Date   

locked Re: Etiquette: Do some stations abandon QSOs for a juicier catch? #QSO_practices

Duane - N9DG
 

Whenever I suspect that I might be being stomped on, I move my TX frequency. Many times that makes the difference for being able to complete the Q or not. And I always run "Hold TX Frequency", and as part of that strive to park my TX in what I perceive to be a clear frequency, which isn't necessarily easy to do, and doesn't always work. Especially on the higher bands. But I figure it's better than responding on the CQ'ers frequency because you may be just one of several responding on that frequency.

And when I CQ I generally do a 3-4 CQ's and then skip 1-2 of my normal CQ TX sequences to try and see if someone is on top of where I have been calling CQ. As such I move around quite a lot over the course of a operating session.. Seems many people generally do the same.


locked Re: The Wanted Alive #reception

Kermit Lehman
 

Nice!
Tnx & 73,Ken, AB1J

-----Original Message-----
From: Jukka / OH2BUA <jukka@...>
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Sent: Sat, Jul 9, 2022 4:41 pm
Subject: [WSJTX] The Wanted Alive #reception

Hi fellows,

mostly in purpose to entertain myself I wrote a simple web-service to list FT8/FT4/JT8-spots with different approach than usually. This one goes with rarities first. My aim was to make it low-noise, bloatless and also-mobile-device-compact.

http://oh2bua.fi/twa

73, Jukka


locked Re: VOX 6 Second Lag #Icom #transmit #linux

Gary trock
 

Mike is the “ go to guy” to log in and solve issues!!

On Jul 9, 2022, at 6:57 PM, Tim Dawson <tadawson@...> wrote:

Glad you figured it out! I had seen that in the docs, but didn't mention it, since I figured you had checked that a long time ago . . .

Oops . . .

On July 9, 2022 5:08:59 PM CDT, Patrick <kd7wpq@...> wrote:
Well Mike W9MDB shot me a email, we got on the phone and did a remote session and some troubleshooting.
A SHOUT OUT TO MIKE! THANKS A TON!

The problem is this....
The left Audio channel is used for audio.
The right channel is used to trigger PTT so you can adjust your right audio channel up if you've adjusted your WSJT-X power level down so PTT will continue to trigger.
The problem was my left and right were locked together and were locked too high or if I lowered my audio level were locked too low.
Currently I have the left audio channel at 100% (The actual volume set on the Datalink so as to not over drive the radio) and my right audio channel set at 68%. 71 or 72% will cause the radio to chatter the relays between RX and TX.

After digging around in the manual we found the following.....
LED rapidly switches between GREEN and RED when operating software to TX.
[a]
The drive level from the PC is too low to activate the interfaces PTT line – increase drive level.
Use the Windows “balance” control if you wish to reduce DATA drive while maintaining a high PTT drive.
One audio channel is used for DATA, the other channel being used for PTT.

I wish I could highlight on this thread but I want to point out that last line....
One audio channel is used for DATA, the other channel being used for PTT.

For anyone else that runs across this problem use Pulse Volume Control and Unlock your "Lock Channels Together" then adjust one channel at a time. One of your channels is PTT trigger the other is your actual audio.
In my case left is audio, right is PTT trigger

Application Audio Settings are...
Input: alsa_output.usb-Burr-Brown_from_TI_USB_audio_CODEC-00.mono-fallback Mono
Output: alsa_output.usb-Burr-Brown_from_TI_USB_audio_CODEC-00.analog-stereo Mono
PTT Control Method is Vox
Mode USB
Split Operation None

Problem seems solved now!
Thanks Mike! I learned something new. I didn't know audio data interface devices could or would use one channel for PTT and the other for the actual audio, makes sense though.




--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.





locked Re: Etiquette: Do some stations abandon QSOs for a juicier catch? #QSO_practices

Roy Appleton
 

I do the same. If the conditions are flaky I may do it 6 times. I've seen
signals go from +20 to -20 in thirty seconds!

