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

Dominique Dehays f6dro at wanadoo.fr
Fri Oct 16 16:41:29 CEST 2020


Hi Ingolf ,


yes and when U have RO in the callsign , it's a problem for me , I need 
2 in a row to be sure

73

Dom/F6DRO

Le 16/10/2020 à 13:15, Ingolf, SM6FHZ via Moon a écrit :
> 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
>>
>


More information about the Moon mailing list