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

Re: [wsjtgroup] My thoughts on "Random Contacts"

Expand Messages
  • Bob Poortinga
    ... I wholehearted endorse these recommended procedures. In addition, I would like to stress that when you are answering a CQ or calling another station,
    Message 1 of 20 , Jul 28, 2004
      "Randy Tipton" <wa5ufh@...> writes:

      > I would be interested in hearing your comments.

      I wholehearted endorse these recommended procedures. In addition, I would
      like to stress that when you are answering a CQ or calling another station,
      please use 'DE' between callsigns, e.g. 'WA5UFH DE K9SQL' This is
      especially helpful during Random Hour to determine who you are actually
      receiving.

      --
      Bob Poortinga K9SQL
      Bloomington, Indiana US
    • Bruce Brackin
      Hi Tip, Russ and Bob. Good thread and discussion and glad to see the calling freqs mentioned. Bob s comments on inserting DE in TX message #1 applies
      Message 2 of 20 , Jul 28, 2004
        Hi Tip, Russ and Bob. Good thread and discussion and glad to see the
        calling freqs mentioned. Bob's comments on inserting DE in TX message
        #1 applies particularly well to 6m where back scatter can be very
        strong. I've worked Tip and others on "wrong sequence" because they
        heard me b/s and for someone monitoring it would be difficult to know
        who is calling who and they might wish to try and tail end. Obviously,
        once stations get to BC+RPTs it can become clear but if conditions are
        marginal it can help as you might not otherwise know where to point.
        Russ has good suggestions/points also. We all know St/Sh's sure don't
        work on common freq!

        My request is for stations to monitor the calling freqs when not
        actively running or SWL'ing someone else's qso. I have worked several
        guys from home on randoms who are not routine PJ watchers that I would
        have otherwise have missed. Being mobile a fair bit, I can tell you
        I've called for hours on end with no signals heard. As N0PB and N8OC
        have said, throw some RF out to let the mobile/rover know they are being
        heard if you hear them calling and calling and no takers - even if you
        have worked them before, they (I) enjoy the company! Even a "GD SIGNAL
        W5YOURCALL" or similar short one will suffice. I'm not sure the way
        others call on the move but I've developed a habit of calling for 10
        minutes and "resting" for 10, unless the fish are biting of course! I
        generally call beginning at :00, :20, and :40 minutes after the hour. I
        have been in 22 grids in the last 18 months and worked one or more
        stations from 17 of them on 6m. We all generally try to post a note
        here or on PJ before heading out but that is sometimes not possible.

        If you are worried about filling the screen and DECODE.CUM file when
        leaving program in monitor, just set the controls so it takes good solid
        ping to decode. I will sometimes leave set up in monitor on 50.260 with
        T=100+, S about 2.5 and St/Sh at 0 and TOL at 200 and normally have very
        little trash on screen upon return. It can be a little upsetting to
        find bunches of decodes on station you tried earlier- hi. I tried N9LR
        when Larry was on 6m in EN55 two mornings last week and only had one
        ping in 30 minutes in early AM each day but came in later and had tons
        of great CQ's on screen!

        Bruce, N5SIX
      • Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS
        Hi Guys, nice to see this discussion. I think it would be a major step forward into making complete QSO s. Over here in IARU Region 1 we ve had similar
        Message 3 of 20 , Jul 28, 2004
          Hi Guys,

          nice to see this discussion. I think it would be a major step forward into
          making "complete" QSO's. Over here in IARU Region 1 we've had similar
          discussions even in the years of HSCW. This has resulted in a formal IARU
          Region1 MS procedure being written down in the IARU R1 VHF managers
          handbook http://home.hccnet.nl/a.dogterom/

          The direct link to the procedure
          http://home.hccnet.nl/a.dogterom/Handbook/5b.pdf hold a number of
          recommendations even for FSK441. Despite the relative newness of WSJT
          (technically called an MGM or Machine Generated Mode) the R1 VHF managers
          have been able to agree on recommendations for bandplan (calling
          frequencies, bandwidth, etc) in a surprisingly speedy manner.

          There would be many reasons to try and use the same procedures and same
          type messages worldwide. Certainly on 6m it would be beneficial if all
          stations worldwide would operate using the same procedures.

          In the latest version of WSJT Joe has incorporated the messages according
          to this procedure. You can see them by pressing EU defaults in the options
          screen. This is the best message format for all purposes. Shorthand and
          Singletone are not used at all and disabled in the optionsscreen
          (NoST/NoSH) resulting in a ST/SH parametervalue of 99.

          Now, we would not be proper hams if we did not try to speed up the
          QSO... After all we don't want the QSO to fail because reflections are too
          short.... So... The only time message 1 is used is at the beginning of a
          scheduled contact (generally not on the calling frequency). As soon as
          possible we send message 2 (including a report). Message 3 can only be
          send when all needed info is correct at 1 side. Up to message 3 no
          abbreviation to suffix or whatever is possible because there has not been
          confirmation of receipt of callsigns and or report.

          Message 4 can be abbreviated (you have received callsigns and
          R-report). Most of us use "RRRR suffix". This needs to be done with care
          because there may be other stations around using the same
          suffix.... Adding the digit or using a minimum of 3 or 4 chars can help
          solve that problem. Most decrease the number of "RRR" to 3 or 4. Same
          thing with the 73's. Add suffix. These are the minimum requirements -
          which is what we like....

          If you use these procedures no additions like "AAA DE BBB" are neccessary
          because the message sequence will show who is who. If you only heard a
          station giving two callsigns he is in a sked and you can possibly
          tailend but if nothing else is being heard during the QSO that tailend
          will probably fail anyway. Every message except for message 1 will show
          who is who. Don't increase message length unless needed... Every burst
          can hold only a limited number of characters :))

          Now when we have grid expeditions the pileups are HUGE.... I.e. the OH9O/0
          expedition in rare square KO09 made abt 105 FSK441 QSO's in just the first
          24 hours. Story here: http://www.qsl.net/oh8k/ko09cx_story.htm and abt
          OH8K http://www.qsl.net/oh8k/ These circumstances call for a different way
          of doing things such as ALWAYS include something to identify who from and
          who for. The expedition wants to move to the next station ASAP but the
          caller will not give up until the QSO is complete. It is common for
          expeditions to always end with a few periods of 73 unless there is an other
          means of direct confirmation of completion. Such as: DX-cluster, SMS
          (cellphone textmessages) or Internet. Very similar to the Pingjockey page
          (but with much more functionality) most of us use www.on4kst.com. It is
          accessible via "normal" internet (using last version of Internet Explorer)
          or as www.on4kst.info port 23000 via telnet using whatever telnet available
          such as internet, packetradio, organiser telephones (such as Nokia
          Communicator) etc. The site has some DX cluster functionality build in as
          well as a locator database etc. The site is open to hams worldwide..

          Summarizing: Yes, use full messages but instead of reinventing the wheel
          use the IARU Region 1 procedures as guidelines. They work very well.

          I am sure I deviated a little here or there, or possible left something
          out. If anyone wants more clarification, find me on the on4kst site...

          73
          Catharinus PE1AHX/N4QXT
        • wa3ltb@juno.com
          Hi Guys, Great discussion, I think we all need to implement a STANDARD procedure for random contacts, I still see too many variations of methods being used. I
          Message 4 of 20 , Jul 29, 2004
            Hi Guys,

            Great discussion, I think we all need to implement a STANDARD
            procedure for random contacts, I still see too many variations of methods
            being used. I Vote for adding the "DE" between callsigns to signify
            who's calling who i.e. "'WA5UFH DE K9SQL" . Also sending suffix of the
            other station call with reports, ect..............."UFH R27" would make
            sense too as it would identify who the reports were for. I know I have
            been sending my suffix with the reports and have found others doing it
            both ways, so a standard method for all to use would eliminate the
            confusion.

            73'S
            Terry
            WA3LTB
            EN92ta
            Lake City, Pa
          • Bob Poortinga
            ... Interesting. Since the definition of a QSO is simply exchange of callsigns, reports, and rogers , station 2 could answer station 1 s CQ with message 2.
            Message 5 of 20 , Jul 29, 2004
              Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS <pe1ahx@...> writes:

              > The only time message 1 is used is at the beginning of a
              > scheduled contact (generally not on the calling frequency). As soon as
              > possible we send message 2 (including a report).

