I suspect they have multiple copies of the log in the database.
I wouldn't worry about it - as long as the total isn't zero.
Tree N6TR
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 6:55 PM Jeff via Topband
wrote:
> Update on my last post:
>
> Checked my log this morning and the same as below.
>
> Just now checked
Update on my last post:
Checked my log this morning and the same as below.
Just now checked & now I have 3 contacts on 80 FT8.
4 days later a qso is added.
What is going on ?
Jeff ReynoldsJeff via Topband wrote:
I worked CB0ZA last Thursday evening on 80 & 160 FT8 (only once).
On 2/19/2024 4:02 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
Since what modes like FT8, JT65, and FST4 do is compensate for the
drastically added electronic noise. Using those modes today is roughly
comparable to working CW 20+ years ago. I would support the
endorsement you suggest ONLY to those QSOs made on CW after
Yeah, I suppose you could do that for "N-band DXCC" as well. It already
exists for DXCC Honor Roll tallies.
73, Mike W4EF.
On 2/19/2024 3:32 PM, Steve Harrison wrote:
On 2/19/2024 3:25 PM, Michael Tope wrote:
Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be
Brown
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 7:02 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
On 2/19/2024 3:25 PM, Michael Tope wrote:
> Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be terribly
> unfair to those who submitted FT8 confirmations
On 2/19/2024 3:25 PM, Michael Tope wrote:
Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be terribly
unfair to those who submitted FT8 confirmations toward DXCC in good
faith, it seems like a possible solution would be to add provisions for
a CW endorsement to the 160 meter DXCC
On 2/19/2024 3:25 PM, Michael Tope wrote:
Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be terribly
unfair to those who submitted FT8 confirmations toward DXCC in good
faith, it seems like a possible solution would be to add provisions
for a CW endorsement to the 160 meter DXCC award.
Since reclassifying 160 DXCC totals to exclude FT8 would be terribly
unfair to those who submitted FT8 confirmations toward DXCC in good
faith, it seems like a possible solution would be to add provisions for
a CW endorsement to the 160 meter DXCC award. If it were workable
administratively,
Yes, I know that but some might choose to operate that way, hence "robot."
RTFM and 73 in the same message. A bit of irony.
On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 03:37:56 PM MST, Joe Subich, W4TV
wrote:
On 2/19/2024 4:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:
> F/H is particularly bad in
On 2/19/2024 1:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:
Another particularly distasteful thing about FT8 is that the DX can set filters
to exclude certain callers based on signal strength, distance, country, etc.
and the callers never know it. I know there will be vehement denial of this
but I
So that the operators can exclude them.
On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 03:21:05 PM MST, WW3S
wrote:
The filters dont “exclude” callers, they do however sort them….either by
signal strength, mileage ( based on grid square) , maybe continent…..
_
Searchable
On 2/19/2024 4:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:
F/H is particularly bad in this regard. You can call and call and
might actually be in the queue but not know it until you go to the
kitchen for that beer and come back and see that "you" made the
contact.
If you do not want your
The filters dont “exclude” callers, they do however sort them….either by signal
strength, mileage ( based on grid square) , maybe continent…..
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 19, 2024, at 5:11 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband
> wrote:
>
> It is unreasonable to assume all FT8 QSOs are with robots,
It is unreasonable to assume all FT8 QSOs are with robots, however, many are.
Technically, some "I" (my computer) makes are made with me not in attendance.
When I can disable transmit and walk out to the kitchen to get another beer and
come back to see that my software has tuned my radio to
On 2/19/2024 1:07 PM, ok1tn wrote:
To top it all off, the expedition will not even be present on the island.
Another false belief. The difference is that only a few guys go to the
island, set up the station(s), and go back to their boat anchored
off-share. They return to the island
Not again! (Sigh)
Mike
W0BTU
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Of course, the development of technological progress is necessary and
interesting. But there is one thing. - you cannot use progress to
destroy what thousands of radio amateurs spent their lives on. Do you
understand what I'm talking about ?
---
Nick, UY0ZG
http://www.topband.in.ua
Jim
Also totally false assumptions about digital modes, including FT8. The
modes invented by Nobel laureate K1JT, and expanded on by the team
responsible for WSJT-X software, are widely used on VHF and UHF for
moonbounce with the same sort of arrays used in the past with CW,
providing about 10 dB
on the island.
What comes more. Ban the telegraph.
--
73 Slavek Zeler
www.lc-variable.eu
www.okdxf.eu
-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Jim Brown
Komu: topband@contesting.com
Datum: 19. 2. 2024 20:53:57
Předmět: Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
"On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Sa
On 2/19/2024 3:42 PM, uy0zg via Topband wrote:
>
>
>
So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come
on earth :-
No, FT8 has provided a way to compensate for the 20 dB in increased
noise floor over the last 40 years.
I was around in the late 1970's and early 1980s
. 2024 21:30:03
Předmět: Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
"
On 2/19/2024 3:10 PM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
> After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in
> their LOG, found also same.
Unlike the official WSJTX software, some third party variatio
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:42 PM wrote:
>
>
>
> "Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna
> > situations and noisy locations."
>
> So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come on
> earth :-
> In the future, there may be no need to build
"Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna
situations and noisy locations."
So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come on
earth :-
In the future, there may be no need to build antennas at all...
So friends, we should be happy
On 2/19/2024 3:10 PM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in
their LOG, found also same.
Unlike the official WSJTX software, some third party variations will
log a QSO every time it sends an acknowledgement (RR73) for a report.
If the
I am not sure 100% about robot, but it is very similar to what I wrote.
After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in their
LOG, found also same.
Sam LY5W
2024-02-19, pr 21:54, Jim Brown rašė:
> On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
> > Look's like this
On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
It is unreasonable to assume that all FT8 QSOs are with robots. I know
some of the very experienced CW ops who run FT8 on expeditions. WSJT-X
software makes the mode
My CW totals are correct; FT8 are not. I've only worked them once, yet they
show two for each FT8 QSO.
On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:33:36 AM MST, Jeff via Topband
wrote:
I worked CB0ZA last Thursday evening on 80 & 160 FT8 (only once).
Checked club log 5 min after qso and
I worked CB0ZA last Thursday evening on 80 & 160 FT8 (only once).
Checked club log 5 min after qso and showed only 1 contact.
Checked again 30min later and showed 2 qsos.
This happened for both bands.
All my cw qsos showed only 1.
NE0DX
Jeff Reynolds
Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
Try to
Again provocations and insults. This ly5w has been following me
obsessively for ten years now. What does he want from me.
___
I perfectly understand the work of the robot and made a good joke about
the future :-(
---
Nick, UY0ZG
Try to check different call-signs on FT8 https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
160, 80m their robot working very quickly :)
Sam LY5W
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 5:47 PM Steve Harrison wrote:
> Interesting... my logcheck only shows the correct one CW QSO per band.
>
> Steve, K0XP
>
> On 2/19/2024 7:27
Interesting... my logcheck only shows the correct one CW QSO per band.
Steve, K0XP
On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
I called them one time, when got RR73, but I am in their LOG 4 times.
BandCWFT8
160 4
Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
I called them one time, when got RR73, but I am in their LOG 4 times.
BandCWFT8
160 4
80 2
20 1
12 1
10 1Man, you sick, stop your comment's.
Look to other:
Callsign to check:
BandCWFT8
160 2
80 2
10 1
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024
Heaven will soon come to planet Earth. People make 6 QSOs with FT at
160. Super:
https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
Log Search
This form allows you to check if you are "in the log". It only works for
registered Club Log users and expeditions that have uploaded their logs.
Log to search:
33 matches
Mail list logo
