locked Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8


Kermit Lehman
 


There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.
              

I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:

CQ PC2K JO22
PC2K AB1J FN42
AB1J PC2K -16
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)


A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.

Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me.  

I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end.  

What should I have done?  What would you do?

73,
Ken, AB1J



Jim Brown
 

On 5/19/2021 9:26 AM, Kermit Lehman via groups.io wrote:
There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not. For those of us out in the trenches, it is.
From where I sit, 65 years licensed, lots of contesting and DX chasing on CW, SSB, and RTTY, and also lots of weak signal work on 6M and 160M, the differences of opinion are largely based on whether the op has that sort of experience or FT8 is his/her introduction to HF operation.

The operating protocol outlined in WSJT-X docs was specifically developed over decades by weak signal VHF/UHF operation. HF and MF operating protocols for contesting and DXing have evolved over at least 70 years. They are different.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. On HF and MF bands, follow those MF/HF protocols. For weak signal work on VHF/UHF, follow those established protocols.

73, Jim K9YC


Jim Brown
 

Specific to this exchange, since you didn't copy RRR or RR73, it's not a QSO.

73, Jim K9YC

On 5/19/2021 9:26 AM, Kermit Lehman via groups.io wrote:
CQ PC2K JO22
PC2K AB1J FN42
AB1J PC2K -16
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)
PC2K AB1J R-12
                       (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)
PC2K AB1J R-12


Larry Banks
 

Agree with Jim.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brown
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 18:07
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

Specific to this exchange, since you didn't copy RRR or RR73, it's not a
QSO.

73, Jim K9YC

On 5/19/2021 9:26 AM, Kermit Lehman via groups.io wrote:
CQ PC2K JO22
PC2K AB1J FN42
AB1J PC2K -16
PC2K AB1J R-12
(empty time slot - did PC2K send RR73 or
RRR here?)
PC2K AB1J R-12
(empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ
here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy
with the QSO)
PC2K AB1J R-12


 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io On Behalf Of Kermit Lehman via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 9:26 AM
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

 

There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.

              

 

I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:

 

CQ PC2K JO22

PC2K AB1J FN42

AB1J PC2K -16

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)

 

 

A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.

 

Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me.  

 

I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end.  

 

What should I have done?  What would you do?

 

73,

Ken, AB1J

 

 


Darl DEEDS
 

I thought we were finally done with the never ending “when is it done” OMG it isn’t !!  Can’t we just decide to do what ever you as an individual wants to do and move on??

 

Darl  NA8W

 

From: Ted
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 19:28
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/completeqso

 

K7TRK

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io On Behalf Of Kermit Lehman via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 9:26 AM
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

 

There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.

              

 

I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:

 

CQ PC2K JO22

PC2K AB1J FN42

AB1J PC2K -16

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)

 

 

A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.

 

Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me.  

 

I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end.  

 

What should I have done?  What would you do?

 

73,

Ken, AB1J

 

 

 


Don Roden
 

What do the FT8-Bots recommend ?


On 2021-05-19 6:49 pm, Darl DEEDS wrote:

I thought we were finally done with the never ending "when is it done" OMG it isn't !!  Can't we just decide to do what ever you as an individual wants to do and move on??

 

Darl  NA8W

 

From: Ted
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 19:28
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/completeqso

 

K7TRK

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io On Behalf Of Kermit Lehman via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 9:26 AM
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

 

There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.

              

 

I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:

 

CQ PC2K JO22

PC2K AB1J FN42

AB1J PC2K -16

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)

 

 

A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.

 

Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me.  

 

I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end.  

 

What should I have done?  What would you do?

 

73,

Ken, AB1J

 

 

 







Dennis <dennis@...>
 

OK, I'm an idiot.  I go ahead and log it.  If it doesn't get confirmed then it wasn't a QSO.  If it gets confirmed
it's in my log and theirs.

That is all.

73, de N4QM


On Wednesday, May 19, 2021, 07:49:14 PM EDT, Darl DEEDS <na8w@...> wrote:


I thought we were finally done with the never ending “when is it done” OMG it isn’t !!  Can’t we just decide to do what ever you as an individual wants to do and move on??

 

Darl  NA8W

 

From: Ted
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 19:28
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/completeqso

 

K7TRK

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io On Behalf Of Kermit Lehman via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 9:26 AM
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

 

There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.

              

 

I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:

 

CQ PC2K JO22

PC2K AB1J FN42

AB1J PC2K -16

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)

 

 

A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.