              Interesting. Since the definition of a QSO is simply "exchange of callsigns,
              reports, and rogers", station 2 could answer station 1's CQ with message 2.
              Station 1 would then reply with message 3 including both callsigns (or at
              minimum, station 2's callsign) as I see it. This would eliminate one
              step and definitely make QSOs faster, easier, and successful more often.

              Comments?

              --
              Bob Poortinga K9SQL
              Bloomington, Indiana US
            • Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS
              Yep, comment: You are correct, stronger - a CQ call (message 6) is answered with message 2 (you don t answer CQ unless you have some idea of who is calling).
              Message 6 of 20 , Jul 29, 2004
                Yep, comment:

                You are correct, stronger - a CQ call (message 6) is answered with message
                2 (you don't answer CQ unless you have some idea of who is calling). A
                scheduled contact (both calls are known) begins with message 1 and you
                switch to message 2 ASAP. I may not have been clear in my original remarks.

                The reason message 3 includes full callsigns is because you may "know" the
                callers callsign but not have decoded it yet. If you work anything like I
                do, I "know" 95% of the active folks around me so I can (and will) call
                them based on QTF, DF and a few letters. However I need to see his
                callsign to be sure (for a proper QSO). If you read the IARU R1 procedure
                you may remember that you start with message 2 when:

                A report is sent when the operator has positive evidence of having received
                the correspondent's or his own callsign or parts of them.

                Add this part of the procedure:

                You are allowed to piece the message together from fragments received over
                a period of bursts and pings, but it's up to the operator to ensure that
                it's done correctly and unambiguously.

                Then what constitutes a QSO:

                Both operators must have copied both callsigns, the report and a
                confirmation that the other operator has done the same. This confirmation
                can either be an "R" preceding the report or a string of "RRRR..."'s as
                explained in paragraph 8.d.ii.

                Combine these items and you will understand that full calls are needed in
                message 3....

                As far as faster and easier, all of us here have looked at available
                options (sometimes even tried to "beat the system") but in reality it does
                not work any faster or easier. I don't claim to be an expert, I started
                FSK441(A) september a year ago but I dare say that 95%+ of my QSO attempts
                succeed (given patience on both sides). I have sofar made 425 successful
                QSO's with 250 unique callsigns into 174 gridsquares. With the Perseids
                coming up I hope everyone will stick to the procedure (and identify each
                transmission) or it will be a zoo on the calling frequency... If there is
                failure it is usually because of frequency errors beyond the filter or pure
                lack of rocks. Not the fact that 1 message extra needs to be send. A QSO
                can complete within 2 periods: 1st CQ, reply 2nd calls report, reply 3rd
                calls R-report, reply RRR call. Thats all.

                GL in trying to come up with a foolproof failsafe method with which you can
                make a valid QSO. In my opinion this method exists and is described here:
                http://home.hccnet.nl/a.dogterom/Handbook/5b.pdf The only shortcomings in
                this document has to do with sequencing - who calls when... With many
                hundreds of active MS stations the calling frequency quickly gets
                overloaded even when using the QSY procedure. Sequencing by area does not
                always work (good stations interfere each other by tropo over up to 400
                miles) sequencing by direction has similar problems. These were never real
                problems in the HSCW era but with the huge FSK activity things are different.

                73
                Catharinus PE1AHX/N4QXT

                At 14:41 29-07-2004 -0500, Bob Poortinga K9SQL wrote:
                >Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS <pe1ahx@...> writes:
                >
                > > The only time message 1 is used is at the beginning of a
                > > scheduled contact (generally not on the calling frequency). As soon as
                > > possible we send message 2 (including a report).
                >
                >Interesting. Since the definition of a QSO is simply "exchange of callsigns,
                >reports, and rogers", station 2 could answer station 1's CQ with message 2.
                >Station 1 would then reply with message 3 including both callsigns (or at
                >minimum, station 2's callsign) as I see it. This would eliminate one
                >step and definitely make QSOs faster, easier, and successful more often.
                >
                >Comments?
                >
                >--
                >Bob Poortinga K9SQL
                >Bloomington, Indiana US
              • ww2r@mgef.org
                The formal definition of a qso, as defined many years ago by IARU (when they were considering what makes a valid qso for record purposes) was the the exchange
                Message 7 of 20 , Jul 29, 2004
                  The formal definition of a qso, as defined many years ago by IARU (when
                  they were considering what makes a valid qso for record purposes) was the
                  "the exchange and confirmation of the exchange of a previously unknown
                  piece of information"

                  Dave

                  WW2R

                  > Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS <pe1ahx@...> writes:
                  >
                  >> The only time message 1 is used is at the beginning of a
                  >> scheduled contact (generally not on the calling frequency). As soon as
                  >> possible we send message 2 (including a report).
                  >
                  > Interesting. Since the definition of a QSO is simply "exchange of
                  > callsigns,
                  > reports, and rogers", station 2 could answer station 1's CQ with message
                  > 2.
                  > Station 1 would then reply with message 3 including both callsigns (or at
                  > minimum, station 2's callsign) as I see it. This would eliminate one
                  > step and definitely make QSOs faster, easier, and successful more often.
                  >
                  > Comments?
                  >
                  > --
                  > Bob Poortinga K9SQL
                  > Bloomington, Indiana US
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > 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
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS
                  The unknown piece of information is the report (unless it s always 59 like in HF contests.....).... 73 Catharinus PE1AHX
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jul 29, 2004
                    The unknown piece of information is the report (unless it's always 59 like
                    in HF contests.....)....

                    73
                    Catharinus PE1AHX

                    At 15:03 29-07-2004 -0700, you wrote:
                    >The formal definition of a qso, as defined many years ago by IARU (when
                    >they were considering what makes a valid qso for record purposes) was the
                    >"the exchange and confirmation of the exchange of a previously unknown
                    >piece of information"
                    >
                    >Dave
                    >
                    >WW2R
                  • Russ Pillsbury
                    Bob, here is my thinking on the subject. First let s review the rules for a valid contact: 1. Each station must copy the call of the station calling him (when
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jul 29, 2004
                      Bob, here is my thinking on the subject. First let's review the rules for a
                      valid contact:

                      1. Each station must copy the call of the station calling him (when he is
                      calling him - copying his call during the CQ does not count).

                      2. Each station must copy his own call.

                      3. Each station must copy an additional piece of information, usually called
                      the report.

                      4. Each station must copy an acknowledgement that the other station has
                      copied all the above.


                      Now think about how our standard procedure goes:

                      1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                      2. I send K9SQL K2TXB
                      3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL 26
                      4. I send R26 (or SQL R26)
                      5. I copy RRR (or TXB RRR)
                      6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                      7. Contact is complete, but I copy 73

                      Now, consider step #3 above. When you send me both calls and a report, you
                      are in effect saying "I am sending calls because I don't yet know if you
                      have copied them, but I am also sending a report so you will know that I
                      have received both calls correctly."

                      Now if I happen to copy the 26, but not the calls, I cannot respond with my
                      report because if I do you will stop sending calls and I have not copied
                      them yet. But as soon as I copy both calls AND the report, then I know that
                      it is ok to transmit R and my report because your report tells me that you
                      have both calls copied successfully.

                      Now let's look at the European way:

                      1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                      2. I send K9SQL K2TXB 26
                      3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL R26
                      4. I send RRR (or SQL RRR)
                      5. I copy 73 (contact was complete before rx'ing 73, but now I know for
                      sure)
                      6. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                      Looks nice, huh? But think about step 2. I am telling you that I have
                      copied both calls even though you have never yet sent my call!

                      NOW: I have never actually sat down and listed the steps like above before.
                      I have been hung up on the fact that for MS in this country we DEFINE the
                      report as meaning "I have copied both calls" (in addition to the actual
                      report information). IF, however, we define the report as simply a signal
                      report (the extra piece of information required) then the second method DOES
                      seem to work.

