists. The alphabet was created much before
                  >> Russia was existing on the map as a country.)
                  >>
                  >> So looking for different MS procedures then those well established in
                  >> Europe seems to have political reasons but not practical as EU
                  >> procedures are very well proved and passed the examen of the time.
                  >>
                  >> Another thought. Who has interest from different standards of MS
                  >> procedures in EU and NA? It will be better to have one standard isn't
                  >> it?
                  >>
                  >> 73, Harry LZ1BB
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
                  > wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Activity Periods http://www.ykc.com/wa5ufh/
                  > NAHSMS Contest Page http://www.ykc.com/wa5ufh/Rally/NAHSMS.htm
                  > Logging Indicator/Activity
                  > :http://baseportal.com/cgi-bin/baseportal.pl?htx=/randy_tipton/Test%20(Activity%20Database)/Meteor_Scatter_Reports
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.