locked Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices


 

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II


Michael Black
 

There are those that expect a 73 and those that don't.
If you or they are using the standard RRR response then both 73's are usually used in FT8.
But...they will log when they send their 73.
I've never seen anybody end after an R-XX report.  If they keep sending it means they didn't get your 73.
Mike W9MDB

On Friday, May 13, 2022, 11:48:14 AM CDT, Dan Malcolm <k4shq@...> wrote:

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal.  FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged.  Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report.  That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times.  I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report.  This makes me think I'm missing something.  Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II


chas cartmel
 

Just for information I always send a '73' or a 'RR73" to a contacted station when signal reports are exchanged and acknowledged.
For me it is operating 'manners' rather than a necessity.

The QSO is logged automatically but I mark it as no '73' and tend not to QSL these stations unless there is QSB and signal weak
. It's only 30 seconds after all.
I also do not work stations responding to my CQ with a signal report rather than a grid square. Again 30 seconds of effort.


73 Charlie
G4EST
www.g4est.me.uk
Stay safe out there

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dan Malcolm
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 1:43 PM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II





This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com


Jim Preston N6VH
 

On 5/13/2022 5:43 AM, Dan Malcolm wrote:
I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II
Dan,

Not every one has the same requirement for what constitutes a valid QSO. Some require a 73, others don't. In my case, all I ask is that I get an acknowledgement of the report I sent. RR73 covers both bases of course, but RRR is good enough for me. If I don't get an acknowledgement of my report, then I don't consider it a QSO. As I said, every one has their own standards. I always send 73 at the end of a QSO, except for Fox/Hound.

73,

Jim N6VH


Jim Brown
 

On 5/13/2022 10:03 AM, chas cartmel wrote:
Just for information I always send a '73' or a 'RR73" to a contacted station when signal reports are exchanged and acknowledged.
For me it is operating 'manners' rather than a necessity.
Yes. A QSO is complete when each station has RECEIVED RRR or RR73 from the other.
The QSO is logged automatically but I mark it as no '73' and tend not to QSL these stations unless there is QSB and signal weak
. It's only 30 seconds after all.
During a band opening and/or when trying to work rare stations, 30 sec is wasted time.
I also do not work stations responding to my CQ with a signal report rather than a grid square. Again 30 seconds of effort.
Same response as above. Indeed, grid square is only one form of information to be exchanged that makes it a QSO. When 6M (or 160M) is open to JA or EU, calling with a signal report is THE most courteous way to call. JA stations almost ALWAYS call with a signal report. We get the grid (if we care about it) from LOTW. An exception is we need to send a grid to let the other station know which way to point a beam. I've got a 9-call, living in W6, so will sometimes call with my grid for this reason.

I don't use /6, because it limits what a QSO partner with a non-standard call can do in WSJT-X.

73, Jim K9YC


WB5JJJ - George
 

I, on the other hand, log just about anything that has all the BASIC elements of a contact (as in callsign and signal report exchanged). You would be surprised as to how many LoTW confirmations I get even though I didn't see their RR73, RRR or even 73. WSJTx logs the contact after either party starts transmitting RR73 or RRR, so I go with that. And yes, there are those that require a 73 both ways even if I send RR73, they won't log it unless I send a second 73 alone, which I don't normally -- go figure, it doesn't bother me one bit. If I notice they don't confirm, I just assume they are don't use LoTW and never look back.
--
73's
George - WB5JJJ
Hamshack Holine #4969


Lawrence Godek
 

I do the same.

On 5/13/2022 10:03 AM, chas cartmel wrote:
Just for information I always send a '73' or a 'RR73" to a contacted station when signal reports are exchanged and acknowledged.
For me it is operating 'manners' rather than a necessity.

The QSO is logged automatically but I mark it as no '73' and tend not to QSL these stations unless there is QSB and signal weak
. It's only 30 seconds after all.
I also do not work stations responding to my CQ with a signal report rather than a grid square. Again 30 seconds of effort.


73 Charlie
G4EST
www.g4est.me.uk
Stay safe out there


-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dan Malcolm
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 1:43 PM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II





This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com







Jeff Stillinger
 

You are right, it is not that big of a deal.    Your station, your process.

