Date
1 - 12 of 12
Locked Necessity for Logic to prevent "RR73 Loops" #EnhancementReqest
|
Hi Folks,
There needs to be facilities to place limits on the number of TX4 and TX5 cycles that can be transmitted - prevening the operational "RR73 Loops" as they are often termed. Such just creates "chaff" on bands. Not all Amateurs just sit and watch ... as they should. I will use the OFTEN SEEN example below that was recorded in VK3 on 6m FT8 "segment" 2022-12-03. The actual op call has been obscured as identifying the op would be bad practise. 230345 -15 -0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230415 -11 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 •Australia 230445 -10 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230515 -9 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230545 -10 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230615 -9 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230645 -9 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230715 -8 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230745 -10 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230815 -11 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230845 -10 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230915 -11 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230945 -11 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 73 Steve I VK3VM/VK3SIR |
|
|
|
Doesn't the Watchdog timeout limit this?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On the crowded bands sometimes QRM clobbers a station. If I don't get a response to RR73 after 3 or 4 tries I kill the TX and that station does not get logged. ____________ 73, Jim - N4ST -----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen™ Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 16:21 To: main@WSJTX.groups.io Subject: [WSJTX] Necessity for Logic to prevent "RR73 Loops" #EnhancementReqest Hi Folks, There needs to be facilities to place limits on the number of TX4 and TX5 cycles that can be transmitted - prevening the operational "RR73 Loops" as they are often termed. Such just creates "chaff" on bands. Not all Amateurs just sit and watch ... as they should. I will use the OFTEN SEEN example below that was recorded in VK3 on 6m FT8 "segment" 2022-12-03. The actual op call has been obscured as identifying the op would be bad practise. 230345 -15 -0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230415 -11 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 •Australia 230445 -10 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230515 -9 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230545 -10 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230615 -9 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230645 -9 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230715 -8 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230745 -10 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230815 -11 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230845 -10 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230915 -11 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230945 -11 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 73 Steve I VK3VM/VK3SIR |
|
|
|
Karza <kari.sillanmaki@...>
On 4.12.2022 18.23, Jim - N4ST wrote:
Doesn't the Watchdog timeout limit this?Yes it does, but you can cranck the timeout up to 99 minutes! 73's de Kari, oh2gqc
|
|
|
|
David Fanelli
The watchdog timer can be disabled as well.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 11:50 AM Karza <kari.sillanmaki@...> wrote:
On 4.12.2022 18.23, Jim - N4ST wrote:Doesn't the Watchdog timeout limit this?Yes it does, but you can cranck the timeout up to 99 minutes! --
73 de KB5PGY |
|
|
|
Reino Talarmo
If I don't get a response to RR73 after 3 or 4 tries I kill the TX and that station does not get logged.Hi Jim, It's you rule! In the User Guide RRR or 73 are called final acknowledgements. If you send an RRR meaning that the sender of one of those is confirming a complete QSO. RR73 is also doing that. In that sense, when you send an RR73, then you are stating that the QSO is complete i.e. you have received report and the other operator has received your report and confirmed that and now you are telling that you also confirm the report confirmation. l still another confirmation is needed? In none of the examples in the User Guide there is a 73 sent to RR73. The RR73 needs a repetition only, if the other station repeats its R+rpt. I admit that a 73 to RRR is nice gesture to provide peace to the sender of the RRR. So, if you require a 73, then use RRR and other operators gets a hint of you rule, please. Again, just my interpretation of the minimum QSO and the User Guide. 73, Reino OH3mA |
|
|
|
I agree. For some unfathomable reason this silly argument has been going on since the start of FT modes. It was then and is now a crazy one.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Outlook LT Gil W0MN Hierro Candente Batir de Repente 44.08226 N 92.51265 W EN34rb -----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Reino Talarmo Sent: 04 December 2022 12:12 To: main@WSJTX.groups.io Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Necessity for Logic to prevent "RR73 Loops" #EnhancementReqest If I don't get a response to RR73 after 3 or 4 tries I kill the TX and that station does not get logged.Hi Jim, It's you rule! In the User Guide RRR or 73 are called final acknowledgements. If you send an RRR meaning that the sender of one of those is confirming a complete QSO. RR73 is also doing that. In that sense, when you send an RR73, then you are stating that the QSO is complete i.e. you have received report and the other operator has received your report and confirmed that and now you are telling that you also confirm the report confirmation. l still another confirmation is needed? In none of the examples in the User Guide there is a 73 sent to RR73. The RR73 needs a repetition only, if the other station repeats its R+rpt. I admit that a 73 to RRR is nice gesture to provide peace to the sender of the RRR. So, if you require a 73, then use RRR and other operators gets a hint of you rule, please. Again, just my interpretation of the minimum QSO and the User Guide. 73, Reino OH3mA -- W0MN EN34rb 44.08226 N 92.51265 W Hierro candente, batir de repente HP Laptop |
|
|
|
t402 owner <t402_owner@...>
FWIW as soon as reports are exchanged I log the QSO and acknowledge with an RR73 or just 73. Basic courtesy. But it's no biggie if I don't get one back. I'm certainly not going to wait for one and much less waste a perfectly good QSO.