                      But this only works for random contacts. Consider a sked situation:

                      1. I send K9SQL K2TXB (and you send K2TXB K9SQL)
                      2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL 26 (you got me first)
                      3. I send R26 (or SQL R26)
                      4. I copy RRR (or TXB RRR)
                      6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                      7. Contact is complete, but I copy 73

                      As long as the extra piece of info is a signal report there is no way the
                      procedure can be short-cut. It would obviously be wrong for me to start out
                      the QSO by sending "K9SQL K2TXB 26" when I have not even heard your signal
                      yet. If, however, we decide that the extra piece of info will be something
                      other than a signal report, then:

                      1. I send K9SQL K2TXB FM29 (and you send K2TXB K9SQL EM69)
                      2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL FM29 RRR (you have copied both calls and report)
                      3. I send RRR (or SQL RRR)
                      4. Contact is complete, but I copy 73
                      5. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                      In step 2, you can send RRR because you have copied everything you need
                      except R's. Normally we would use the report to say this, but since we are
                      not sending reports separately, it seems like RRR would work. In step 3, I
                      can send RRR because I have not only copied both calls, but the report and
                      RRR. In fact, if you accept this method, step 3 could be "R73" instead of
                      RRR, thus eliminating the need for step 5.

                      However, I do not like the above. It think it is too much of a short cut
                      and we are compromising the quality of our QSO's. Think about it - the
                      whole contact is completed with just 3 pings (the 73's are superfluous).
                      Accepting shortcuts can lead one down a slippery slope to shoddiness!

                      Regardless of the European method being a bit more efficient (or a lot more
                      efficient depending on how you do it), I really feel more comfortable with
                      our way. But I guess it really depends on what the majority think.

                      And do not forget that the validity of our contacts is also scrutinized by
                      other VHF operators in our (and other) countries. If they think we are
                      taking too many shortcuts then we might find that people don't respect our
                      accomplishments.

                      Another problem is that the standard that everyone uses in this country is
                      the first method. If we try to change it will surely create a lot of
                      confusion when operators do not know which method the other station is
                      trying to use.

                      Comments?

                      73, Russ K2TXB

                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Bob Poortinga [mailto:bobp+yahoo@...]
                      > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 3:41 PM
                      > To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] My thoughts on "Random Contacts"
                      >
                      >
                      > Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS <pe1ahx@...> writes:
                      >
                      > > The only time message 1 is used is at the beginning of a
                      > > scheduled contact (generally not on the calling frequency). As soon as
                      > > possible we send message 2 (including a report).
                      >
                      > Interesting. Since the definition of a QSO is simply "exchange
                      > of callsigns,
                      > reports, and rogers", station 2 could answer station 1's CQ with
                      > message 2.
                      > Station 1 would then reply with message 3 including both callsigns (or at
                      > minimum, station 2's callsign) as I see it. This would eliminate one
                      > step and definitely make QSOs faster, easier, and successful more often.
                      >
                      > Comments?
                      >
                      > --
                      > Bob Poortinga K9SQL
                      > Bloomington, Indiana US
                    • Randy Tipton
                      Snip.Now let s look at the European way: 1. I copy CQ K9SQL 2. I send K9SQL K2TXB 26 3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL R26 4. I send RRR (or SQL RRR) 5. I copy 73
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jul 30, 2004

                        Snip…Now let's look at the European way:

                        1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                        2. I send K9SQL K2TXB 26
                        3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL R26
                        4. I send RRR  (or SQL RRR)
                        5. I copy 73   (contact was complete before rx'ing 73, but now I know for
                        sure)
                        6. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                         

                        I have used this method (Short-cut) working portable / mobile stations when I think it is necessary because of short ping widths, weak signal strengths or wanting to work station before he moves on to another grid. But if the calling station is being decoded often and is strong then I think it is best to start off with message #1. (Both Calls) I see this as “Users Choice”.

                         

                        I got burned once. I knew who was calling but only had decoded his CQ, Grid and partial call. I started sending Both Calls & Report and the very next sequence I started receiving his Short Hand Message. So if you use the above method make sure you have the other stations complete call. If not then send message #1 which will force him to send Both Calls and Reports.

                         

                        This has been a good dialog, I plan to copy some of the notes and post them in the “Files Section” on the WSJTGROUP Site.

                         

                        Also the WSJTGROUP Random Hour Manual will be updated to reflect:

                         

                        1. The use of “DE” in message #1
                        2. The “Proper Use of Suffix” in Rpt, RRR and 73 messages. (The station you are workings suffix instead on yours)

                         

                        Tip

                         

                         

                         

                         

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Russ Pillsbury [mailto:k2txb@...]
                        Sent:
                        Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:56 PM
                        To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] My thoughts on "Random Contacts"

                         

                        Bob, here is my thinking on the subject.  First let's review the rules for a
                        valid contact:

                        1. Each station must copy the call of the station calling him (when he is
                        calling him - copying his call during the CQ does not count).

                        2. Each station must copy his own call.

                        3. Each station must copy an additional piece of information, usually called
                        the report.

                        4. Each station must copy an acknowledgement that the other station has
                        copied all the above.


                        Now think about how our standard procedure goes:

                        1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                        2. I send K9SQL K2TXB
                        3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL 26
                        4. I send R26  (or SQL R26)
                        5. I copy RRR  (or TXB RRR)
                        6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                        7. Contact is complete, but I copy 73

                        Now, consider step #3 above.  When you send me both calls and a report, you
                        are in effect saying "I am sending calls because I don't yet know if you
                        have copied them, but I am also sending a report so you will know that I
                        have received both calls correctly."

                        Now if I happen to copy the 26, but not the calls, I cannot respond with my
                        report because if I do you will stop sending calls and I have not copied
                        them yet.  But as soon as I copy both calls AND the report, then I know that
                        it is ok to transmit R and my report because your report tells me that you
                        have both calls copied successfully.

                        Now let's look at the European way:

                        1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                        2. I send K9SQL K2TXB 26
                        3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL R26
                        4. I send RRR  (or SQL RRR)
                        5. I copy 73   (contact was complete before rx'ing 73, but now I know for
                        sure)
                        6. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                        Looks nice, huh?  But think about step 2.  I am telling you that I have
                        copied both calls even though you have never yet sent my call!

                        NOW: I have never actually sat down and listed the steps like above before.
                        I have been hung up on the fact that for MS in this country we DEFINE the
                        report as meaning "I have copied both calls" (in addition to the actual
                        report information).  IF, however, we define the report as simply a signal
                        report (the extra piece of information required) then the second method DOES
                        seem to work.

                        But this only works for random contacts.  Consider a sked situation:

                        1. I send K9SQL K2TXB  (and you send K2TXB K9SQL)
                        2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL 26  (you got me first)
                        3. I send R26  (or SQL R26)
                        4. I copy RRR  (or TXB RRR)
                        6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                        7. Contact is complete, but I copy 73

                        As long as the extra piece of info is a signal report there is no way the
                        procedure can be short-cut.  It would obviously be wrong for me to start out
                        the QSO by sending "K9SQL K2TXB 26" when I have not even heard your signal
                        yet.  If, however, we decide that the extra piece of info will be something
                        other than a signal report, then:

                        1. I send K9SQL K2TXB FM29 (and you send K2TXB K9SQL EM69)
                        2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL FM29 RRR  (you have copied both calls and report)
                        3. I send RRR  (or SQL RRR)
                        4. Contact is complete, but I copy 73
                        5. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                        In step 2, you can send RRR because you have copied everything you need
                        except R's.  Normally we would use the report to say this, but since we are
                        not sending reports separately, it seems like RRR would work.  In step 3, I
                        can send RRR because I have not only copied both calls, but the report and
                        RRR.  In fact, if you accept this method, step 3 could be "R73" instead of
                        RRR, thus eliminating the need for step 5.

                        However, I do not like the above.  It think it is too much of a short cut
                        and we are compromising the quality of our QSO's.  Think about it - the
                        whole contact is completed with just 3 pings  (the 73's are superfluous).
                        Accepting shortcuts can lead one down a slippery slope to shoddiness!

                        Regardless of the European method being a bit more efficient (or a lot more
                        efficient depending on how you do it), I really feel more comfortable with
                        our way.  But I guess it really depends on what the majority think.

                        And do not forget that the validity of our contacts is also scrutinized by
                        other VHF operators in our (and other) countries.  If they think we are
                        taking too many shortcuts then we might find that people don't respect our
                        accomplishments.

                        Another problem is that the standard that everyone uses in this country is
                        the first method.  If we try to change it will surely create a lot of
                        confusion when operators do not know which method the other station is
                        trying to use.

                        Comments?

