[Moon] FW: [Moon-Net] EME contest log submission

Al Katz alkatz at tcnj.edu
Thu Oct 15 02:17:48 CEST 2020 

On 2 m, the rules were never the same as 432 & Up.  On 2, one report "O" 
-- nothing unknown was the norm.  On 432 & Up the TMO5 system was used: 
T was not complete/partial, M was marginal but copied both calls & good 
for a QSO, O was stronger signals, and if even stronger use RST 559 etc.

Among other differences:  On 432 & Up used 2.5 minute periods. On 2 m 
used 2 minutes.

73, Al - K2UYH


On 10/14/2020 6:39 PM, DW Harms (Dick) via Moon wrote:
> Hi Charlie and Peter et al,
>
>   
>
> Yes, I recall Jan PA0SSB saying the same thing to me after our first EME-QSO. He gave me M and I said; then we should make a new QSO, which we did 😊
>
>   
>
> The way I learned it in 1981 when I started EME on 2m, M meant “partial calls” and we need all call-characters, a report and a confirmation for a complete QSO. So that’s why I always demanded O as a minimum to count the QSO as “complete”. But for the same reason, I have a difficult relation with deep search. I am really the kind of operator that wants to hear all characters of both calls before I send (R)report…
>
> It is strange that those rules are different for 70-up, don’t you think?
>
>   
>
> Yes Peter, next leg we must see to it to QSO. The first leg was not too successful here, only 13 QSO’s and at least 10-12 dB too low signals… The reason: too high wet trees, so I am often seen with axe and saw in the garden these days hi!
>
>   
>
> 73’s Dick PA2DW
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Van: Moon-net <moon-net-bounces at mailman.pe1itr.com <mailto:moon-net-bounces at mailman.pe1itr.com> > Namens Peter Blair via Moon-net
> Verzonden: woensdag 14 oktober 2020 15:31
> Aan: Charles <g3wdg at moon-net.eu <mailto:g3wdg at moon-net.eu> >; moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com <mailto:moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com>
> Onderwerp: Re: [Moon-Net] EME contest log submission
>
>   
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> Charlie is correct, certainly regarding 70cm and above, MR has always been quite acceptable. But M has dropped out of use these days. T is certainly useful, meaning keep going, dont give up yet. If you are a station with continuously variable polarisation and with the very slow QSB that you can get on 70cm it can take several overs to get it all right and to copy everything. Hope to catch you in November.
>
> 73 Peter
>
>   
>
> From: Charles via Moon-net <mailto:moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 1:22 PM
>
> To: moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com <mailto:moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [Moon-Net] EME contest log submission
>
>   
>
> Hi Dick
>
> I don't think that's generally right.  As I remember it, M was always acceptable for a QSO on 432 and up and no O was ever needed. T was not. On 144, I recall that M was not considered enough for a QSO, and O was required.
>
> M implies that you had copied enough of the calls to be sure that you had correctly identified both callsigns beyond reasonable doubt.  Kind of a 'deep search' by  ear/brain.
>
> I enjoyed a small dish CW  QSO with Peter a year or two back where we used the TMO system to good effect.  Contrast that to a failed CW QSO with another station who was too weak for me to copy RST.  I sent countess O reports hoping that the station would realise I wasn't getting his RST but he did not change to TMO  and QSO was lost.
>
> 73
>
> Charlie G3WDG
>
>   
>
> On 14/10/2020 13:36, DW Harms (Dick) via Moon-net wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>   
>
> The TMO system was very useful in the days that we tried EME on the edge of possibilities. I remember when I started EME in 1981, that sometimes even an “M” was regarded enough for a QSO, but it actually means “I have parts of the calls, but don’t give up till I have all and then start sending “O”. So “M is actually not enough for a complete QSO of course…
>
> “T” meant that a signal was detectable, but not (yet) readable. Its actually a kind of “QRZ” and I found it was very usable. But nowadays we simply call “QRZ?”
>
>   
>
> Exchanging the actual report is still the cherry on the cake for a QSO, so nowadays I only switch to sending “O” when it is hard to copy the report.
>
> However, since my 23cm station is small, I often still have to use the “O” system….
