[600MRG] Starting at 19:37 UTC - late afternoon

Fri Jan 11 14:03:10 EST 2019

The most rigorous test of what a QSO requires was long ago set my 
eme'rs.  The eme QSO  protocol "makes sense" and is widely accepted 
within eme ranks and some VHF-microwave communities.

Signal report is not a "given" but most used form of "unknown 
information" transferred.  For example ARRL VHF contests use grid 
square in place of signal report.

The situation of long duration contacts (QSO's) would be ensuring one 
continues being able to identify that the signal over the whole time 
period.  Callsign suffices for that.  If one can't ensure signal 
Identity, then callsigns exchange would need repeating.

In the "old days" of eme it was extremely difficult accomplishment 
and one needed to "prove" to the established eme community that one 
"really did it".  I think that still stands for any one who wants to 
"claim" making a contact.  Casual operation rigorous proof is not required.

Make sense?

73, Ed - KL7UW
Inverted-L frozen on the ground (probably until spring).  If I find 
the time I will make a shielded loop with preamp for Rx.

At 05:49 AM 1/11/2019, Steve WD8DAS via 600MRG wrote:

>I've always felt that a serious contact (QSO) requires correct 
>callsigns, reports exchanged, and reports acknowledged/rogered.  For 
>normal operating of course, who cares?  But if someone is going for 
>an award, trying to break a record, or working a contest, it likely matters.
>
>If two stations just hear each other, then I suppose they could 
>later confirm SWL reports of each other, but it would not have been a "QSO".
>
>Two stations hearing each other happens all the time - for example, 
>two guys calling a DX station on HF might each each other trying on 
>the same frequency - but they aren't in QSO.
>
>
>Steve WD8DAS
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: N1BUG <paul at n1bug.com>
>To: 600mrg <600mrg at mailman.qth.net>
>Sent: Fri, Jan 11, 2019 6:21 am
>Subject: Re: [600MRG] Starting at 19:37 UTC - late afternoon
>
>It seems to me we are talking about two very different things here.
>I am one of those who completes a QSO over several days using DFCW
>or QRSS and I consider that a QSO if:
>
>* full call signs are copied over the air in both directions
>* reports are copied over the air in both directions
>* acknowledgment is copied over the air in both directions
>
>* it is one single, unbroken QSO attempt
>
>The first three were the long held and published criteria for a QSO
>over many decades. It still is, except that the first item has been
>downgraded to 'identification of a station' since the coming of
>certain digital modes. I don't recall seeing the last point written
>except perhaps in some special interest newsletters and the like,
>but it was well acknowledged and followed within all interest groups
>I had experience with. To my knowledge there was never any mention
>of a time limit so long as it was one continuous attempt at a QSO.
>If a QSO attempt was aborted and then retried at a later date or
>time, it started over from the beginning with exchange of call signs.
>
>Absolutely NOTHING that fails the above criteria will be claimed as
>a QSO by me. I would never consider two way WSPR or OPERA to be a
>QSO. Clearly neither meets the above criteria for over the air exchange.
>
>Paul N1BUG
>
>
>
>On 1/10/19 7:48 PM, K9FD wrote:
> > Some people on this list claim it is, they make contact and confirm
> > transmissions over a period of
> > two to three days and claim it as a QSO.
> > I guess you can call that slow JT-9-48  for 48 hours.
> >
> > Merv K9FD/KH6
> >
> >> Indeed, acknowledgement is needed.
> >> Because all information should be exchanged over radio on the 
> same frequency(band), during the QSO there should be no other means 
> of information exchange (Not via intenet, nor via contact on an other band).
> >> So without acknowledgement  you just cannot know the other 
> station copied you.
> >>
> >> Based on the rule "If 2 stations receive each other, it is a 
> QSO", I (and many others) would have made hundreds of QSO's on WSPR 
> without even knowing.
> >>
> >> To put it to an exteme: I copy a station on WSPR and that same 
> station copies me 2 weeks later.
> >> I cannot imagine that this would count as a valid QSO?
> >>
> >> 73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T
> >> ________________________________________
> >> Van: 
> <mailto:600mrg-bounces at mailman.qth.net>600mrg-bounces at mailman.qth.ne 
> t 
> <<mailto:600mrg-bounces at mailman.qth.net>600mrg-bounces at mailman.qth.net> 
> namens Bill Cromwell <<mailto:wrcromwell at gmail.com>wrcromwell at gmail.com>
> >> Verzonden: donderdag 10 januari 2019 22:42
> >> Aan: <mailto:600mrg at mailman.qth.net>600mrg at mailman.qth.net
> >> Onderwerp: Re: [600MRG] Starting at 19:37 UTC - late afternoon
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I thought they had to acknowledge one another too.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >> Bill  KU8H
> >>
> >> On 1/10/19 4:35 PM, 
> <mailto:jrusgrove at comcast.net>jrusgrove at comcast.net wrote:
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >>>> If 2 stations receive each other, it is a QSO.
> >>> Are you saying that only two(!) transmissions now constitute a
> >>> legitamite QSO? If so, someone should
> >>> inform K1JT of this so he can shorten his sequences ;~).
> >>>
> >>> Jay W1VD
> >> --
> >> bark less - wag more
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >> 600MRG mailing list
> >> Home: 
> <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg
> >> Help: <http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:600MRG at mailman.qth.net
> >> Message delivered to 
> <mailto:rik.strobbe at kuleuven.be>rik.strobbe at kuleuven.be
> >>
> >> This list hosted by: <https://www.qsl.net>https://www.qsl.net
> >> Please help support this email list: 
> <https://www.qsl.net/donate.html>https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >> 600MRG mailing list
> >> Home: 
> <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg
> >> Help: <http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:600MRG at mailman.qth.net
> >> Message delivered to <mailto:merv.k9fd at gmail.com>merv.k9fd at gmail.com
> >>
> >> This list hosted by: <https://www.qsl.net>https://www.qsl.net
> >> Please help support this email list: 
> <https://www.qsl.net/donate.html>https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>______________________________________________________________
>600MRG mailing list
>Home: 
><http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg
>Help: <http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:600MRG at mailman.qth.net
>Message delivered to <mailto:sbjohnston at aol.com>sbjohnston at aol.com
>
>This list hosted by: <https://www.qsl.net>https://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: 
><https://www.qsl.net/donate.html>https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>______________________________________________________________
>600MRG mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:600MRG at mailman.qth.net
>Message delivered to kl7uw at acsalaska.net
>
>This list hosted by: https://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html

73, Ed - KL7UW
   http://www.kl7uw.com
Dubus-NA Business mail:
   dubususa at gmail.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/600mrg/attachments/20190111/f227772b/attachment.html>