[Moon] Do you use a callsign list?

[Lance Collister, W7GJ]

This whole subject is irrelevant. To complete a contact, you have to exchange 
complete calls both ways, plus reports and confirmation of reports being received. 
Period. That is the requirement.

If you - or the computer - think you have decoded the callsign of somebody calling 
you, you send them calls and reports. If you -or the computer - did not copy the 
correct callsign, the other station will keep sending you calls instead of RO in 
response to your call with reports. What is so complicated about this? That is the 
nice thing about the redundency and double checking built into the very strict EME 
contact protocol ! If you copy K1WHS calling you (a very familiar call to everyone) 
but it really turns out to be K1WHH, you simply won't get the expected reply by 
sending calls and reports to K1WHS. The same is true whatever mode you are operating.

End of story. GL on EME and start HAVING FUN instead or arguing like a bunch 
uninformed old curmudgeons! THERE IS NOTHING TO ARGUE ABOUT!!!! VY 73, Lance

On 8/23/2014 5:33 PM, Peter Blair wrote:
> "The paper lists make me a little uncomfortable, but as they seem to be in 
> widespread use I guess it is ok."
> Russ, I wonder if you can substantiate the above statement that lists are "in 
> widespread use". If you do have any evidence please produce it. I dont know when it 
> was that the last list appeared in the 432 and above NL, I suspect it was before JT 
> came on the scene. I do remember Al making the decision. But there are other lists, 
> on PA0PLY ‘s site for example.
> Lets try and get some facts, we will of course depend on honesty here but will 
> anyone who has*NOT* used a callsign list for assisting CW EME contacts in the past 
> 10 years please email me *OFF LIST* just with a simple message " NO LIST" with the 
> frequency band "2m and/or 70cm and/or 23cm" and your call and we'll add them up. I 
> promise that no callsigns will be revealed and I will delete all the replies at the 
> end of the exercise.
> Remember, *OFF LIST* *only* to g3ltf at btinternet.com and no flames please, I am just 
> genuinely trying to get some facts.
> 73 Peter G3LTF
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ K2TXB
> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 4:56 PM
> To: 'Bernd DF2ZC' ; moon at moonbounce.info
> Subject: Re: [Moon] The Swedish 4Th 432 & UP EME meeting CW
> Hi Bernd, of course I agree. I was trying to simplify my argument but went a little 
> too far I guess. Here is the thing. I have noticed many times that, On CW, when I 
> think I know the call, then that is what I hear. Assuming the signal is in the 
> noise and we are really only able to reliably hear 40-50% of the dots and dashes, 
> when we have decided what call it is then it is easy to say to oneself, ok I only 
> heard the dah space dash, but it was long enough to be dah dit dah, so I KNOW that 
> was a K. Soon we have convinced ourselves that we are copying well and we send back 
> a 539 report! In reality, if we had no idea what the call was we would not be able 
> to send more than QRZ. This is where the lists (both paper and in the mind) become 
> so useful. There is nothing we can do about lists in our minds. They are there and 
> we can not stop ourselves from using them. The paper lists make me a little 
> uncomfortable, but as they seem to be in widespread use I guess it is ok. But I 
> have often seen where a decision based on scanning a list was wrong. And once one 
> has decided that he 'knows' who it is, it is much harder to get to the point where 
> he tries again to copy the call carefully.
> As you say, the deep search algorithm does accurately decode the call based on the 
> number of bits received in the correct bins over a period of time. In this it is 
> much more accurate than a human can ever be, but it still does make a mistake now 
> and then. When it is not sure it adds qualifying information to the decode line and 
> it is up to the operator to do whatever is necessary to make sure the computer got 
> it right. Usually that means waiting for a subsequent decode to make sure it comes 
> out the same. This is simple and usually works well.
> The people who are calling this cheating are really only upset because they feel it 
> is an unfair advantage, but it is not a cheat and certainly much more accurate than 
> copying by ear, with or without a paper list.
> 73, Russ K2TXB
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernd DF2ZC [mailto:df2zc1 at googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 4:46 AM
> To: moon at moonbounce.info
> Cc: Russ K2TXB
> Subject: Re: [Moon] The Swedish 4Th 432 & UP EME meeting CW
> Dear Russ,
> I am aware I run the risk of warming up this soup again but there is one paragraph 
> in your correct statements I can't leave without
> comment:
> >I disagree about the comparison of knowing or having a list of stations
> >versus WSJT deep search. I am very familiar with how these lists are used.