>
>   
>
> My opinion regarding the contestlog: only use the actual report. Simply replacing RST by “O” is an insult to those operators that went the extra mile by sending the report!
>
>   
>
> 73’s Dick PA2DW
>
>   
>
> Van: Moon-net mailto:moon-net-bounces at mailman.pe1itr.com Namens Dale Parfitt via Moon-net
> Verzonden: dinsdag 13 oktober 2020 23:29
> Aan: 'Edward R Cole' mailto:kl7uw at acsalaska.net; moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com <mailto:moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com>
> Onderwerp: Re: [Moon-Net] EME contest log submission
>
>   
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> I have not received an “O” report since my very early days on 23cM – some 25 years ago.
>
> Everyone just sends me an RST and that is what I have sent.  While I know the “O/M ” system I had not even thought about it since those early (for me) days. No clue  it was still being used.
>
>   
>
> Dale W4OP
>
>   
>
> From: Moon-net [ <mailto:moon-net-bounces at mailman.pe1itr.com> mailto:moon-net-bounces at mailman.pe1itr.com] On Behalf Of Edward R Cole via Moon-net
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 5:17 PM
> To:  <mailto:parinc1 at frontier.com> parinc1 at frontier.com; 'Marshall-K5QE';  <mailto:moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com> moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com
> Subject: Re: [Moon-Net] EME contest log submission
>
>   
>
> Dale,
>
> All fine (for normal ham radio).  EME has used the simpler system to make it easier to copy (initially was all CW), ... so JT65 was designed to send the same reports.  If you operate JT65, WSJT-10, or MAP65 that is the standard message format.  WSJT-X added ability to send RST signal reports in effort to expand into HF bands.  In order that tradional eme signal reports are sent the contest mode was added to WSJT-X.
>
> Also I have noted that many CW eme stations now send RST vs OOO, or RO.  Big stations can copy that FB.
>
> Also the ARRL VHF Contest has a different objective (working grid squares) so that is used for information passed (translating to a signal report).
>
> Other contests have varied objectives and info for counting contacts - gets folks confused.
>
> The ARRL EME Contest uses O, RO.  Rules very simple.
>
> One often sees R-17 sent instead of RRR or 73 -17 or the like.  I see this more on 1296 JT65 eme than 144.  A  tendency toward sending more info.
> All fine outside a contest.  Convert to O or RO for your ARRL EME Contest entry.
>
> 73, Ed - KL7UW
> disclaimer: I am not an ARRL Contest official (these are my impressions/opinions).
>
> At 12:41 PM 10/13/2020, Dale Parfitt via Moon-net wrote:
>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>           boundary="----=_NextPart_000_046B_01D6A17F.A6FB64A0"
> Content-Language: en-us
>
> It is simple, but everyone I work (and myself) appreciates an honest RST report.  It is nice to observe, for example that after receiving a 579 from station X for years, my new feed is now receiving consistent 589’s from station X.
>   
> Dale W4OP
>   
> From: Moon-net [ <mailto:moon-net-bounces at mailman.pe1itr.com>  mailto:moon-net-bounces at mailman.pe1itr.com] On Behalf Of Marshall-K5QE via Moon-net
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 4:17 PM
> To:  <mailto:moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com> moon-net at mailman.pe1itr.com
> Subject: [Moon-Net] EME contest log submission
>   
> Since the late 1960s, the signal report for EME was(and still is) O.  When using CW, we sent OOO or RO depending on what we had received.  This was implemented in WSJT as OOO(Tx2) or RO(Tx3).  That is as simple as it gets.
>
> 73 Marshall K5QE
> _______________________________________________
> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at  <http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>
> 73, Ed - KL7UW
>     <http://www.kl7uw.com/> http://www.kl7uw.com
> Dubus-NA Business mail:
>     <mailto:dubususa at gmail.com> dubususa at gmail.com
>
>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon mailing list
> Moon at moonbounce.info
> /mailman/listinfo/moon
>
> Join eQSL.cc  https://eqsl.cc/qslcard/Index.cfm


-- 
Dr. Allen Katz, Prof. E/CE TCNJ
President, Linearizer Technology, Inc.,
Linear Photonics, and Linear Space Technology, LLC.
<http://www.lintech.com>
Tel 609-584-8424, Cell 609-947-3889

More information about the Moon mailing list