Roy
WA0YMH

On Sat, Jul 9, 2022, 6:07 PM Gary Rogers <cgaryrogers190@...> wrote:

Randy, I think that some ops might abandon a qso for a wanted station but
I suspect more often it’s either that someone is transmitting on top of you
or your signal has dropped below the decode threshold. I try to finish a
qso before starting another and will give the signal report up to four
times before going back to cqing or pouncing. But that’s just me.

Gary KO3F
On Jul 9, 2022, at 12:43 PM, Randy@... wrote:

I'm relatively new to FT8, having worked several hundred QSOs over the
past 3 weeks or so.

Numerous times, something like this has happened:
1. I call CQ
2. A station with a strong signal replies with a TX 2 message giving me
a strong report (say, a positive SNR)
3. I reply with his report.
4. I get no R reply.
5. I reply with the report again.
[loop #4 and #5 another time or two sometimes]
6. The other station applies with RR73
7. QSO concludes.

In a variant scenario, I give up and call another station or another CQ,
and some minutes later, that first station replies with the RR73.

I could list any number of perfectly legitimate and understandable
reasons why the station who answered my CQ does not complete the QSO
efficiently, so I don't want to assume that anything impolite is actually
going on. But I have sometimes seen the other station's call in my
left-hand decode window, working some other station, while I keep trying
patiently to complete the QSO, sometimes keeping other callers waiting (my
prefix is a fairly rare one that apparently generates a good many answers
to my CQs--or maybe stations are looking for new stations to work
regardless of other factors).

I just joined this group the other day, so I'm not in touch with all the
recent discussion, but some searching did not turn up any previous
discussion of this question.

So I ask: do stations sometimes abandon a QSO they've begun because
something they consider juicy pops up on their screen? If so, is there any
consensus about the appropriateness of such a practice? To me, it is
impolite--perhaps in the extreme. But I am old-school, where consideration
for the other person is expected. I'm not sure that it's much expected any
more. Do the FT8 watering holes function on a dog-eat-dog level where the
desirability of a particular QSO is paramount and it's just too bad for the
other guy? Of course I could theoretically throw my own considerateness out
the window and play that game myself, but order on the FT8 frequencies
seems to me to serve everyone's interests much better than chaos, and I'd
much rather hold a line in favor of order than contribute to chaos.

Or am I perhaps just imagining being abandoned, and what's really
happening is more likely to be perfectly legitimate. For example, I may
just be getting stomped by a station who doesn't see me on his waterfall
and thinks my spot is open. If my QSO partner can't hear me reply to his
report, I can't blame him for abandoning the QSO after one call that
appears to him to be unsuccessful.

Of course I realize that MANY things can go wrong in the course of a
QSO, so I certainly don't expect every QSO I start to come to completion.

Thanks in advance for any discussion on this topic.

Randy Leedy, WS4C
Greenville, SC









locked Re: Etiquette: Do some stations abandon QSOs for a juicier catch? #QSO_practices

William Smith
 

I see that a lot too, even without my WSO partner talking to someone else. I figure it’s just band openings or unknowing QRM from soneone who can’t hear me.

I sometimes despair of finishing a QSO and then as I’m about to give up, my partner replies. Sometimes it’s just one of those things abd you have to be really patient.

To oaraphrase: Attribute not to rudeness that which can be explained by changing propagation. 😇

73, Willie N1JBJ

On Jul 9, 2022, at 3:43 PM, Randy@... wrote:

I'm relatively new to FT8, having worked several hundred QSOs over the past 3 weeks or so.

Numerous times, something like this has happened:
1. I call CQ
2. A station with a strong signal replies with a TX 2 message giving me a strong report (say, a positive SNR)
3. I reply with his report.
4. I get no R reply.
5. I reply with the report again.
[loop #4 and #5 another time or two sometimes]
6. The other station applies with RR73
7. QSO concludes.

In a variant scenario, I give up and call another station or another CQ, and some minutes later, that first station replies with the RR73.

I could list any number of perfectly legitimate and understandable reasons why the station who answered my CQ does not complete the QSO efficiently, so I don't want to assume that anything impolite is actually going on. But I have sometimes seen the other station's call in my left-hand decode window, working some other station, while I keep trying patiently to complete the QSO, sometimes keeping other callers waiting (my prefix is a fairly rare one that apparently generates a good many answers to my CQs--or maybe stations are looking for new stations to work regardless of other factors).

I just joined this group the other day, so I'm not in touch with all the recent discussion, but some searching did not turn up any previous discussion of this question.

So I ask: do stations sometimes abandon a QSO they've begun because something they consider juicy pops up on their screen? If so, is there any consensus about the appropriateness of such a practice? To me, it is impolite--perhaps in the extreme. But I am old-school, where consideration for the other person is expected. I'm not sure that it's much expected any more. Do the FT8 watering holes function on a dog-eat-dog level where the desirability of a particular QSO is paramount and it's just too bad for the other guy? Of course I could theoretically throw my own considerateness out the window and play that game myself, but order on the FT8 frequencies seems to me to serve everyone's interests much better than chaos, and I'd much rather hold a line in favor of order than contribute to chaos.

Or am I perhaps just imagining being abandoned, and what's really happening is more likely to be perfectly legitimate. For example, I may just be getting stomped by a station who doesn't see me on his waterfall and thinks my spot is open. If my QSO partner can't hear me reply to his report, I can't blame him for abandoning the QSO after one call that appears to him to be unsuccessful.

Of course I realize that MANY things can go wrong in the course of a QSO, so I certainly don't expect every QSO I start to come to completion.

Thanks in advance for any discussion on this topic.

Randy Leedy, WS4C
Greenville, SC


locked Re: Logging for 2 radios & 2 computers.... #logging

Reino Talarmo
 

Hi Juergen,

Thanks for the explanation. It seems that you don't need an operator level worked before information as such and you request that information from DXKeeper, when needed.

Contests is another challenge as such, as there are so many different rules for points and N1MM is a good tool for that!

73, Reino OH3mA


locked Re: Etiquette: Do some stations abandon QSOs for a juicier catch? #QSO_practices

Brian Stucker
 

Hi Randy,

My advice is to never ascribe to rudeness what can be explained by RF when
working FT-8.


- They could be jumping around between stations because they don't know
anyone would be bothered by it.
- They could have sent you a message you didn't get.
- They might be completing a QSO with a station they were working
previously but had faded and is now sending them reception reports again or
RR73s.
- They might not be able to hear you even though you can hear them.
- They might be going after something juicier.
- It could be some combination of the above.


There's no way to know the answers to the above, but since WSJT makes
otherwise unlikely or impossible contacts possible and it's not a real-time
mode, more often than not the cause is probably RF.

Humans have a hard time understanding intent with plain text communication.
It's a topic that has been studied in academia. The hints we rely on when
we can hear and see someone are missing. FT-8 is even more sparse.

73,
Brian - KB2S

On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 12:43 PM <Randy@...> wrote:

I'm relatively new to FT8, having worked several hundred QSOs over the
past 3 weeks or so.

Numerous times, something like this has happened:
1. I call CQ
2. A station with a strong signal replies with a TX 2 message giving me a
strong report (say, a positive SNR)
3. I reply with his report.
4. I get no R reply.
5. I reply with the report again.
[loop #4 and #5 another time or two sometimes]
6. The other station applies with RR73
7. QSO concludes.

In a variant scenario, I give up and call another station or another CQ,
and some minutes later, that first station replies with the RR73.

I could list any number of perfectly legitimate and understandable reasons
why the station who answered my CQ does not complete the QSO efficiently,
so I don't want to assume that anything impolite is actually going on. But
I have sometimes seen the other station's call in my left-hand decode
window, working some other station, while I keep trying patiently to
complete the QSO, sometimes keeping other callers waiting (my prefix is a
fairly rare one that apparently generates a good many answers to my CQs--or
maybe stations are looking for new stations to work regardless of other
factors).

I just joined this group the other day, so I'm not in touch with all the
recent discussion, but some searching did not turn up any previous
discussion of this question.