                        73, Russ K2TXB

                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: Bob Poortinga [mailto:bobp+yahoo@...]
                        > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 3:41 PM
                        > To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] My thoughts on "Random Contacts"
                        >
                        >
                        > Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS <pe1ahx@...> writes:
                        >
                        > > The only time message 1 is used is at the beginning of a
                        > > scheduled contact (generally not on the calling frequency).  As soon as
                        > > possible we send message 2 (including a report).
                        >
                        > Interesting.  Since the definition of a QSO is simply "exchange
                        > of callsigns,
                        > reports, and rogers", station 2 could answer station 1's CQ with
                        > message 2.
                        > Station 1 would then reply with message 3 including both callsigns (or at
                        > minimum, station 2's callsign) as I see it.  This would eliminate one
                        > step and definitely make QSOs faster, easier, and successful more often.
                        >
                        > Comments?
                        >
                        > --
                        > Bob Poortinga  K9SQL
                        > Bloomington, Indiana  US




                        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







                      • Jerry R
                        Wouldn t that be a coincedence if KC0HLN and N7HLN were on the same freq calling different stations then seeing the others msg #3 HLN RRR. Don t think it will
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jul 30, 2004
                          Wouldn't that be a coincedence if KC0HLN and N7HLN were on the same freq calling different stations then seeing the others msg #3 HLN RRR. Don't think it will ever happen but its out there that it could.  Jerry
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Randy Tipton
                          Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 9:35 AM
                          To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] My thoughts on "Random Contacts"
                           

                          Snip…Now let's look at the European way:

                          1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                          2. I send K9SQL K2TXB 26
                          3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL R26
                          4. I send RRR  (or SQL RRR)
                          5. I copy 73   (contact was complete before rx'ing 73, but now I know for
                          sure)
                          6. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                           

                          I have used this method (Short-cut) working portable / mobile stations when I think it is necessary because of short ping widths, weak signal strengths or wanting to work station before he moves on to another grid. But if the calling station is being decoded often and is strong then I think it is best to start off with message #1. (Both Calls) I see this as “Users Choice”.

                           

                          I got burned once. I knew who was calling but only had decoded his CQ, Grid and partial call. I started sending Both Calls & Report and the very next sequence I started receiving his Short Hand Message. So if you use the above method make sure you have the other stations complete call. If not then send message #1 which will force him to send Both Calls and Reports.

                           

                          This has been a good dialog, I plan to copy some of the notes and post them in the “Files Section” on the WSJTGROUP Site.

                           

                          Also the WSJTGROUP Random Hour Manual will be updated to reflect:

                           

                          1. The use of “DE” in message #1
                          2. The “Proper Use of Suffix” in Rpt, RRR and 73 messages. (The station you are workings suffix instead on yours)

                           

                          Tip

                           

                           

                           

                           

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Russ Pillsbury [mailto:k2txb@...]
                          Sent:
                          Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:56 PM
                          To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] My thoughts on "Random Contacts"

                           

                          Bob, here is my thinking on the subject.  First let's review the rules for a
                          valid contact:

                          1. Each station must copy the call of the station calling him (when he is
                          calling him - copying his call during the CQ does not count).

                          2. Each station must copy his own call.

                          3. Each station must copy an additional piece of information, usually called
                          the report.

                          4. Each station must copy an acknowledgement that the other station has
                          copied all the above.


                          Now think about how our standard procedure goes:

                          1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                          2. I send K9SQL K2TXB
                          3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL 26
                          4. I send R26  (or SQL R26)
                          5. I copy RRR  (or TXB RRR)
                          6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                          7. Contact is complete, but I copy 73

                          Now, consider step #3 above.  When you send me both calls and a report, you
                          are in effect saying "I am sending calls because I don't yet know if you
                          have copied them, but I am also sending a report so you will know that I
                          have received both calls correctly."

                          Now if I happen to copy the 26, but not the calls, I cannot respond with my
                          report because if I do you will stop sending calls and I have not copied
                          them yet.  But as soon as I copy both calls AND the report, then I know that
                          it is ok to transmit R and my report because your report tells me that you
                          have both calls copied successfully.

                          Now let's look at the European way:

                          1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                          2. I send K9SQL K2TXB 26
                          3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL R26
                          4 I send RRR  (or SQL RRR)
                          5. I copy 73   (contact was complete before rx'ing 73, but now I know for
                          sure)
                          6. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                          Looks nice, huh?  But think about step 2.  I am telling you that I have
                          copied both calls even though you have never yet sent my call!

                          NOW: I have never actually sat down and listed the steps like above before.
                          I have been hung up on the fact that for MS in this country we DEFINE the
                          report as meaning "I have copied both calls" (in addition to the actual
                          report information).  IF, however, we define the report as simply a signal
                          report (the extra piece of information required) then the second method DOES
                          seem to work.

                          But this only works for random contacts.  Consider a sked situation:

                          1 I send K9SQL K2TXB  (and you send K2TXB K9SQL)
                          2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL 26  (you got me first)
                          3. I send R26  (or SQL R26)
                          4. I copy RRR  (or TXB RRR)
                          6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                          7. Contact is complete, but I copy 73

                          As long as the extra piece of info is a signal report there is no way the
                          procedure can be short-cut.  It would obviously be wrong for me to start out
                          the QSO by sending "K9SQL K2TXB 26" when I have not even heard your signal
                          yet.  If, however, we decide that the extra piece of info will be something
                          other than a signal report, then:

                          1. I send K9SQL K2TXB FM29 (and you send K2TXB K9SQL EM69)
                          2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL FM29 RRR  (you have copied both calls and report)
                          3. I send RRR  (or SQL RRR)
                          4. Contact is complete, but I copy 73
                          5. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                          In step 2, you can send RRR because you have copied everything you need
                          except R's.  Normally we would use the report to say this, but since we are
                          not sending reports separately, it seems like RRR would work.  In step 3, I
                          can send RRR because I have not only copied both calls, but the report and
                          RRR.  In fact, if you accept this method, step 3 could be "R73" instead of
                          RRR, thus eliminating the need for step 5.

                          However, I do not like the above.  It think it is too much of a short cut
                          and we are compromising the quality of our QSO's.  Think about it - the
                          whole contact is completed with just 3 pings  (the 73's are superfluous).
                          Accepting shortcuts can lead one down a slippery slope to shoddiness!

                          Regardless of the European method being a bit more efficient (or a lot more
                          efficient depending on how you do it), I really feel more comfortable with
                          our way.  But I guess it really depends on what the majority think.

                          And do not forget that the validity of our contacts is also scrutinized by
                          other VHF operators in our (and other) countries.  If they think we are
                          taking too many shortcuts then we might find that people don't respect our
                          accomplishments.

                          Another problem is that the standard that everyone uses in this country is
                          the first method.  If we try to change it will surely create a lot of
                          confusion when operators do not know which method the other station is
                          trying to use.

                          Comments?

                          73, Russ K2TXB

                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: Bob Poortinga [mailto:bobp+yahoo@...]
                          > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 3:41 PM
                          > To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] My thoughts on "Random Contacts"
                          >
                          >
                          > Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS <pe1ahx@...> writes:
                          >
                          > > The only time message 1 is used is at the beginning of a
                          > > scheduled contact (generally not on the calling frequency).  As soon as
                          > > possible we send message 2 (including a report).
                          >
                          > Interesting.  Since the definition of a QSO is simply "exchange
                          > of callsigns,
                          > reports, and rogers", station 2 could answer station 1's CQ with
                          > message 2.
                          > Station 1 would then reply with message 3 including both callsigns (or at
                          > minimum, station 2's callsign) as I see it.  This would eliminate one
                          > step and definitely make QSOs faster, easier, and successful more often.
                          >
                          > Comments?
                          >
                          > --
                          > Bob Poortinga  K9SQL
                          > Bloomington, Indiana  US




                          To unsubscribe, send an email to:
                          wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          Activity Periods http://www.ykccom/wa5ufh/
                          NAHSMS Contest Page http://www.ykc.com/wa5ufh/Rally/NAHSMS.htm









                          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






                        • Jerry R
                          Never mind N7HLN has a new call now. SORRY Jerry KC0HLN ... From: Randy Tipton Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 9:35 AM To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE:
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jul 30, 2004
                            Never mind N7HLN has a new call now. SORRY  Jerry  KC0HLN
                             
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Randy Tipton
                            Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 9:35 AM
                            To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] My thoughts on "Random Contacts"
                             

                            Snip…Now let's look at the European way:

                            1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                            2. I send K9SQL K2TXB 26
                            3 I copy K2TXB K9SQL R26
                            4. I send RRR  (or SQL RRR)
                            5. I copy 73   (contact was complete before rx'ing 73, but now I know for
                            sure)
                            6. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                             

                            I have used this method (Short-cut) working portable / mobile stations when I think it is necessary because of short ping widths, weak signal strengths or wanting to work station before he moves on to another grid. But if the calling station is being decoded often and is strong then I think it is best to start off with message #1. (Both Calls) I see this as “Users Choice”.

