“Whether CW or Digimode, I value the signal strength exchange. Signal reports are a vital part of the contact, both for interest, and knowing at what rate to proceed.” Julian, you are SO right. 579 means, “do BK if you want to” whereas 339 means “we can probably make it OK but its probably going to need some repeats” Its really useful information. Al, K2UYH’s definition of the eme rst scale in about 1979 has stood the test of time, Its not a rigid scale and if you think of 559 as an easy to copy, but not loud, signal then that can be your centre point. 73 Peter G3LTF From: Julian via Moon-net Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 8:42 PM To: moon-net(a)mailman.pe1itr.com Subject: Re: [Moon-Net] Fwd: Proposal for a much better EME contest exchange.... We operate 10GHz EME, mainly WSJT but occasionally CW at the moment, so this is only one viewpoint. All that is possible in some cases, and all that is needed, is an exchange of Callsigns/Signal reports to prove a contact has been made. All contacts are about the same distance. The mode used is a secondary consideration. There are a wide variety of issues when considering EME from 6m to 24GHz+: signal strength, mode, libration, timing/skeds etc, so requirements will be different for each. Given the difficulty in putting together large stations, some form of hierarchy in points in terms of bandwidth may be useful - eg SSB - CW - Data. Do this by having separate sections if you like, but make it easy to submit logs. All I want is to maximise the activity/chance of QSOs. For most stations, it is not about winning. It is about having the opportunity to have QSOs. You will get more entries if you keep the requirements simple. Whether CW or Digimode, I value the signal strength exchange. Signal reports are a vital part of the contact, both for interest, and knowing at what rate to proceed. Trying to strip everything out of the exchange to give the absolute minimum QSO time does not seem to me what EME is about. It would be a very retrograde step if all contacts degenerated into an exchange of 599 regardless, as on the HF bands. It is useful to have both the signal report and Grid in Digimodes, as they come "free" in WSJT. It also gives a hard copy of the exchange. If CW exchanges don't have the Grid, that need not be a problem. ARRL can work out the Grids/Country multipliers afterwards if necessary, when the entries are received. It does not matter if I am not sure of the score when sending the entry in. The ARRL EME contest is a focus for worldwide activity. Two sessions per band per year doesn't seem excessive, and is good for activity. We have found the ARRL EME entry format a bit uncertain. It would help if they specified more of the variables, eg time window for a contact, what is actually required in the exchange, and that the location can be sent in with the entry. Julian, G3YGF, obo G4RFR On 08/12/2022 01:22, Marshall-K5QE via Moon-net wrote: Hello to all EME ops that are serious about changing the EME contest for the better. Recent discussions on Moon-Net have exposed two big problems with the exchange of the contest and the scoring. These are: A)the multiplier is NOT part of the exchange and B)scoring and submitting a log is MUCH more difficult than it should be(See A). Two reasonable proposals have been made to fix the EME contest scoring. The first is by Jay-N1AV and the second is by myself, Marshall-K5QE. I am going to post these two ideas and ask that the community come to some conclusion, which can then be formally proposed to the ARRL Contest group. PROPOSAL 1: NOTE: I have slightly edited Jay's email, but the gist of the idea is completely his. Here is Jay's proposal: I would support a movement to change the rules from a state / country multiplier to a GRID multiplier. There, I said it. GRIDS. Here is why: A)Every other VHF contest uses grids as the multiplier. For the participant, no operation software changes needed, no logging software changes needed, and it is easier to log and submit. We want more, not less, ops to take part. We have already seen on moonet active EMEs who are not getting on or not submitting scores due to the work involved to post process logs. Going with grids is native to current digital software. It is part of the exchange and the culture of VHF contests. B)Using grids multipliers would increase scores. Who cares if the DX is in France or Germany, or a station is in North or South Carolina as the grid borders both areas. The actual grid is the tangible multiplier, not the unknown state that participants need to come up with.... New grid - all the VHF logging software TELLS you this. C)It will also INCREASE activity on the bands. This is what we want, MORE participation. Right now, there are 4 active EME ops on 1296 in multiple grids in Arizona. Currently in the EME contest if someone works 1 of us, they have worked AZ and they are off looking for other multipliers. The other 3 guys get pushed aside or missed. This happened in this last contest. Moving to grids, you now have 2-4 multipliers all calling and all a priority to work! D)The second big point is that going to grids would ALSO ENCOURAGE EME ROVER operation (what a time to be alive!). Some of us were able to take advantage of Wyatt, AC0RA who setup and roved in two different states this last EME contest. But 99% of the folks out