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

Minimum JT65 QSO?

Expand Messages
  • k3wyc
    9M6YBG (East Malaysia) is on 20m calling CQ and as soon as he receives a report he calls CQ again. No RRR is being sent. 1526 -9 0.0 1680 # CQ 9M6YBG OJ85
    Message 1 of 10 , May 10 8:57 AM
    • 0 Attachment

      9M6YBG (East Malaysia) is on 20m calling CQ and as soon as he receives a report he calls CQ again.  No RRR is being sent. 




      1526  -9  0.0 1680 # CQ 9M6YBG OJ85     


      1527  Tx      1680 # 9M6YBG K3WYC DM33  


      1528  -5 -0.1 1680 # K3WYC 9M6YBG -09   


      1529  Tx      1680 # 9M6YBG K3WYC R-05  


      1530  -5  0.0 1680 # CQ 9M6YBG OJ85     


       I don't think this is a valid JT65 QSO and did not log him.


      What do other think?


      73,

      Andy k3wyc

    • Paul Stoetzer
      You each copied the other s callsign and a second piece of information. That s a valid QSO. 73, Paul, N8HM On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:57 AM, a.durbin@msn.com
      Message 2 of 10 , May 10 9:09 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        You each copied the other's callsign and a second piece of information. That's a valid QSO.

        73,

        Paul, N8HM




        On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:57 AM, a.durbin@... [wsjtgroup] <wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
         

        9M6YBG (East Malaysia) is on 20m calling CQ and as soon as he receives a report he calls CQ again.  No RRR is being sent. 




        1526  -9  0.0 1680 # CQ 9M6YBG OJ85     


        1527  Tx      1680 # 9M6YBG K3WYC DM33  


        1528  -5 -0.1 1680 # K3WYC 9M6YBG -09   


        1529  Tx      1680 # 9M6YBG K3WYC R-05  


        1530  -5  0.0 1680 # CQ 9M6YBG OJ85     


         I don't think this is a valid JT65 QSO and did not log him.


        What do other think?


        73,

        Andy k3wyc


      • k3wyc
        Thanks for the on-group reply Paul. I received three replies off-group. In total 3 said it was a valid QSO and one said it was not. I really don t
        Message 3 of 10 , May 12 8:33 AM
        • 0 Attachment

          Thanks for the on-group reply Paul.  I received three replies
          off-group.   In total 3 said it was a valid QSO and one said it was not.

           I really don't understand why no acknowledgement is required by some
           operators. In my experience even the fastest RTTY contest operators close  with  an acknowledgement that the exchange was completed 
           e.g. "K3WYC TU QRZ".

          Some replies suggested that the exchange of callsign and one other piece of information is all that is required.  If that is true why not save a bit
          more time by not sending signal reports?  The callsign and grid can be
          exchanged in only 2 minutes and multiple contacts could be logged in that 2  minutes if all replies were split.  Just send your grid, log the QSO, and
          hope it shows up in LoTW!

          I suppose it comes down to how much you need the QSO and it shouldn't.

          Has any organization published a formal definition of what is required for a
          valid amateur radio QSO?  Such a definition should be mode independent.   If  so, can someone please point me to it.

          Thanks and 73,
           Andy k3wyc



        • Paul Stoetzer
          A signal report is certainly not necessary. The grid square is adequate for the one piece of information other than a callsign to be exchanged. Look at the
          Message 4 of 10 , May 12 8:39 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            A signal report is certainly not necessary. The grid square is
            adequate for the one piece of information other than a callsign to be
            exchanged. Look at the NAQP, where the report is a name (no signal
            reports are exchanged). The way you describe sending your grid and
            logging the QSO wouldn't be adequate because the station calling CQ
            needs to copy and send your callsign.

            Now this is certainly a valid QSO:

            9M6YBG K3WYC DM33

            K3WYC 9M6YBG OJ85

            9M6BYG K3WYC RRR

            JT65 originated with the VHF community, which has a bit more rigorous
            standards for what a complete QSO is (since EME, MS, etc. are much
            less reliable than HF). I would consider his return to calling CQ to
            be an implicit understanding that the QSO was complete (especially
            given the excellent reports both ways). If this was VHF, an explicit
            acknowledgement would definitely be required and this would not be a
            valid QSO.

            There was a proposal a few years ago to add what constitutes a valid
            HF QSO to the IARU Region 1 Handbook (Region 1 being, in my opinion,
            far more formal than our Region 2).

