It is interesting to note that section one begins "It is recommended that....".
73 -Jim NU0C On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:16:22 -0700, Dave Hachadorian wrote: >Hi Saku, >Thanks for the information. >So here is the section in your reference regarding what constitutes a valid QSO >1. It is recommended that a QSO (meaning communication; 2-way contact) between >two > radio station operators is complete, when the > following exchange has been completed via > radio, without outside help by others: > a. both radio station operators have comprehended each other's call > signs; plus > b. some other information (commonly > a report, for instance RST) has been > exchanged; plus > c. confirmations have been exchanged > that the other operator has received the > above (call sign and some other information). >Paragraph 1c does not say that you need â¬Sconfirmation of the >confirmations.⬠Rather, 1c requires that confirmations be exchanged that >the call sign and QSO information have been received. In the example below, I >confirmed receipt of her information in my TX3 transmission with the â¬SR.⬠>She confirmed receipt of my information with her TX4 transmission with the >â¬SRR.⬠No further confirmations are required. The TX5 autosequence >transmission, that I am proposing be deleted, is only â¬S73,⬠which is a >nice pleasantry, but not a confirmation of anything, and slows down the QSO >rate by 50%, 90 seconds per QSO vs. 60 seconds per QSO. >Dave Hachadorian, K6LL >Yuma, AZ >From: Saku >Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 8:21 AM >To: Dave Hachadorian ; WSJT software development ; wsjt-x development >Reflector >Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Faster contest sequence >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) â¬S73⬠from me. I guess I donâ¬"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 canâ¬"t I start an immediate CQ, and why doesnâ¬"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 -- Theres something out of place lets go and poke it with a stick. The Doctor, "Amys Choice" _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