So I ask: do stations sometimes abandon a QSO they've begun because
something they consider juicy pops up on their screen? If so, is there any
consensus about the appropriateness of such a practice? To me, it is
impolite--perhaps in the extreme. But I am old-school, where consideration
for the other person is expected. I'm not sure that it's much expected any
more. Do the FT8 watering holes function on a dog-eat-dog level where the
desirability of a particular QSO is paramount and it's just too bad for the
other guy? Of course I could theoretically throw my own considerateness out
the window and play that game myself, but order on the FT8 frequencies
seems to me to serve everyone's interests much better than chaos, and I'd
much rather hold a line in favor of order than contribute to chaos.

Or am I perhaps just imagining being abandoned, and what's really
happening is more likely to be perfectly legitimate. For example, I may
just be getting stomped by a station who doesn't see me on his waterfall
and thinks my spot is open. If my QSO partner can't hear me reply to his
report, I can't blame him for abandoning the QSO after one call that
appears to him to be unsuccessful.

Of course I realize that MANY things can go wrong in the course of a QSO,
so I certainly don't expect every QSO I start to come to completion.

Thanks in advance for any discussion on this topic.

Randy Leedy, WS4C
Greenville, SC






locked Re: Etiquette: Do some stations abandon QSOs for a juicier catch? #QSO_practices

Steve Kavanagh
 

Randy

I think your conjecture about being stomped on is likely the culprit in most cases. The QRM levels on FT8 when the bands are open seem much worse than I have experienced on CW or SSB (with the exception of perhaps some major phone contests). And it's exacerbated by those who don't check their waterfall carefully to find an open frequency before transmitting.

I have found that incomplete QSOs are much more common on FT8 than analog modes. On the other hand, my minimal antennas are enough to work dx that just wouldn't be able to hear me on ssb, or even cw. So there's a trade-off.

Due to the popularity of FT8, there really is a need for more bandwidth for this mode. But that takes delicate negotiations and changes in operating practices.

73,
Steve VE3SMA


locked Re: Etiquette: Do some stations abandon QSOs for a juicier catch? #QSO_practices

Larry Banks
 

Hi Randy

Do you have "TX Hold" activated?   If not, you may be moving to the caller's frequency and they then may miss you.

Larry / W1DYJ

On 7/9/2022 14:50, Randy@... wrote:
I'm relatively new to FT8, having worked several hundred QSOs over the past 3 weeks or so.

Numerous times, something like this has happened:
1. I call CQ
2. A station with a strong signal replies with a TX 2 message giving me a strong report (say, a positive SNR)
3. I reply with his report.
4. I get no R reply.
5. I reply with the report again.
[loop #4 and #5 another time or two sometimes]
6. The other station applies with RR73
7. QSO concludes.

In a variant scenario, I give up and call another station or another CQ, and some minutes later, that first station replies with the RR73.

I could list any number of perfectly legitimate and understandable reasons why the station who answered my CQ does not complete the QSO efficiently, so I don't want to assume that anything impolite is actually going on. But I have sometimes seen the other station's call in my left-hand decode window, working some other station, while I keep trying patiently to complete the QSO, sometimes keeping other callers waiting (my prefix is a fairly rare one that apparently generates a good many answers to my CQs--or maybe stations are looking for new stations to work regardless of other factors).

I just joined this group the other day, so I'm not in touch with all the recent discussion, but some searching did not turn up any previous discussion of this question.

So I ask: do stations sometimes abandon a QSO they've begun because something they consider juicy pops up on their screen? If so, is there any consensus about the appropriateness of such a practice? To me, it is impolite--perhaps in the extreme. But I am old-school, where consideration for the other person is expected. I'm not sure that it's much expected any more. Do the FT8 watering holes function on a dog-eat-dog level where the desirability of a particular QSO is paramount and it's just too bad for the other guy? Of course I could theoretically throw my own considerateness out the window and play that game myself, but order on the FT8 frequencies seems to me to serve everyone's interests much better than chaos, and I'd much rather hold a line in favor of order than contribute to chaos.

Or am I perhaps just imagining being abandoned, and what's really happening is more likely to be perfectly legitimate. For example, I may just be getting stomped by a station who doesn't see me on his waterfall and thinks my spot is open. If my QSO partner can't hear me reply to his report, I can't blame him for abandoning the QSO after one call that appears to him to be unsuccessful.