73 for now Fernando EA3ING |
|
|
|
I don't see what is happening at the other end of the QSO. If the "response" to RR73 is a repeat of the signal report that means the other op did not copy the RR73. It you are trying to work a rare or needed station under dicey conditions and/or QRM then multiple repeated re-sends are needed to complete the contact. That's why the auto-sequence works the way it does. It is the operator's judgment as to how long it is allowed to continue but having been in that situation I appreciate rare DX that hangs in there with me until we get it done. It seems like with 3 KHz of band space to play with this is a non-issue. :)
73 -Jim NU0C On Sat, 03 Dec 2022 15:21:09 -0800 Stephen™ <stephen_i@...> wrote: Hi Folks, |
|
|
|
Snip>>I will use the OFTEN SEEN example below that was recorded in VK3 on 6m FT8 "segment" 2022-12-03. The actual op call has been obscured as identifying the op would be bad practise.
230345 -15 -0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230415 -11 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 •Australia 230445 -10 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230515 -9 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230545 -10 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230615 -9 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia 230645 -9 0.2 2254 ~ PJ4MM VK3?? RR73 °Australia<<Snip Stephen, It would seem to me if you are sending the RR73 over and over then perhaps he didn't receive your signal report correctly. Why not go back up and resend that a few times and see if that kickstarts the process... -- K4SOW ( https://www.qrz.com/lookup/k4sow ) |
|
|
|
Randy K7RAN
I think it’s important to remember — for any mode (not just FT8) — that there is always the possibility that you thought you were in the other station’s log when in fact you ultimately weren’t. It’s a relatively uncommon outcome (maybe not quite meriting the “rare” adjective), but it happens. For run-of-the-mill CW or SSB contacts, perhaps the moment of final truth is discovered at the point QSLs are (or aren’t) exchanged — and perhaps that’s true for FT8 QSOs as well. There is no lock tight works-100% failsafe even for controlled-exchange modes.
|
|
|
|
I agree with Reino and Gilbert.
What about this logic for an enhancement: After I send a Tx 4 "RR73", I receive the "Prompt me to log QSO" (current state). IF I receive a repeat Tx 3 "R-xx" reply from the QSO partner, then I automatically send RR73 again, up to a limit of X repeats (configurable by me). The QSO partner obviously did not receive my RR73 Tx 4 if he repeats Tx 3. Else, IF I do NOT receive a repeat Tx3 "R-xx" reply AND I attempt to send Tx 4 "RR73" a second time, then I will receive an alert saying "You already sent RR73 - this is normally the end of the contact. Are you sure you want to send RR73 again?" In other words, make me confirm sending RR73 again if no repeat of Tx 3 (or Tx 5) is received. Offer the operator some computerized decision support saying "hey, this may not be necessary." |
|
|
|
On 5 December 2022, at 16:13, "Tim Brannon, WA5MD" <timbmd@...> wrote:
I agree with Reino and Gilbert.I thought that was as it is now. IF I receive a repeat Tx 3 "R-xx" reply from the QSO partner, then I automatically send RR73 again, up to a limit of X repeats (configurable by me). The QSO partner obviously did not receive my RR73 Tx 4 if he repeats Tx 3.If you re-enable TX then that happens. Or goes to CQ if they don't repeat tx3 or send 73. Else,Unnecessary automation. 73 Phil GM3ZZA -- 73 Phil GM3ZZA |
|
|