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

Fri Oct 16 13:15:41 CEST 2020

OK Peter.
Just what I figured, sending MMMMM can be misinterpreted for a report. That
is why I have avoided using that method :-)
One way could be that *all *operators adopted the way of conducting a QSO
to the signal levels for this particular circuit and moment. Be
flexible and do not be afraid of using the TMO-system when signals are low.
It is always better to complete a QSO rather than be proud and insist on
using an RST-report.....
Let us all learn from each other and our own experience. Continuous
improvements.......where did I read that before ;-) Well, I am retired now.
Yes, I read Dale's comment. it is always nice to see that your work pays
off.
73 / Ingolf, SM6FHZ

Den fre 16 okt. 2020 kl 11:38 skrev Peter Blair <g3ltf at btinternet.com>:

> 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 <ingolf.fhz at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:53 PM
> *To:* Peter Blair <g3ltf at btinternet.com>
> *Cc:* Moon-Bounces <moon at moonbounce.info> ; Charles Suckling
> <g3wdg1 at gmail.com> ; DW Harms PA2DW <qtc at kpnmail.nl> ; Al Katz
> <alkatz at tcnj.edu>
> *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
>

-- 
Ingolf, SM6FHZ
http://www.2ingandlin.se/SM6FHZ.htm