Of course I realize that MANY things can go wrong in the course of a QSO, so I certainly don't expect every QSO I start to come to completion.

Thanks in advance for any discussion on this topic.

Randy Leedy, WS4C
Greenville, SC




locked Re: Etiquette: Do some stations abandon QSOs for a juicier catch? #QSO_practices

Gary Rogers
 

Randy, I think that some ops might abandon a qso for a wanted station but I suspect more often it’s either that someone is transmitting on top of you or your signal has dropped below the decode threshold. I try to finish a qso before starting another and will give the signal report up to four times before going back to cqing or pouncing. But that’s just me.

Gary KO3F

On Jul 9, 2022, at 12:43 PM, Randy@... wrote:

I'm relatively new to FT8, having worked several hundred QSOs over the past 3 weeks or so.

Numerous times, something like this has happened:
1. I call CQ
2. A station with a strong signal replies with a TX 2 message giving me a strong report (say, a positive SNR)
3. I reply with his report.
4. I get no R reply.
5. I reply with the report again.
[loop #4 and #5 another time or two sometimes]
6. The other station applies with RR73
7. QSO concludes.

In a variant scenario, I give up and call another station or another CQ, and some minutes later, that first station replies with the RR73.

I could list any number of perfectly legitimate and understandable reasons why the station who answered my CQ does not complete the QSO efficiently, so I don't want to assume that anything impolite is actually going on. But I have sometimes seen the other station's call in my left-hand decode window, working some other station, while I keep trying patiently to complete the QSO, sometimes keeping other callers waiting (my prefix is a fairly rare one that apparently generates a good many answers to my CQs--or maybe stations are looking for new stations to work regardless of other factors).

I just joined this group the other day, so I'm not in touch with all the recent discussion, but some searching did not turn up any previous discussion of this question.

So I ask: do stations sometimes abandon a QSO they've begun because something they consider juicy pops up on their screen? If so, is there any consensus about the appropriateness of such a practice? To me, it is impolite--perhaps in the extreme. But I am old-school, where consideration for the other person is expected. I'm not sure that it's much expected any more. Do the FT8 watering holes function on a dog-eat-dog level where the desirability of a particular QSO is paramount and it's just too bad for the other guy? Of course I could theoretically throw my own considerateness out the window and play that game myself, but order on the FT8 frequencies seems to me to serve everyone's interests much better than chaos, and I'd much rather hold a line in favor of order than contribute to chaos.

Or am I perhaps just imagining being abandoned, and what's really happening is more likely to be perfectly legitimate. For example, I may just be getting stomped by a station who doesn't see me on his waterfall and thinks my spot is open. If my QSO partner can't hear me reply to his report, I can't blame him for abandoning the QSO after one call that appears to him to be unsuccessful.

Of course I realize that MANY things can go wrong in the course of a QSO, so I certainly don't expect every QSO I start to come to completion.

Thanks in advance for any discussion on this topic.

Randy Leedy, WS4C
Greenville, SC





locked Re: VOX 6 Second Lag #Icom #transmit #linux

Tim Dawson
 

Glad you figured it out! I had seen that in the docs, but didn't mention it, since I figured you had checked that a long time ago . . .

Oops . . .

On July 9, 2022 5:08:59 PM CDT, Patrick <kd7wpq@...> wrote:
Well Mike W9MDB shot me a email, we got on the phone and did a remote session and some troubleshooting.
A SHOUT OUT TO MIKE! THANKS A TON!

The problem is this....
The left Audio channel is used for audio.
The right channel is used to trigger PTT so you can adjust your right audio channel up if you've adjusted your WSJT-X power level down so PTT will continue to trigger.
The problem was my left and right were locked together and were locked too high or if I lowered my audio level were locked too low.
Currently I have the left audio channel at 100% (The actual volume set on the Datalink so as to not over drive the radio) and my right audio channel set at 68%. 71 or 72% will cause the radio to chatter the relays between RX and TX.

After digging around in the manual we found the following.....
LED rapidly switches between GREEN and RED when operating software to TX.
[a]
The drive level from the PC is too low to activate the interfaces PTT line – increase drive level.
Use the Windows “balance” control if you wish to reduce DATA drive while maintaining a high PTT drive.
One audio channel is used for DATA, the other channel being used for PTT.

