[Moon] FW: [Moon-Net] EME contest log submission
Peter Blair
g3ltf at btinternet.com
Fri Oct 16 11:38:41 CEST 2020
Hi Ingolf,
I’m pretty sure that when the idea of the codes for missing parts of the QSO started ( for example YYY, which is very useful) we also had MMM meaning “I need my call”. However that could be confused for a M copy report I suppose, so its not un-ambiguous.
I do know the problem very well, it mainly occurs on 70 cm when the fading is extremely long at or near the point where the rate of change of doppler is zero, near MR and MS.
One solution is to not be too rigid in the transmission sequence at those times. Instead of SM6FHZ SM6FHZ DE G3LTF G3LTF to send SM6FHZ SM6FHZ SM6FHZ SM6FHZ DE G3LTF and then the other way round. As you noted, its amazing how sometimes the fading rate seems to synchronise with the transmissions. This is all part of what, for me, makes 70cm CW EME so interesting.
Related topic, When I was a 30W QRP station in the Dubus 23cm contest I did use the GGGG 3333 LLLL TTTT FFFF trick with some success.
I hope you noted the comments from Dale, W4OP, in this thread about the improved signal reports he is getting with one of your feeds!
73 Peter G3LTF
From: Ingolf, SM6FHZ
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:53 PM
To: Peter Blair
Cc: Moon-Bounces ; Charles Suckling ; DW Harms PA2DW ; Al Katz
Subject: Re: [Moon] FW: [Moon-Net] EME contest log submission
Hi all.
Thanks Peter! This is the way I learnt it 40 years ago, and it works.
However, there is one situation I have experienced that is not covered. If you do not get your own callsign 100% sure from your QSO partner due to Liberation, QSBof just sending it too few times when signals are low. How do you indicate that to your QSO partner in an unambiguous and efficient way?
I have been there, repetandly got one letter in my callsign incorrect but maybe due to Libration, but you are not sure.
73 / Ingolf, SM6FHZ
Den tors 15 okt. 2020 kl 20:32 skrev Peter Blair via Moon <moon at moonbounce.info>:
I would like to reccomend anyone trying EME CW operation for the first time
to this guide to CW operation on 432 and above, although its quite old I
believe most of it (except paras 5.1 and 5.2) is still applicable today and
it is very clearly written (thanks Ian)
http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/g3sek_op_proc.pdf
73 Peter G3LTF
-----Original Message-----
From: Al Katz
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:17 AM
To: moon at moonbounce.info ; peter blair ; Charles Suckling ; DW Harms PA2DW
Subject: Re: [Moon] FW: [Moon-Net] EME contest log submission
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
_______________________________________________
Moon mailing list
Moon at moonbounce.info
/mailman/listinfo/moon
Join eQSL.cc https://eqsl.cc/qslcard/Index.cfm
--
Ingolf, SM6FHZ
http://www.2ingandlin.se/SM6FHZ.htm
More information about the Moon
mailing list