Date   

locked Re: FST4-15 28.140 KN4FLO TESTING #FST4

 

05/15/2022 16:32 UTC. I have some weather moving in at this time. I have powered off my station and will try to get back on the air as soon as the weather passes. I will update again when I can get back on the air. Thank You for understanding. KN4FLO, James, 73.


locked Re: FST4-15 28.140 KN4FLO TESTING #FST4

 

05/15/2022 15:45 UTC. I have moved from 2000 down to 1200. I have F Low at 500 and F High at 2500. I am using WSJT-X v2.5.4. I have the Bins/Pixel on the waterfall set to a 3. I am still transmitting a CQ, FST4-30 Even. Thank You EA7QL for trying. KN4FLO, 73.


locked Re: FST4-15 28.140 KN4FLO TESTING #FST4

 

05/15/2022 15:34 UTC. I have adjusted the software on my end and it is now F Low 500 and F High 2500. I am still at 2000. Thank you for the attempt. KN4FLO, 73.


locked Re: Decoding Issue …. #FT8

Michael Black
 

How is the audio connected from the QRP rig to the computer?USB port or audio cable?  Which port of the computer is it plugged into?
Mike W9MDB

On Sunday, May 15, 2022, 10:27:56 AM CDT, Carl Griebno <k2gej.sc@...> wrote:

I can’t set to 30 and I believe therein lies the problem.  If I turn the receiver gain all the way down, still have a 60 or so noise level.  Unplug the audio cable coming from the computer and receive level drops to zero.  Think I have a bad ground loop so ordered a psk 31 isolator.  That should take care of that.


locked Re: FST4-15 28.140 KN4FLO TESTING #FST4

EA7QL
 

I am QRV at 28'140, TX/RX 15, F LOW 600 and F HIGH 1200. It won't let me go
up to 2500. Let's see if I get lucky and get something.

73.
Emilio, EA7QL.

El dom, 15 may 2022 a las 16:02, James Buie (<ars.kn4flo@...>)
escribió:

I am calling CQ Even. KN4FLO, 73.





--
Saludos de Emilio, EA7QL.


locked Re: Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

 

Reino,
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?

__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Reino Talarmo
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2022 11:12 PM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Mike and Dan,
Curious, why you respond to an R-XX with a 73? We have RR73 for that purpose. What you expect as the response to the 73?
By that you force a human action from the other operator as the automata don't respond to Tx5. No surprise that you need to send the 73 multiple times, hi!
See FT4_FT8_QEX-pdf Figure 6.
73, Reino OH3mA

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dan Malcolm
Sent: 14. toukokuutata 2022 23:27
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Mike,
I'll reply to an R-XX with a plane 73 up to four times. Then I assume he just can't receive me. Sometimes I'll use JTAlert's message facility to send a notification that I have them in my log.

Thanks for the clarification.
__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Black via groups.io
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 11:54 AM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

There are those that expect a 73 and those that don't.
If you or they are using the standard RRR response then both 73's are usually used in FT8.
But...they will log when they send their 73.
I've never seen anybody end after an R-XX report. If they keep sending it means they didn't get your 73.
Mike W9MDB




On Friday, May 13, 2022, 11:48:14 AM CDT, Dan Malcolm <k4shq@...> wrote:

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II


locked Re: Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Michael Black
 

These are the two possible sequences from the roger-signal-report -- on the 1st one I've seen operators keep sending the 1st 73 until they get one.e.g.
W9MDB K4HSQ R-10K4HSQ W9MDB RRRW9MDB K4HSQ 73
K4HSQ W9MDB 73

OrW9MDB K4HSQ R-10K4HSQ W9MDB RR73W9MDB K4HSQ 73

Mike W9MDB

On Sunday, May 15, 2022, 06:18:07 AM CDT, Reino Talarmo <reino.talarmo@...> wrote:

Mike and Dan,
Curious, why you respond to an R-XX with a 73? We have RR73 for that purpose. What you expect as the response to the 73?
By that you force a human action from the other operator as the automata don't respond to Tx5. No surprise that you need to send the 73 multiple times, hi!
See FT4_FT8_QEX-pdf Figure 6.
73, Reino OH3mA

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dan Malcolm
Sent: 14. toukokuutata 2022 23:27
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Mike,
I'll reply to an R-XX with a plane 73 up to four times.  Then I assume he just can't receive me.  Sometimes I'll use JTAlert's message facility to send a notification that I have them in my log. 