I wish I could highlight on this thread but I want to point out that last line....
One audio channel is used for DATA, the other channel being used for PTT.

For anyone else that runs across this problem use Pulse Volume Control and Unlock your "Lock Channels Together" then adjust one channel at a time. One of your channels is PTT trigger the other is your actual audio.
In my case left is audio, right is PTT trigger

Application Audio Settings are...
Input: alsa_output.usb-Burr-Brown_from_TI_USB_audio_CODEC-00.mono-fallback Mono
Output: alsa_output.usb-Burr-Brown_from_TI_USB_audio_CODEC-00.analog-stereo Mono
PTT Control Method is Vox
Mode USB
Split Operation None

Problem seems solved now!
Thanks Mike! I learned something new. I didn't know audio data interface devices could or would use one channel for PTT and the other for the actual audio, makes sense though.




--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


locked Re: VOX 6 Second Lag #Icom #transmit #linux

Patrick
 

Well Mike W9MDB shot me a email, we got on the phone and did a remote session and some troubleshooting.
A SHOUT OUT TO MIKE! THANKS A TON!

The problem is this....
The left Audio channel is used for audio.
The right channel is used to trigger PTT so you can adjust your right audio channel up if you've adjusted your WSJT-X power level down so PTT will continue to trigger.
The problem was my left and right were locked together and were locked too high or if I lowered my audio level were locked too low.
Currently I have the left audio channel at 100% (The actual volume set on the Datalink so as to not over drive the radio) and my right audio channel set at 68%. 71 or 72% will cause the radio to chatter the relays between RX and TX.

After digging around in the manual we found the following.....
LED rapidly switches between GREEN and RED when operating software to TX.
[a]
The drive level from the PC is too low to activate the interfaces PTT line – increase drive level.
Use the Windows “balance” control if you wish to reduce DATA drive while maintaining a high PTT drive.
One audio channel is used for DATA, the other channel being used for PTT.

I wish I could highlight on this thread but I want to point out that last line....
One audio channel is used for DATA, the other channel being used for PTT.

For anyone else that runs across this problem use Pulse Volume Control and Unlock your "Lock Channels Together" then adjust one channel at a time. One of your channels is PTT trigger the other is your actual audio.
In my case left is audio, right is PTT trigger

Application Audio Settings are...
Input: alsa_output.usb-Burr-Brown_from_TI_USB_audio_CODEC-00.mono-fallback Mono
Output: alsa_output.usb-Burr-Brown_from_TI_USB_audio_CODEC-00.analog-stereo Mono
PTT Control Method is Vox
Mode USB
Split Operation None

Problem seems solved now!
Thanks Mike! I learned something new. I didn't know audio data interface devices could or would use one channel for PTT and the other for the actual audio, makes sense though.


locked Re: VOX 6 Second Lag #Icom #transmit #linux

Reino Talarmo
 

Hi Patrick,

This mail server does not support attachment on purpose. You may add a link to some other service such as Dropbox for screen shots.

73, Reino OH3mA


locked Re: The Wanted Alive #reception

Istvan Nyul
 

Very cool, thanks Jukka!

73,
Istvan - VE3USP

----- Original Message -----
From: Jukka / OH2BUA (jukka@...)
Date: 07/09/22 15:43
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] The Wanted Alive #reception

Hi fellows,

mostly in purpose to entertain myself I wrote a simple web-service to list FT8/FT4/JT8-spots with different approach than usually. This one goes with rarities first. My aim was to make it low-noise, bloatless and also-mobile-device-compact.

http://oh2bua.fi/twa

73, Jukka


locked Re: Logging for 2 radios & 2 computers.... #logging

dl8le
 

Hi Reino,

there is no need to rescan the ADIF file. However there is no worked before information in WSJT-X, just the info if the call is needed for one of your awards you are looking for according to the real time award tracking in DXKeeper. In order to see if I have worked a station before I enable TX I double click on the call and DXKeeper displays the available information in the log. This means, by the way, that I have disabled the setting "Double Click on call enables TX". It means as well, however, that the logs for the different slices are different, the complete information is in DXKeeper.

