locked TU; messages in RTTY RU


Steve Kavanagh
 

On rare occasions during the RTTY Roundup I copied running stations on FT4 sending messages beginning with TU; and then continuing with the exchange for the next station. I even found myself sending this once or twice. It was very helpful, and dealt well with the usual difficulty the search-and-pounce station has determining whether or not the QSO was completed successfully.

But I don't know when it happens and I could find no mention in the User Guide. 

Can anyone enlighten me? It would be very useful if something like this was sent at the end of every QSO in all the contest modes.

73,
Steve VE3SMA


Matt Henry
 

Hi Steve,

I found myself sending this message type as well.  This occurred when I was calling CQ and two stations replied.  I had "Call 1st" checked, so the software automatically responded to the first station.  As soon as I received the first station's RR73 I double-clicked on the second station.  That action resulted in the TU;... message  being sent.

73,
Matt
NR3M 

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Steve Kavanagh via Groups.Io wrote:
On rare occasions during the RTTY Roundup I copied running stations on FT4 sending messages beginning with TU; and then continuing with the exchange for the next station. I even found myself sending this once or twice. It was very helpful, and dealt well with the usual difficulty the search-and-pounce station has determining whether or not the QSO was completed successfully.

But I don't know when it happens and I could find no mention in the User Guide. 

Can anyone enlighten me? It would be very useful if something like this was sent at the end of every QSO in all the contest modes.

73,
Steve VE3SMA
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#5183): https://groups.io/g/WSJTX/message/5183
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/69472479/4109913
-=-=-
WSJT-X      Weak Signal Communication  . ©2001-2020 by Joe Taylor, K1JT.    References : <a href="https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/refs.html" target="_blank">https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/refs.html</a>
-=-=-
Group Owner: WSJTX+owner@groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/WSJTX/leave/7432331/1011022693/xyzzy  [nr3m@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



Jim Cooper
 

On 6 Jan 2020 at 10:42, Steve Kavanagh via Groups.Io
wrote:

Can anyone enlighten me? It would be very useful if something like
this was sent at the end of every QSO in all the contest modes.
I agree ... running a mere 40 watts, I found many cases
of needed repeats, and after sending RR73 several times
one is never sure if the other station got the last one or
just went off to make other contacts .... however, a few
compassionate ops were nice to send back a 73 when they
finally got my RR73, which I appreciated.


Reino Talarmo
 

Hi Jim,
On the other hand Joe has defined that sending an RR73 means that the QSO is
logged.
It also means 'I am not expecting any more messages from you, except a
repetition of your previous R...., if you did not received my RR73'.
Taking that into account the sending of 73 is not mandatory especially in a
contest and many serious contesters never sent it in RTTY RU.
73, Reino oh3mA

after sending RR73 several times one is never sure if the other station got
the last one or just went off to make other contacts .... however, a few
compassionate ops were nice to send back a 73 when they
finally got my RR73, which I appreciated.


Steve Kavanagh
 

That's true Reino.  A QSL is valid without the final acknowledgement, since callsigns and some additional information have been confirmed by that point.  But you can't be sure until you receive a QSL card or equivalent.  Indeed, I have received many QSLs on LOTW now from the RTTY RU for QSOs with the minimum information exchange as you mentioned.

However, in a contest, you need to be able to know (almost) for sure if you have worked someone or if you should call them again later to ensure you get the points/multiplier.  WSJT-X contest modes do not yet meet that requirement in the standard sequence, with this rare exception of the TU; messages.

73,
Steve VE3SMA


Reino Talarmo
 

Steve,
I agree that generally your cannot be absolutely sure, if no 73 to your RR73. On the other hand, if you see (decode) all messages from that station to whom you sent RR73 and there is no sending or especially a CQ from that station in the next timeslot, then he is following the 'Rule' that you have logged the QSO and there is no need to resent R... The TU; would be fine in that situation. I got a feeling that it is generated, if you have logged the previous call before your start to send a reply to somebody else. The use of automatic logging may be very relevant in that respect.

I noted that you should not reply to somebody else before logging the previous QSO as that seems to generate the answer using the same serial number as the not yet logged QSO.

Of course situation is less clear, if he is replying to somebody else in the next timeslot (without TU;...) especially when there has been already some repetitions or you don't decode that message. If it is question of an important (rare) multiplier, then you may choose to spend potentially many additional timeslots to get a 73 back. You may try RRR instead as that should tell a not yet logged situation.

