Date   

locked Re: Something new ? #QSO_practices

Jeff Stillinger
 

John,

This practice has been going on since the inception of FT8. Remember that FT8 is all about numbers collecting over quality of contact.  Collecting massive amounts of contacts is the FT8 equivalent to a number of "likes" a station would have.  There for a long time, stations were only sending a signal report and logging as a complete contact.  Not even a grid, just a signal report.  Out of the blue, sometimes in the middle of a QSO, I would get a random signal report and a few minutes later, I would notice the station had logged it and was requesting confirmation.

So how do you combat the issue?  Outline your requirements on your online biography so that stations are aware.  Take a look at my QRZ biography, or any of the 5 online.  My station, my logbook, my rules.  If the basic standard exchange, as outlined in the WSJT-X User Guide, is not complete.  I will not log and/or confirm the contact.  I even provide a link to the WSJT-X User Guide as a reference.  This really did help cut down just sending a signal report and expecting a confirmation. Virtually stopped the emails requesting the confirmation for a incomplete contact.   The numbers chasers get all twisted up and of course I am chastised for it, but I am into quality over quantity.  Those who confirm on QRZ will get a complete and detailed entry.   This policy is flexible and I can account for poor conditions in choosing to click the Log button or not.  So...  If we are fighting poor band conditions and it's obvious that one of the 73 got lost in space due to poor conditions.  I will still log/confirm the QSO with comments to that effect.  This policy is critical on 6, 2 meters, 70 cm, and 1.2 GHz, as many times the contacts are record setting distances or pathways and solid logging is what gets them in the record books.

Now if we could just get stations to do a complete log entry, that would be great.  Every applicable field should be filled out on the Log QSO window.  My pet peeve being how am I supposed to confirm having a QSO with someone who is using zero output power. That does not make sense and makes those operators look lazy.  But hey...  Have to collect those "likes".

On 1/5/22 15:48, n4qwf . wrote:
I have noticed lately that some of the stations I work do not confirm the QSO. I don't know if this is becoming a common practice but it is not a good idea. The software is set up to auto-log when it sees confirmation. i.ie RR73 or 73. I can understand not getting the final response from a -22 station but when the reports are plus in both directions I have to wonder what gives. Is there something in the operating practices to speed up things that I have no heard of? Anyone else notice this of late?

73<<John



--
Jeff Stillinger
KB6IBB Laboratories, Wylie Texas
http://kb6ibb-15.ham-radio-op.net/Ham-Radio/


locked Re: FT8 Low Signal Reports #FT8

Reino Talarmo
 

Hi Jim,
That Bandwidth is used, when you are playing with *.wav files and has
nothing to do with normal reception, I assume.
"Set a positive number in Degrade S/N of .wav file to add known amounts of
pseudo-random noise to data read from a .wav file. To ensure that the
resulting S/N degradation is close to the requested number of dB, set
Receiver bandwidth to your best estimate of the receiver's effective noise
bandwidth."

73, Reino OH3mA

Isn't that what the Receiver Bandwidth setting in Advanced settings is for?
To adjust the software to your actual receiver bandwidth?


locked Re: Something new ? #QSO_practices

Jim Shorney
 

"When in doubt, log it". Mark it as an SWL report until confirmed it the concept bothers you.

73

-Jim
NU0C

On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 13:58:11 -0500
"d_ziolkowski" <dan.ziolkowski@...> wrote:

same here, you just don't know for sure. I just log it, if I get a QSL
that's great!

If not, oh well. Unless it's a "needed" , I don't ever even follow up.

Dan KC2STA





On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 1:48 PM Kermit Lehman via groups.io <ktfrog007=
aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Not necessarily. I've had many QSOs where I didn't receive an RR73 or RRR
(the other station may have sent it, but I didn't copy it: QSB, QRM) and
the station went on to work someone else. Then I have no idea where I
stand, especially in cases where we looped on the signal report. Did I not
receive the RR73 or RRR, or did they just give up?
Sometimes the only way I can tell for sure is if they eQSL me.