In my operation process, I do expect to see confirmation that my signal report was received, either with a RR73 or the full RRR 73 sequence.   If I do not receive acknowledgement after the third attempt, I assume the contact was lost to propagation.   I do not log it and I move on to the next contact without second thought. Win some, loose some, next...  I run my logging and uploads in real time.   With everything else there is to do in life, the chances of me taking time out to reconstruct a broken contact are slim to none.

On Friday 5/13/2022 07:43, Dan Malcolm wrote:
I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II





 

Mike,
I'll reply to an R-XX with a plane 73 up to four times. Then I assume he just can't receive me. Sometimes I'll use JTAlert's message facility to send a notification that I have them in my log.

Thanks for the clarification.
__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Black via groups.io
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 11:54 AM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

There are those that expect a 73 and those that don't.
If you or they are using the standard RRR response then both 73's are usually used in FT8.
But...they will log when they send their 73.
I've never seen anybody end after an R-XX report.  If they keep sending it means they didn't get your 73.
Mike W9MDB




On Friday, May 13, 2022, 11:48:14 AM CDT, Dan Malcolm <k4shq@...> wrote:

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal.  FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged.  Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report.  That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times.  I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report.  This makes me think I'm missing something.  Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II


 

Thanks all for replying. It seems as if my practices are consistent with mainstream thoughts on QSO's end and courtesy. I'd like to have a 73, but I don't require it. Every logged QSO is sent to both eQSL and LoTW. I seldom get an eQSL from anyone saying the I am not in their log. When I check my eQSL listings, I see a handful of QSO's that I can't confirm in either my log or in WSJT's ALL.TXT. I keep several years' worth of ALL.TXT to use with a search facility I've written in PHP.

__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Lawrence Godek
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 8:16 PM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

I do the same.


On 5/13/2022 10:03 AM, chas cartmel wrote:
Just for information I always send a '73' or a 'RR73" to a contacted station when signal reports are exchanged and acknowledged.
For me it is operating 'manners' rather than a necessity.

The QSO is logged automatically but I mark it as no '73' and tend not
to QSL these stations unless there is QSB and signal weak . It's only 30 seconds after all.
I also do not work stations responding to my CQ with a signal report rather than a grid square. Again 30 seconds of effort.


73 Charlie
G4EST
www.g4est.me.uk
Stay safe out there



-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dan
Malcolm
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 1:43 PM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II





This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com








Jim Dawdy
 

I don't think there's a right, wrong, or even generally accepted practice.
It's really just all over the place.

Some DX stations won't respond to a grid square, a few (like the post
above) won't respond to only a signal report. Some ops insist on 73, some
do not.

I think DXpeditions are fairly consistent in wanting signal report only and
consider the QSO as logged when they send or receive RR73. Of course,
they're maximizing their limited time and resources, which is
understandable.

I tend to run without sending my grid, because I chase DX where that seems
to be more-preferred. If I send RR73 and don't get a 73 back, I usually
send it again once or twice, then move on.

Jim
KQ9I



<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 11:48 AM Dan Malcolm <K4SHQ@...> wrote:

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big
deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged.
Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report.
That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal
reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a
confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report.
This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II







Reino Talarmo
 

Mike and Dan,
Curious, why you respond to an R-XX with a 73? We have RR73 for that purpose. What you expect as the response to the 73?
By that you force a human action from the other operator as the automata don't respond to Tx5. No surprise that you need to send the 73 multiple times, hi!
See FT4_FT8_QEX-pdf Figure 6.
73, Reino OH3mA

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dan Malcolm
Sent: 14. toukokuutata 2022 23:27
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Mike,
I'll reply to an R-XX with a plane 73 up to four times. Then I assume he just can't receive me. Sometimes I'll use JTAlert's message facility to send a notification that I have them in my log.

Thanks for the clarification.
__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Black via groups.io
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 11:54 AM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

There are those that expect a 73 and those that don't.
If you or they are using the standard RRR response then both 73's are usually used in FT8.
But...they will log when they send their 73.
I've never seen anybody end after an R-XX report. If they keep sending it means they didn't get your 73.
Mike W9MDB




On Friday, May 13, 2022, 11:48:14 AM CDT, Dan Malcolm <k4shq@...> wrote:

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II


Reino Talarmo
 

If I send RR73 and don't get a 73 back, I usually send it again once or twice, then move on.
Hi Jim,
I have assumed that RR73 is generally understood as "I confirm that I have received confirmation that you have received my report and I have received your report and now I thank for this QSO and log it and don't expect any further confirmation about this QSO. Of course you may sent a 73, but I am not needing it as a confirmation of this QSO, thanks again".
73, Reino OH3mA

PS. I am sorry, if I am opening a Pandora box again.