> > I have sat and watched operators of some big stations hear a partial
> >call and grab the list for the band and look through it for the 3
> >letters they got, until the find a call that fits. Then they answer
> >the station sending OOO. That is exactly the same thing as deep
> >search, and in fact is often less reliable in terms of figuring out the correct call.
> This use of a list is not at all the same as the ds process in JT65.
> While people using lists only copied for instance "K" and "TX" they then guess that 
> it is K2TXB since that c/s is in their list but have no real basis for a guess. It 
> could have been also an off-list callsign such as "W4KTX" for example.
> As you know, JT65 however does a correlation of the signal form in the noise with 
> calculated signal forms based on possible combinations with callsigns in call3.txt. 
> It then displays the result of that correlation with a confidence value of the 
> result. It is no guess as above but a mathemactial method to compare two signals. 
> The operator is then left to decide whether he trusts the result of that 
> correlation or not, based on the confidence value attached to that result.
> Therefore the JT65 DS method is not to be compated to the theat guess into the blue 
> some or many used in the pre WSJT era.
> Now I'm looking forward to the flaming by the handful of CWisKINGS that of course 
> what I wrote here is wrong, including the notorious personally insulting comments 
> of someone in HB9. For the latter applies the rule "if you get personal it shows 
> you have no point factwise".
> 73 Bernd DF2ZC
> 2014-08-16 6:06 GMT+02:00, Russ K2TXB <k2txb at dxcc.com>:
> > Hello Chuck. Well but you know that I operated CW EME on two meters
> > for years with a 4 Yagi station. And yes, I made contacts even with
> > just one antenna. But tell me, with a station like that could you
> > contact other stations with same size antenna - maybe, once in a great
> > while. But I do it all the time. I have spent many hours on CW with
> > my current 2 Yagi station trying to work the few stations that I can
> > copy in the ATP's. Those stations are all 'bug guns'. But most of
> > them cannot hear me well enough to get my call. In four hours I am
> > lucky if I make one contact. Many of those EU big guns are running
> > more power that we are allowed over here. So I hear them but they
> > cannot copy me. And I run a keyer and send very well-spaced and
> > accurate CW (usually). Calling CQ is not even worth my while if they cannot copy 
> me when I am on their frequency.
> >
> > Contrast all that with getting on for a couple of hours and making 2
> > or three contacts on must any evening. I can easily do that with WSJT
> > on 2 meters. It is just not worth operating CW without a much better
> > antenna system - meaning more money, more problems with the township,
> > Neighbors, and XYL, more difficult maintenance, etc.
> >
> > As far as the costs are concerned, I deliberately quoted prices that
> > were a little high, because I did not want anyone to think I was
> > exaggerating how little I spent. Yes, I have built my own antennas
> > too, but it is a lot of work and time that I could spend improving
> > other areas of my station or just operating. But buy or build, spend
> > little or spend a lot, it will always cost a lot more to put up a quality CW EME 
> station.
> >
> > I disagree about the comparison of knowing or having a list of
> > stations versus WSJT deep search. I am very familiar with how these lists are used.
> > I have sat and watched operators of some big stations hear a partial
> > call and grab the list for the band and look through it for the 3
> > letters they got, until the find a call that fits. Then they answer
> > the station sending OOO. That is exactly the same thing as deep
> > search, and in fact is often less reliable in terms of figuring out the correct call.
> >
> > You said: "There is no need to have a large, even four Yagi, station
> > to complete CW EME contacts. In the "Good Ole Dino Days", I made
> > many totally random QSOs with single Yagi stations, and they with
> > other well designed other single or two Yagi stations. PA0JMV even
> > completed 2M WAS, via CW, using a single and later a two Yagi system."
> >
> > Yes it can be done, buy how many years did it take him? I worked WAS
> > on 2m CW with 4 yogis and it took me about 15 years (5 years for the last state).
> > If I wanted to do it today I bet I could do it in a year (excepting
> > states with no activity). When conditions are excellent it is
> > sometimes easy to make CW contacts with a small station, but waiting
> > for those conditions takes a lot of the fun out of it. Hours
> > listening to white noise is not really what it is all about, for me.
> >
> > Another factor is the noise levels we have today. Very lucky is the
> > EME station who can hear more noise from a 50 ohm resistor than from
> > his 2 meter antenna! I used to be able to do that all the time, but