 

Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me.  

 

I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end.  

 

What should I have done?  What would you do?

 

73,

Ken, AB1J

 

 

 





K8BL BOB LIDDY <k8bl@...>
 

Darl, et al,

Yes, it's here again. And, it's probably because new folks keep discovering
these modes and are enjoying them.

IMHO, a QSO will be what I determine it is. There are SO many factors involved
that no one can say for sure 100 percent. There's QSB and QRM and QRN and there
are computer hiccups, etc., etc. Some folks demand a 73 and some don't expect
one from an RR73 (but some do).

Sometimes, you'll work someone with strong signals in the open and finish with
sending them an RR73. Then, in the very next timeslot from them you'll see them
send a CQ instead of a 73 for you. You couldn't have missed anything since the
timing was exactly in sync. They just didn't send you a 73. Would you pester them
until you finally got a 73?  Of course not. They must have considered it a finished
QSO, so why wouldn't you since you actually sent RR73.

Also, it was mentioned earlier that DX'ing and Contesting usually don't have on-air
confirmations in both directions. So, why would FTx be any different? Make the best
of the situation and enjoy the experience of the Hobby.

GL/73,   Bob  K8BL             (over 32K FT8/4 QSOs)


On Wednesday, May 19, 2021, 07:49:18 PM EDT, Darl DEEDS <na8w@...> wrote:


I thought we were finally done with the never ending “when is it done” OMG it isn’t !!  Can’t we just decide to do what ever you as an individual wants to do and move on??

 

Darl  NA8W

 

From: Ted
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 19:28
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/completeqso

 

K7TRK

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io On Behalf Of Kermit Lehman via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 9:26 AM
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

 

There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.

              

 

I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:

 

CQ PC2K JO22

PC2K AB1J FN42

AB1J PC2K -16

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)

 

 

A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.

 

Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me.  

 

I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end.  

 

What should I have done?  What would you do?

 

73,

Ken, AB1J

 

 

 





Jim Shorney
 

I would log it.

73

-Jim
NU0C

On Thu, 20 May 2021 00:55:48 +0000 (UTC)
"Dennis" <dennis@...> wrote:

OK, I'm an idiot.  I go ahead and log it.  If it doesn't get confirmed then it wasn't a QSO.  If it gets confirmedit's in my log and theirs.
That is all.
73, de N4QM

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021, 07:49:14 PM EDT, Darl DEEDS <na8w@...> wrote:


I thought we were finally done with the never ending “when is it done” OMG it isn’t !!  Can’t we just decide to do what ever you as an individual wants to do and move on??

 

Darl  NA8W

 

From: Ted
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 19:28
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/completeqso

 

K7TRK

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io On Behalf Of Kermit Lehman via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 9:26 AM
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

 

There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.

              

 

I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:

 

CQ PC2K JO22

PC2K AB1J FN42

AB1J PC2K -16

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)

 

 

A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.

 

Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me.  

 

I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end.  

 

What should I have done?  What would you do?

 

73,

Ken, AB1J

 

 

 




Gary - AC6EG
 

Specific to this QSO, I would have logged it and added a comment in my log that no RR73 was received. 
There is no question that  you made contact and sent and received signal reports. That constitutes a weak signal QSO as far as I'm concerned. If I got a rejection notice from eQSL, I would delete it from my log and move on, without any ill will toward my QSO partner. 

Gary - AC6EG


Darl DEEDS
 

Good response Bob!

 

NA8W

 

From: K8BL BOB LIDDY
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 21:26
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

Darl, et al,

 

Yes, it's here again. And, it's probably because new folks keep discovering

these modes and are enjoying them.

 

IMHO, a QSO will be what I determine it is. There are SO many factors involved

that no one can say for sure 100 percent. There's QSB and QRM and QRN and there

are computer hiccups, etc., etc. Some folks demand a 73 and some don't expect

one from an RR73 (but some do).

 

Sometimes, you'll work someone with strong signals in the open and finish with

sending them an RR73. Then, in the very next timeslot from them you'll see them

send a CQ instead of a 73 for you. You couldn't have missed anything since the

timing was exactly in sync. They just didn't send you a 73. Would you pester them

until you finally got a 73?  Of course not. They must have considered it a finished

QSO, so why wouldn't you since you actually sent RR73.

 

Also, it was mentioned earlier that DX'ing and Contesting usually don't have on-air

confirmations in both directions. So, why would FTx be any different? Make the best

of the situation and enjoy the experience of the Hobby.

