[Moon-net] More on QSO
on4dpx Kenny
on4dpx at skynet.be
Mon Feb 4 12:57:13 CST 2008
Hello Russ
I have a few questions for you:
K2TXB wrote: ''Personally I do not believe that such assisted contest
classes are good for our hobby or
for EME. ''
I agree with you fully. Then why ARRL does not take out Assisted class from
its EME Contest as RSGB, as other Ham Radio unions which will shortly be
doing, and as other EME Contest Organizers have done? What stops them?
Lobbying pwr's of certain person / people?
Also, could you please provide answers to the following:
1. Could you pls tell us what is the percentage of stations working jt65,
being actively qrv non-stop on loggers / chatrooms during the time they are
QRV? For the last 7 years.
2. And what is the percentage of those being passively QRV? For the last 7
years.
3. Also, how many of those exchange QSO progress info on the logger, how
many self spot non-stop, how many arrange skeds non-stop? For the last 7
years. An estimate.
4. Could you also tell us what is the percentage of stations working jt65 on
random? Without any prior knowledge of callsign and frequency of the other
station? Since conception of jt44/jt65.
5. Could you pls tell us how many stations are using jt65 use Deep Search
decoder? Since its conception many yrs ago. An estimate.
6. What percentage out of the whole group of stations qrv in jt65 work on
random without any prior information during Contests?
7. Now, what percentage of cw stations works on random on an everyday basis
and
during Contests? Versus logger, skeds etc.
Also,
K2TXB wrote: ''However I think today everyone has his own expectations as to
what QSO means
and it is almost meaningless for us to try to define it.''
Question: the operating guide EME Conference 2002 has decided upon, and has
been in place for many years before 2002, is meaningless? And each one has
to define it himself?
http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/g3sek_op_proc.pdf
Section 2. Minimum QSO
The definition of a minimum valid QSO is that both stations have copied all
of the following:
1. Both callsigns from the other station
2. Signal report from the other station (or some other previously unknown
piece of
information, e.g. the other station’s Locator grid)
3. R from the other station, to acknowledge complete copy of 1 and 2.
This has been the standard definition of a minimum EME QSO for many years.
73
Kenny ON4DPX
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: moon-net-bounces at list-serv.davidv.net
[mailto:moon-net-bounces at list-serv.davidv.net] Namens Russ K2TXB
Verzonden: maandag 4 februari 2008 17:10
Aan: 'moonbounceboard'
Onderwerp: [Moon-net] More on QSO
We use the term QSO so much and so incorrectly that I momentarily forgot
that it is one of our Q signals. Of course there is an official meaning for
QSO. According to the ARRL
QSO Can you communicate with me?
Actually, I recall that would be the meaning if one sent "QSO?". The
response would be "QSO" - I can communicate with you.
So, QSO really means to arrange a communication or contact, not to perform
it. In that sense Dominique, I would have to answer your question NO. A
contact is not a QSO, but it could be the result of a QSO.
However I think today everyone has his own expectations as to what QSO means
and it is almost meaningless for us to try to define it.
73, Russ K2TXB
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moon-net-bounces at list-serv.davidv.net
> [mailto:moon-net-bounces at list-serv.davidv.net] On Behalf Of Russ K2TXB
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 10:11 AM
> To: 'moonbounceboard'
> Subject: Re: [Moon-net] Will things ever change? Pls clarify!
>
> Dominique, it depends upon your definition of a QSO. Some
> people would say that none of our EME contacts are QSO's
> because we (usually) do not have discussions or exchange any
> data except in a predetermined format. No one
> discusses the weather or what their rig is, etc. I actually
> saw a message
> to that effect from a ham the other day. He allows that
> contacts made in contests and via EME or MS are not QSO's,
> but that they count for credit for working a station. I do
> not necessarily agree, but it goes to show that we do not all
> think alike on the matter.
>
> I do not know if there is any official definition of a QSO,
> but there is an official definition of a contact and that is
> what we use for our standard - exchange calls, report, rogers
> - both ways. The standard does not specify any requirement
> for how the stations get together. It does not matter if it
> was random, via the internet, via mail sked, or via the
> telephone. The only requirements are that the contact
> contain the above information that information is only
> exchanged over the radio waves. One cannot use the internet
> or the telephone to send his report or his RRR. That seems
> obvious and I think everyone understands this (even though
> some are willing to break that rule). But there are some
> people on here who are trying to say that contacts made by
> using the internet for making the sked are somehow different
> than the skeds we have always used. That is just not true.
>
> Contests, on the other hand, have specific rules that go
> beyond the simple requirements of a contact. In the past
> they have always prohibited schedules made during the actual
> contest period and by non-amateur means.
> Only recently have contests started allowing an assisted
> class - allowing skeds to be made during the contest, and via
> non-radio means. Personally I do not believe that such
> assisted contest classes are good for our hobby or for EME.
> However it seems that my opinion is out voted and assisted
> mode has become popular with some. I do believe that a worse
> thing would be to have separate contests for assisted modes.
> That would split us and make each contest have less activity.
> So if we are going to have assisted contest classes, then I
> guess "so be it". It is better than splitting us into
> disparate groups - "east is east and west is west and never
> the twain shall meet" (Rudyard Kipling-1892).
>
> Very 73, Russ K2TXB
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: dfaessler at bluewin.ch [mailto:dfaessler at bluewin.ch]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 4:38 AM
> To: k2txb at dxcc.com; moonbounceboard
> Subject: AW: Re: [Moon-net] Will things ever change?
> Pls clarify!
>
>
>
> Russ
>
>
>
> you are right. They are contacts.
>
> The real question however is, - ARE THEY QSO'S?
>
> 73 HB9BBD
>
>
>
>
>
> Dominique Fässler
> HB9BBD
> +41794002118
>
>
>
>
>
> ----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----
> Von: k2txb at dxcc.com
> Datum: 04.02.2008 04:20
> An: "moonbounceboard"<moon-net at list-serv.davidv.net>
> Betreff: Re: [Moon-net] Will things ever change? Pls clarify!
>
> Bodo, Clearly all of your examples are valid contacts.
>
> 73, Russ K2TXB
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moon-net-bounces at list-serv.davidv.net
> > [mailto:moon-net-bounces at list-serv.davidv.net] On
> Behalf Of Bodo Heyl
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:24 PM
> > To: moonbounceboard
> > Subject: [Moon-net] Will things ever change? Pls clarify!
> >
> > To make it more clear for me:
> >
> > A) I am using JT65, look for the logger and see XYZ calling
> > on a certain QRG (selfspotting), I call him, we exchange the
> > necessary QSO infos, I am not using the logger during the QSO.
> >
> > B) I know from my paper list, that station XYZ is normally
> > using the QRG 144.139MHz.
> > I see him and call him, we again exchange the infos.
> > There is no logger info at all, my computer is switched off.
> >
> > Which QSO is valid? A or B or none?
> >
> > C) I am using CW, see XYZ selfspotting in the CW logger, call
> > him and fortunately we make a QSO
> >
> > D) XYZ sends me an E-mail asking for a CW sked.
> > We arrange by e-mail (not snail mail) the details like QRG
> > and date/time, finally we make a QSO.
> >
> > Which QSO is valid? C or D or none?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for enlightment,
> >
> > 73s Bodo/DL2FCN
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
More information about the Moon-net
mailing list