Date
1 - 16 of 16
locked FT8 and 73: #FT8
|
David AD4TJ
I'm using 2.4.0-rc3 d089b3. Calling CQ using FT8; I answer a caller with signal report; receive R-xx; send RRR; receive 73; my Enable TX is no longer red, and the software stops without sending a 73. I have to quickly click on TX5 and Enable Tx to get it to send 73. 133715 -15 0.1 1758 ~ AD4TJ XXXXXX R-12
133730 Tx 1759 ~ XXXXXX AD4TJ RRR 133800 Tx 1759 ~ XXXXXX AD4TJ RRR 133830 Tx 1759 ~ XXXXXX AD4TJ RRR 133900 Tx 1759 ~ XXXXXX AD4TJ RRR 133915 -15 0.1 1758 ~ AD4TJ XXXXXX 73 133932 Tx 1759 ~ XXXXXX AD4TJ 73 My TX 4 is not set to RR73. In Settings, I do not have Disable TX after sending 73; that shouldn't affect this, as I'm RECEIVING a 73, not TXing a 73. What am I missing? Is it a bug? I've not seen anyone else report this. David AD4TJ
|
|
|
|
Jason B
Let me know if you get an answer, lol! I've noticed this on 2.3.1 . I think the jist of the thread I just read was that they consider the QSO over after the RRR and then the reply 73, so the courtesy reply of 73 back is redundant? I don't like that, I understand it's done in contesting alot, as in 73 de W5XXX, QRZ, but I prefer to respond to a 73 with a 73. Seems rude to do otherwise. IDK...
|
|
|
|
neil_zampella
Then send RR73 instead.
On 3/31/2021 8:59 PM, Jason B wrote:
Let me know if you get an answer, lol! I've noticed this on 2.3.1 . I think the jist of the thread I just read was that they consider the QSO over after the RRR and then the reply 73, so the courtesy reply of 73 back is redundant? I don't like that, I understand it's done in contesting alot, as in 73 de W5XXX, QRZ, but I prefer to respond to a 73 with a 73. Seems rude to do otherwise. IDK...
|
|
|
|
Carl - WC4H
If you want to keep transmitting, you just click on enable as soon as it goes off.
The reasoning is as follows: RRR implies 73 & RR73 explicitly says 73. Once a 73 response is received to either RRR or RR73, it's a completed QSO. That some people refuse to accept it as a complete QSO is true, but most do and most log the QSO when they get prompted to. It's up to you what you log. I go by the report received. That is if I get a good signal report I assume he/she is copying my final 73 so I log. If I'm receiving a -20 I'll wait to log it. 73. Carl - WC4H
|
|
|
|
Jim Brown
On 3/31/2021 9:55 PM, Carl - WC4H via groups.io wrote:
RRR implies 73 & RR73 explicitly says 73.It's even simpler than that. A QSO is complete if both stations copy R from the other. If the other station sends R-10 again, it means he didn't copy your RRR or RR73. If he calls CQ (or calls another station), it means he did. This corresponds directly to standard practice for DX and contesting for at least 30 years. The "official" message protocols were developed decades ago for weak signal work on VHF/UHF. HF operation is different. :) 73, Jim K9YC
|
|
|
|
Jon Ermels
?? I was taught as a Novice 33 years ago that Roger meant the report was received, 73 meant good wishes. RR73 means the report was received and best wishes. Pretty simple to me. 73 de NØIGU
Jon
On Thursday, April 1, 2021, 12:31:38 AM CDT, Carl - WC4H via groups.io <wc4h.dx@...> wrote:
If you want to keep transmitting, you just click on enable as soon as it goes off. The reasoning is as follows: RRR implies 73 & RR73 explicitly says 73. Once a 73 response is received to either RRR or RR73, it's a completed QSO. That some people refuse to accept it as a complete QSO is true, but most do and most log the QSO when they get prompted to. It's up to you what you log. I go by the report received. That is if I get a good signal report I assume he/she is copying my final 73 so I log. If I'm receiving a -20 I'll wait to log it. 73. Carl - WC4H
|
|
|
|
Charlie Hoffman
I send RR73.
When I receive a 73 then the QSO is complete. If I don't receive a 73 then I consider the contact incomplete. I don't log a QSO until I receive a 73 from the other station. My log - my rules. 73, Charlie WD4CNO
|
|
|
|
If you don't receive '73' in response to your 'RR73' message, do you re-send 'RR73 '? Or, do you just silently not log the QSO? 73, Ed W0YK
-------- Original message -------- From: Charlie Hoffman <hoffmanc@...> Date: 4/1/21 06:14 (GMT-08:00) To: main@WSJTX.groups.io Subject: Re: [WSJTX] FT8 and 73: #FT8 When I receive a 73 then the QSO is complete. If I don't receive a 73 then I consider the contact incomplete. I don't log a QSO until I receive a 73 from the other station. My log - my rules. 73, Charlie WD4CNO
|
|
|
|
Joe Subich, W4TV
On 2021-04-01 9:11 AM, Charlie Hoffman wrote:
That's well and good until you are on the other side ... Say you are working a rare DX (or rare state for WAS, etc.), he sends you RR73 and someone else (who also needs him) calls right on top of your 73. Now, that rare station can't hear your 73, does not log the QSO and goes right on working the new caller. *THE QSO IS COMPLETE WHEN BOTH STATIONS HAVE SENT "R"* - either R-##, RRR, or RR73. "R" acknowledges receipt of the signal report ("+/-##" or "R+/-##) and exchange of signal reports is what constitutes a "complete QSO" under *every* definition of a QSO - not the exchange of reports *and* acknowledgements. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2021-04-01 9:11 AM, Charlie Hoffman wrote: I send RR73.