 

GL/73,   Bob  K8BL             (over 32K FT8/4 QSOs)

 

 

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021, 07:49:18 PM EDT, Darl DEEDS <na8w@...> wrote:

 

 

I thought we were finally done with the never ending “when is it done” OMG it isn’t !!  Can’t we just decide to do what ever you as an individual wants to do and move on??

 

Darl  NA8W

 

From: Ted
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 19:28
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/completeqso

 

K7TRK

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io On Behalf Of Kermit Lehman via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 9:26 AM
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

 

There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.

              

 

I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:

 

CQ PC2K JO22

PC2K AB1J FN42

AB1J PC2K -16

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)

 

 

A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.

 

Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me.  

 

I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end.  

 

What should I have done?  What would you do?

 

73,

Ken, AB1J

 

 

 



 


Tom V. Segalstad
 

We have discussed this topic before in this Group, and newcomers have then probably not seen my answer from April 1 this year – so let me repeat it:

 

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. May I recommend ending the FT8 QSO by sending «RR73», meaning that everything is received, and the best wishes.

 

73 from Tom, LA4LN

 

 

 

Fra: Darl DEEDS
Sendt: torsdag 20. mai 2021 kl. 15.01
Emne: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

Good response Bob!

 

NA8W

 

From: K8BL BOB LIDDY
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 21:26
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

Darl, et al,

 

Yes, it's here again. And, it's probably because new folks keep discovering

these modes and are enjoying them.

 

IMHO, a QSO will be what I determine it is. There are SO many factors involved

that no one can say for sure 100 percent. There's QSB and QRM and QRN and there

are computer hiccups, etc., etc. Some folks demand a 73 and some don't expect

one from an RR73 (but some do).

 

Sometimes, you'll work someone with strong signals in the open and finish with

sending them an RR73. Then, in the very next timeslot from them you'll see them

send a CQ instead of a 73 for you. You couldn't have missed anything since the

timing was exactly in sync. They just didn't send you a 73. Would you pester them

until you finally got a 73?  Of course not. They must have considered it a finished

QSO, so why wouldn't you since you actually sent RR73.

 

Also, it was mentioned earlier that DX'ing and Contesting usually don't have on-air

confirmations in both directions. So, why would FTx be any different? Make the best

of the situation and enjoy the experience of the Hobby.

 

GL/73,   Bob  K8BL             (over 32K FT8/4 QSOs)

 

 

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021, 07:49:18 PM EDT, Darl DEEDS <na8w@...> wrote:

 

 

I thought we were finally done with the never ending “when is it done” OMG it isn’t !!  Can’t we just decide to do what ever you as an individual wants to do and move on??

 

Darl  NA8W

 

From: Ted
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 19:28
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/completeqso

 

K7TRK

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io On Behalf Of Kermit Lehman via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 9:26 AM
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

 

There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.

              

 

I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:

 

CQ PC2K JO22

PC2K AB1J FN42

AB1J PC2K -16

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)

 

 

A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.

 

Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me.  

 

I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end.  

 

What should I have done?  What would you do?

 

73,

Ken, AB1J

 

 

 

 

 

 


--
Tom (LA4LN)


Pat
 

In MY qsos 
if there is no confirmation 
not in log.


Darl DEEDS
 

Common Sense. Good answer!

 

NA8W

 

From: Pat via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 09:59
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

In MY qsos 
if there is no confirmation 
not in log.

 


Martin G0HDB
 

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:46 PM, Kermit Lehman wrote:
 
There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.
              
 
I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:
 
CQ PC2K JO22
PC2K AB1J FN42
AB1J PC2K -16
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)
 
 
A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.
 
Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me.  
 
I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end.  
 
What should I have done?  What would you do?
 
Log it along with a comment that the QSO wasn't complete because you hadn't received the other station's RRR or RR73 (or perhaps just even a 73) because of QRM, QSB or whatever else might have affected your reception of their final confirmation, which might well have been sent so the other station would (presumably) have deemed the QSO to be complete and would have logged it.

--
Martin G0HDB


Jim Seaman W3LSN
 

Ending an exchange with 73 is a courtesy much like saying good-bye when you part ways with someone. In amateur radio, signing 73 is a tradition much like sending QSL cards, a simple courtesy and long-standing tradition which most of us also don't practice anymore.  If I don't hear a final 73, I'll assume that the other station heard me and I heard him, but one of us probably faded below the noise.   There are protocols to follow, but I also remind myself that it's only a hobby.