Thanks for the clarification.
__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Black via groups.io
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 11:54 AM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

There are those that expect a 73 and those that don't.
If you or they are using the standard RRR response then both 73's are usually used in FT8.
But...they will log when they send their 73.
I've never seen anybody end after an R-XX report.  If they keep sending it means they didn't get your 73.
Mike W9MDB




    On Friday, May 13, 2022, 11:48:14 AM CDT, Dan Malcolm <k4shq@...> wrote: 

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal.  FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged.  Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report.  That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times.  I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report.  This makes me think I'm missing something.  Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II


locked Re: Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

chas cartmel
 

I have seen a few stations who are unaware of the standard sequences. No wonder they confuse themselves and others.
Perhaps #RTFM


73 Charlie
G4EST
www.g4est.me.uk
Stay safe out there

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Reino Talarmo
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 5:12 AM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Mike and Dan,
Curious, why you respond to an R-XX with a 73? We have RR73 for that purpose. What you expect as the response to the 73?
By that you force a human action from the other operator as the automata don't respond to Tx5. No surprise that you need to send the 73 multiple times, hi!
See FT4_FT8_QEX-pdf Figure 6.
73, Reino OH3mA

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dan Malcolm
Sent: 14. toukokuutata 2022 23:27
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Mike,
I'll reply to an R-XX with a plane 73 up to four times. Then I assume he just can't receive me. Sometimes I'll use JTAlert's message facility to send a notification that I have them in my log.

Thanks for the clarification.
__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Black via groups.io
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 11:54 AM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

There are those that expect a 73 and those that don't.
If you or they are using the standard RRR response then both 73's are usually used in FT8.
But...they will log when they send their 73.
I've never seen anybody end after an R-XX report. If they keep sending it means they didn't get your 73.
Mike W9MDB




On Friday, May 13, 2022, 11:48:14 AM CDT, Dan Malcolm <k4shq@...> wrote:

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II






















This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com


locked Re: Decoding Issue …. #FT8

Carl Griebno <k2gej.sc@...>
 

I can’t set to 30 and I believe therein lies the problem. If I turn the receiver gain all the way down, still have a 60 or so noise level. Unplug the audio cable coming from the computer and receive level drops to zero. Think I have a bad ground loop so ordered a psk 31 isolator. That should take care of that.


locked M1 build crashes when clicking callsign in GUI #macOS

DL8DTL Joerg <j2020@...>
 

I finally managed to make a native M1 CPU MacOS build. (Had to twiddle the CMake stuff a little so it includes libgfortran and libqmath in the .app package.)

It basically works, but as soon as I click the callsign in one of the lines of the receiver window, it crashes with:

```
At line 1 of file /Users/j/src/wsjtx/lib/grid2deg.f90
Fortran runtime error: Actual string length is shorter than the declared one for dummy argument 'grid0' (0/6)
```
I did configure my own grid location in setup, so I guess it has troubles to extract the grid from the peer, even though it is correctly displayed.


locked Re: FST4-15 28.140 KN4FLO TESTING #FST4

 

I am calling CQ Even. KN4FLO, 73.


locked Re: FST4-15 28.140 KN4FLO TESTING #FST4

 

FST4-30. KN4FLO, 73.


locked Re: FST4-15 28.140 KN4FLO TESTING #FST4

 

I am at 28.140 10 meters and using F Low 1500 and F High 2500. I am on 2000. KN4FLO, 73.


locked Re: FST4-15 28.140 KN4FLO TESTING #FST4

 

05/15/2022 13:48 UTC. I have the radio back on and will be transmitting again. I will also stop sometimes and just monitor. KN4FLO, 73.


