[Moon] [Moon-Net] WSJT

[Kjell Jarl]

Hi,
I am afraid many "contacts" are performed without exchange of full call 
signs, as the call sign does not fit in the JT65 programs currently in 
use when being called by another station, unless the total number of 
characters is 13 or less.

I will just indicate this with two examples;

In the ARRL EME contest 2015, DL2UNION does not fit in, so many called 
DL25UN instead. DL25UNION was awarded the first place in their category.

A current example is R95KOM that is logged by many, but the call is R95KOMI.

http://www.emelogger.com/lookback/search.asp?req=R95KOM

I wish in the future we can exchange full call signs.

73
Kjell, SM7GVF


On 2016-08-17 13:54, tony everhardt via Moon wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>