73,Ken, AB1J

Hi Michel,

I'm not sure what you mean by: "never send confirmation." If they have
sent an "RR73" that is a confirmation. Otherwise they would probably not
call another station.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ



-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Banks via groups.io <larryb.w1dyj@...>
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jan 6, 2022 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Something new ? #QSO_practices

Hi Michel,

I'm not sure what you mean by: "never send confirmation." If they have
sent an "RR73" that is a confirmation. Otherwise they would probably not
call another station.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ


On 1/6/2022 9:08, Michel Bernard VE2BJG wrote:
What I have done is to carry on listening to those who never send
confirmation. Well guess what. John N4QWF is right. They do the same with
everyone. And I have seen this on stations that were strong signals both
ways.

I notice this is a common practice with rare stations or when there is a
pile up of stations calling a rare station.















locked Re: FT8 Low Signal Reports #FT8

Charles Suckling
 

Jim

No. That setting is used to set the receiver bandwidth only for the
purpose of degrading signals played back from stored wave files, and has
nothing to do with real-time operation.

73

Charlie G3WDG

On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 02:04, Jim Shorney <jshorney@...> wrote:


Isn't that what the Receiver Bandwidth setting in Advanced settings is
for? To adjust the software to your actual receiver bandwidth?

73

-Jim
NU0C


On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 12:55:44 -0600
"neil_zampella" <neilz@...> wrote:

No ... the decoder is optimized for a 3kHz bandwidth. By narrowing the
filter, you changed the input to the algorithm that calculated the
signal report. K1JT has said over and over, do not narrow the
bandwidth for that reason.

Neil, KN3ILZ

On 1/6/2022 11:31 AM, Paul via groups.io wrote:
As an experiment I worked VR2XYL on 15m on WSJT. I narrowed the
filter on
my Flex-1500 down to about 100 Hz and his signal report was 35 dB.
After
the QSO I widened my filter back to 3.3 KHz and his signal strength
went to
-9 dB. Maybe WSJT is just a bit overrated for weak signal work?

de Paul, W8AEF

ZF2TI/ZF2TA 8Q7AA FO8DX/FO0PLA XZ0A VU7RG/VU3PYM TX5A A52PP 5W0EF
W1AW/KH8

DX Cluster at w8aef.ddns.net port 7373

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Michael Black via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2022 9:42 AM
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io; main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] FT8 Low Signal Reports

SNR is based on noise floor -- when you reduce bandwidth you reduce the
noise computation.
So the increased SNR is just a mathematical artifact and does not
indicate
or affect your sensitivity.

I'm fairly sure WSJT-X does not normalize RMS based on bandwidth --
perhaps
it should.

Joe??

Mike W9MDB











locked Re: Moving from MacOS to Windows 10 #macOS #Windows10

Rick Tavan
 

Export to ADIF on MacOS, then Import from ADIF on Windows?

/Rick N6XI

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 6:06 PM florida randy <srqcrete@...> wrote:

After a week or so successfully operating on macOS and Gridtracker I
decided I wanted to also include Ham Radio Deluxe but it would “play”
better with Windows so I have installed both Wsjtx and Gridtracker and can
successfully operate on windows. However, I’d like for the QSO’s I made on
MacOS to transfer to my Windows install. How can this be accomplished
before the HRD install.

Thanks in advance.

Randy
N4TDT





--
--

Rick Tavan
Truckee and Saratoga, CA


locked Moving from MacOS to Windows 10 #macOS #Windows10

florida randy
 

After a week or so successfully operating on macOS and Gridtracker I decided I wanted to also include Ham Radio Deluxe but it would “play” better with Windows so I have installed both Wsjtx and Gridtracker and can successfully operate on windows. However, I’d like for the QSO’s I made on MacOS to transfer to my Windows install. How can this be accomplished before the HRD install.

Thanks in advance.

Randy
N4TDT


locked Re: FT8 Low Signal Reports #FT8

Jim Shorney
 

Isn't that what the Receiver Bandwidth setting in Advanced settings is for? To adjust the software to your actual receiver bandwidth?

73

-Jim
NU0C


On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 12:55:44 -0600
"neil_zampella" <neilz@...> wrote:

No ... the decoder is optimized for a 3kHz bandwidth.  By narrowing the
filter, you changed the input to the algorithm that calculated the
signal report.   K1JT has said over and over, do not narrow the
bandwidth for that reason.

