<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr">When I\u2019m working a POTA station on CW I usually wait for the op to give a QRZ?, especially if I haven\u2019t heard them id yet, before calling but it\u2019s ok to throw your call in as soon as you feel the previous contact is complete. Waiting for the dit dits to be exchanged is good form.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">If you wait too long and double with the POTA station no worries, you\u2019ll have another chance to call. </div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Sep 27, 2025, at 2:59\u202fPM, Christopher Lennon <kwaj.speedo@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">\ufeff<div dir="auto"><div>I have a question about timing. Sort of a good manners question. In PoTA the activator ends with a friendly e e, and the hunter replies with an e e. When I hear the second e e I feel free to throw out my call sign. If you wait long enough I can see that the end of your call sign may be in the clear. Is waiting a longish time good gamesmanship or poor manners?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Is all fair in love and ham radio?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Chris </div><div dir="auto">W2BPL</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Sent from my phone.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Sep 27, 2025, 2:53\u202fPM Christopher Lennon <<a href="mailto:kwaj.speedo@gmail.com">kwaj.speedo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>All good advice. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I have used split but only in structured ways like for QRP Fox Hunts where the Fox expects to be looking up a kHz or so.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Of the items on Jim's list the only thing I do regularly is modify my code speed. Mostly I try to match the CQ speed. One of the knobs on my transceiver is programmable, and I have it mapped to code speed, so I can do that without a lot of fiddling.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Chris </div><div dir="auto">W2BPL</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Sent from my phone.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Sep 27, 2025, 12:51\u202fPM Scott Ginsburg <<a href="mailto:k1oa@k1oa.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">k1oa@k1oa.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Chris,<br>
<br>
Adding to Jim\u2019s excellent CW pileup advice I would also recommend using the second VFO if you have one in your radio and enabling split mode. The typical setup is to listen to the DX station on VFO A and use VFO B for your transmit frequency. Some splits are large enough to be beyond the range of XIT.<br>
<br>
The ideal configuration is to mix the audio from both VFOs in your headphones so you can simultaneously hear when the DX is listening for a call and monitor the pileup while you tune VFO B for your next transmission.<br>
<br>
A popular pileup technique is to continually tune just beyond the last caller\u2019s frequency, especially if you\u2019re not running high power. I\u2019ve also had success going 5 or even 10 kHz above the pileup where nobody is transmitting. Call there for a while and if you don\u2019t have success move down 1 kHz at a time toward the edge of the pileup. If you have a spectrum display this can help you find the clear frequencies high up in the pileup.<br>
<br>
It\u2019s a lot of listening and learning the DX station\u2019s pattern as Jim points out. Low power DXing is a real challenge but VERY rewarding when you get \u2018em in the log!<br>
<br>
gl and 73,<br>
Scott K1OA<br>
<br>
<br>
> On Sep 27, 2025, at 10:14\u202fAM, Christopher Lennon via bars <<a href="mailto:bars@w1hh.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">bars@w1hh.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> \ufeff<br>
> My rig is just 20W to a piece of wet string, so I struggle to break through pileups when operating CW. This morning I was struggling as usual when I decided to try the Receiver Incremental Tuning (RIT) feature. I tuned off the CQer by 30 Hz and then used the RIT to make it up on receive. So I was transmitting high to him by 30 Hz. Boom I got right in! <br>
> <br>
> I used the RIT trick with 30 to 50 Hz a few more times this morning. It didn't always work first time, but it was much better than my average rate of breaking in.<br>
> <br>
> I've known about RIT all along, but I didn't think it was worth the fiddling around. Definitely worth a try.<br>
> <br>
> Chris <br>
> W2BPL<br>
> <br>
> Sent from my phone.<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> bars mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:bars@w1hh.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">bars@w1hh.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://mail.w1hh.org/mailman/listinfo/bars_w1hh.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.w1hh.org/mailman/listinfo/bars_w1hh.org</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>