[Moon-Net] Are 73s needed for a "valid" contact?

Conrad PA5Y g0ruz at g0ruz.com
Mon Nov 21 00:01:51 CET 2016


I don't mind it if everyone uses it. But mixing the two makes me 
shudder. There will be several dead Germans!!

Conrad


On 20/11/2016 23:54, Paul Andrews wrote:
> Conrad,
>
> In my mind, your 200+ QSOs were a spectacular achievement. Saying 
> thank you on the logger didn't make those QSOs happen.
>
> The ARRL Rules maybe dated and could be reviewed.  QRA64 with embedded 
> signal reports make a logger thank yous and signal report exchanges 
> less necessary.
>
> I know your opinion on JT65B2.  I mentioned that just to get a rise 
> out of you.  Yes - Let's have a JT65B2 Contest.  :)
>
> I'm looking forward to future "fast" Digital EME protocols that permit 
> text message like rag chew.  Less talk on the logger.   Even EME based 
> group discussions should be possible.
>
> Arthur Clarke - "The only thing that we can be sure of the future is 
> that it will be absolutely fantastic."
>
> 73 - Paul - W2HRO
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Conrad PA5Y <g0ruz at g0ruz.com 
> <mailto:g0ruz at g0ruz.com>> wrote:
>
>     Well if the posting of thankyou AFTER the contact is logged is not
>     allowed then my 200+ QSOs will be invalid and I will be most cross
>     as the action has absolutely no bearing on the QSO. The contact is
>     logged and is history as far as I'm concerned.
>
>
>     It certainly needs to be cleared up and next time preferably
>     BEFORE the contest not at the 11th hour.
>
>
>     ........assistance may not be used to facilitate the completion of
>     any contact once the contact has commenced. This means such
>     assistance may not be used to convey receipt or non-receipt of any
>     required element of a contact or to request a repeat of any
>     required element of a contact.
>
>
>     That seems clear enough to me. Thanks are not a required element
>     of the contact just polite.
>
>
>     Regards
>
>
>     Conrad PA5Y
>
>
>
>     On 20/11/2016 23:06, Marshall-K5QE wrote:
>>     Hello Conrad and others interested in this thread.....I am NOT an
>>     ARRL rules guru, but I thought that the posting of any contact
>>     information was prohibited during the contests. You certainly
>>     cannot post, "I hear your RO, so I am sending RRR"....or anything
>>     like that at all.  I know that we all agree on this.
>>
>>     Others have said that the posting of "thank you" after the
>>     contact is complete is not allowed, because it tells the other
>>     station that you are complete(which is a piece of contact
>>     information).  I have not posted the traditional "thank you"
>>     whenever I was in a contest, because I believed that it was not
>>     allowed(but I may be very wrong on this).  During casual
>>     operating, I try to post a "thank you" so the other station knows
>>     that we are done AND so that he can see his signal strength, etc.
>>
>>     It would be nice if we could get a definite ruling on this. 
>>     Maybe Bart-W9JJ could study this carefully and let us know what
>>     we can and cannot do.
>>
>>     The rules for the CW WW VHF contest are slightly different from
>>     the ARRL's rules, so we have another issue there.
>>
>>     On this last leg of the EME contest, I had a guest
>>     operator(Phil-W5RP) at the helm of the 2M station.  He worked
>>     about 100 stations for the two days.  That is pretty good for a
>>     new operator.  I thank everyone for calling and working him.  It
>>     was a great experience for him and I know that he enjoyed it a
>>     lot.  He certainly got a wonderful introduction to WSJT and
>>     pileups on 2M.  It will be a while before he gets his home
>>     station running, but when that happens, we will have another FB
>>     station and operator on 2M.
>>
>>     73 Marshall K5QE
>>
>>
>>     On 11/20/2016 3:23 PM, Conrad PA5Y wrote:
>>>
>>>     The 73 are not required for a valid QSO. However they are useful
>>>     as an indicator that all is well.
>>>
>>>
>>>     During the contest if I call CQ I prefer the station that I am
>>>     working to send 73 in response to my RRR even if just for a few
>>>     seconds to let me know that they are happy. This happens a lot
>>>     during the contest and is very thoughtful.  If my QSO partner is
>>>     participating in the contest and are loud with me it is
>>>     completely unnecessary. Instead of responding to these 73 with
>>>     73 I just call CQ again or the next station if there is a queue.
>>>     If my QSO partners are on the logger I will thank them for the
>>>     QSO but only AFTER the QSO is complete. It is perfectly
>>>     legitimate to do this once you have received RRR.
>>>
>>>
>>>     DXpeditions prefer their QSO partner to send 73 after they have
>>>     sent RRR just so that they know to move on to the next station.
>>>
>>>
>>>     For normal everyday QSOs outside of contests and Dxpeditions 73
>>>     are polite and should be used unless you are running out of moon :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>     A little watching and listening will soon having you developing
>>>     your own feel for how things are done.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>     Conrad PA5Y
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 20/11/2016 21:55, Bob Atkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     During the EME contest one station I contacted suggested that
>>>>     the final "73" wasn't required, just the exchangeable of "Call
>>>>     signs and locators", "OOO", "RO" and "RRR".  Is that generally
>>>>     accepted to be the case? Usually at least one or both stations
>>>>     send "73", but is this actually a requirement for a valid QSO
>>>>     (as least as defined by the contest).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     The "call, locator and OOO" confirms reception of "callls +
>>>>     locator" in one direction and the "RO" confirms reception of
>>>>     that report by the first station. "RRR" then confirms reception
>>>>     of that information. Technically, isn't that all that is needed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     I'm not suggestion that dropping the final 73 (or exchange of
>>>>     73s) is a good idea. I just don't want to claim a contact where
>>>>     the other stations didn't send the first "73" and suggested it
>>>>     wasn't required.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Bob
>>>>
>>>>     KA1GT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are athttp://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>>>>     <http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html>
>>>>
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>>
>>>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>     software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are athttp://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>>>     <http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html>
>>>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>     software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>     _______________________________________________ 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> 
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



More information about the Moon-net mailing list