locked Re: Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices


Reino Talarmo
 

Dan,
I disagree a bit how the QSO is completed. IARU has defined that also the signal reports needs to be confirmed, see https://www.amateurradio.com/what-is-a-valid-qso/.
In wsjt-x that confirmation is R-xx or RR73 or RRR depending on the originator. So in your list the second step should be RR73 or RRR for a smooth QSO as most FT8 operators prefer it and the automated process supports that.
If you replace the RR73 or RRR by 73, then some operators are confused and may not log the QSO. Of course you may do it as you wish, I only indicate preferred way, hi!
The use of 73 after receiving RR73 and especially RRR is another dividing conflict.

73, Reino OH3mA

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dan Malcolm
Sent: 16. toukokuutata 2022 23:50
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Reino,
Okay. I'm fine with that. If I have to manually resend a 73 that's ok. The tenants of ham radio does dictate that we should be involved and not run a fully automated station anyway.

So here's what I've got out this entire conversation:
1. The QSO is legitimately over after both parties receive a signal report.
2. Sending a 73 as a post report message is just a courtesy. One I appreciate FWIW.
3. Sending RR73 is a gray area. It could be a 73 or just a signal report, or it could be both.
4. Sending an Rxx and then in a follow up message sending 73 is definitely a finished QSO with a courteous termination.
5. If participating in a contest, forgo the courtesy in favor of saving time.

__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Reino Talarmo
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 1:21 PM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Why won't the automata respond to Tx5? It is included in WSJT-X supplied messages, and is an accepted response everywhere else that I know off. Is there someplace that is documented the I missed?
Hi Dan,
I can only consider, what designers were thinking.
First of all that automata don't have memory. So, if it would send a "73 message_2" to a received "73 message_1", then that will happen also at the reception of "73 message_2" and another "73 message" will be sent...
Another reason is that the QSO as such is completed, when both operators have received a report and confirmed the reception of the report. RRR or RR73 is the confirmation and there is no need to confirm the confirmation in the minimum QSO. If you don't receive the confirmation RRR or RR73, then you will resend your R-xx report(/confirmation). That mechanism is used in contest messages without 73.
If you want to send a polite 73 to inform that you have received the confirmation, you need to do it manually.
This is known as "Two Generals' Problem".
73, Reino OH3mA

Join main@WSJTX.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.