For contest purposes I use N1MM together with WSJT-X to see if I have worked a station before or not (up to 2 slices) and do the logging not only in WSJT-X and N1MM but via the N1MM to DXLab Gateway in DXKeeper as well. This allows some redundancy for the logging and avoids the need to import the ADIF file from WSJT-X to DXKeeper after the contest to keep the log updated.

73

Juergen, DL8LE


locked Etiquette: Do some stations abandon QSOs for a juicier catch? #QSO_practices

Randy, WS4C
 

I'm relatively new to FT8, having worked several hundred QSOs over the past 3 weeks or so.

Numerous times, something like this has happened:
1. I call CQ
2. A station with a strong signal replies with a TX 2 message giving me a strong report (say, a positive SNR)
3. I reply with his report.
4. I get no R reply.
5. I reply with the report again.
[loop #4 and #5 another time or two sometimes]
6. The other station applies with RR73
7. QSO concludes.

In a variant scenario, I give up and call another station or another CQ, and some minutes later, that first station replies with the RR73.

I could list any number of perfectly legitimate and understandable reasons why the station who answered my CQ does not complete the QSO efficiently, so I don't want to assume that anything impolite is actually going on. But I have sometimes seen the other station's call in my left-hand decode window, working some other station, while I keep trying patiently to complete the QSO, sometimes keeping other callers waiting (my prefix is a fairly rare one that apparently generates a good many answers to my CQs--or maybe stations are looking for new stations to work regardless of other factors).

I just joined this group the other day, so I'm not in touch with all the recent discussion, but some searching did not turn up any previous discussion of this question.

So I ask: do stations sometimes abandon a QSO they've begun because something they consider juicy pops up on their screen? If so, is there any consensus about the appropriateness of such a practice? To me, it is impolite--perhaps in the extreme. But I am old-school, where consideration for the other person is expected. I'm not sure that it's much expected any more. Do the FT8 watering holes function on a dog-eat-dog level where the desirability of a particular QSO is paramount and it's just too bad for the other guy? Of course I could theoretically throw my own considerateness out the window and play that game myself, but order on the FT8 frequencies seems to me to serve everyone's interests much better than chaos, and I'd much rather hold a line in favor of order than contribute to chaos.

Or am I perhaps just imagining being abandoned, and what's really happening is more likely to be perfectly legitimate. For example, I may just be getting stomped by a station who doesn't see me on his waterfall and thinks my spot is open. If my QSO partner can't hear me reply to his report, I can't blame him for abandoning the QSO after one call that appears to him to be unsuccessful.

Of course I realize that MANY things can go wrong in the course of a QSO, so I certainly don't expect every QSO I start to come to completion.

Thanks in advance for any discussion on this topic.

Randy Leedy, WS4C
Greenville, SC


locked The Wanted Alive #reception

Jukka / OH2BUA
 

Hi fellows,

mostly in purpose to entertain myself I wrote a simple web-service to list FT8/FT4/JT8-spots with different approach than usually. This one goes with rarities first. My aim was to make it low-noise, bloatless and also-mobile-device-compact.

http://oh2bua.fi/twa

73, Jukka


locked Re: VOX 6 Second Lag #Icom #transmit #linux

Patrick
 

OK, well I tried 3 times to send screen shots of my configuration, 2 different ways via email, none came through. Maybe they're Q'd for review before submission,
It would have been better if I could post it to the forum and it gave me a notification that the message needed to be reviewed.


locked Re: VOX 6 Second Lag #Icom #transmit #linux

Patrick
 

OK, I apologize in advanced if I'm blowing up anyone's email.
I'm going to change my subscription and try a direct reply as the other two messages I sent didn't post the images and I don't see a option on the web page to attach images to the reply.


locked Re: VOX 6 Second Lag #Icom #transmit #linux

Patrick
 

Unfortunately not. I only say unfortunately because it would be great if I mistakenly ticked that option and could just un-tick it to resolve the issue.
I tried to reply via email to post some screen shots of my config but it seems it didn't come through. I'm going to try again.

5821 - 5840 of 41499