> > in the past 10 years, almost never. Often the noise from my antennas
> > is 3 or even 6 dB above the resistor. Under those conditions CW is
> > useless, digital gets through.
> >
> > Finally, as I get older my hearing is not as sharp as it used to be.
> > In fact I wear hearing aids when I need to have conversations - I can
> > hear the voices well enough, but often cannot understand what I am
> > hearing. The hearing aids help some. CW is not so hard to
> > understand, but the tinnitus (ringing in my ears) often seems to
> > resonate with the pitch I am listening to. I operate CW every year at
> > the K2UYH contest station, on 432 and up, and lately we have been
> > getting some new younger operators - It is easy to tell that they copy
> > the weak ones better than I do. For a long time I was the best of the gang, but 
> no more.
> >
> > In summary Digital mode EME has put the fun back into it for me. I am
> > able to have an inexpensive station and make lots of contacts on 2
> > meters. If CW was my only option I most likely would not be on the air.
> >
> > Chuck I know I worked you numerous times back in the good old days on
> > CW when you were WA6MGZ. Unfortunately those days are gone.
> >
> > 73, Russ K2TXB
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chuck Smallhouse [mailto:w7cs at theriver.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 8:18 PM
> > To: Russ K2TXB; 'Michael Barlow'
> > Cc: moon at moonbounce.info
> > Subject: Re: [Moon] The Swedish 4Th 432 & UP EME meeting CW
> >
> > Russ, Ron, Ed et All,
> >
> > Comparing building an EME station today by hams goaded by "Instant
> > Gratification" and difficult HOA restrictions, with those built a
> > couple of decades or so ago, by incentivized HB'ng hams, is most
> > certainly not the same. This generation feels that they have to buy
> > everything all ready for use, whether it's new or used.
> >
> > Antenna manufactures, such as M2 and most others, have increased their
> > prices on their kits (yes they are kits, as you have to put them
> > together and test them yourself) by at least five times from what they
> > were in the late '80's or '90's. This is not solely because of the
> > increased prices of labor, materials and transportation, but also
> > because of the sales and demand of those that need it Now, Now, Now, Ready To Go !
> >
> > Most hams in NA and EU live within driving distances of surplus/scrap
> > or new metal dealers. An SUV with a roof rack is all that's generally
> > needed to bring the desired items home. There are quite a few very
> > good antenna
> > (Yagi) design sites on the Internet, and most give excellent
> > construction details, even using
> > different sizes of materials. The tools in an
> > average ham's workshop, are all that is required to build and assemble them.
> > IMHO, the use of square aluminium tubing is much preferable, than the
> > use of round, for 'H' frames and Yagi booms, for obvious reasons.
> >
> > It used to be most of the fun, to design, plan and to collect and then
> > build, over time, the items need to put together a successful operating
> > EME station. Granted some items (even used)
> > are now much more expensive, because of the demand's rise in cost of
> > new items. However prices some of you have quoted are way above that
> > I've seen in person, or even on the Internet.
> >
> > There is no need to have a large, even four Yagi, station to complete
> > CW EME contacts. In the "Good Ole Dino Days", I made many totally
> > random QSOs with single Yagi stations, and they with other well
> > designed other single or two Yagi stations. PA0JMV even completed 2M
> > WAS, via CW, using a single and later a two Yagi system.
> >
> > To compare call sign recognition, via previous knowledge, to that via
> > "Deep Search" is not even
> > worth intellectual arguing. With CW, both
> > stations have to have complete audible copy of both call signs,
> > reports and usually 73's.
> >
> > Now I know that this is difficult for "No Code Extras", or even by
> > those that haven't used CW in years, but the operating speeds are
> > relatively quite slow, and most operators are very patient. With
> > practice, I maintain that a weak CW signal can be copied at very near
> > the strength of that of a digital one , which has to be copied in a noisy (RF) 
> computer and other noise
> > generating environment. Today's detection
> > processing, by receivers using SDR techniques, make this difference
> > even less !
> >
> > Yes, the "Dino's" build costs were/are considerably less than the
> > "Buy" costs of todays EME station, but Ron's deep satisfaction of
> > designing (and redesigning) and building it himself, is worth an awful
> > lot !
> >
> > I even had a gentleman's bet with Wayne Overbeck, N6NB, when VUCC was
> > first initiated, that I could accomplish that award in less than one year, on 2M.
> > This was when my QTH was about the furthest west possible in NA, and