73, Reino oh3mA


ve3ki
 

Actually, Steve, I think it's a bit more subtle than that. To me, it depends on whether there have been any repeats during the QSO.

If the QSO goes:
CQ RU VE3SMA
VE3SMA VE3KI 599 ON
VE3KI VE3SMA R 599 ON
VE3SMA VE3KI RR73
CQ RU VE3SMA
that seems clear enough to me. If you had not copied my RR73, you would have sent your exchange again, so the fact that you did not repeat your exchange tells me that you are happy with the QSO and have logged it.

However, simple QSOs with no repeats like the above one often don't happen in congested contest conditions. If the QSO has gone:
CQ RU VE3SMA
VE3SMA VE3KI 559 ON
VE3KI VE3SMA R 559 ON
VE3SMA VE3KI 559 ON (meaning I haven't received your exchange yet)
VE3KI VE3SMA R 559 ON
VE3SMA VE3KI RR73
CQ RU VE3SMA, or OH3MA VE3SMA 559 ON
that's not so clear to me. Did you receive my RR73, log the contact, and now are you moving on, or did you fail to receive my RR73 and have you decided to give up and move on without logging the contact and without trying again? How many tries are enough before giving up?

If I have understood correctly, the program provides for a distinction in the second case above, with the TU; OH3MA VE3SMA 559 ON variant message. What seems to be missing is an equivalent for the CQ message, as in TU; CQ RU VE3SMA. Maybe that's already there in the program?? If so, I never saw such a message, not that I was on for very long, so I might have missed it.

There is still some ambiguity if the S&Ping station does not receive and decode the TU; ... message, but it's not possible to remove all ambiguity in all possible sequences without rigid rules about the number of retries. In traditional modes, there are often clues (partial decodes, for example), but in a fixed-length all-or-nothing digital mode, those clues are not there, so either you make the entire process longer in order to reduce the ambiguity, or you decide to live with the ambiguity (and the resulting high busted QSO rate) in the interest of speed.

73,
Rich VE3KI


On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 07:44 AM, Steve Kavanagh wrote:
That's true Reino.  A QSL is valid without the final acknowledgement, since callsigns and some additional information have been confirmed by that point.  But you can't be sure until you receive a QSL card or equivalent.  Indeed, I have received many QSLs on LOTW now from the RTTY RU for QSOs with the minimum information exchange as you mentioned.

However, in a contest, you need to be able to know (almost) for sure if you have worked someone or if you should call them again later to ensure you get the points/multiplier.  WSJT-X contest modes do not yet meet that requirement in the standard sequence, with this rare exception of the TU; messages.

73,
Steve VE3SMA


Steve Kavanagh
 

Hi Rich

I believe you have summarized the situation correctly - thanks for the better explanation.  Mind you, if WSJT-X can incorporate a "TU" in a CQ message after a QSO with repeats, it might as well be there for a minimum-cycles QSO as well, in my opinion.

There is always potentially some ambiguity along the lines of your last paragraph, even on CW or phone, although, as you say, the timing clues on those modes help a lot for an experienced operator.

73,
Steve VE3SMA


jeff stai wk6i <wk6i.jeff@...>
 

I brought up this very point after the FT Roundup last month. RTTY has TU WK6I CQ. CW has TU WK6I TEST. 

Why don't we have the same for FT contesting?

73 jeff wk6i

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:53 AM Steve Kavanagh via Groups.Io <sjkavanagh1=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
Hi Rich

I believe you have summarized the situation correctly - thanks for the better explanation.  Mind you, if WSJT-X can incorporate a "TU" in a CQ message after a QSO with repeats, it might as well be there for a minimum-cycles QSO as well, in my opinion.

There is always potentially some ambiguity along the lines of your last paragraph, even on CW or phone, although, as you say, the timing clues on those modes help a lot for an experienced operator.

73,
Steve VE3SMA -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#5220): https://groups.io/g/WSJTX/message/5220
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/69472479/187377
-=-=-
WSJT-X      Weak Signal Communication  . ©2001-2020 by Joe Taylor, K1JT.    References : <a href="https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/refs.html" target="_blank">https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/refs.html</a>
-=-=-
Group Owner: WSJTX+owner@groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/WSJTX/leave/4083781/484566121/xyzzy  [wk6i.jeff@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


--
Jeff Stai ~ WK6I ~ wk6i.jeff@...
RTTY op at W7RN
Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/