Neil, KN3ILZ

On 1/6/2022 11:31 AM, Paul via groups.io wrote:
As an experiment I worked VR2XYL on 15m on WSJT. I narrowed the filter on
my Flex-1500 down to about 100 Hz and his signal report was 35 dB. After
the QSO I widened my filter back to 3.3 KHz and his signal strength went to
-9 dB. Maybe WSJT is just a bit overrated for weak signal work?

de Paul, W8AEF

ZF2TI/ZF2TA 8Q7AA FO8DX/FO0PLA XZ0A VU7RG/VU3PYM TX5A A52PP 5W0EF W1AW/KH8

DX Cluster at w8aef.ddns.net port 7373

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Michael Black via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2022 9:42 AM
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io; main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] FT8 Low Signal Reports

SNR is based on noise floor -- when you reduce bandwidth you reduce the
noise computation.
So the increased SNR is just a mathematical artifact and does not indicate
or affect your sensitivity.

I'm fairly sure WSJT-X does not normalize RMS based on bandwidth -- perhaps
it should.

Joe??

Mike W9MDB






locked Re: Meinberg issue #Timesync

Jacques Pecourt
 

Thank you Chet for taking the time to reply to my question on the subject
matter. . Yes definitely, as Martin G0HDB suggested, I need to re-install
this program with an updated version.
I still have the old instructions and the password I used 2 years ago and
recognized the point specific to the "icreate an initial configuration".
.This is not a complicated task.
73,
Jacques, F2YS/W2

On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 17:49, Chet, N8RA <chetsubaccount@...> wrote:

Hello Jacques,

I recently used the latest Meinberg file ntp-4.2.8p15-v2-win32-setup to
get up-to-date.

It erased the old file automatically, and I then also followed some old
instructions.

During the installation, I got to the window stating "Files have been
installed".
There, in my old instructions it was advised that "NTP can create an
initial configuration for you using servers from the NTP Pool based on your
geographic location. You should allow it to do this, as it saves you the
task of choosing which servers to use. Ensure the box "Create an
initial..." is checked, and select your nearest country or region from the
drop-down list." I chose the U.S., and that is what I got.

Perhaps that can do what you wish.

73,
Chet, N8RA

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jacques
Pecourt
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 2:58 PM
To: WSJT <WSJTX@groups.io>
Subject: [WSJTX] Meinberg issue #Timesync

Meinberg ver. 4.28p13 installed on W10-64 in C:\\Tools\NTP

I have been using this program for the last 2 years with no issues, but
now the display suddenly changed the content I was used to seeing. It now
shows only 2 servers, one in Finland and the other in Hungary ! What
happened to the 3 US I was perfectly happy with ?

The problem is that it now takes 15 minutes or more to get lousy offsets.
I spent hours reading all I can find to correct this situation with no
solution. I also noticed that the ntp.config file has nothing in it that
makes sense. Just another panel (1.81 Kb ) with the option to “OPEN” that
opens nothing. No trace of anything like server 0. Us.pool.ntp.org 1,
2, 3.

Is there any way I can bring that config file back to what it was or do I
need to re-install the program from scratch ? Any help would be
appreciated. Thank you.

Jacques F2YS/W2











locked Re: Radio start-up when I start WSJT-X #Cat_RigControl

neil_zampella
 

Well ... when I was programming 'flags' in Fortran "0" meant off, and
"1" meant on :)

Basically, I took Bill's original JSON which he prepared after 2.3.0 to
turn ON the auto on, and changed the 1 to 0 to turn it OFF.

Neil, KN3ILZ

On 1/6/2022 1:27 PM, Michael Black via groups.io wrote:
I think you meant “1” instead of “0”
Make W9MDB
On Jan 6, 2022, at 12:36 PM, neil_zampella <neilz@...> wrote:

Its a Hamlib option, what version of WSJT-X are you using as it was
turned off in the Hamlib version included in v2.3.0 of WSJT-X.

If you want to turn it off create a file in teh WSJT-X log directory
using text editor like Notepad. Save the file as hamlib_settings.json.

Cut and paste the following text between the 'begin' and 'end' into
Notepad, then save using the filename above. MAKE SURE it does not add
a .txt to the filename.

--------begin --- do not include this line in the cut & paste

{
"config": {
"auto_power_on": "0"
}
}


-------------------end ---- do not include this line in the cut & paste

AFAIK ... all the versions of Hamlib since 2.3.0 have the
'auto_power_on' defaulting to off.