> > at least 80 of my needed Q's could not be easily made terrestrially
> > Ah Hah, but Wayne said, you will use an expensive EME station. No I
> > said, mine is mostly all HB, and cost considerably less than a
> > competitive HF DX chasing station .
> >
> > BTW, Wayne still owes me a Martini, for 2M VUCC # 13 .
> >
> > GL es 73,
> >
> > Chuck, W7CS ex WA6MGZ
> >
> >
> > t 12:31 PM 8/15/2014, Russ K2TXB wrote:
> >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> >> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_05ED_01CFB89E.0A613500"
> >>Content-Language: en-us
> >>
> >>Ø I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that CW (dino) EME
> >>must be more expensive than digital operation. Some of us have
> >>assembled reasonably effective 2m and 70cm CW stations at what I
> >>suspect is a lower cost than anyone has done with digital Hello Ron. I
> >>do not understand why you think this. My 2 meter EME station
> >>consists of a used 25 foot aluminum tower (free), 2 KLM 16LBX antennas
> >>(bought new in 1983 when they first came out, so cheap by today’s
> >>standards), A Yaesu EL/AL rotator pair (G5500 bought used for $250). Â
> >>I built the polarity rotation system entirely from junk box parts,
> >>using an old TV rotator. Also needed a 2 way splitter (bought used
> >>for $50), some aluminum tubing to make the supporting masts, and quite
> >>a bit of hand work (free as I did not charge myself). For the
> >>digital side, The software was free, The computer was free (cast off
> >>from work, but could have been bought for under $200), and I built my
> >>own computer to rig interface (for under $30 in radio shack parts plus
> >>junk box parts). I don’t remember what the antennas cost but I am
> >>guessing around $300 for the pair (maybe less). So, for the whole
> >>digital system I spent less than $650 dollars ($850 if I had to buy the computer).
> >>Contrast that to putting together a comparable 2 meter EME station
> >>capable of making a similar number of CW contacts. Here I would need
> >>at least four antennas (probably more). So the cheap aluminum tower
> >>is out. I would need an H frame, a much heavier duty (and separate)
> >>AZ and EL rotators, and a four way or multiple power splitters, more
> >>phasing lines, connectors…. The extra cost for all of that is more
> >>than the cost of my whole system. Â And that would not even include
> >>the ability to change polarity (I can not figure out a reasonable
> >>method of mechanically rotating polarity of Yagis on an H frame, and
> >>XPOL Yagis are much much more expensive to buy and to support.) All of
> >>the other parts of my station (receiver, transmitter, feed lines,
> >>preamps, amplifier, automatic rotator control system, connectors,
> >>etc.) are required for both systems and can be ignored. Also it is
> >>likely that most hams already have a computer in the shack so that can
> >>be left out of the digital cost too.
> >>I suppose that my setup is among the cheapest around, but it is still
> >>capable of generating more contacts in a year than I made in 15 years
> >>on CW with 4 of the same kind of Yagis.
> >>Maybe you want to reconsider?
> >>73, Russ K2TXB
> >>
> >>
> >>On Aug 14, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Michael Barlow
> >><<mailto:badl79 at yahoo.com>badl79 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Hi Guy,
> >>I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that CW (dino) EME must
> >>be more expensive than digital operation. Some of us have assembled
> >>reasonably effective 2m and 70cm CW stations at what I suspect is a
> >>lower cost than anyone has done with digital.
> >>As for required space, an effective 70cm antenna system can be quite
> >>small. An HB9 (I regret to say that I am unable to remember his entire
> >>call) had an absolutely superb signal, some years ago, while using an
> >>antenna array that was erected on his apartment balcony. As I recall,
> >>his receive capability was a match for his ufb transmit signal.
> >> 73 de "a dino", Ron n4gjv
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Moon mailing list
> >>Moon at moonbounce.info
> >>http://lists.moonbounce.info/listinfo/moon
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Moon mailing list
> > Moon at moonbounce.info
> > http://lists.moonbounce.info/listinfo/moon
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Moon mailing list
> Moon at moonbounce.info
> http://lists.moonbounce.info/listinfo/moon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon mailing list
> Moon at moonbounce.info
> http://lists.moonbounce.info/listinfo/moon


-- 
Lance Collister, W7GJ
(ex WA3GPL, WA1JXN, WA1JXN/C6A, ZF2OC/ZF8, E51SIX, 3D2LR, 5W0GJ, E6M, TX5K, KH8/W7GJ)
P.O. Box 73
Frenchtown, MT   59834-0073
USA
TEL: (406) 626-5728
QTH: DN27ub
URL: http://www.bigskyspaces.com/w7gj
Skype: lanceW7GJ
2m DXCC #11/6m DXCC #815

Interested in 6m EME?  Ask me about subscribing to the Magic Band EME
email group, or just fill in the request box at the bottom of my web
page (above)!