                             

                            I got burned once. I knew who was calling but only had decoded his CQ, Grid and partial call. I started sending Both Calls & Report and the very next sequence I started receiving his Short Hand Message. So if you use the above method make sure you have the other stations complete call. If not then send message #1 which will force him to send Both Calls and Reports.

                             

                            This has been a good dialog, I plan to copy some of the notes and post them in the “Files Section” on the WSJTGROUP Site.

                             

                            Also the WSJTGROUP Random Hour Manual will be updated to reflect:

                             

                            1. The use of “DE” in message #1
                            2. The “Proper Use of Suffix” in Rpt, RRR and 73 messages. (The station you are workings suffix instead on yours)

                             

                            Tip

                             

                             

                             

                             

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: Russ Pillsbury [mailto:k2txb@...]
                            Sent:
                            Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:56 PM
                            To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] My thoughts on "Random Contacts"

                             

                            Bob, here is my thinking on the subject.  First let's review the rules for a
                            valid contact:

                            1. Each station must copy the call of the station calling him (when he is
                            calling him - copying his call during the CQ does not count).

                            2. Each station must copy his own call.

                            3. Each station must copy an additional piece of information, usually called
                            the report.

                            4. Each station must copy an acknowledgement that the other station has
                            copied all the above.


                            Now think about how our standard procedure goes:

                            1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                            2. I send K9SQL K2TXB
                            3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL 26
                            4. I send R26  (or SQL R26)
                            5. I copy RRR  (or TXB RRR)
                            6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                            7. Contact is complete, but I copy 73

                            Now, consider step #3 above.  When you send me both calls and a report, you
                            are in effect saying "I am sending calls because I don't yet know if you
                            have copied them, but I am also sending a report so you will know that I
                            have received both calls correctly."

                            Now if I happen to copy the 26, but not the calls, I cannot respond with my
                            report because if I do you will stop sending calls and I have not copied
                            them yet.  But as soon as I copy both calls AND the report, then I know that
                            it is ok to transmit R and my report because your report tells me that you
                            have both calls copied successfully.

                            Now let's look at the European way:

                            1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                            2. I send K9SQL K2TXB 26
                            3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL R26
                            4 I send RRR  (or SQL RRR)
                            5. I copy 73   (contact was complete before rx'ing 73, but now I know for
                            sure)
                            6. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                            Looks nice, huh?  But think about step 2.  I am telling you that I have
                            copied both calls even though you have never yet sent my call!

                            NOW: I have never actually sat down and listed the steps like above before.
                            I have been hung up on the fact that for MS in this country we DEFINE the
                            report as meaning "I have copied both calls" (in addition to the actual
                            report information).  IF, however, we define the report as simply a signal
                            report (the extra piece of information required) then the second method DOES
                            seem to work.

                            But this only works for random contacts.  Consider a sked situation:

                            1 I send K9SQL K2TXB  (and you send K2TXB K9SQL)
                            2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL 26  (you got me first)
                            3. I send R26  (or SQL R26)
                            4. I copy RRR  (or TXB RRR)
                            6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                            7. Contact is complete, but I copy 73

                            As long as the extra piece of info is a signal report there is no way the
                            procedure can be short-cut.  It would obviously be wrong for me to start out
                            the QSO by sending "K9SQL K2TXB 26" when I have not even heard your signal
                            yet.  If, however, we decide that the extra piece of info will be something
                            other than a signal report, then:

                            1. I send K9SQL K2TXB FM29 (and you send K2TXB K9SQL EM69)
                            2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL FM29 RRR  (you have copied both calls and report)
                            3. I send RRR  (or SQL RRR)
                            4. Contact is complete, but I copy 73
                            5. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                            In step 2, you can send RRR because you have copied everything you need
                            except R's.  Normally we would use the report to say this, but since we are
                            not sending reports separately, it seems like RRR would work.  In step 3, I
                            can send RRR because I have not only copied both calls, but the report and
                            RRR.  In fact, if you accept this method, step 3 could be "R73" instead of
                            RRR, thus eliminating the need for step 5.

                            However, I do not like the above.  It think it is too much of a short cut
                            and we are compromising the quality of our QSO's.  Think about it - the
                            whole contact is completed with just 3 pings  (the 73's are superfluous).
                            Accepting shortcuts can lead one down a slippery slope to shoddiness!

                            Regardless of the European method being a bit more efficient (or a lot more
                            efficient depending on how you do it), I really feel more comfortable with
                            our way.  But I guess it really depends on what the majority think.

                            And do not forget that the validity of our contacts is also scrutinized by
                            other VHF operators in our (and other) countries.  If they think we are
                            taking too many shortcuts then we might find that people don't respect our
                            accomplishments.

                            Another problem is that the standard that everyone uses in this country is
                            the first method.  If we try to change it will surely create a lot of
                            confusion when operators do not know which method the other station is
                            trying to use.

                            Comments?

                            73, Russ K2TXB

                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: Bob Poortinga [mailto:bobp+yahoo@...]
                            > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 3:41 PM
                            > To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] My thoughts on "Random Contacts"
                            >
                            >
                            > Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS <pe1ahx@...> writes:
                            >
                            > > The only time message 1 is used is at the beginning of a
                            > > scheduled contact (generally not on the calling frequency).  As soon as
                            > > possible we send message 2 (including a report).
                            >
                            > Interesting.  Since the definition of a QSO is simply "exchange
                            > of callsigns,
                            > reports, and rogers", station 2 could answer station 1's CQ with
                            > message 2.
                            > Station 1 would then reply with message 3 including both callsigns (or at
                            > minimum, station 2's callsign) as I see it.  This would eliminate one
                            > step and definitely make QSOs faster, easier, and successful more often.
                            >
                            > Comments?
                            >
                            > --
                            > Bob Poortinga  K9SQL
                            > Bloomington, Indiana  US




                            To unsubscribe, send an email to:
                            wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                            Activity Periods http://www.ykccom/wa5ufh/
                            NAHSMS Contest Page http://www.ykc.com/wa5ufh/Rally/NAHSMS.htm









                            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






                          • Bruce Brackin
                            Jerry - No problem. That s when you would need to simply plug in full call (the are at least two SIX s doing ms). Hopefully K1SIX and I would know the other
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jul 30, 2004
                              Jerry - No problem. That's when you would need to simply plug in full
                              call (the are at least two SIX's doing ms). Hopefully K1SIX and I would
                              know the other was also on! I can normally here Bob with no problem - hi

                              Bruce, N5SIX
                            • Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS
                              Comments in line.. ... IF you read the procedure you would know that message 2 means: I know who you are but need to see both callsigns and report before I
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jul 30, 2004
                                Comments in line..

                                At 23:56 29-07-2004 -0400, Russ wrote:
                                >Bob, here is my thinking on the subject. First let's review the rules for a
                                >valid contact:
                                >
                                >1. Each station must copy the call of the station calling him (when he is
                                >calling him - copying his call during the CQ does not count).
                                >
                                >2. Each station must copy his own call.
                                >
                                >3. Each station must copy an additional piece of information, usually called
                                >the report.
                                >
                                >4. Each station must copy an acknowledgement that the other station has
                                >copied all the above.
                                >
                                >
                                >Now think about how our standard procedure goes:
                                >
                                >1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                                >2. I send K9SQL K2TXB
                                >3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL 26
                                >4. I send R26 (or SQL R26)
                                >5. I copy RRR (or TXB RRR)
                                >6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                                >7. Contact is complete, but I copy 73
                                >
                                >Now, consider step #3 above. When you send me both calls and a report, you
                                >are in effect saying "I am sending calls because I don't yet know if you
                                >have copied them, but I am also sending a report so you will know that I
                                >have received both calls correctly."
                                >
                                >Now if I happen to copy the 26, but not the calls, I cannot respond with my
                                >report because if I do you will stop sending calls and I have not copied
                                >them yet. But as soon as I copy both calls AND the report, then I know that
                                >it is ok to transmit R and my report because your report tells me that you
                                >have both calls copied successfully.
                                >
                                >Now let's look at the European way:
                                >
                                >1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                                >2. I send K9SQL K2TXB 26
                                >3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL R26
                                >4. I send RRR (or SQL RRR)
                                >5. I copy 73 (contact was complete before rx'ing 73, but now I know for
                                >sure)
                                >6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                                >
                                >Looks nice, huh? But think about step 2. I am telling you that I have
                                >copied both calls even though you have never yet sent my call!