            9M6BYG should modify his operating procedures to make it clear that
            the report has been acknowledged to clear up this controversy, but I
            do believe it was a valid QSO.

            73,

            Paul, N8HM


            On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:33 AM, a.durbin@... [wsjtgroup] <wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
             

            Thanks for the on-group reply Paul.  I received three replies


            off-group.   In total 3 said it was a valid QSO and one said it was not.

             I really don't understand why no acknowledgement is required by some
             operators. In my experience even the fastest RTTY contest operators close  with  an acknowledgement that the exchange was completed 

             e.g. "K3WYC TU QRZ".

            Some replies suggested that the exchange of callsign and one other piece of information is all that is required.  If that is true why not save a bit
            more time by not sending signal reports?  The callsign and grid can be
            exchanged in only 2 minutes and multiple contacts could be logged in that 2  minutes if all replies were split.  Just send your grid, log the QSO, and
            hope it shows up in LoTW!

            I suppose it comes down to how much you need the QSO and it shouldn't.

            Has any organization published a formal definition of what is required for a
            valid amateur radio QSO?  Such a definition should be mode independent.   If  so, can someone please point me to it.

            Thanks and 73,
             Andy k3wyc




          • Eric Mynes
            As others have said, I d log it and call it a valid QSO just incase the other station did. As far as I know, the ARRL (which is who s awards I m chasing) only
            Message 5 of 10 , May 12 9:47 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              As others have said, I'd log it and call it a valid QSO just incase the other station did.  As far as I know, the ARRL (which is who's awards I'm chasing) only care that both stations confirm the date, time, mode, and band.  No other information is required.  With JT65, you have all that with just one line exchange.  If by logging it in my books leads to a busted call, that won't be the first nor the last one in there anyway.  So, why stress it.

              73,
              Eric
              k8ohz


              On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Paul Stoetzer N8HM@... [wsjtgroup] <wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
               

              A signal report is certainly not necessary. The grid square is
              adequate for the one piece of information other than a callsign to be
              exchanged. Look at the NAQP, where the report is a name (no signal
              reports are exchanged). The way you describe sending your grid and
              logging the QSO wouldn't be adequate because the station calling CQ
              needs to copy and send your callsign.

              Now this is certainly a valid QSO:

              9M6YBG K3WYC DM33

              K3WYC 9M6YBG OJ85

              9M6BYG K3WYC RRR

              JT65 originated with the VHF community, which has a bit more rigorous
              standards for what a complete QSO is (since EME, MS, etc. are much
              less reliable than HF). I would consider his return to calling CQ to
              be an implicit understanding that the QSO was complete (especially
              given the excellent reports both ways). If this was VHF, an explicit
              acknowledgement would definitely be required and this would not be a
              valid QSO.

              There was a proposal a few years ago to add what constitutes a valid
              HF QSO to the IARU Region 1 Handbook (Region 1 being, in my opinion,
              far more formal than our Region 2).

              9M6BYG should modify his operating procedures to make it clear that
              the report has been acknowledged to clear up this controversy, but I
              do believe it was a valid QSO.

              73,

              Paul, N8HM


              On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:33 AM, a.durbin@... [wsjtgroup] <wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
               

              Thanks for the on-group reply Paul.  I received three replies


              off-group.   In total 3 said it was a valid QSO and one said it was not.

               I really don't understand why no acknowledgement is required by some
               operators. In my experience even the fastest RTTY contest operators close  with  an acknowledgement that the exchange was completed 

               e.g. "K3WYC TU QRZ".

              Some replies suggested that the exchange of callsign and one other piece of information is all that is required.  If that is true why not save a bit
              more time by not sending signal reports?  The callsign and grid can be
              exchanged in only 2 minutes and multiple contacts could be logged in that 2  minutes if all replies were split.  Just send your grid, log the QSO, and
              hope it shows up in LoTW!

              I suppose it comes down to how much you need the QSO and it shouldn't.

              Has any organization published a formal definition of what is required for a
              valid amateur radio QSO?  Such a definition should be mode independent.   If  so, can someone please point me to it.