Thomas, SM0KBD
 

One interesting thing has confused me related to this and that is the special contest options.

For "EU VHF Contest" the auto sequence is like this according to the latest manual:

CQ TEST G4ABC IO91
G4ABC PA9XYZ JO22
<PA9XYZ> <G4ABC> 570123 IO91NP
<G4ABC> <PA9XYZ> R 580071 JO22DB
PA9XYZ G4ABC RR73

(Lets hope that the format is kept)

As you see there is no final 73 sent. The same is true for "NA VHF Contest". From the beginning I thought this was a bug in the implementation, but as it is in line with the documentation I assume it is correct. Following some peoples practise this would not count as an full QSO. But obviously this is correct, or? So maybe it should be clearly pointed out that for certain special modes this shorter message exchange is OK and counted as a full QSO?

BR

/Thomas, SM0KBD

Den 2022-05-13 kl. 14:43, skrev Dan Malcolm:

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II





chas cartmel
 

I have seen a few stations who are unaware of the standard sequences. No wonder they confuse themselves and others.
Perhaps #RTFM


73 Charlie
G4EST
www.g4est.me.uk
Stay safe out there

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Reino Talarmo
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 5:12 AM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Mike and Dan,
Curious, why you respond to an R-XX with a 73? We have RR73 for that purpose. What you expect as the response to the 73?
By that you force a human action from the other operator as the automata don't respond to Tx5. No surprise that you need to send the 73 multiple times, hi!
See FT4_FT8_QEX-pdf Figure 6.
73, Reino OH3mA

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dan Malcolm
Sent: 14. toukokuutata 2022 23:27
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Mike,
I'll reply to an R-XX with a plane 73 up to four times. Then I assume he just can't receive me. Sometimes I'll use JTAlert's message facility to send a notification that I have them in my log.

Thanks for the clarification.
__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Black via groups.io
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 11:54 AM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

There are those that expect a 73 and those that don't.
If you or they are using the standard RRR response then both 73's are usually used in FT8.
But...they will log when they send their 73.
I've never seen anybody end after an R-XX report. If they keep sending it means they didn't get your 73.
Mike W9MDB




On Friday, May 13, 2022, 11:48:14 AM CDT, Dan Malcolm <k4shq@...> wrote:

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II






















This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com


Michael Black
 

These are the two possible sequences from the roger-signal-report -- on the 1st one I've seen operators keep sending the 1st 73 until they get one.e.g.
W9MDB K4HSQ R-10K4HSQ W9MDB RRRW9MDB K4HSQ 73
K4HSQ W9MDB 73

OrW9MDB K4HSQ R-10K4HSQ W9MDB RR73W9MDB K4HSQ 73

Mike W9MDB

On Sunday, May 15, 2022, 06:18:07 AM CDT, Reino Talarmo <reino.talarmo@...> wrote:

Mike and Dan,
Curious, why you respond to an R-XX with a 73? We have RR73 for that purpose. What you expect as the response to the 73?
By that you force a human action from the other operator as the automata don't respond to Tx5. No surprise that you need to send the 73 multiple times, hi!
See FT4_FT8_QEX-pdf Figure 6.
73, Reino OH3mA

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dan Malcolm
Sent: 14. toukokuutata 2022 23:27
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Mike,
I'll reply to an R-XX with a plane 73 up to four times.  Then I assume he just can't receive me.  Sometimes I'll use JTAlert's message facility to send a notification that I have them in my log. 

Thanks for the clarification.
__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Black via groups.io
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 11:54 AM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

There are those that expect a 73 and those that don't.
If you or they are using the standard RRR response then both 73's are usually used in FT8.
But...they will log when they send their 73.
I've never seen anybody end after an R-XX report.  If they keep sending it means they didn't get your 73.
Mike W9MDB




    On Friday, May 13, 2022, 11:48:14 AM CDT, Dan Malcolm <k4shq@...> wrote: 

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal.  FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged.  Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report.  That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times.  I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report.  This makes me think I'm missing something.  Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II


 

Reino,
Why won't the automata respond to Tx5? It is included in WSJT-X supplied messages, and is an accepted response everywhere else that I know off. Is there someplace that is documented the I missed?

