Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually acted in a benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the contact without the benefit of logging it. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as sending calls and 73. The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX 1.6.1 copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and RRR. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -- ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel -- ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
[wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as sending calls and 73. The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX 1.6.1 copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and RRR. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -- ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
I think the answer to this is simple. All it requires is that all JT mode programs print RRR 73 when (sending and) receiving the standard RRR message. It's just a sequence of bits after all, and not the actual text RRR. Then the calling station could feel happy that they've sent 73 to the responding station and not done one of (a) finished the QSO with a clinical RRR before sending the next CQ, or (b) squandering another 2 minutes send a fourth transmission to give the tradition ham radio signoff. As far as I can tell people send RR73 or RRR73 or something similar just because they want to be polite. Being Canadian I understand completely. Mind you, getting everyone to update their versions would be a challenge. (What really drives me nuts though is the CQ station responding to my call with R-xx, which sometimes tricks me into sending RRR if I don't notice) 73, Chris VE3NRT -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B [mailto:n...@ockert.us] Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:40 PM To: WSJT software development wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54 To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually acted in a benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the contact without the benefit of logging it. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to
Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
Jay, No toes stepped on. I am actually quite surprised the discussion is about setting the auto sequencer up to complete on less than minimal contacts. I fully expected instead to be having a discussion about the legitimacy of the auto sequencer in general. Bill -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:01 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer I am not the one that sent RR73. I just try and get along and use common sense to complete the contact. :-) It's too bad the world cant agree on a global standard for the sequences which is the base of the issue. People think they want to tinker with it. I just thought it might be good to think about how the auto sequence works. Nevermind if I stepped on a toe. 73 Jay KA9CFD -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 3:40 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54 To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually acted in a benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the contact without the benefit of logging it. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the auto sequencer can be
Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
I am not the one that sent RR73. I just try and get along and use common sense to complete the contact. :-) It's too bad the world cant agree on a global standard for the sequences which is the base of the issue. People think they want to tinker with it. I just thought it might be good to think about how the auto sequence works. Nevermind if I stepped on a toe. 73 Jay KA9CFD -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 3:40 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54 To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually acted in a benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the contact without the benefit of logging it. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as sending calls and 73. The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX 1.6.1 copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and RRR. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om
Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54 To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually acted in a benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the contact without the benefit of logging it. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as sending calls and 73. The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX 1.6.1 copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and RRR. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -- ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel -- ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel -- ___
Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54 To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually acted in a benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the contact without the benefit of logging it. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as sending calls and 73. The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX 1.6.1 copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and RRR. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -- ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel --
Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer
Jay, I concur completely on all points. With JT9 there is NO ambiguity that the incorrect message was sent. I will feel even less bad about not logging those contacts. Thank you for the discussion. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:42 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer Bill I know what constitutes a QSO. I always use the standard messages myself. However this QSO was using the JT9H mode with FEC. There is no mistake in what was sent and received. There is no partials involved like there is in ISCAT or FSK441 modes. It's either all or nothing. I think that needs to be considered. If it is such a big deal, then why isnt WSJTX hardcoded with the standard messages so they cannot be changed? This is the final word from me on this subject. Time to move on. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 23:27 To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer Jay, From the WSJTX manual... By longstanding tradition, a minimal valid QSO requires the exchange of callsigns, a signal report or some other information, and acknowledgments. WSJT-X is designed to facilitate making such minimal QSOs using short, formatted messages. The process works best if you use them and follow standard operating practices. The recommended basic QSO goes something like this: 1. CQ K1ABC FN42 2. K1ABC G0XYZ IO91 3. G0XYZ K1ABC –19 4. K1ABC G0XYZ R-22 5. G0XYZ K1ABC RRR 6. K1ABC G0XYZ 73 The messages suggested and in fact the messages that WSJTX (and WSJT) generate reflect RRR as the long standing minimal acknowledgement. The manual is clear, the software is clear and the effort to do it that was is actually less than doing it the other way... no messages to change every time you change modes. Bill From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:40 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER reports had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would be in receiving 2 Rogers instead of 3. :-) Jay KA9CFD Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone Original message From: George J Molnar geo...@molnar.com Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us, WSJT software development wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign. George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Mike, No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. Bill From: Michael Black Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy
Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER reports had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would be in receiving 2 Rogers instead of 3. :-) Jay KA9CFD Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone Original message From: George J Molnar geo...@molnar.com Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us, WSJT software development wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign. George J Molnar, CEM, CHPPNevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Mike, No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. Bill From: Michael Black Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters. I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54 To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually acted in a benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the contact without the benefit of logging it. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From:
Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer
Ah, now I understand that although I doubt if I will be working anyone in that grid in the Arctic Ocean anytime soon. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: George J Molnar Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 23:06 To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer RR73 is also a valid grid square and could cause confusion in software. George J Molnar KF2T | AFA9GM Twitter: @GJMolnar SUPPORT HR-1301 S-1685 http://www.arrl.org/amateur-radio-parity-act On Aug 24, 2015, at 15:40, Jay Hainline ka9...@mtcnow.net wrote: Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER reports had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would be in receiving 2 Rogers instead of 3. :-) Jay KA9CFD Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone Original message From: George J Molnar geo...@molnar.com Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us, WSJT software development wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign. George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Mike, No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. Bill From: Michael Black Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original
Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H voice from Downunder
Hi all, We must ALWAYS send the sending callsign. Period. Downunder, we replace the (space) with a / between the receiving callsign and the report eg. VK3AMZ/26 VK2ZIW 26 So, onlookers can figure out, in garbled MS messages, who's who. Does this make sense? Alan VK2ZIW On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:23:47 -0700, George J Molnar wrote Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign. George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Mike, No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. Bill From: Michael Black Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters. I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54 To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually acted in a benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the contact without the benefit of logging it. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using WSJTX-devel r5808 using
Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer
Bill I know what constitutes a QSO. I always use the standard messages myself. However this QSO was using the JT9H mode with FEC. There is no mistake in what was sent and received. There is no partials involved like there is in ISCAT or FSK441 modes. It's either all or nothing. I think that needs to be considered. If it is such a big deal, then why isnt WSJTX hardcoded with the standard messages so they cannot be changed? This is the final word from me on this subject. Time to move on. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 23:27 To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer Jay, From the WSJTX manual... By longstanding tradition, a minimal valid QSO requires the exchange of callsigns, a signal report or some other information, and acknowledgments. WSJT-X is designed to facilitate making such minimal QSOs using short, formatted messages. The process works best if you use them and follow standard operating practices. The recommended basic QSO goes something like this: 1. CQ K1ABC FN42 2. K1ABC G0XYZ IO91 3. G0XYZ K1ABC –19 4. K1ABC G0XYZ R-22 5. G0XYZ K1ABC RRR 6. K1ABC G0XYZ 73 The messages suggested and in fact the messages that WSJTX (and WSJT) generate reflect RRR as the long standing minimal acknowledgement. The manual is clear, the software is clear and the effort to do it that was is actually less than doing it the other way... no messages to change every time you change modes. Bill From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:40 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER reports had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would be in receiving 2 Rogers instead of 3. :-) Jay KA9CFD Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone Original message From: George J Molnar geo...@molnar.com Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us, WSJT software development wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign. George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Mike, No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. Bill From: Michael Black Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it
[wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
Mike, No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. Bill From: Michael Black Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54 To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually acted in a benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the contact without the benefit of logging it. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as sending calls and 73. The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX 1.6.1 copy has always had TX4
Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign. George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Mike, No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. Bill From: Michael Black Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54 To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually acted in a benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the contact without the benefit of logging it. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I
Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
Hello All, I dont know what operating practices have to do with WSJT development, and at the risk of getting pummeled here; ... we have to remember what the original protocol was designed / used for, WSJT EME if I recall. In that world, it can take several / many TX cycles of the same message before you progress to the next message, and receipt / acknowledgement of the signal rpt or RRR is imperative from what I've been told. So the 3x3 doesn't' really apply there does it. I've operated in several ways / methods / modes on HF, simply sending his-call TNX 73 after getting my report, and using using RRR then sending the 73 message, but I don't recall ever using RR73, and don't think I would ever use it, it just doesn't seem to fit well with the flow and it's a grid square, all be it an extremely rare one, but a grid nevertheless. I'm sure there are contest operators in this group, and they all know, full well, particularly CW contesters, things get severely abbreviated. So much so, that high speed ops can actually slow their rates down by *not following* standard *generally accepted* practices. The same is true of JT QSO's, especially with these messages have no breaks or have all sorts of acronyms that only the guy sending them can decipher, or closer to home here, when the *generally accepted* sequence is altered. The bottom line is, the software, as written, is designed for a specific flow. If users want to alter that flow, that is up to them, but be prepared for others to disagree and in some cases, reject the QSO == Busted Q, and that's on you. Likewise, it's up the two parties making the QSO to determine if the QSO is valid or not; if ya don't like it, don't log it, pretty simple really. Personally, I think the sequencing in WSJT-X is what is should be, and appropriate for the modes operated. 73's Greg, KI7MT On 08/24/2015 09:26 PM, Neil Zampella wrote: FWIW ... Joe put together the original QSO protocol which effectively shows six (6) transmissions, three (3) from the station calling CQ, and three (3) from the station answering the CALL over what is effectively a six minute period. The 5th minute of the QSO is the CQ station sending RRR, which is a final acknowledgement that all information for the QSO has been transmitted and received.The ONLY transmission in that protocol that requires a 73, is the final transmission (6th minute0 by the answering station which is effectively saying thanks for the QSO, over and out. There is no need for the calling station to do anything after that, but call CQ for another QSO. The use of the RRR 73 or RR73 really does NOT save any time, and really tends to confuse users of WSJT-X who merely click on the decoded transmission. The program (as well as the JT65-HF clones) is not expecting that, and has no idea on what to do next. My six bits ... Neil Z KN3ILZ On 08/24/15 05:09 pm, Chris Sullivan wrote: I think the answer to this is simple. All it requires is that all JT mode programs print RRR 73 when (sending and) receiving the standard RRR message. It's just a sequence of bits after all, and not the actual text RRR. Then the calling station could feel happy that they've sent 73 to the responding station and not done one of (a) finished the QSO with a clinical RRR before sending the next CQ, or (b) squandering another 2 minutes send a fourth transmission to give the tradition ham radio signoff. As far as I can tell people send RR73 or RRR73 or something similar just because they want to be polite. Being Canadian I understand completely. Mind you, getting everyone to update their versions would be a challenge. (What really drives me nuts though is the CQ station responding to my call with R-xx, which sometimes tricks me into sending RRR if I don't notice) 73, Chris VE3NRT -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B [mailto:n...@ockert.us] Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:40 PM To: WSJT software development wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
FWIW ... Joe put together the original QSO protocol which effectively shows six (6) transmissions, three (3) from the station calling CQ, and three (3) from the station answering the CALL over what is effectively a six minute period. The 5th minute of the QSO is the CQ station sending RRR, which is a final acknowledgement that all information for the QSO has been transmitted and received.The ONLY transmission in that protocol that requires a 73, is the final transmission (6th minute0 by the answering station which is effectively saying thanks for the QSO, over and out. There is no need for the calling station to do anything after that, but call CQ for another QSO. The use of the RRR 73 or RR73 really does NOT save any time, and really tends to confuse users of WSJT-X who merely click on the decoded transmission. The program (as well as the JT65-HF clones) is not expecting that, and has no idea on what to do next. My six bits ... Neil Z KN3ILZ On 08/24/15 05:09 pm, Chris Sullivan wrote: I think the answer to this is simple. All it requires is that all JT mode programs print RRR 73 when (sending and) receiving the standard RRR message. It's just a sequence of bits after all, and not the actual text RRR. Then the calling station could feel happy that they've sent 73 to the responding station and not done one of (a) finished the QSO with a clinical RRR before sending the next CQ, or (b) squandering another 2 minutes send a fourth transmission to give the tradition ham radio signoff. As far as I can tell people send RR73 or RRR73 or something similar just because they want to be polite. Being Canadian I understand completely. Mind you, getting everyone to update their versions would be a challenge. (What really drives me nuts though is the CQ station responding to my call with R-xx, which sometimes tricks me into sending RRR if I don't notice) 73, Chris VE3NRT -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B [mailto:n...@ockert.us] Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:40 PM To: WSJT software development wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do
Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H voice fromDownunder
Yes it does on the free form protocols like FSK, ISCAT, etc.On protocols with FEC like JT9 it is all (and exact) or nothing so is clear without any other conventions. From: Alan VK2ZIW Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 8:24 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H voice fromDownunder Hi all, We must ALWAYS send the sending callsign. Period. Downunder, we replace the (space) with a / between the receiving callsign and the report eg. VK3AMZ/26 VK2ZIW 26 So, onlookers can figure out, in garbled MS messages, who's who. Does this make sense? Alan VK2ZIW On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:23:47 -0700, George J Molnar wrote Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign. George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Mike, No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. Bill From: Michael Black Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B n...@ockert.us wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged.