73,
Jim
W3LSN


Darl DEEDS
 

I'm out in the trenches and politely disagree. And say it depends. And it's up to what you want to do.

NA8W

On May 20, 2021 10:48, Martin G0HDB <marting0hdb@...> wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:46 PM, Kermit Lehman wrote:
 
There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.
              
 
I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:
 
CQ PC2K JO22
PC2K AB1J FN42
AB1J PC2K -16
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)
 
 
A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.
 
Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me.  
 
I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end.  
 
What should I have done?  What would you do?
 
Log it along with a comment that the QSO wasn't complete because you hadn't received the other station's RRR or RR73 (or perhaps just even a 73) because of QRM, QSB or whatever else might have affected your reception of their final confirmation, which might well have been sent so the other station would (presumably) have deemed the QSO to be complete and would have logged it.

--
Martin G0HDB


Larry Banks
 

This seems so simple to me.  IF you demand a final “73” in order to log your Q, then DON’T SEND “RR73”, send “RRR” instead.  If I receive (or send) an RR73, the Q is logged.  If I receive an RRR, I log it when I send my 73, but I watch to see if I receive another RRR, in which case I send another 73.  (Yes, this can happen multiple times to complete a Q.)

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ

 
From: Darl DEEDS
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 11:10
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8
 
I'm out in the trenches and politely disagree. And say it depends. And it's up to what you want to do.
 
NA8W
 
On May 20, 2021 10:48, Martin G0HDB <marting0hdb@...> wrote:

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:46 PM, Kermit Lehman wrote:
 
There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.
              
 
I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:
 
CQ PC2K JO22
PC2K AB1J FN42
AB1J PC2K -16
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)
PC2K AB1J R-12
                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)
 
 
A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.
 
Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me. 
 
I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end. 
 
What should I have done?  What would you do?
 
Log it along with a comment that the QSO wasn't complete because you hadn't received the other station's RRR or RR73 (or perhaps just even a 73) because of QRM, QSB or whatever else might have affected your reception of their final confirmation, which might well have been sent so the other station would (presumably) have deemed the QSO to be complete and would have logged it.

--
Martin G0HDB
 






Gilbert Baron
 

It is so ridiculous that some FT8 users require a PREDEFINED set of exchanges. Once information has been exchanged by both sides and really is confirmed because a side sends the next in the predefined sequence of how the program works that is enough. That is how most contest in all modes works. The final courtesy of the final 73 is NOT needed.

OTOH if you demand that final 73 it is up to you I guess.

I send anything I think is valid to LotW and if the other station sends to LotW and they match then it is positively a QSO. 

 

Anything that matches in LotW is a valid QSO PERIOD.

 

Outlook Laptop Gil W0MN

Hierro candente, batir de repente

44.08226N 92.51265W EN34rb

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Martin G0HDB
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 09:49
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Successfully ending an FT QSO #FT8

 

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:46 PM, Kermit Lehman wrote:

 

There's been a lot of discussion since FT8 came out about when a QSO is complete.  Often it comes down to whether a final 73 is necessary or not following an RR73 or RRR.  The experts and logicians claim it's not.  For those of us out in the trenches, it is.

              

 

I have a great many QSOs that go like this one:

 

CQ PC2K JO22

PC2K AB1J FN42

AB1J PC2K -16

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot -  did PC2K send RR73 or RRR here?)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - if I heard PC2K send a CQ here, I would have logged the QSO, making the assumption he was happy with the QSO)

PC2K AB1J R-12

                           (empty time slot - at this point I gave up)

 

 

A few minutes later I heard PC2K call CQ again.  I didn't call him as I figured our chances of a QSO were iffy and I'd moved on.

 

Next time I looked in eQSL I found I had one from PC2K for the "QSO."   He must have sent an RR73 and logged the QSO without a 73 from me.  

 

I rejected it because the QSO ended without closure on my end.  

 

What should I have done?  What would you do?

 

Log it along with a comment that the QSO wasn't complete because you hadn't received the other station's RRR or RR73 (or perhaps just even a 73) because of QRM, QSB or whatever else might have affected your reception of their final confirmation, which might well have been sent so the other station would (presumably) have deemed the QSO to be complete and would have logged it.

--
Martin G0HDB


--

W0MN EN34rb 44.08226 N 92.51265 W

Hierro candente, batir de repente

HP Laptop