              Thanks and 73,
               Andy k3wyc







              --
              A wise man once said nothing.  -- Anonymous

              Don't dream it, be it.  -- Dr. Frank N. Futer
            • Jim Brown
              ... Right. In the contesting world, it isn t a QSO until the other station acknowleges that he got it. The most common acknowledgement on CW and RTTY is TU. In
              Message 6 of 10 , May 12 8:47 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                On 5/12/2014 8:33 AM, a.durbin@... [wsjtgroup] wrote:
                > In my experience even the fastest RTTY contest operators close with
                > an acknowledgement that the exchange was completed

                Right. In the contesting world, it isn't a QSO until the other station
                acknowleges that he got it. The most common acknowledgement on CW and
                RTTY is TU. In the super high energy CW sprints, it's a single dit. :)
                On SSB, it's "Thanks" or Thank You. If I don't that that TU or dit
                something equivalent, I don't log it. Most DX ops do the same,
                especially when working a pileup or under tough conditions. For
                example, "K9YC TU T48X UP"

                On RTTY, the acknowledgement is often "K4EJ TU DE K9YC CQ" For WSJT
                modes, that could easily be shortened to "K4EJ R K9YC CQ" or "K4EJ 73
                K9YC CQ"

                73, Jim K9YC
              • KQ8M
                There is no rule in any contest that you have to acknowledge anything. The only copying rule is you copy the EXCHANGE correctly. The acknowledgement at the end
                Message 7 of 10 , May 13 6:10 AM
                • 0 Attachment

                  There is no rule in any contest that you have to acknowledge anything. The only copying rule is you copy the EXCHANGE correctly. The acknowledgement at the end is just a courtesy to the other station that you received his information; not a requirement. I don’t know how many times I have had to correct my call (many get it as KQ7M or K8QM) yet there was no acknowledgement of the correction.

                   

                  73,

                  Tim Herrick, KQ8M

                  Charter member North Coast Contesters

                  kq8m@...

                   

                  AR-Cluster V6 kq8m.no-ip.org

                  User Ports: 23, 7373  with local skimmer, 7374 without local skimmer

                  Server Ports: V6 3607, V4 Active 3605, V4 Passive 3606

                   

                   

                  From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]
                  Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:48 PM
                  To: WSJT Group
                  Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Re: Minimum JT65 QSO?

                   

                   

                  On 5/12/2014 8:33 AM, a.durbin@... [wsjtgroup] wrote:

                  > In my experience even the fastest RTTY contest operators close with
                  > an acknowledgement that the exchange was completed

                  Right. In the contesting world, it isn't a QSO until the other station
                  acknowleges that he got it. The most common acknowledgement on CW and
                  RTTY is TU. In the super high energy CW sprints, it's a single dit. :)
                  On SSB, it's "Thanks" or Thank You. If I don't that that TU or dit
                  something equivalent, I don't log it. Most DX ops do the same,
                  especially when working a pileup or under tough conditions. For
                  example, "K9YC TU T48X UP"

                  On RTTY, the acknowledgement is often "K4EJ TU DE K9YC CQ" For WSJT
                  modes, that could easily be shortened to "K4EJ R K9YC CQ" or "K4EJ 73
                  K9YC CQ"

                  73, Jim K9YC

                • Joe Taylor
                  ... For information, this is not actually correct. As mentioned previously on this reflector, the VHF community uses somewhat more rigorous standards for what
                  Message 8 of 10 , May 13 8:04 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    KQ8M wrote:
                    > There is no rule in any contest that you have to acknowledge anything.

                    For information, this is not actually correct.

                    As mentioned previously on this reflector, the VHF community uses
                    somewhat more rigorous standards for what constitutes a complete QSO.

                    As an example of contest rules, Rule 4 for the ARRL International EME
                    Competition includes the following sentence:

                    "Each station must send and receive both call signs and a signal report
                    in any mutually understood format, plus an acknowledgment of the calls
                    and report."

                    As another example, Rule 4 of the European EME Contest reads as follows:

                    *4. Contest Exchange*
                    For a valid EME QSO, both stations must have copied all of the following:
                    4.1 Both callsigns from the other station
                    4.2 Signal report from the other station (using TMO procedure or RST)
                    4.3 R, from the other station, to acknowledge complete copy of 4.1
                    & 4.2

                    The message structure and recommended QSO procedures for JT65, JT9, and
                    JT4 were designed with such rigorous VHF standards in mind.

                    At HF, conventions are somewhat more relaxed. My personal standard for
                    HF digital QSOs is to consider a contact valid when I am convinced that
                    my QSO partner has entered my call correctly in his log and has received
                    my report or locator, and that I have his correct call sign and have
                    received his report or locator.

                    -- 73, Joe, K1JT
                  • KQ8M
                    I am strictly an HF contester so I have no clue of VHF rules, so my generalization was incorrect but still holds for HF. When I am running stations and I
                    Message 9 of 10 , May 13 8:36 AM
                    • 0 Attachment

                      I am strictly an HF contester so I have no clue of VHF rules, so my generalization was incorrect but still holds for HF. When I am running stations and I receive a callsign correction I acknowledge that by, at a minimum, repeating the corrected portion. Many stations do not. Does this constitute a non QSO since the callsign was never acknowledged as correct?

