[Meteor-Scatter] Perseids and operating procedures!

[Gabriel - EA6VQ]

>>I would not mind if we would change the MS procedure partially by adding
>>Locator and QSY information in the CQ call. (Locator might be important
>>to optimize antenna direction) What wouild you say ?

There is no need at all to send the locator, because of two reasons.

1.- There are plenty of on-line and off-line database where you can get the locator of almost every station QRV in VHF.
2.- MS does not exctictly require the antennas to be pointed so accurately. I can normally guess the azimuth +-10 degress for any
European stations just based on his callsign and/or call area

I really think is a waste of bandwith to add the locator to the CQ...(my opinion, anyway..)

> that the QSO is really Completed. Sending a number of times RRR without any
> further verification does not mean a complete QSO, does it ?

The only requirement is that R's must be send together with enough information to identify who is actually sending them (tipically
the callsing or suffix in HSCW), so that when you get a string of R's you are sure that they are actually sent by your partner and
not from someone else.

Sending 73's and other additional stuff is nice if reflexions are good and ALWAYS after completing the QSO.  They do not imply
having completed the QSO.

For those interested...have a look to the IARU reg.1 operating procedures for MS QSOs at
http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/vhfc/iaru.r1.vhfm.4e/5B.html
This is for SSB/HSCW MS of course, and need to be slighlty adapted to FSK441 (lenght of periods, frequencies used, QSY system, etc)
but the procedure for exchanging the information (reports, R's, etc.) doesn't need to be changed. It's proved to be a good procedure
for MS and it adapts perfectly well to FSK441.

73. Gabriel - EA6VQ
===================================================
E-Mail: ea6vq@vhfdx.net
Web-Site: HTTP://www.vhfdx.net
VQLog: HTTP://www.vqlog.com
EME skeds On-Line: HTTP://www.datosred.com/emeskeds
The DXCC spreadsheet: HTTP://www.vhfdx.net/dxcc.html
===================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franz van Velzen" <fvv@aon.at>
To: "Gabriel - EA6VQ" <ea6vq@vhfdx.net>; "Lista MS" <meteor-scatter@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: AW: [Meteor-Scatter] Perseids and operating procedures!


>
> EA6VQ wrote :
> -> >>If we are going to make good use of the available spectrum, timing and
> -> >>clean signals are paramount.. just like any other mode.
> ->
> -> Completly agree..and even more, I have noticed quite a few
> -> stations not using the MS procedure at all...I mean:
>
> Me too
>
> -> - Not using the right sequences (who should TX in each sequence)
> -> - Answering to CQ's without a report (only callsings)
> -> - Sending non standard texts or reports and thus making QSO
> -> completion harder
>
> I found the info in the CQ calls from several people quite interesting; for
> example CQ LY2XXX QSY 383 and/or CQ OE3FVU JN78UE etc.
> Rest of the QSO standard of course.
>
> Also, after QSO is completed with RRR I send 73 OE3FVU JN78UE. Although that
> is not conform to the rules, I do send the 73 2x as an indication
> that the QSO is really Completed. Sending a number of times RRR without any
> further verification does not mean a complete QSO, does it ?
>
> I would not mind if we would change the MS procedure partially by adding
> Locator and QSY information in the CQ call. (Locator might be important
> to optimize antenna direction) What wouild you say ?
>
> -> - ...no need to tell about the use of DX-Cluster to exchange
> -> information during the QSOs
>
> Actually, I don't consider this too much of an issue after I did some
> analysis of the spots of last weekend; it is far moire interesting
> that of more than 4100 spots made by less than 400 spotters, a bit more than
> 400 calls were spotted. Which means that every call was being
> spotted 10 times or so. If we could bring that back to 3 or 4, it would save
> much more than getting the complete QSO's from the cluster. After
> all, those HAM cheating, just cheat themselves and that tells me enough
> about that kind of people, hi. Anyway, my thoughts and you do not need to
> agree, hi.
>
>
>