Hi! Maybe because of this.
https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://hf.r-e-f.org/c4_iaru_r1/10vienne/VIE10_C4_11%2520QSO%2520definition.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiEko_F4eXeAhUCBiwKHU6VBOIQFjAAegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw0V-30uPteK4he8PsRKJC6r "Conclusion. 1c" at the end of document is read so that confirmation of confirmations must be received both sides. I.e your 73 will confirm her RR73 to be received. -- Saku OH1KH 20. marraskuuta 2018 20.54.09 GMT+02:00 Dave Hachadorian <[email protected]> kirjoitti: >I tried using the following sequence in the contest last night. > >I SEND (TX6) CQ RU K6LL DM22 > >SHE SENDS (TX2) K6LL K7ABC 569 AZ > >I SEND (TX3) K7ABC K6LL R 579 AZ > >SHE SENDS (TX4) K6LL K7ABC RR73 > >I SEND (TX6) CQ RU K6LL DM22 > > >It worked OK sometimes, but several callers kept coming back for more >info, apparently looking for that final (TX5) “73” from me. I guess I >don’t understand why they were looking for that. When I send TX3, the R >tells her that I got her report. When she sends RR73, she tells me >that she got my report. The QSO data has gone into the log at both >ends and all is good. Why can’t I start an immediate CQ, and why >doesn’t the automatic sequence follow that pattern? It would shorten >the QSO time from 90 seconds to 60 seconds. > >Thanks. > >Dave Hachadorian, K6LL >Yuma, AZ
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
