Hi Reino,
Not to beat the issue to death but this does not always work. A strong signal
may dissipate.
Some months ago, there was a nice 2 meter band opening into Texas from here in
NJ. I worked several FT8 stations. Signals were strong, but the band just
dropped out, suddenly. I wasmid-qso with a Texas station. I abandoned the qso
after not receiving a RRR and sending the signal report multiple times. Some
time later I got a qsl card from the station, from the abandoned qso. He was
seeking confirmation. I emailed him, told him I could not confirm it. He had
sent a RR73, which I never received. He thought the qso was complete, but it
was not. So I wonder, how many qso's are in logs that cannot be confirmed?
This is why I always send RRR and confirm a 73 with one of my own, as a
courtesy. It's just my choice to do it that way. I also have no need to keep
a qso short.
Yesterday, a band opening on six meters happened, to South America. Signals
were poor, to say the least, with often only partial signals on the waterfall.
I saw plenty of RR73 there too. So, while the use of RR73might be flexible, it
is often not used in that way on strong signals only.
73,Andy, ka2uqw
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 01:49:57 AM EDT, Reino Talarmo via
wsjt-devel <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Hi Andy and all,
The protocol is flexible on that issue. The original weak signal QSO do contain
a “RRR” that is “confirmed” by a “73” to keep both sizes of the QSO happy.
The “RR73” is really intended for “strong signal” QSO’s and then the “73” is
not needed to keep the QSO time short.
73, Reino OH3mA
From: Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel [mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2023 1:05 AM
To: Neil Zampella via wsjt-devel <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Andrew Neumeier <ka2...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] No 73 allowed after RR73?
In some cases the use of RR73 is problematic. I operate FT8 almost exclusively
on 2 meters, weak signal. If I am working a very weak station, and that
station chooses to use RR73 instead of 73, there
is a good chance that I have not received it, especially if I am waiting for a
qsb peak on the signal. By sending RR73 that station assumes we are done once
RR73 is sent, but we may not be done. I continue
sending a signal report, while the station I was in contact with is off working
another station. I may then fail to log that qso, since it is incomplete,
unless the station realizes the mistake and continues the qso.
On occasion I have even seen RR73 used in MSK144 or even Q65 which is just out
of line in weak signal, or meteor scatter work.
When working weak signals I don't think RR73 should ever be used and I never
use it myself.
73,
Andy, ka2uqw
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 04:53:15 PM EDT, Neil Zampella via wsjt-devel
<wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
FWIW ... if you received an RR73 .. there is no need to reply.
The station is saying that RR I got your last, and 'over and out' ...
The other party is not waiting for your reply, they're on to another contact.
Neil, KN3ILZ
On 10/21/2023 1:14 PM, Andy Durbin wrote:
WSJT-X ver 2.6.1, Win 8.1.
I have observed several times that I could not complete a QSO by sending 73
after I had received an RR73. This is expected operation with F/H active but
not when F/H is not active. I suspect that something is latched in software if
F/H mode has been used but is then exited and WSJT-X is not re-started.
Has anyone else seen this or have an explanation?
73,
Andy, k3wyc
_______________________________________________
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 mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
