R or a string of RRRRRRRR's has shown to work better for me. Mike W0MU
W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net On 12/13/2011 9:02 AM, N1BUG wrote: > My $0.02 worth: > > A single R is sufficient if signals are strong and QRM is not a > major factor. In weak signal conditions RRR is more efficient than > QSL or CFM. There is a reason a long sequence of RRRRRRRRRR was > chosen for EME many years ago rather than a long string of QSLQSLQSL > or CFMCFMCFM. The less complex the message, the greater the chances > it will be received and understood. If a DX station on topband is > obviously struggling to copy me and asks if he has my call right I > will respond with RRRRRR as it has proven to be more effective than > anything else in conveying that indeed he does have it correct. > > 73, > Paul > > > > On 12/13/2011 10:42 AM, Doug Renwick wrote: >> I prefer QSL or CFM over R or Roger. In cw if a letter is missed, the >> missing letter can be 'filled in'. With R, if parts are missed, the missed >> parts cannot be filled in. The same with SSB, but not to the same extent. >> When I hear QSL or CFM it gives me a much higher level of confidence than R >> or Roger. >> >> Doug >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> I agree with Roger. Both "QSL" and "CFM" are inefficient ways for >>> indicating solid copy on CW. A simple "R" is all that's needed. > _______________________________________________ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK