[Moon] [Moon-Net] WSJT

[tony everhardt]

My opinion....The contact is in the eyes of the beholder. It doesn't matter what mode that one uses. It's up to the operator to be honest with himself to gather enough information, which should be a full call, even if its pieced together from multiple tx's. For instance.. N8WA what? Again. Last letter. C? 73 Tnx. You or I can't stop the 2 operators from exchanging callsigns via email then claiming it was a good contact. 
N8WAC 

    On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 7:35 AM, ok1teh Petrzilka via Moon <moon at moonbounce.info> wrote:
 

 
Check out  http://www.ok2kkw.com/iaru/handbook_7-51.pdf
(http://www.ok2kkw.com/iaru/handbook_7-51.pdf)

7.1 Minimum Requirement for a valid QSO (Vienna 2007) ......................
........................................ 89 




But this is valid just for the IARU Region 1 hi.




73

Matej, OK1TEH







---------- Původní zpráva ----------
Od: Lars Pettersson via Moon <moon at moonbounce.info>
Komu: Joe Taylor <joe at princeton.edu>, moon at moonbounce.info <moon at moonbounce.
info>
Datum: 17. 8. 2016 8:53:06
Předmět: Re: [Moon] [Moon-Net] WSJT

"It would be interesting to hear your opinion on when a QSO is a QSO?
The information to be developed?
On a number of expeditions where Callsigns not existed in Call3txt and 
where they have been held because of too many characters.
K1JT even typed here to not use full callsigns and others said not to 
use the full call: !!!In my eyes, these QSOs are not valid.
What are your opin?ion Real QSOs or fake.
Its like sending JT de IVE could be any one so not complete QSO FAKE

Interesting?

Lars SM4IVE


Den 2016-08-17 kl. 00:10, skrev Joe Taylor:
> Hi Mark,
>
> EA8FF wrote:
>> wow! I agree absolutely with many ,it would be nice to have a system
>> based on real decodes instead of relying on deep search. To see how
>> much fakes deep search gives, do the following test: go to say 30 or 20m,
where
>> there is plenty of activity and get map65 to work there. Do not transmit 
and
>> leave deep search on for some time. you will be receiving reports of 
people in
>> your call3.txt, who even do not have 30m or 20m equipment but are in your
call3.txt
>> and giving you up to R-reports. Just do the test and you'll be convinced
>> that any QSO made with deep search on is invalid.
> Your experiment on 20 or 30 meters shows just one thing: if you choose
> to turn on deep search (by default it is OFF), you should follow
> instructions for its use.
>
> This decoding option was designed for VHF-and-up use, particularly EME.
> It is *not* suitable for use at HF, and never has been recommended for
> such use. If you run the DS decoder on a band full of 20 m or 30 m JT65
> ignals, many of which are far stronger that EME signals, you're
> guaranteed to see what appear to be false "decodes". Any careful
> operator would reject such garbage out of hand.
>
> Deep search offers an optional way to get somewhat better sensitivity
> for very weak JT65 transmissions that contain one's own call or "CQ",
> followed by a previously decoded callsign and a grid locator or report.
> This is hardly a revolutionary idea; it's no more than an algorithmic
> adaptation of the callsign "cheat sheets" (lists of calls known to be
> active on a given EME band) that have been familiar to EME operators
> since the 1970s.
>
> QSOs that may have benefited from deep search decoding are perfectly
> valid, and with any normal confirmation they are accepted for DXCC, WAS,
> and all other awards.
>
> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
> _______________________________________________
> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at http://www.nlsa.com/
nets/moon-net-help.html
>
>

-- 

CW is King!!!!

_______________________________________________
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