                                IF you read the procedure you would know that message 2 means: I know who
                                you are but need to see both callsigns and report before I can confirm.


                                >NOW: I have never actually sat down and listed the steps like above before.
                                >I have been hung up on the fact that for MS in this country we DEFINE the
                                >report as meaning "I have copied both calls" (in addition to the actual
                                >report information). IF, however, we define the report as simply a signal
                                >report (the extra piece of information required) then the second method DOES
                                >seem to work.

                                In the IARU region-1 procedure the report is defined specifically: 1st
                                digit = length of burst, 2nd digit strength of burst. Report does not
                                change during QSO even though bursts may change.


                                >But this only works for random contacts. Consider a sked situation:
                                >
                                >1. I send K9SQL K2TXB (and you send K2TXB K9SQL)
                                >2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL 26 (you got me first)
                                >3. I send R26 (or SQL R26)
                                >4. I copy RRR (or TXB RRR)
                                >6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                                >7. Contact is complete, but I copy 73
                                >
                                >As long as the extra piece of info is a signal report there is no way the
                                >procedure can be short-cut. It would obviously be wrong for me to start out
                                >the QSO by sending "K9SQL K2TXB 26" when I have not even heard your signal
                                >yet.

                                Sked situation is the same as CQ situation above except there are 2
                                stations which hvave started with 2 callsigns instead of CQ. Sequence of
                                the QSO will be identical.

                                >If, however, we decide that the extra piece of info will be something
                                >other than a signal report, then:
                                >
                                >1. I send K9SQL K2TXB FM29 (and you send K2TXB K9SQL EM69)
                                >2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL FM29 RRR (you have copied both calls and report)
                                >3. I send RRR (or SQL RRR)
                                >4. Contact is complete, but I copy 73
                                >5. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                                Where is the extra information? What is the unknown here? Sending grid
                                square is in Europe often done during the sending of 73 or CQ if there is
                                some uncertaintly about the location of the station. It is not considered
                                the "unknown" info as described in the procedure.

                                >In step 2, you can send RRR because you have copied everything you need
                                >except R's. Normally we would use the report to say this, but since we are
                                >not sending reports separately, it seems like RRR would work. In step 3, I
                                >can send RRR because I have not only copied both calls, but the report and
                                >RRR. In fact, if you accept this method, step 3 could be "R73" instead of
                                >RRR, thus eliminating the need for step 5.
                                >
                                >However, I do not like the above. It think it is too much of a short cut
                                >and we are compromising the quality of our QSO's. Think about it - the
                                >whole contact is completed with just 3 pings (the 73's are superfluous).
                                >Accepting shortcuts can lead one down a slippery slope to shoddiness!

                                I do not see how the number of pings required can influence the validity of
                                a QSO. You are correct, total time required for a valid QSO is under
                                optimal circumstances 2 transmissions on both sides. Compare SSB QSO:

                                1. CQ K2TXB
                                2. K2TXB de PE1AHX you are 59 R?
                                3. PE1AHX de K2TXB RR you are 59 also, 73!
                                4. K2TXB de PE1AHX thanks 73!

                                Take an HF expedition QSO:

                                1. (expedition working 900 QSO's/hour)
                                2. K2TXB..
                                3. K2TXB you're 59
                                4. RR your 59, 73

                                Many times the expedition call will not get used during the QSO still all
                                these count as valid...

                                In fact I have done some tests with 15 second TX/RX periods in FSK441 with
                                very interesting results.... An MS QSO can go faster than 4 * 30 seconds :)

                                >Regardless of the European method being a bit more efficient (or a lot more
                                >efficient depending on how you do it), I really feel more comfortable with
                                >our way. But I guess it really depends on what the majority think.
                                >
                                >And do not forget that the validity of our contacts is also scrutinized by
                                >other VHF operators in our (and other) countries. If they think we are
                                >taking too many shortcuts then we might find that people don't respect our
                                >accomplishments.

                                Where are the shortcuts? If there is agreement on required exchange and
                                properly adopted definitions there are no shortcuts. If you want a
                                repected accomplishment make sure that it is based on acknowledged
                                procedures. By that I mean something which is formally adopted. Even if
                                you do not decide to use the Region 1 procedure, make sure that your
                                procedure will be the Region 2 procedure. What a small group of hams
                                informally decides to use can turn into a formal recommendation but until
                                then is nothing more than informal. Where is the Region 2 definition of a
                                QSO?


                                >Another problem is that the standard that everyone uses in this country is
                                >the first method. If we try to change it will surely create a lot of
                                >confusion when operators do not know which method the other station is
                                >trying to use.

                                I think Tip was correct in identifying a problem in his original
                                posting. Change appears to be needed and people will adapt. With WSJT it
                                is no big deal, download the new version of the software with defaults
                                based on the new procedure and everyone will be using them within 1
                                week. Regardless this problem is entirely separate from what will be the
                                new procedure.

                                >Comments?
                                >
                                >73, Russ K2TXB


                                GL!
                                Catharinus PE1AHX
                              • Randy Tipton
                                Catharinus wrote: I think Tip was correct in identifying a problem in his original posting. Change appears to be needed and people will adapt. With WSJT it
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jul 30, 2004

                                  Catharinus wrote:

                                  I think Tip was correct in identifying a problem in his original
                                  posting.  Change appears to be needed and people will adapt.  With WSJT it
                                  is no big deal, download the new version of the software with defaults
                                  based on the new procedure and everyone will be using them within 1
                                  week.  Regardless this problem is entirely separate from what will be the
                                  new procedure.

                                   

                                  The original discussion was related to “Random Contacts”. The NAHSMS Default Messages as found in WSJT are not in question.

                                   

                                  Almost all “Random Contacts” are made on the “Calling Frequencies” and the majority of them are during “Activity Periods” such as the Saturday Random Hour.

                                   

                                  The major change that would benefit operators during Random Hour and when using the call frequency is; do not use Short Hand Messages.

                                   

                                  The Random Hour Manual was appended today for two changes:

                                  1. The use of call suffixes of the station you are working in messages 3,4 & 5.
                                  2. The use of “DE” between calls in message #1. (Only during Random Hour!)

                                   

                                  Both the above I think we have all agreed on for two reasons:

                                  1. Random Hour i.e. Activity Periods
                                  2. When making contacts on the Calling Frequency

                                   

                                  So Catharinus the problem is not the NA Standard Operating Procedures. They have worked and are widely accepted. Problems arise only during high activity times on the call frequency where the NA Default messages are lacking. This is probably because Random Contacts are becoming more popular in the USA now.

                                   

                                  I have worked 38 random contacts just during Random Hours. Just this morning I worked two random qso’s. But for schedules and tail-ending qso’s off the call frequency the NA Messages work fine!

                                   

                                  Tip

                                   

                                   

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS [mailto:pe1ahx@...]
                                  Sent:
                                  Friday, July 30, 2004 3:55 PM
                                  To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] My thoughts on "Random Contacts"

                                   

                                  Comments in line..