                       

                      I do think it is rude not to acknowledge the end of a QSO. Especially on the JT modes as one is not sure if the called station rcvd his report or not.

                       

                      73,

                      Tim Herrick, KQ8M

                      kq8m@...

                       

                      AR-Cluster V6 kq8m.no-ip.org

                      User Ports: 23, 7373  with local skimmer, 7374 without local skimmer

                      Server Ports: V6 3607, V4 Active 3605, V4 Passive 3606

                       

                      From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]
                      Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:05 AM
                      To: WSJT Group
                      Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Re: Minimum JT65 QSO?

                       

                       

                      KQ8M wrote:

                      > There is no rule in any contest that you have to acknowledge anything.

                      For information, this is not actually correct.

                      As mentioned previously on this reflector, the VHF community uses
                      somewhat more rigorous standards for what constitutes a complete QSO.

                      As an example of contest rules, Rule 4 for the ARRL International EME
                      Competition includes the following sentence:

                      "Each station must send and receive both call signs and a signal report
                      in any mutually understood format, plus an acknowledgment of the calls
                      and report."

                      As another example, Rule 4 of the European EME Contest reads as follows:

                      *4. Contest Exchange*
                      For a valid EME QSO, both stations must have copied all of the following:
                      4.1 Both callsigns from the other station
                      4.2 Signal report from the other station (using TMO procedure or RST)
                      4.3 R, from the other station, to acknowledge complete copy of 4.1
                      & 4.2

                      The message structure and recommended QSO procedures for JT65, JT9, and
                      JT4 were designed with such rigorous VHF standards in mind.

                      At HF, conventions are somewhat more relaxed. My personal standard for
                      HF digital QSOs is to consider a contact valid when I am convinced that
                      my QSO partner has entered my call correctly in his log and has received
                      my report or locator, and that I have his correct call sign and have
                      received his report or locator.

                      -- 73, Joe, K1JT

                    • chas cartmel
                      Joe I wholeheartedly agree with your comments below. Unless i get an acknowledgement of my report in JT9 / JT65 I have no confidence in the reception of my
                      Message 10 of 10 , May 13 11:34 AM
                      • 0 Attachment

                        Joe

                        I wholeheartedly agree with your comments below.

                        Unless i get an acknowledgement of my report in JT9 / JT65 I have no confidence in the reception of my signal at the other end and to me the QSO is suspect.

                        I have heard the station in question many times over the last few days and have tried to work him/her however his/her operating practices are at best poor and at worst downright rude. Never heard any TU or 73 to any station calling although have seen many stations sending their 73 for no response.

                        Being DX has it’s restrictions when managing a pile up, but have heard a string of unanswered CQs which may tell a story by itself.

                         

                        73

                        Charlie

                        www.G4EST.me.uk

                         

                        From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]
                        Sent: 13 May 2014 16:05
                        To: WSJT Group
                        Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Re: Minimum JT65 QSO?

                         

                         

                        KQ8M wrote:

                        > There is no rule in any contest that you have to acknowledge anything.

                        For information, this is not actually correct.

                        As mentioned previously on this reflector, the VHF community uses
                        somewhat more rigorous standards for what constitutes a complete QSO.

                        As an example of contest rules, Rule 4 for the ARRL International EME
                        Competition includes the following sentence:

                        "Each station must send and receive both call signs and a signal report
                        in any mutually understood format, plus an acknowledgment of the calls
                        and report."

                        As another example, Rule 4 of the European EME Contest reads as follows:

                        *4. Contest Exchange*
                        For a valid EME QSO, both stations must have copied all of the following:
                        4.1 Both callsigns from the other station
                        4.2 Signal report from the other station (using TMO procedure or RST)
                        4.3 R, from the other station, to acknowledge complete copy of 4.1
                        & 4.2

                        The message structure and recommended QSO procedures for JT65, JT9, and
                        JT4 were designed with such rigorous VHF standards in mind.

                        At HF, conventions are somewhat more relaxed. My personal standard for
                        HF digital QSOs is to consider a contact valid when I am convinced that
                        my QSO partner has entered my call correctly in his log and has received
                        my report or locator, and that I have his correct call sign and have
                        received his report or locator.

                        -- 73, Joe, K1JT

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.