Re: Contest Misc.


ljl2002@att.net
 

I think that you figured it out Paul. 

If everybody waits then the CQ'er will just call CQ again prompting another "collision". (or is that collusion?)
I agree. Best to sit back and observe the mayhem and maybe you can tail-end it.
It's always fun.  If it is not, then it's time to walk away.
73
Joe
KA1PPV  #1482


On Monday, October 10, 2016 2:42 PM, "John Raynsford al7jk@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:


 
"I get two (or more) stations answering my CQ at the same time.
N4GBK"  Someday I hope to have that happen on 160 m :)
No traces on my waterfall hr during the event.

73 de AL7JK, John
podxs #2094


On Monday, October 10, 2016 10:07 AM, "Paul Butzi kg7stv@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:


 
In the world of computer networking, two stations transmitting at the same time with the result that the receiver gets a garbled mess is called a ‘collision’.

Since collisions lower network thruput, considerable time and effort has been invested in finding good ways to resolve collisions.

The basic idea of essentially every algorithm amounts to ensuring that different transmitting stations adjust their timing differently, so that you don’t just get repeated collisions as each transmitter retries.

As a first order approximation, that would amount to a strategy where if you collide answering a CQ, do not just do exactly what you did again, but instead do something different.

My observation from watching pileups on the air is that nearly everyone pursues the strategy of “answer the CQ as quickly as possible’ without variation.  That’s probably suboptimal for everyone.

If there are more than two stations answering the CQ I’ve observed that the best strategy seems to be to let everyone else collide, and then respond to the CQ while the caller is sitting there looking at the garble thinking “Rats again."

-p KG7STV
73, don’t forget to smile and have fun



On Oct 10, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Jerry n9avy@... [070] <070@...> wrote:


But if everyone waits  ... ?



From: "'ljl2002@...' joe_molon@... [070]" <070@...>
To: "070@..." <070@...> 
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [070] Re: Contest Misc.

 
Sometimes you can't see another station calling the CQ'er so you think that you are the only one there and repeat your call.  The CQ'er, as described, gets another load of unintelligible 
garbage.  What I find helps is if the CQ'er says "multiple stations" that is your clue to wait a bit then call so it sorts out on the other end.

As Rick says, "sometimes the magic works and sometimes......."

73
Joe
KA1PPV  $1482


On Sunday, October 9, 2016 2:17 PM, "n7we1980@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:


 
I encountered this problem quite often when doing the NPOTA thing.  One trick that sometimes worked, was to vary the interval on my CQs.  

When things piled up and there were lots of doubles (and triples) I'd initially resend the CQ on my regular rhythm and then wait....60 seconds or longer.  Invariably, most would jump right back and and all I'd get is garbled garbage.  But some soon figured it out.  I suspect they are people who have experience checking into nets.  They'd wait till the frequency cleared and then drop their call only - once or twice.  Some were even clever enough to tail-end the guy who waited, and I'd pick them up next after the QSO with "dit dit....now X#xxx."  

Bottom line, whether you are CQing or responding, try varying your timing!  But then YMMV..."sometimes the magic works, sometimes it doesn't."

Rick - N7WE 
070 - #1602










Join main@070Club.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.