                                  At 23:56 29-07-2004 -0400, Russ wrote:
                                  >Bob, here is my thinking on the subject.  First let's review the rules for a
                                  >valid contact:
                                  >
                                  >1. Each station must copy the call of the station calling him (when he is
                                  >calling him - copying his call during the CQ does not count).
                                  >
                                  >2. Each station must copy his own call.
                                  >
                                  >3. Each station must copy an additional piece of information, usually called
                                  >the report.
                                  >
                                  >4. Each station must copy an acknowledgement that the other station has
                                  >copied all the above.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >Now think about how our standard procedure goes:
                                  >
                                  >1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                                  >2. I send K9SQL K2TXB
                                  >3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL 26
                                  >4. I send R26  (or SQL R26)
                                  >5. I copy RRR  (or TXB RRR)
                                  >6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                                  >7. Contact is complete, but I copy 73
                                  >
                                  >Now, consider step #3 above.  When you send me both calls and a report, you
                                  >are in effect saying "I am sending calls because I don't yet know if you
                                  >have copied them, but I am also sending a report so you will know that I
                                  >have received both calls correctly."
                                  >
                                  >Now if I happen to copy the 26, but not the calls, I cannot respond with my
                                  >report because if I do you will stop sending calls and I have not copied
                                  >them yet.  But as soon as I copy both calls AND the report, then I know that
                                  >it is ok to transmit R and my report because your report tells me that you
                                  >have both calls copied successfully.
                                  >
                                  >Now let's look at the European way:
                                  >
                                  >1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                                  >2. I send K9SQL K2TXB 26
                                  >3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL R26
                                  >4. I send RRR  (or SQL RRR)
                                  >5. I copy 73   (contact was complete before rx'ing 73, but now I know for
                                  >sure)
                                  >6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                                  >
                                  >Looks nice, huh?  But think about step 2.  I am telling you that I have
                                  >copied both calls even though you have never yet sent my call!

                                  IF you read the procedure you would know that message 2 means:  I know who
                                  you are but need to see both callsigns and report before I can confirm.


                                  >NOW: I have never actually sat down and listed the steps like above before.
                                  >I have been hung up on the fact that for MS in this country we DEFINE the
                                  >report as meaning "I have copied both calls" (in addition to the actual
                                  >report information).  IF, however, we define the report as simply a signal
                                  >report (the extra piece of information required) then the second method DOES
                                  >seem to work.

                                  In the IARU region-1 procedure the report is defined specifically: 1st
                                  digit = length of burst, 2nd digit strength of burst.  Report does not
                                  change during QSO even though bursts may change.


                                  >But this only works for random contacts.  Consider a sked situation:
                                  >
                                  >1. I send K9SQL K2TXB  (and you send K2TXB K9SQL)
                                  >2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL 26  (you got me first)
                                  >3. I send R26  (or SQL R26)
                                  >4. I copy RRR  (or TXB RRR)
                                  >6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                                  >7. Contact is complete, but I copy 73
                                  >
                                  >As long as the extra piece of info is a signal report there is no way the
                                  >procedure can be short-cut.  It would obviously be wrong for me to start out
                                  >the QSO by sending "K9SQL K2TXB 26" when I have not even heard your signal
                                  >yet.

                                  Sked situation is the same as CQ situation above except there are 2
                                  stations which hvave started with 2 callsigns instead of CQ.  Sequence of
                                  the QSO will be identical.

                                  >If, however, we decide that the extra piece of info will be something
                                  >other than a signal report, then:
                                  >
                                  >1. I send K9SQL K2TXB FM29 (and you send K2TXB K9SQL EM69)
                                  >2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL FM29 RRR  (you have copied both calls and report)
                                  >3. I send RRR  (or SQL RRR)
                                  >4. Contact is complete, but I copy 73
                                  >5. Contact is complete, but I send 73

                                  Where is the extra information?  What is the unknown here?  Sending grid
                                  square is in Europe often done during the sending of 73 or CQ if there is
                                  some uncertaintly about the location of the station.  It is not considered
                                  the "unknown" info as described in the procedure.

                                  >In step 2, you can send RRR because you have copied everything you need
                                  >except R's.  Normally we would use the report to say this, but since we are
                                  >not sending reports separately, it seems like RRR would work.  In step 3, I
                                  >can send RRR because I have not only copied both calls, but the report and
                                  >RRR.  In fact, if you accept this method, step 3 could be "R73" instead of
                                  >RRR, thus eliminating the need for step 5.
                                  >
                                  >However, I do not like the above.  It think it is too much of a short cut
                                  >and we are compromising the quality of our QSO's.  Think about it - the
                                  >whole contact is completed with just 3 pings  (the 73's are superfluous).
                                  >Accepting shortcuts can lead one down a slippery slope to shoddiness!

                                  I do not see how the number of pings required can influence the validity of
                                  a QSO.  You are correct, total time required for a valid QSO is under
                                  optimal circumstances 2 transmissions on both sides.  Compare SSB QSO:

                                  1.      CQ K2TXB
                                  2.      K2TXB de PE1AHX you are 59 R?
                                  3.      PE1AHX de K2TXB RR you are 59 also, 73!
                                  4.      K2TXB de PE1AHX thanks 73!

                                  Take an HF expedition QSO:

                                  1.      (expedition working 900 QSO's/hour)
                                  2.      K2TXB..
                                  3.      K2TXB you're 59
                                  4.      RR your 59, 73

                                  Many times the expedition call will not get used during the QSO still all
                                  these count as valid...

                                  In fact I have done some tests with 15 second TX/RX periods in FSK441 with
                                  very interesting results....  An MS QSO can go faster than 4 * 30 seconds :)

                                  >Regardless of the European method being a bit more efficient (or a lot more
                                  >efficient depending on how you do it), I really feel more comfortable with
                                  >our way.  But I guess it really depends on what the majority think.
                                  >
                                  >And do not forget that the validity of our contacts is also scrutinized by
                                  >other VHF operators in our (and other) countries.  If they think we are
                                  >taking too many shortcuts then we might find that people don't respect our
                                  >accomplishments.

                                  Where are the shortcuts?  If there is agreement on required exchange and
                                  properly adopted definitions there are no shortcuts.  If you want a
                                  repected accomplishment make sure that it is based on acknowledged
                                  procedures.  By that I mean something which is formally adopted.  Even if
                                  you do not decide to use the Region 1 procedure, make sure that your
                                  procedure will be the Region 2 procedure.  What a small group of hams
                                  informally decides to use can turn into a formal recommendation but until
                                  then is nothing more than informal.  Where is the Region 2 definition of a
                                  QSO?


                                  >Another problem is that the standard that everyone uses in this country is
                                  >the first method.  If we try to change it will surely create a lot of
                                  >confusion when operators do not know which method the other station is
                                  >trying to use.

                                  I think Tip was correct in identifying a problem in his original
                                  posting.  Change appears to be needed and people will adapt.  With WSJT it
                                  is no big deal, download the new version of the software with defaults
                                  based on the new procedure and everyone will be using them within 1
                                  week.  Regardless this problem is entirely separate from what will be the
                                  new procedure.

                                  >Comments?
                                  >
                                  >73, Russ K2TXB


                                  GL!
                                  Catharinus PE1AHX




                                  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







                                • Russ Pillsbury
                                  ... Maybe, but we have no defined procedure here in NA that says that. ... We use the same reporting system, but my point is that until you have actually
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jul 30, 2004
                                    Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS [mailto:pe1ahx@...] wrote:

                                    > Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] My thoughts on "Random Contacts"
                                    >
                                    > Comments in line..

                                    >> Now let's look at the European way:
                                    >>
                                    >> 1. I copy CQ K9SQL
                                    >> 2. I send K9SQL K2TXB 26
                                    >> 3. I copy K2TXB K9SQL R26
                                    >> 4. I send RRR (or SQL RRR)
                                    >> 5. I copy 73 (contact was complete before rx'ing 73, but
                                    >> now I know for sure)
                                    >> 6. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                                    >>
                                    >> Looks nice, huh? But think about step 2. I am telling you that I have
                                    >> copied both calls even though you have never yet sent my call!
                                    >
                                    > IF you read the procedure you would know that message 2 means:
                                    > I know who you are but need to see both callsigns and report
                                    > before I can confirm.

                                    Maybe, but we have no defined procedure here in NA that says that.

                                    > ...In the IARU region-1 procedure the report is defined specifically: 1st
                                    > digit = length of burst, 2nd digit strength of burst. Report does not
                                    > change during QSO even though bursts may change.