there didn't know he was in a new state when they saw his signal from weekend to weekend. They just thought "dupe" and moved on. If we used grids, there would be an immediate flag as a NEW grid with the current digital mode software. Using states as the multiplier it is unknown data. With the advent of the folding dishes in the past several years there is a much higher chance of these rovers going out and activating 2, 3, 4 grids off the moon during the contest. How exciting would that be! Pile up city for these rovers and MORE activity! Jay's Discussion: I have only been serious about EME contesting for 5 years since I moved out here to AZ and got the stations online. I played with it back in Maine in the 90s. I have never understood using a state as a multiplier as it is not part of the exchange. I don't have software that tells me where I stand with my contest score as I participate. All my scoring software is grid based. State based multipliers are HF contest thinking. VHF contests have always been about grids and that works well. There - my three cents. Not sorry - but maybe it is time to change things up. - Jay N1AV PROPOSAL 2: Hello to all EME ops. I want to make a formal proposal for the EME contest exchange. The problem here is that the multiplier is NOT part of the exchange. This seems to me to be a poor way to run a railroad. I certainly do not pay any attention to HF contests, but I can't recall an HF contest where the multiplier is NOT part of the exchange, there may be one out there somewhere, but that is their problem.... I would like to see the log entries be <DATE & TIME> <BAND> <HIS CALL> <MY CALL> and <STATE>(not necessarily in that order). As someone pointed out, if STATE is the multiplier, then grid cannot not used, because it is not unique(a single grid often covers more than one state). The numeric "signal reports" are of little value, since they are not compared to anything. Currently, they just have to be there. Why have these things at all?? This would require the WSJT programmers to make up a new "skin", but it would be very close to what is now used for Field Day, so it should not be terribly difficult. Some discussion concerning <STATE> is in order. Obviously, for me, the <STATE> would be <TX>. For the Canadians, it would be their province(ON, SK, etc.). Then for the others, we could have: The <STATE> to be the numeric DXCC code as already defined by ARRL. So, all German stations would send <230>, the Falkland Islands would send <141>, while the South Orkney Islands would send <238>, and the South Sandwich Islands would send <240>. Since these identifiers are UNIQUE, it would make logging and scoring much easier. There are actually 5 different DXCC entities that have the VP8 callsign and this idea would make the actual <STATE> clear to everyone. There are several other examples of this problem(where the same call sign prefix covers more than one DXCC entity). These changes are relatively small and simple. We have almost a year to get this done..... Your comments and ideas?? Marshall's Discussion: When I first thought up my idea, I thought it was a good one that would solve all the problems. Well, it would, but Jay's idea would do that as well. His idea does not require ANY changes in software, scoring, log entries, and so on, because we all know how to do that now. For that reason, I would recommend his method over mine. To all EME ops, please think about these two ideas and let's reach some kind of consensus. If I understood Bart's(W9JJ) last letter, that is what we are going to need to get any kind of movement on this problem. 73 Marshall K5QE _______________________________________________ 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

Julian, and all: Well said and you have some good ideas. A couple of mine inserted, below: On 12/15/2022 11:42 AM, Julian via Moon-net wrote: I've been primarily on digital on 6m/2m/23cm, but expect to do some CW on 23cm. 9cm when my dish is re-installed. I will determine if my eme signals adequate for CW on 3cm after some contacts using digital. I've promoted separating CW scores from digital. At present ARRL has CW as an unassisted mode and combines CW+digital as assisted mode. Some of us on digital can and do operate unassisted. So why not: CW -Only: unassisted or assisted Digital: unassisted or assisted. As far as SSB or SSTV matters not to me how they are included in the scoring (SSB/CW is fine). certainly for many (if not most). The contests are great activity times to make contacts. Why not leave CW doing RST reports and states. As you say, wsjt makes it easy to use signal reports in numbers or grids If the two modes have separate contest awards why do the scores need to be comparable (Unless a combined SSB/SSTV/CW/digital award is given)? Simplest approach would be to combine the separate scores for the "super contest" score. A meaningless number but comparable and fairly arrived at. Time for that. I use paper logging so manually make the Cabrillo log. My impression where the biggest heartache comes from those that do computer logging to convert to Cabrillo. Someone said wsjt-x contest mode logs are easily used for Cabrillo (which should help digital entries; but leaves CW only an issue). Anyway, just my thinking on the subject (my two pennies worth). Wishing all a Happy Christmas Holiday! 73, Ed KL7UW