[Moon] [Moon-Net] WSJT

Thu Aug 18 00:53:29 CEST 2016

Grid square is used in ARRL EME Contest and VHF 
Contest instead of RST.  EME rule is that an 
exchange of some information other than callsigns 
is required for legitimate contact, thus grid 
square suffices.  Often one adds signal report 
into the 73 digital transmission for eme as 
courtesy.  For CW-EME RST is still the norm for 
most unless contest requires grid exchange.

Of course signal report often exchanged on 
loggers for non-contest contacts. But should only 
follow successful exchanges by radio else the 
contact is compromised with outside info*.
*mostly important for initial contacts that will count toward awards.

73, Ed - KL7UW

At 01:58 PM 8/17/2016, tony everhardt via Moon wrote:
>Another thought....If I'm not mistake aren't 
>there some contest that don't require signal 
>reports....only call sign and grids?? Again the 
>contact is good in the eye of the beholder. 
>You'll never get a 100% agreement on this subject.
>N8WAC
>
>     On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 5:25 PM, 
> serge via Moon <moon at moonbounce.info> wrote:
>
>
>  Not really Martin 5NN means 599 used often on CW during a contest. The same
>we use on digital RRR for ROGER
>Serge VE1KG
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Martin Andrew via Moon" <moon at moonbounce.info>
>To: <moon at moonbounce.info>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:24 PM
>Subject: Re: [Moon] [Moon-Net] WSJT
>
>
> > This got me wondering.
> > Ok, with callsigns valid or invalid, like many 'work first, worry later'.
> > BUT, with JT65 a signal report is '000', think every one is pretty happy
> > with that.
> > But I go to CW (trying to re-learn after 30+ years) and I get a 5NN
> > report.
> > Is that valid ?.
> > Do not seem to see anywhere were NN replaces Report and Tone.
> > Maybe the CW guys are also making invalid QSO's.
> >
> > Martin, GM6VXB
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lars Pettersson via Moon" <moon at moonbounce.info>
> > To: "Joe Taylor" <joe at princeton.edu>; <moon at moonbounce.info>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 6:51 AM
> > Subject: 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.
> >>Â  K1JT even typed here to not use full callsignsÂ  and others said not to
> >> use the full call: !!!In my eyes, these QSOs are not valid.
> >> What are your opin?ionÂ  Real QSOs or fake.
> >>Â  Its like sending JT de IVEÂ  Â  Â  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 withÂ  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.
> >>>Â  Â  It is *not* suitable for use at HF, and never has been recommended
> >>> for
> >>> such use.Â  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".Â  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.
> >>>Â  Â  This is hardly a revolutionary idea; 
> it's no more than an algorithmic
> >>> adaptation of theÂ  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
> >>
> >>
> >> -----
> >> No virus found in this message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4647/12824 - Release Date:
> >> 08/17/16
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

73, Ed - KL7UW
http://www.kl7uw.com
     "Kits made by KL7UW"
Dubus Mag business:
     dubususa at gmail.com