__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Reino Talarmo
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2022 11:12 PM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Mike and Dan,
Curious, why you respond to an R-XX with a 73? We have RR73 for that purpose. What you expect as the response to the 73?
By that you force a human action from the other operator as the automata don't respond to Tx5. No surprise that you need to send the 73 multiple times, hi!
See FT4_FT8_QEX-pdf Figure 6.
73, Reino OH3mA

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dan Malcolm
Sent: 14. toukokuutata 2022 23:27
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Mike,
I'll reply to an R-XX with a plane 73 up to four times. Then I assume he just can't receive me. Sometimes I'll use JTAlert's message facility to send a notification that I have them in my log.

Thanks for the clarification.
__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Black via groups.io
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 11:54 AM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

There are those that expect a 73 and those that don't.
If you or they are using the standard RRR response then both 73's are usually used in FT8.
But...they will log when they send their 73.
I've never seen anybody end after an R-XX report. If they keep sending it means they didn't get your 73.
Mike W9MDB




On Friday, May 13, 2022, 11:48:14 AM CDT, Dan Malcolm <k4shq@...> wrote:

I've observed this operating practice for some time now and not such a big deal. FT8 QSO should, but don't have to, end with 73's being exchanged. Many don't send a 73, but end the QSO after sending a signal report. That's fine. But I also see some operators will continue sending signal reports until I have answered with a 73 several times. I'll usually get a confirmation via eQSL or LoTW so I assume they received my signal report. This makes me think I'm missing something. Is there an explanation?


__________
Dan - K4SHQ
CFI/II


Reino Talarmo
 

Why won't the automata respond to Tx5? It is included in WSJT-X supplied messages, and is an accepted response everywhere else that I know off. Is there someplace that is documented the I missed?
Hi Dan,
I can only consider, what designers were thinking.
First of all that automata don't have memory. So, if it would send a "73 message_2" to a received "73 message_1", then that will happen also at the reception of "73 message_2" and another "73 message" will be sent...
Another reason is that the QSO as such is completed, when both operators have received a report and confirmed the reception of the report. RRR or RR73 is the confirmation and there is no need to confirm the confirmation in the minimum QSO. If you don't receive the confirmation RRR or RR73, then you will resend your R-xx report(/confirmation). That mechanism is used in contest messages without 73.
If you want to send a polite 73 to inform that you have received the confirmation, you need to do it manually.
This is known as "Two Generals' Problem".
73, Reino OH3mA


 

Reino,
Okay. I'm fine with that. If I have to manually resend a 73 that's ok. The tenants of ham radio does dictate that we should be involved and not run a fully automated station anyway.

So here's what I've got out this entire conversation:
1. The QSO is legitimately over after both parties receive a signal report.
2. Sending a 73 as a post report message is just a courtesy. One I appreciate FWIW.
3. Sending RR73 is a gray area. It could be a 73 or just a signal report, or it could be both.
4. Sending an Rxx and then in a follow up message sending 73 is definitely a finished QSO with a courteous termination.
5. If participating in a contest, forgo the courtesy in favor of saving time.

__________
Dan – K4SHQ
CFI/II

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Reino Talarmo
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 1:21 PM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Puzzling QSO endings #QSO_practices

Why won't the automata respond to Tx5? It is included in WSJT-X supplied messages, and is an accepted response everywhere else that I know off. Is there someplace that is documented the I missed?
Hi Dan,
I can only consider, what designers were thinking.
First of all that automata don't have memory. So, if it would send a "73 message_2" to a received "73 message_1", then that will happen also at the reception of "73 message_2" and another "73 message" will be sent...
Another reason is that the QSO as such is completed, when both operators have received a report and confirmed the reception of the report. RRR or RR73 is the confirmation and there is no need to confirm the confirmation in the minimum QSO. If you don't receive the confirmation RRR or RR73, then you will resend your R-xx report(/confirmation). That mechanism is used in contest messages without 73.
If you want to send a polite 73 to inform that you have received the confirmation, you need to do it manually.
This is known as "Two Generals' Problem".
73, Reino OH3mA


Chris Hoffman
 

Dan,

I completely agree with you.

I would only add that if I receive a signal report only, I still submit the QSO to LOTW and eQSL. If the other ham also submits it then we both considered it a valid QSO and we both get credit. If the other Ham does not submit it, then I don’t worry about it and move on.

73
Chris
WA2SEM