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

RE: [wsjtgroup] Signal Reports

Expand Messages
  • K. D. Sarchet
    Fred, I am assuming you are using terrestrial JT65A as the mode, rather than EME, so I ll reference that. The old-timers to that mode taught me that you
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      Fred,

       

      I am assuming you are using terrestrial JT65A as the mode, rather than EME, so I’ll reference that.  The old-timers to that mode taught me that you exchanged call signs, locator and signal reports for a valid QSO.  And the 73 was optional.  That said, I don’t know who their tutor was or who originated that rule.  Personally, I totally agree with your point about not confirming without a signal report.  I have been in the same situation, and unless I get a call sign, grid and report, I don’t QSL.  That is just my opinion.

       

      73 de WY5R - KD

       

      JT65A Power Calculator

       

      From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fred_darrah
      Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 6:30 AM
      To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [wsjtgroup] Signal Reports

       

       

      I think what is being said is, there is no minimum acceptable standards for a valid QSO. How can one agree between each other what is valid in JT65 mode at the time of the QSO? There must be a minimum standard for ARRL awards taken from QSL cards. I have had one operator that never sent an RRR or a 73 and threw a fit when I would not validate the contact. Do each of us make up our own standards.
      73 Fred N9GUE

    • Russ K2TXB
      ... for a valid QSO. ... of the QSO? ... have had one ... validate the ... I Think you took what I said in the wrong way. When operating JT65 the CONVENTION
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Fred wrote:

        > I think what is being said is, there is no minimum acceptable standards
        for a valid QSO.
        > How can one agree between each other what is valid in JT65 mode at he time
        of the QSO?
        > There must be a minimum standard for ARRL awards taken from QSL cards. I
        have had one
        > operator that never sent an RRR or a 73 and threw a fit when I would not
        validate the
        > contact. Do each of us make up our own standards.
        > 73 Ftred N9GUE


        I Think you took what I said in the wrong way. When operating JT65 the
        CONVENTION is to use OOO and RO to exchange signal reports. If you are
        working someone random then you use that - or else it is not going to be
        understood by the other. Exchange of grid squares as done in JT65 is not
        considered to be a report exchange. This is because the grids are sent
        before receiving an acknowledgement. A valid QSO between K2XXX and N3YYY
        MUST include the proper receipt of BOTH callsigns, reports, and
        acknowledgements. Note that the report is a very key part of the exchange,
        because it tells the other operator that you have received both calls
        correctly. Without a report, one station or the other will continue sending
        calls forever (or until he gives up). It goes like this:

        Assume that either N3YYY has called CQ or the contact is prearranged (sked).
        First is the initial call. The only important part is the call signs, any
        other information is superfluous, but may be included. The report cannot be
        part of the initial call.
        The initial call is repeated by K2XXX until he receives a report (indicating
        that N3YYY has received both calls).

        1) K2XXX de N3YYY

        Once N3YYY receives BOTH calls, he may then begin sending the report, but he
        CANNOT send the report until he has received BOTH calls. Also he MUST
        continue sending both calls until he receives a report back.

        2) N3YYY de K2XXX REPORT

        Once N3YYY receives both calls AND the report he can send RRR and his own
        report, proceeding to step 3. But he CANNOT send the report until he has
        received both calls. If he gets the calls but not the report then he
        proceeds to step 2, sending calls and report. In that case both stations
        are on step two, and continue with step two until one of them gets the
        report. This is because the report is the piece of information that tells
        you that the other station has received both calls.

        3) RRR REPORT

        Note that for step 3, no calls are required since the sending station KNOWS
        that the other station has received the calls (or else he would not have
        sent a report). Once K2XXX receives the report, he proceeds to step 4,
        sending his own acknowledgement.

        4) RRR

        Once the final RRR acknowledgement is received, the contact is complete.
        Both stations have received both calls and a report, and both stations have
        received acknowledgement of those facts. However mostly it is good to then
        exchange 73's. Otherwise the station sending step 4 will not know for sure
        that the other guy actually received it. (It does not matter if he knows,
        the contact is complete and valid if the RRR was received by both parties,
        even if no subsequent information is exchanged.)

        5) 73 de N3YYY
        6) 73 de K2XXX

        If both stations follow the rules above, there will be no questions about it
        being a valid contact. If one station does not send a report or rogers,
        then it cannot be valid because there is no way the other station could have
        received this crucial piece of information.

        Also, I should mention that any exchange of QSO information by any means
        other than via their transmitters and receivers, does invalidate the
        contact. This especially includes internet chat pages. If you chat to the
        other guy "are you receiving me yet, and he answers yes or no, the contact
        is not valid. (It can still be completed, but both stations have to start
        over, throwing out any information they may already have received.)

        73, Russ K2TXB
      • rsnnj5
        Personally, I think the discussion of valid contacts is being made way too complicated. The ARRL Operating Manual states, ... for a valid QSO to take place,
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Personally, I think the discussion of valid contacts is being made way too complicated.

          The ARRL Operating Manual states, "... for a valid QSO to take place, you must exchange full call signs, some piece of information, and acknowledgment. ..." It may not be the authority, but it likely summarizes what we all adher to at one time or another.

          Obviously, the MAJORITY of contacts made use a signal report as that "some piece of information". Outside of other guidance we read, learned, or whatever, we use the signal report.