                                    We use the same reporting system, but my point is that until you have
                                    actually copied the station, there is no way you can send a report of this
                                    type. How can you calculate the numbers. Further I see no reason not to
                                    change the report if conditions change. Many times I have been sending a 26
                                    report to someone for a few sequences and then change it to a 27 or 37 when
                                    I start receiving stronger or longer bursts. It does not really matter
                                    which one he receives, as long as he does receive a report that I sent.

                                    > Sked situation is the same as CQ situation above except there are 2
                                    > stations which have started with 2 callsigns instead of CQ. Sequence of
                                    > the QSO will be identical.

                                    I agree with this.


                                    >> If, however, we decide that the extra piece of info will be something
                                    >> other than a signal report, then:
                                    >>
                                    >> 1. I send K9SQL K2TXB FM29 (and you send K2TXB K9SQL EM69)
                                    >> 2. I copy K2TXB K9SQL FM29 RRR (you have copied both calls and report)
                                    >> 3. I send RRR (or SQL RRR)
                                    >> 4. Contact is complete, but I copy 73
                                    >> 5. Contact is complete, but I send 73
                                    >
                                    > Where is the extra information? What is the unknown here? Sending grid
                                    > square is in Europe often done during the sending of 73 or CQ if there is
                                    > some uncertainty about the location of the station. It is not
                                    > considered the "unknown" info as described in the procedure.

                                    Why not? The grid square is often unknown. The rules of almost all
                                    contests specifically state that grid square is the report, and signal
                                    reports need not be exchanged to make a valid contact.

                                    Never the less, for non contest meteor scatter, I do prefer sending a 'real'
                                    report along with or instead of the grid square. Consider the sequence used
                                    by JT65 on EME. The grid is sent as extra information with the initial
                                    calls. But the report OOO is strongly identified as meaning "I have copied
                                    both calls". This is also true of CW EME. It is NEVER sent before calls
                                    are copied. This is a time tested method of making sure that contacts made
                                    under adverse conditions are valid. And it is accepted worldwide. What we
                                    have been doing in this country is adhering to that standard.

                                    > I do not see how the number of pings required can influence the
                                    > validity of
                                    > a QSO. You are correct, total time required for a valid QSO is under
                                    > optimal circumstances 2 transmissions on both sides. Compare SSB QSO:
                                    >
                                    > 1. CQ K2TXB
                                    > 2. K2TXB de PE1AHX you are 59 R?
                                    > 3. PE1AHX de K2TXB RR you are 59 also, 73!
                                    > 4. K2TXB de PE1AHX thanks 73!

                                    Yes, it does work out the same for the normal random MS SSB contact. But
                                    compare to a sked SSB MS contact and you will see that the procedure is
                                    identical to the way we do it here. In skeds we do not start out sending
                                    report (no matter what the report info is) with the calls. We still use the
                                    report to also mean "I have copied both calls".

                                    In fact the above is not the way we do it:

                                    1. CQ K2TXB
                                    2. K2TXB PE1AHX
                                    3. PE1AHX K2TXB S2 S2
                                    4. RS2 RS2
                                    5. RRR
                                    6. 73
                                    7. 73

                                    In recent years, however, the NA calling frequency random MS procedure has
                                    degenerated into something fearfully resembling the mess on HF.

                                    > Take an HF expedition QSO:
                                    >
                                    > 1. (expedition working 900 QSO's/hour)
                                    > 2. K2TXB..
                                    > 3. K2TXB you're 59
                                    > 4. RR your 59, 73

                                    TOTALLY INVALID QSO !

                                    The ARRL rules for a valid QSO specifically state that you must copy both
                                    calls during the contact. For what it is worth, I do not consider most HF
                                    operating procedures as very good. Some of them are downright terrible. It
                                    is my hope that we on VHF will not let our operating degrade to their
                                    levels. (And many other long time VHF operators in this country feel the
                                    same way.)

                                    > In fact I have done some tests with 15 second TX/RX periods
                                    > in FSK441 with very interesting results.... An MS QSO can
                                    > go faster than 4 * 30 seconds :)

                                    Yes, 15 second sequences can often make a big difference. In fact if I had
                                    been using 15 second sequences, I would have a valid (NA Style) WSJT MS
                                    contact of over 1600 miles (2575 Km). But often the 'rocks' are too seldom
                                    and too short to make it worth the extra attention that 15 second sequencing
                                    takes.

                                    > Where are the shortcuts? If there is agreement on required exchange and
                                    > properly adopted definitions there are no shortcuts. If you want a
                                    > respected accomplishment make sure that it is based on acknowledged
                                    > procedures.

                                    That is what I am trying to do.

                                    > By that I mean something which is formally adopted. Even if
                                    > you do not decide to use the Region 1 procedure, make sure that your
                                    > procedure will be the Region 2 procedure. What a small group of hams
                                    > informally decides to use can turn into a formal recommendation but until
                                    > then is nothing more than informal. Where is the Region 2
                                    > definition of a QSO?

                                    It is published somewhere, on the ARRL web site, I believe. I listed the
                                    requirements in my first message on this subject. However this does not
                                    specify the exact exchange that is required for meteor scatter, nor should
                                    it. As I indicated before, using the method of sending the report when
                                    answering a CQ is valid. But it's not the way anyone in this country does
                                    it with WSJT. And they did not do it with HSMS CW either.

                                    In fact, the S2,RS2 protocol was developed when all MS was done via hand
                                    sent CW, and it was required that the S2 not be sent until both calls were
                                    copied (reports could actually range from S1 through S5, I think, but S2 was
                                    most often used). These procedures were worked out and adopted by the
                                    pioneers of meteor scatter communication, like Paul Wilson, W4HHK. They
                                    were adopted because they work, and make absolutely sure that contacts made
                                    via MS are valid. If the majority wanted to change, I would agree to do so,
                                    but I still don't feel comfortable with short cutting these tried and true
                                    procedures. It may be more work, and it may cause a lost contact now and
                                    then, but it gives me a sense that my contacts are solid.

                                    > I think Tip was correct in identifying a problem in his original
                                    > posting. Change appears to be needed and people will adapt.

                                    I did not see Tip's comments as identifying a problem. He was just
                                    wondering if we could take advantage of the shorter procedure.

                                    > With WSJT it
                                    > is no big deal, download the new version of the software with defaults
                                    > based on the new procedure and everyone will be using them within 1
                                    > week. Regardless this problem is entirely separate from what will be the
                                    > new procedure.

                                    Yes, changing the default in WSJT would be the way to do it if we should
                                    decide that is what we want to do.

                                    73, Russ K2TXB
                                  • Dan K9ZF
                                    I ve been enjoying the dialog on procedures. I ve downloaded the latest version of WSJT, installed it on my laptop, have my soundcard interface ready, and
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jul 30, 2004
                                      I've been enjoying the dialog on procedures. I've downloaded the latest
                                      version of WSJT, installed it on my laptop, have my soundcard interface
                                      ready, and hope to have 6 and 2 meter antennas up sometime tomorrow.
                                      Looking forward to giving it a try:-)

                                      Finally getting some antennas up at home, just in time to miss all the
                                      aurora and eskip of the last few weeks!!

                                      73
                                      Dan
                                      Dan Evans K9ZF
                                      K9ZF /R no budget Rover
                                      Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
                                      http://www.qsl.net/n9rla
                                      QRP-l #1269
                                      List Administrator for:
                                      InHam+grid-loc+ham-books
                                    • Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS
                                      ... Tip, understand and will leave it at this... Perseids coming up, new squares waiting... This morning (local time) already very long and strong bursts
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jul 31, 2004
                                        At 16:29 30-07-2004 -0500, Tip wrote:

                                        >So Catharinus the problem is not the NA Standard Operating Procedures.
                                        >They have worked and are widely accepted. Problems arise only during high
                                        >activity times on the call frequency where the NA Default messages are
                                        >lacking. This is probably because Random Contacts are becoming more
                                        >popular in the USA now.
                                        >
                                        >I have worked 38 random contacts just during Random Hours. Just this
                                        >morning I worked two random qsos. But for schedules and tail-ending qsos
                                        >off the call frequency the NA Messages work fine!
                                        >
                                        >Tip

                                        Tip,

                                        understand and will leave it at this... Perseids coming up, new squares
                                        waiting... This morning (local time) already very long and strong bursts
                                        over abt 1250 miles. Best QTF: NE-SW. GL with the MS QSO's.

                                        73
                                        Catharinus PE1AHX/N4QXT
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.