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

Paul Andrews w2hro.fn20 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 21 04:51:46 CET 2016


Stephen,  The obvious difference is that sending 73 via JT65 consumes a
full 60 seconds.  With voice (SSB/FM) a full ARRL valid QSO exchange
including "TNX 73" will take less than 15 seconds.  During normal EME QSOs
I enjoy the slow pace of 60 second periods.  I do my logging during 4
minutes of RO/RRR/73/73.  During a contest waiting for 73 is unnecessary.
The question becomes can you send 73 via the logger.  ARRL says no.

73 - Paul - W2HRO

On Nov 20, 2016 9:37 PM, "Stephen Hanselman" <eme at kc4sw.com> wrote:

> You know i think both sides here have valid points but let's look at a
> typical Field Day, arguably the penultimate ARRL contest, SSB exchange.
> CQ field day k6...
> K6... k3/// 3A MD
> K3/// k6... QSL 1B SCV
> 73  good luck
> QRZ Field Day K6...
>
> How does this relate to our digital format?  Basically they are the same
> "format" a minimalist passing of identifiers, location, and confirmation of
> the contact with the calling station passing a 73 and the called station
> just resuming his(her) CQ'ing.
>
> I submit if it's OK for Field Day it's OK for our contest.
>
> 73's
>
>
>
> Stephen Hanselman, KC4SW
>
> Datagate Systems, LLC
>
> 3107 North Deer Run Road #24
>
> Carson City, Nevada, 89701
>
> (775) 882-5117 office
>
> (775) 720-6020 mobile
>
> s.hanselman at datagatesystems.com
>
> www.datagatesystems.com
>
> a Service Disabled, Veteran Owned Small Business
>
> DISCLAIMER:
> This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for use by the
> addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
> proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachments
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
> immediately notify me and permanently delete the original and all copies
> and printouts of this e-mail and any attachments.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 20, 2016, at 17:46, Edward R Cole <kl7uw at acsalaska.net> wrote:
>
> 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:
>
> 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> 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.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.  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).Â
>
>
> 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 at
> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> <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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>
> 73, Ed - KL7UW
> http://www.kl7uw.com
>     "Kits made by KL7UW"
> Dubus Mag Business e-mail:
>     dubususa at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.pe1itr.com/pipermail/moon-net/attachments/20161120/45b0995f/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Moon-net mailing list