[Moon-net] QSO or not?

[df2zc at gmx.de]

Dear Jimmy,

It is an honour to me that you think I make no mistakes. However unlike you and some others I am not perfect. The answer to the noise you´re making below is rather simple. I made a typing error. This can happen, independant from the mode of the QSO or NO-QSO.

I am currently on business travel and will have access to the paper log only this weekend when I am back home. I will then correct the log on my website.

I have never ever had problems with decoding single tones messages but every little mistake seems to serve as a wonderful platformfoor those interested to intrigue against WSJT and DS in particular. BTW I also made a typing error with Jan DL9KR´s 70 cm CW qso which I printed as 10z instead of 11z.

I hope this clarification comes early enough for Peter SM2CEW´s "The world ist a disk"  blog, before he starts using my typing error again as an argument against JT65 DS in toto.

Of course if it had been a cw QSO and I had made this typing error, nobody would have written an email o the reflector.

73 Bernd DF2ZC

----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
   >Von: "jimmyv at hol.gr"<jimmyv at hol.gr>
   >Gesendet: 02.05.07 10:19:54
   >An: "moon at moonbounce.info"<moon at moonbounce.info>, "moon-net at list-serv.davidv.net"<moon-net at list-serv.davidv.net>
   >Betreff: [Moon-net] QSO or not?
   >
   >Hello all
   > 
   >I am trying to understand how JT65 works sometimes (even without Deep Search!),
   >especially when it comes to expeditions. I am confused. 
   >Could you please explain to me how is possible to have a QSO as complete in the
   >log of an expedition, when the station calling them says it is not complete?
   >However, expedition says it has data files for all QSOs. So does the station
   >trying to work them. So where is the error? 
   >This is even more profound because in the case of JT65 it is even more difficult
   >to make a personal judgement mistake. Since software algorithms do the decision
   >making for you and we have been told that reliability of a contact remains
   >intact. Regardless of signal level.
   >
   >As i do not question the integrity and experience of operators in the specific
   >expedition (in fact they are experienced operators with good operating
   >standards), neither do i question the experience and integrity of the
   >particular station calling them, then is it the JT65 software generating the
   >error? I think, and hope, not.
   > 
   >Perhaps is it the plain shorthand messages? To me, it looks like this being the
   >reason, because shorthand messages are not accompanied with callsigns (unless
   >the Big exception of someone transferring both reports and callsigns as unknown
   >text). Therefore, using the standard format of shorthand messages, in a pileup
   >situation, one can not be sure if the RO or Rs received was for him or
   >not...(as logger extract shows below at 5:19)
   >We have seen situations with other expeditions in the past.
   > 
   >To substantiate my argument and subsequent confusion with facts, pls find below
   >extracts of ON4KST logger showing PE1BTX saying to ZB2/DH7FB he did not have
   >complete QSO with ZB2 expedition. At the end of this mail, pls see the log of
   >ZB2 expedition where QSO is listed as complete.
   > 
   >Once more, i will repeat this is nothing personal and NOT aiming the operators
   >involved; the specific case is merely used as another example. But just
   >scratching my head as to how some QSOs eventually take place and the totally
   >different outcomes reached. Your help in understanding what is happening is
   >appreciated!
   > 
   >Thanks in advance & 73,
   >Jimmy SV1BTR
   >
   >ON4KST logger:
   >05:26:40 PE1BTX Gerard 4X12/QRO Frank, but despite my NC congrats on your FB
   >operation, you gave a lot of stations a new DXCC 
   >05:24:05 DH7FB frank gerard, yes in next time we will also do this 
   >05:19:50 PE1BTX Gerard 4X12/QRO Frank, could be, pse look my EME log
   >http://www.pe1btx.nl/EME%20initials%20all%20bands.htm 
   >05:19:16 DH7FB frank gerard, so the received "ro" came fm another stn maybe 
   >05:16:17 PE1BTX Gerard 4X12/QRO Yep, NC for me, but already wkd ZB2IQ back in
   >1983 on ES, and confirmed 
   >05:13:57 PE1BTX Gerard 4X12/QRO Found my QSO complete in the log, but never
   >send RO to him on 21st, so not complete for me, did not even had a decent decode
   >on 21st, very strange 
   >
   >
   >PE1BTX Log (bottom of his webpage)
   >http://www.pe1btx.nl/EME%20initials%20all%20bands.htm 
   > 
   >ZB2 log:
   >http://www.df2zc.de/hamradioresults/seite5/022c0a991e127580c/index.html#022c0a992008a0a01
   >EME
   >21.04.2007
   >1110-1113 PE1BTX O/RO -21 dB C 9
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >_______________________________________________
   >Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
   >

[Nachricht abgeschnitten. Tippen Sie auf "Bearb."->"Zum Downloaden markieren", um den Rest der Nachricht abzurufen.]

-- 
"Feel free" - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail