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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , Jul 29 3:03 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 20 , Jul 29 3:49 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 20 , Jul 29 8:56 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 20 , Jul 30 7:33 AM
          • 0 Attachment

            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 5 of 20 , Jul 30 12:44 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 20 , Jul 30 12:50 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 20 , Jul 30 1:13 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 20 , Jul 30 1:54 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 20 , Jul 30 2:29 PM
                    • 0 Attachment

                      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 10 of 20 , Jul 30 3:35 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 20 , Jul 30 5:22 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 20 , Jul 31 1:51 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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.