[Moon-Net] Are 73s needed for a "valid" contact?
Edward R Cole
kl7uw at acsalaska.net
Mon Nov 21 02:46:34 CET 2016
Regarding 2m-eme use, I've gotten use to the
CQing station sending RRR and calling station
adding 73 after seeing that. Most stations do
not send 73 after seeing 73 from the other
station during contests as resuming CQ pretty
much tells that the contact is completed.
I found calling CQ is way more productive of moon
time for me. I have enough callers to run 1-2
hours continuous operating at five minutes per
contact. That can accumulate 12-15
contacts. Calling stations that are CQing often
ends up waiting 30-45 minutes in a stack of
callers for your turn to make the contact. This
works better at end of WE when less stations are active (not so many pileups).
I will never achieve 200 contacts as my
moon-window starts 9-hours after EU MR. Too
often activity drops at EU MS when I have been
operating only 3-4 hours. I quit at 3am
(1230utc) today and slept to 10am (1900utc). But
good thing I QRV for an hour at 1900 as I made
three more contacts (missed W7MEM and
UN9L). 2030 local noise starting* made further
eme operating impossible so quit. Might have
worked another 8-10 until MS at 2300utc.
* plus there were birdies every 300-Hz all across
the band with maybe two small gaps.
I find running 1-min sequencing is needed
sometimes with weak stations (or when battling
noise) in contests; 30-second cycles would speed
contact rate. I am running the MAP65-BC2/version
but not activating the quicker rate as not being
used. Perhaps the adoption of QRA by more people
would make shorter sequences workable, but I get
what Conrad is saying (I do not have that problem
as nearest 2m-eme station is 1300km in BC).
Perhaps running 30-min first day and 1-min on
second day of contest would offer a good
mix? Activity is 75% higher in the first
day. Everyone would need to agree with for it to be workable.
73, Ed - KL7UW
At 01:54 PM 11/20/2016, Paul Andrews wrote:
>In my mind, your 200+ QSOs were a spectacular
>achievement.Â Saying thank you on the logger didn't make those QSOs happen.
>The ARRL Rules maybe dated and could be
>reviewed.Â QRA64 with embedded signal reports
>make a logger thank yous and signal report exchanges less necessary.
>I know your opinion on JT65B2.Â I mentioned
>that just to get a rise out of you.Â Yes - Let's have a JT65B2 Contest. Â :)
>I'm looking forward to future "fast" Digital EME
>protocols that permit text message like rag
>chew.Â Less talk on the logger. Â Even EME
>based group discussions should be possible.
>Arthur Clarke - "TheÂ 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
><<mailto:g0ruz at g0ruz.com>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.
>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.Â You certainly cannot post, "I hear
>>your RO, so I am sending RRR"....or anything
>>like that at all.Â 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).Â 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).Â 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.Â Maybe Bart-W9JJ could study
>>this carefully and let us know what we can and cannot do.Â
>>The rules for the CW WW VHF contest are
>>slightly different from the ARRL's rules, so we have another issue there.Â
>>On this last leg of the EME contest, I had a
>>guest operator(Phil-W5RP) at the helm of the 2M
>>station.Â He worked about 100 stations for the
>>two days.Â That is pretty good for a new
>>operator.Â I thank everyone for calling and
>>working him.Â It was a great experience for
>>him and I know that he enjoyed it a lot.Â He
>>certainly got a wonderful introduction to WSJT
>>and pileups on 2M.Â 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.Â 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.
>>>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".Â 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).Â
>>>>The "call, locator andÂ OOO" confirms
>>>>reception of "callls + locator"Â in one
>>>>direction and the "RO" confirms reception of
>>>>that report by the first station. "RRR" then
>>>>confirms reception of that
>>>>information.Â 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.
>>>>Moon-Net posting and subscription
>>>>instructions are at
>>>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions
>Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions
>are at http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
73, Ed - KL7UW
"Kits made by KL7UW"
Dubus Mag Business e-mail:
dubususa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Moon-net