locked Re: Yaesu FT991A Won't Transmit in FT8 #Cat_RigControl #NewUser #TechnicalHelpQuestion #transmit #Yaesu

Dave KD2SGM
 

Sorry for what may seem like a dumb question, but when you say you can’t transmit on FT-8, do you mean all WSJT-X modes? I just upgraded from 2.5.0 to 2.5.4. Wish I didn’t. There’s a Hamlib error for some rigs for rig control. I experience some of the issues you have experienced. A simple stop transmit usually fixes the problem. My rig is a Yaesu FTDX -3000 using an OCF Dipole. This only happens occasionally. All other modes are fine (SSB, CW, RTTY, PSK). You may want to choose a different rig in the drop down and/or update the Hamlib file. My max power output is 30 watts.

Good Luck,
Dave, KD2SGM


locked Re: Yaesu FT991A Won't Transmit in FT8 #Cat_RigControl #NewUser #TechnicalHelpQuestion #transmit #Yaesu

Don Roden
 

Do you have a dummy load ?

W4DNR

On 2022-05-14 11:00 pm, Robert44 via groups.io wrote: I downloaded WSJT-X on my wife's computer (identical to mine) and the radio still won't transmit.


locked Re: Automated QSOs #QSO_practices

Bob KM4RL
 

Maybe the Best S+P candidate could be highlighted with a special color so the op could manually initiate each QSO?
This would be the same number of clicks but would comply with the rules, I believe.

Bob KM4RL


locked Re: Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Thomas, SM0KBD
 

One interesting thing has confused me related to this and that is the special contest options.

For "EU VHF Contest" the auto sequence is like this according to the latest manual:

CQ TEST G4ABC IO91
G4ABC PA9XYZ JO22
<PA9XYZ> <G4ABC> 570123 IO91NP
<G4ABC> <PA9XYZ> R 580071 JO22DB
PA9XYZ G4ABC RR73

(Lets hope that the format is kept)

As you see there is no final 73 sent. The same is true for "NA VHF Contest". From the beginning I thought this was a bug in the implementation, but as it is in line with the documentation I assume it is correct. Following some peoples practise this would not count as an full QSO. But obviously this is correct, or? So maybe it should be clearly pointed out that for certain special modes this shorter message exchange is OK and counted as a full QSO?

BR

/Thomas, SM0KBD

Den 2022-05-13 kl. 14:43, skrev Dan Malcolm:

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II





locked Re: Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Reino Talarmo
 

If I send RR73 and don't get a 73 back, I usually send it again once or twice, then move on.
Hi Jim,
I have assumed that RR73 is generally understood as "I confirm that I have received confirmation that you have received my report and I have received your report and now I thank for this QSO and log it and don't expect any further confirmation about this QSO. Of course you may sent a 73, but I am not needing it as a confirmation of this QSO, thanks again".
73, Reino OH3mA

PS. I am sorry, if I am opening a Pandora box again.


locked Re: Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Reino Talarmo
 

Mike and Dan,
Curious, why you respond to an R-XX with a 73? We have RR73 for that purpose. What you expect as the response to the 73?
By that you force a human action from the other operator as the automata don't respond to Tx5. No surprise that you need to send the 73 multiple times, hi!
See FT4_FT8_QEX-pdf Figure 6.
73, Reino OH3mA

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dan Malcolm
Sent: 14. toukokuutata 2022 23:27
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Mike,
I'll reply to an R-XX with a plane 73 up to four times. Then I assume he just can't receive me. Sometimes I'll use JTAlert's message facility to send a notification that I have them in my log.

Thanks for the clarification.
__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Black via groups.io
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 11:54 AM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

There are those that expect a 73 and those that don't.
If you or they are using the standard RRR response then both 73's are usually used in FT8.
But...they will log when they send their 73.
I've never seen anybody end after an R-XX report. If they keep sending it means they didn't get your 73.
Mike W9MDB




On Friday, May 13, 2022, 11:48:14 AM CDT, Dan Malcolm <k4shq@...> wrote:

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II

5941 - 5960 of 39971