          However, other specialized contact methods have developed and evolved using other "pieces of information" that better suit the needs for that communication.

          (2) EME uses OOO and RO.
          (3) WSJT meteor scatter uses report (ie, 26) or grid. For instance, WSJT QsoS in VHF contests needs the "grid". And the program setup allows the using reports or grids as the defaults.
          (4) Some contests use reports and one other piece of info.
          (4a) Some contests use reports and many other pieces of info (sweepstakes).
          (4b) Some contests (many) use NO SIG REPORT, just other info. (CQ VHF contests, ARRL VHF contests, many RTTY contests).

          If anyone wants to operate where they only accept exchange of signal reports as a valid contact, more power to you. But it means you are likely avoiding contesting. That's fine TOO, but you are missing some great opportunities for new countries, grids, states, and new friends.

          Steve, W5KI
        • Roger Schneider
          For what it’s worth, LoTW requires no signal report to validate a qso. Roger W9FF For what it’s worth, LoTW requires no signal report to validate a qso.
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            For what it’s worth, LoTW requires no signal report to validate a qso.    Roger W9FF
          • Jim Kennedy
            Nicely stated Steve. I agree and I am sure many others do also. Jim W7OUU ... From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 2, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
            • Barry Garratt
              That pretty much sums it up Steve. Well said! Barry KS7DX From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rsnnj5 Sent:
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 2, 2011
              • 0 Attachment

                That pretty much sums it up Steve. Well said!

                 

                Barry KS7DX

                 

                 

                 

                From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rsnnj5
                Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 9:16 AM
                To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [wsjtgroup] Re: Signal Reports

                 

                 

                Personally, I think the discussion of valid contacts is being made way too complicated.

                The ARRL Operating Manual states, "... for a valid QSO to take place, you must exchange full call signs, some piece of information, and acknowledgment. ..." It may not be the authority, but it likely summarizes what we all adher to at one time or another.

                Obviously, the MAJORITY of contacts made use a signal report as that "some piece of information". Outside of other guidance we read, learned, or whatever, we use the signal report.

                However, other specialized contact methods have developed and evolved using other "pieces of information" that better suit the needs for that communication.

                (2) EME uses OOO and RO.
                (3) WSJT meteor scatter uses report (ie, 26) or grid. For instance, WSJT QsoS in VHF contests needs the "grid". And the program setup allows the using reports or grids as the defaults.
                (4) Some contests use reports and one other piece of info.
                (4a) Some contests use reports and many other pieces of info (sweepstakes).
                (4b) Some contests (many) use NO SIG REPORT, just other info. (CQ VHF contests, ARRL VHF contests, many RTTY contests).

                If anyone wants to operate where they only accept exchange of signal reports as a valid contact, more power to you. But it means you are likely avoiding contesting. That's fine TOO, but you are missing some great opportunities for new countries, grids, states, and new friends.

                Steve, W5KI

              • K. D. Sarchet
                Thanks Steve, As others have said, very well put. You have confirmed the operating procedure that was pointed out to me several years ago when I started
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 3, 2011
                • 0 Attachment

                  Thanks Steve,

                   

                  As others have said, very well put.

                   

                  You have confirmed the operating procedure that was pointed out to me several years ago when I started terrestrial JT65.  The information exchanged is the signal report.  The grid just happens to be with the call sign and part of the protocol built-in to the CQ and the answer to the CQ.  With a trailing confirmation via RRR or 73.

                  Incidentally, I was curious to know who and how this process was started.   I received several direct emails on the subject and a couple of them pointed out that the procedure you outlined was originally suggested as a confirmation procedure by Ed Tilton, W1HDQ back in the early 1960’s.  Ed was the original ARRL editor for “The World Above 50MHz”.

                   

                  73 de WY5R - KD

                   

                  JT65A Power Calculator

                   

                  From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rsnnj5
                  Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 11:16 AM
                  To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [wsjtgroup] Re: Signal Reports

                   

                   

                  Personally, I think the discussion of valid contacts is being made way too complicated.

                  The ARRL Operating Manual states, "... for a valid QSO to take place, you must exchange full call signs, some piece of information, and acknowledgment. ..." It may not be the authority, but it likely summarizes what we all adher to at one time or another.

                  Obviously, the MAJORITY of contacts made use a signal report as that "some piece of information". Outside of other guidance we read, learned, or whatever, we use the signal report.

                  However, other specialized contact methods have developed and evolved using other "pieces of information" that better suit the needs for that communication.

                  (2) EME uses OOO and RO.
                  (3) WSJT meteor scatter uses report (ie, 26) or grid. For instance, WSJT QsoS in VHF contests needs the "grid". And the program setup allows the using reports or grids as the defaults.
                  (4) Some contests use reports and one other piece of info.
                  (4a) Some contests use reports and many other pieces of info (sweepstakes).
                  (4b) Some contests (many) use NO SIG REPORT, just other info. (CQ VHF contests, ARRL VHF contests, many RTTY contests).

                  If anyone wants to operate where they only accept exchange of signal reports as a valid contact, more power to you. But it means you are likely avoiding contesting. That's fine TOO, but you are missing some great opportunities for new countries, grids, states, and new friends.

                  Steve, W5KI

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