|
|
|
|
Tom V. Segalstad
The following definition of a QSO is approved by the IARU (International Amateur Radio Union) Region 1, here extracted from the last version of The HF Managers’ Handbook:
2.1.1 QSO-DEFINITION
A definition for a valid QSO is: A valid contact is one where both operators during the contact have 1. mutually identified each other 2. received a report, and 3. received a confirmation of the successful identification and the reception of the report. It is emphasized that the responsibility always lies with the operator for the integrity of the contact.
A similar definition is in the IARU Region 1 VHF Managers’ Handbook Chapter 4.1.
There is no mention of «73» in this QSO definition – so 73 is just to be considered as «frosting on the cake» … or the QSO.
73 from Tom, LA4LN
Fra: Joe Subich, W4TV
On 2021-04-01 9:11 AM, Charlie Hoffman wrote:
> > I don't log a QSO until I receive a 73 from the other station. > My log - my rules. That's well and good until you are on the other side ... Say you are working a rare DX (or rare state for WAS, etc.), he sends you RR73 and someone else (who also needs him) calls right on top of your 73. Now, that rare station can't hear your 73, does not log the QSO and goes right on working the new caller. *THE QSO IS COMPLETE WHEN BOTH STATIONS HAVE SENT "R"* - either R-##, RRR, or RR73. "R" acknowledges receipt of the signal report ("+/-##" or "R+/-##) and exchange of signal reports is what constitutes a "complete QSO" under *every* definition of a QSO - not the exchange of reports *and* acknowledgements. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2021-04-01 9:11 AM, Charlie Hoffman wrote: > I send RR73. > When I receive a 73 then the QSO is complete. > If I don't receive a 73 then I consider the contact incomplete. > I don't log a QSO until I receive a 73 from the other station. > My log - my rules. > > 73, Charlie WD4CNO > >
-- Tom (LA4LN)
|
|
|
|
Lawrence Godek
Agreed. Same thoughts. Larry W0OGH
On 4/1/2021 6:11 AM, Charlie Hoffman
wrote:
I send RR73.
|
|
|
|
Martin G0HDB
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 02:14 PM, Charlie Hoffman wrote:
I send RR73.It is indeed your log and you can enter QSOs into it on whatever basis you choose, but by not logging a QSO when you send your RR73 you're potentially not logging perfectly valid QSOs. The final 73 that you await/require before logging a QSO may be a nice courtesy but is completely superfluous as far as the completion of the exchange of the essential information required for the QSO is concerned. -- Martin G0HDB
|
|
|
|
Bill Lederer
To support this, I would add "It might be your log, but it is not exclusively your QSO." w8lvn
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:47 PM Martin G0HDB <marting0hdb@...> wrote: On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 02:14 PM, Charlie Hoffman wrote: --
--w8lvn--
|
|
|
|
Joe Subich, W4TV
but by not logging a QSO when you send your RR73 you're potentially not logging perfectly valid QSOs.Better stated as "send your RR73 *or* RRR" .... 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2021-04-01 6:40 PM, Martin G0HDB wrote: On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 02:14 PM, Charlie Hoffman wrote:It is indeed your log and you can enter QSOs into it on whatever basis you choose, but by not logging a QSO when you send your RR73 you're potentially not logging perfectly valid QSOs. The final 73 that you await/require before logging a QSO may be a nice courtesy but is completely superfluous as far as the completion of the exchange of the essential information required for the QSO is concerned.
|
|
|
|
Jon Ermels
I like a 73. I got tired of logging after WSJT reminded to and then get Lids sending me a "Not in my Log" from eQSL members. 73 de NØIGU
Jon
On Thursday, April 1, 2021, 07:04:37 PM CDT, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists@...> wrote:
> but by not logging a QSO when you send your RR73 you're potentially > not logging perfectly valid QSOs. Better stated as "send your RR73 *or* RRR" .... 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2021-04-01 6:40 PM, Martin G0HDB wrote: > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 02:14 PM, Charlie Hoffman wrote: > >> >> I send RR73. >> When I receive a 73 then the QSO is complete. >> If I don't receive a 73 then I consider the contact incomplete. >> I don't log a QSO until I receive a 73 from the other station. >> My log - my rules. > > It is indeed your log and you can enter QSOs into it on whatever basis you choose, but by not logging a QSO when you send your RR73 you're potentially not logging perfectly valid QSOs. The final 73 that you await/require before logging a QSO may be a nice courtesy but is completely superfluous as far as the completion of the exchange of the essential information required for the QSO is concerned. > > -- > Martin G0HDB >
|
|
|
|
by logging a QSO when you send your RR73 before receiving the 73 you´re logging a potentially invalid QSO. Your RR73 can get lost..
One has to die one death... DG5LP
|
|
|