Neil, KN3ILZ

On 1/6/2022 11:56 AM, Camillo Di Michele via groups.io wrote:
Any idea how I can disable this option?
It is one option implemtated on WSJT-X or on JTAlert?

Thanks








locked Re: Meinberg issue #Timesync

Chet, N8RA
 

Hello Jacques,

I recently used the latest Meinberg file ntp-4.2.8p15-v2-win32-setup to get up-to-date.

It erased the old file automatically, and I then also followed some old instructions.

During the installation, I got to the window stating "Files have been installed".
There, in my old instructions it was advised that "NTP can create an initial configuration for you using servers from the NTP Pool based on your geographic location. You should allow it to do this, as it saves you the task of choosing which servers to use. Ensure the box "Create an initial..." is checked, and select your nearest country or region from the drop-down list." I chose the U.S., and that is what I got.

Perhaps that can do what you wish.

73,
Chet, N8RA

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jacques Pecourt
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 2:58 PM
To: WSJT <WSJTX@groups.io>
Subject: [WSJTX] Meinberg issue #Timesync

Meinberg ver. 4.28p13 installed on W10-64 in C:\\Tools\NTP

I have been using this program for the last 2 years with no issues, but now the display suddenly changed the content I was used to seeing. It now shows only 2 servers, one in Finland and the other in Hungary ! What happened to the 3 US I was perfectly happy with ?

The problem is that it now takes 15 minutes or more to get lousy offsets. I spent hours reading all I can find to correct this situation with no solution. I also noticed that the ntp.config file has nothing in it that makes sense. Just another panel (1.81 Kb ) with the option to “OPEN” that opens nothing. No trace of anything like server 0. Us.pool.ntp.org 1, 2, 3.

Is there any way I can bring that config file back to what it was or do I need to re-install the program from scratch ? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Jacques F2YS/W2


locked Re: Meinberg issue #Timesync

Jacques Pecourt
 

Thank you so much Martin for the timely answer and also suggesting that I
use the Time server monitor that was unknown to me. Very precious
information and suggestions. I will let you know later how I made out.
Stay well, best regards and 73.
Jacques F2YS/W2

On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 16:49, Martin G0HDB <marting0hdb@...> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 07:58 PM, Jacques Pecourt wrote:

Meinberg ver. 4.28p13 installed on W10-64 in C:\\Tools\NTP
[Snipped]

Is there any way I can bring that config file back to what it was or do I
need to re-install the program from scratch ? Any help would be
appreciated. Thank you.
Hello Jacques, sorry to hear about your issues with Meinberg.

The obvious solution to your apparent problem with the ntp.conf file (NB -
that's what it's called, not ntp.config) would be to restore a previous
version from a backup, but of course that assumes you've got a backup...!!

The alternative would be to do a re-install, using the most recent version
which is ntp-4.2.8p15-v2 - as well as being the up-to-date version of the
NTP app it has some important security updates (including to OpenSSL).
Doing a complete re-install would also enable you to generate a new
ntp.conf file that you could then edit to include the US pool servers that
you were accessing previously.

You haven't mentioned it, but are you using the Meinberg Time Server
Monitor utility app for checking what the NTP app is doing? The utility
includes the ability to edit the ntp.conf file; if you're not already using
the utility then it might be worth installing it and using it to see
exactly what is in your ntp.conf file.

Sorry I can't offer an explanation of what might have happened to your
existing installation of Meinberg; I hope you soon manage to get the app
behaving correctly again.

73
--
Martin G0HDB






locked Re: Something new ? #QSO_practices

Jim Brown
 

All well said, Hasan. I log a QSO as soon as I send or copy RR73 or RRR, and will, of course, send repeats as needed.

73, Jim K9YC

On 1/6/2022 12:12 PM, Hasan Schiers N0AN wrote:
Solution: Log the contact. If it did finish and you just missed it, you
will be in their log and perhaps (if you are lucky) they are in LOTW, and
you can verify it there.


locked Re: Meinberg issue #Timesync

Martin G0HDB
 

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 07:58 PM, Jacques Pecourt wrote:

Meinberg ver. 4.28p13 installed on W10-64 in C:\\Tools\NTP
[Snipped]

Is there any way I can bring that config file back to what it was or do I
need to re-install the program from scratch ? Any help would be
appreciated. Thank you.
Hello Jacques, sorry to hear about your issues with Meinberg.

The obvious solution to your apparent problem with the ntp.conf file (NB - that's what it's called, not ntp.config) would be to restore a previous version from a backup, but of course that assumes you've got a backup...!!

The alternative would be to do a re-install, using the most recent version which is ntp-4.2.8p15-v2 - as well as being the up-to-date version of the NTP app it has some important security updates (including to OpenSSL). Doing a complete re-install would also enable you to generate a new ntp.conf file that you could then edit to include the US pool servers that you were accessing previously.

You haven't mentioned it, but are you using the Meinberg Time Server Monitor utility app for checking what the NTP app is doing? The utility includes the ability to edit the ntp.conf file; if you're not already using the utility then it might be worth installing it and using it to see exactly what is in your ntp.conf file.

Sorry I can't offer an explanation of what might have happened to your existing installation of Meinberg; I hope you soon manage to get the app behaving correctly again.

73
--
Martin G0HDB


locked Re: Something new ? #QSO_practices

K0LUZ -- Gary "Red" Letchford
 

Excellent conclusions Hasan.

73
Red  K0LUZ

On 1/6/2022 03:12 PM, Hasan Schiers N0AN wrote:
Kermit,

If the other station is in high demand, they finish by sending a single
RR73. With that transmission, they log you. You are in their log. The fact
that you missed it, is not their problem. If you find yourself, not seeing
an RR73 from a desired station, and you notice they have moved on to
someone else, it is VERY likely they sent RR73 and you simply did not get
it.

Solution: Log the contact. If it did finish and you just missed it, you
will be in their log and perhaps (if you are lucky) they are in LOTW, and
you can verify it there.

While not ideal, it is the real world of dx'ing (especially) and some other
ops who seem to be in a hurry.

It's not going to change, so the best solution is to find a way to adapt
to it. Either you log it in hopes that you simply missed their RR73, or
you don't log it because you don't like their operating practices, or it
doesn't fit "your" definition of a complete qso. It's up to you.

...and before we degenerate into "what is and is not a contact", just
remember it's YOUR log, you log anyone you want for any reason you want.
It's literally no one else's business. Whether it qualifies for an award
from some organization, is simply a matter of whether or not the distant
station logged you.

There is no other solution and all the hand-wringing and complaining won't
change a thing. (not that you were doing that, but we have seen endless
debate on this topic on this list many, many times)

It's your log, do as you please, the rest will work itself out. 😎

73, N0AN
Hasan


On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:48 PM Kermit Lehman via groups.io <ktfrog007=
aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Not necessarily. I've had many QSOs where I didn't receive an RR73 or RRR
(the other station may have sent it, but I didn't copy it: QSB, QRM) and
the station went on to work someone else. Then I have no idea where I
stand, especially in cases where we looped on the signal report. Did I not
receive the RR73 or RRR, or did they just give up?
Sometimes the only way I can tell for sure is if they eQSL me.

73,Ken, AB1J

Hi Michel,

I'm not sure what you mean by: "never send confirmation." If they have
sent an "RR73" that is a confirmation. Otherwise they would probably not
call another station.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ



-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Banks via groups.io <larryb.w1dyj@...>
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jan 6, 2022 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Something new ? #QSO_practices

Hi Michel,

I'm not sure what you mean by: "never send confirmation." If they have
sent an "RR73" that is a confirmation. Otherwise they would probably not
call another station.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ


On 1/6/2022 9:08, Michel Bernard VE2BJG wrote:
What I have done is to carry on listening to those who never send
confirmation. Well guess what. John N4QWF is right. They do the same with
everyone. And I have seen this on stations that were strong signals both
ways.
I notice this is a common practice with rare stations or when there is a
pile up of stations calling a rare station.













--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


locked Re: Something new ? #QSO_practices

Joe Mirsky
 

I concur with you. K5LJB.

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 2:31 PM Hasan Schiers N0AN <hbasri.schiers6@...>
wrote:

Kermit,

If the other station is in high demand, they finish by sending a single
RR73. With that transmission, they log you. You are in their log. The fact
that you missed it, is not their problem. If you find yourself, not seeing
an RR73 from a desired station, and you notice they have moved on to
someone else, it is VERY likely they sent RR73 and you simply did not get
it.

Solution: Log the contact. If it did finish and you just missed it, you
will be in their log and perhaps (if you are lucky) they are in LOTW, and
you can verify it there.

While not ideal, it is the real world of dx'ing (especially) and some other
ops who seem to be in a hurry.

It's not going to change, so the best solution is to find a way to adapt
to it. Either you log it in hopes that you simply missed their RR73, or
you don't log it because you don't like their operating practices, or it
doesn't fit "your" definition of a complete qso. It's up to you.

...and before we degenerate into "what is and is not a contact", just
remember it's YOUR log, you log anyone you want for any reason you want.
It's literally no one else's business. Whether it qualifies for an award
from some organization, is simply a matter of whether or not the distant
station logged you.

There is no other solution and all the hand-wringing and complaining won't
change a thing. (not that you were doing that, but we have seen endless
debate on this topic on this list many, many times)

It's your log, do as you please, the rest will work itself out. 😎

73, N0AN
Hasan


On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:48 PM Kermit Lehman via groups.io <ktfrog007=
aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Not necessarily. I've had many QSOs where I didn't receive an RR73 or
RRR
(the other station may have sent it, but I didn't copy it: QSB, QRM) and
the station went on to work someone else. Then I have no idea where I
stand, especially in cases where we looped on the signal report. Did I
not
receive the RR73 or RRR, or did they just give up?
Sometimes the only way I can tell for sure is if they eQSL me.

73,Ken, AB1J

Hi Michel,

I'm not sure what you mean by: "never send confirmation." If they have
sent an "RR73" that is a confirmation. Otherwise they would probably not
call another station.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ



-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Banks via groups.io <larryb.w1dyj@...>
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jan 6, 2022 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Something new ? #QSO_practices

Hi Michel,

I'm not sure what you mean by: "never send confirmation." If they have
sent an "RR73" that is a confirmation. Otherwise they would probably not
call another station.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ


On 1/6/2022 9:08, Michel Bernard VE2BJG wrote:
What I have done is to carry on listening to those who never send
confirmation. Well guess what. John N4QWF is right. They do the same with
everyone. And I have seen this on stations that were strong signals both
ways.

I notice this is a common practice with rare stations or when there is
a
pile up of stations calling a rare station.


















--
Joe Mirsky
Fredericksburg, Texas
281-433.3489


locked Re: Something new ? #QSO_practices

Hasan Schiers N0AN
 

Kermit,

If the other station is in high demand, they finish by sending a single
RR73. With that transmission, they log you. You are in their log. The fact
that you missed it, is not their problem. If you find yourself, not seeing
an RR73 from a desired station, and you notice they have moved on to
someone else, it is VERY likely they sent RR73 and you simply did not get
it.

Solution: Log the contact. If it did finish and you just missed it, you
will be in their log and perhaps (if you are lucky) they are in LOTW, and
you can verify it there.

While not ideal, it is the real world of dx'ing (especially) and some other
ops who seem to be in a hurry.

It's not going to change, so the best solution is to find a way to adapt
to it. Either you log it in hopes that you simply missed their RR73, or
you don't log it because you don't like their operating practices, or it
doesn't fit "your" definition of a complete qso. It's up to you.

...and before we degenerate into "what is and is not a contact", just
remember it's YOUR log, you log anyone you want for any reason you want.
It's literally no one else's business. Whether it qualifies for an award
from some organization, is simply a matter of whether or not the distant
station logged you.

There is no other solution and all the hand-wringing and complaining won't
change a thing. (not that you were doing that, but we have seen endless
debate on this topic on this list many, many times)

It's your log, do as you please, the rest will work itself out. 😎

73, N0AN
Hasan


On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:48 PM Kermit Lehman via groups.io <ktfrog007=
aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Not necessarily. I've had many QSOs where I didn't receive an RR73 or RRR
(the other station may have sent it, but I didn't copy it: QSB, QRM) and
the station went on to work someone else. Then I have no idea where I
stand, especially in cases where we looped on the signal report. Did I not
receive the RR73 or RRR, or did they just give up?
Sometimes the only way I can tell for sure is if they eQSL me.

73,Ken, AB1J

Hi Michel,

I'm not sure what you mean by: "never send confirmation." If they have
sent an "RR73" that is a confirmation. Otherwise they would probably not
call another station.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ



-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Banks via groups.io <larryb.w1dyj@...>
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jan 6, 2022 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Something new ? #QSO_practices

Hi Michel,

I'm not sure what you mean by: "never send confirmation." If they have
sent an "RR73" that is a confirmation. Otherwise they would probably not
call another station.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ


On 1/6/2022 9:08, Michel Bernard VE2BJG wrote:
What I have done is to carry on listening to those who never send
confirmation. Well guess what. John N4QWF is right. They do the same with
everyone. And I have seen this on stations that were strong signals both
ways.

I notice this is a common practice with rare stations or when there is a
pile up of stations calling a rare station.















locked Re: JT65 Submodes in WSJT-X v2.5.4 #JT65

Stan Edwards - WA4DYD
 

Thanks. I had not checked the VHF box on the main options page. I’m now going to have an EME configuration so my memory doesn’t get in the way. HI

73,
Stan Edwards, WA4DYD


locked Meinberg issue #Timesync

Jacques Pecourt
 

Meinberg ver. 4.28p13 installed on W10-64 in C:\\Tools\NTP

I have been using this program for the last 2 years with no issues, but now
the display suddenly changed the content I was used to seeing. It now shows
only 2 servers, one in Finland and the other in Hungary ! What happened to
the 3 US I was perfectly happy with ?

The problem is that it now takes 15 minutes or more to get lousy offsets. I
spent hours reading all I can find to correct this situation with no
solution. I also noticed that the ntp.config file has nothing in it that
makes sense. Just another panel (1.81 Kb ) with the option to “OPEN” that
opens nothing. No trace of anything like server 0. Us.pool.ntp.org 1, 2,
3.

Is there any way I can bring that config file back to what it was or do I
need to re-install the program from scratch ? Any help would be
appreciated. Thank you.

Jacques F2YS/W2


locked Re: Something new ? #QSO_practices

 

If by that you mean they don’t send 73 in response to a RR73. It’s not necessary, so they are saving a TX cycle to use for another contact.

After sending RR73 I wait to see if they don’t repeat the R-xx before logging. That doesn’t waste a cycle as I then either repeat the RR73 or send CQ or call another station.

73 Phil GM3ZZA.

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Michel Bernard VE2BJG
Sent: 06 January 2022 14:16
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Something new ? #QSO_practices

What I have done is to carry on listening to those who never send confirmation. Well guess what. John N4QWF is right. They do the same with everyone. And I have seen this on stations that were strong signals both ways.

I notice this is a common practice with rare stations or when there is a pile up of stations calling a rare station.


locked Re: Something new ? #QSO_practices

Larry Banks
 

This happens to me as well when chasing a rare station in a pile-up.  But they are sending a confirmation to others.  I don't log these as I did not receive a confirmation.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ

On 1/6/2022 12:55, Kermit Lehman via groups.io wrote:
Not necessarily. I've had many QSOs where I didn't receive an RR73 or  RRR (the other station may have sent it, but I didn't copy it: QSB, QRM) and the station went on to work someone else. Then I have no idea where I stand, especially in cases where we looped on the signal report. Did I not receive the RR73 or RRR, or did they just give up?
Sometimes the only way I can tell for sure is if they eQSL me.

73,Ken, AB1J

Hi Michel,

I'm not sure what you mean by: "never send confirmation."  If they have
sent an "RR73" that is a confirmation. Otherwise they would probably not
call another station.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ



-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Banks via groups.io<larryb.w1dyj@...>
To:main@WSJTX.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jan 6, 2022 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Something new ? #QSO_practices

Hi Michel,

I'm not sure what you mean by: "never send confirmation."  If they have
sent an "RR73" that is a confirmation. Otherwise they would probably not
call another station.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ


On 1/6/2022 9:08, Michel Bernard VE2BJG wrote:
What I have done is to carry on listening to those who never send confirmation. Well guess what. John N4QWF is right. They do the same with everyone. And I have seen this on stations that were strong signals both ways.

I notice this is a common practice with rare stations or when there is a pile up of stations calling a rare station.











7081 - 7100 of 38088