Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[KI7MT]

Hello All,

I dont know what operating practices have to do with WSJT development,
and at the risk of getting pummeled here; ... we have to remember what
the original protocol was designed / used for, WSJT EME if I recall. In
that world, it can take several / many TX cycles of the same message
before you progress to the next message, and receipt / acknowledgement
of the signal rpt or RRR is imperative from what I've been told. So the
3x3 doesn't' really apply there does it.

I've operated in several ways / methods / modes on HF, simply sending
 TNX 73 after getting my report, and using using RRR then
sending the 73 message, but I don't recall ever using RR73, and don't
think I would ever use it, it just doesn't seem to fit well with the
flow and it's a grid square, all be it an extremely rare one, but a grid
nevertheless.

I'm sure there are contest operators in this group, and they all know,
full well, particularly CW contesters, things get severely abbreviated.
So much so, that high speed ops can actually slow their rates down by
*not following* standard *generally accepted* practices. The same is
true of JT QSO's, especially with these messages have no breaks or have
all sorts of acronyms that only the guy sending them can decipher, or
closer to home here, when the *generally accepted* sequence is altered.

The bottom line is, the software, as written, is designed for a specific
flow. If users want to alter that flow, that is up to them, but be
prepared for others to disagree and in some cases, reject the QSO ==
Busted Q, and that's on you. Likewise, it's up the two parties making
the QSO to determine if the QSO is valid or not; if ya don't like it,
don't log it, pretty simple really.

Personally, I think the sequencing in WSJT-X is what is should be, and
appropriate for the modes operated.

73's
Greg, KI7MT


On 08/24/2015 09:26 PM, Neil Zampella wrote:
> FWIW ... Joe put together the original QSO protocol which effectively 
> shows six (6) transmissions, three (3) from the station calling CQ, and 
> three (3) from the station answering the CALL over what is effectively a 
> six minute period.
> 
> The 5th minute of the QSO is the CQ station sending RRR, which is a 
> final acknowledgement that all information for the QSO has been 
> transmitted and received.The ONLY transmission in that protocol that 
> requires a 73, is the final transmission (6th minute0 by the answering 
> station which is effectively saying thanks for the QSO, over and 
> out.  There is no need for the calling station to do anything after 
> that, but call CQ for another QSO.
> 
> The use of the RRR 73 or RR73 really does NOT save any time, and really 
> tends to confuse users of WSJT-X who merely click on the decoded 
> transmission.  The program (as well as the JT65-HF clones) is not 
> expecting that, and has no idea on what to do next.
> 
> My six bits ...
> 
> Neil Z
> KN3ILZ
> 
> 
> On 08/24/15 05:09 pm, Chris Sullivan wrote:
>> I think the answer to this is simple. All it requires is that all JT mode
>> programs print "RRR 73" when (sending and) receiving the standard RRR
>> message. It's just a sequence of bits after all, and not the actual text
>> RRR. Then the calling station could feel happy that they've sent 73 to the
>> responding station and not done one of (a) finished the QSO with a clinical
>> RRR before sending the next CQ, or (b) squandering another 2 minutes send a
>> fourth transmission to give the tradition ham radio signoff.
>>
>> As far as I can tell people send RR73 or RRR73 or something similar just
>> because they want to be polite. Being Canadian I understand completely. Mind
>> you, getting everyone to update their versions would be a challenge.
>>
>> (What really drives me nuts though is the CQ station responding to my call
>> with R-xx, which sometimes tricks me into sending RRR if I don't notice)
>>
>> 73,
>> Chris VE3NRT
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bill Ockert - ND0B [mailto:n...@ockert.us]
>> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:40 PM
>> To: WSJT software development 
>> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>>
>> Jay,
>>
>> I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
>> for well over a year
>> because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
>> modes, one
>> of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
>> LOTW
>> and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with
>> WAS,  I am
>> not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
>> get a resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am
>> about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory.
>>
>> Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
>> QSO
>> and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
>> essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
>> receiving an RRR.
>>
>>

Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[Neil Zampella]

FWIW ... Joe put together the original QSO protocol which effectively 
shows six (6) transmissions, three (3) from the station calling CQ, and 
three (3) from the station answering the CALL over what is effectively a 
six minute period.

The 5th minute of the QSO is the CQ station sending RRR, which is a 
final acknowledgement that all information for the QSO has been 
transmitted and received.The ONLY transmission in that protocol that 
requires a 73, is the final transmission (6th minute0 by the answering 
station which is effectively saying thanks for the QSO, over and 
out.  There is no need for the calling station to do anything after 
that, but call CQ for another QSO.

The use of the RRR 73 or RR73 really does NOT save any time, and really 
tends to confuse users of WSJT-X who merely click on the decoded 
transmission.  The program (as well as the JT65-HF clones) is not 
expecting that, and has no idea on what to do next.

My six bits ...

Neil Z
KN3ILZ


On 08/24/15 05:09 pm, Chris Sullivan wrote:
> I think the answer to this is simple. All it requires is that all JT mode
> programs print "RRR 73" when (sending and) receiving the standard RRR
> message. It's just a sequence of bits after all, and not the actual text
> RRR. Then the calling station could feel happy that they've sent 73 to the
> responding station and not done one of (a) finished the QSO with a clinical
> RRR before sending the next CQ, or (b) squandering another 2 minutes send a
> fourth transmission to give the tradition ham radio signoff.
>
> As far as I can tell people send RR73 or RRR73 or something similar just
> because they want to be polite. Being Canadian I understand completely. Mind
> you, getting everyone to update their versions would be a challenge.
>
> (What really drives me nuts though is the CQ station responding to my call
> with R-xx, which sometimes tricks me into sending RRR if I don't notice)
>
> 73,
> Chris VE3NRT
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Ockert - ND0B [mailto:n...@ockert.us]
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:40 PM
> To: WSJT software development 
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>
> Jay,
>
> I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
> for well over a year
> because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
> modes, one
> of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
> LOTW
> and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with
> WAS,  I am
> not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
> get a resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am
> about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory.
>
> Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
> QSO
> and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
> essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
> receiving an RRR.
>
> If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
> just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal
> contact.
> At one point
> I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
> second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was
> and offering a
> retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
> stations what
> to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
> terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do
> not offer a retry.
> The person
> who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
> change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.
>
> As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened
> but oh well...
>
> I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
> should be to
> enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That is
>
> both
> for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program
> all of the
> variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark
> there should
> be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  There
> is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled
> reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over
> the WSJTX.
>
> For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto
> sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict.
>
> 73 de Bill ND0B
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Hainline
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
> To: WSJT software development
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>
> Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to
> that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just
> bun

Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H voice fromDownunder

[Bill Ockert - ND0B]

Yes it does on the free form protocols like FSK, ISCAT, etc.On protocols 
with FEC like JT9 it is all (and exact) or nothing so is clear without any 
other conventions. 

From: Alan VK2ZIW 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 8:24 PM
To: WSJT software development 
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H voice fromDownunder

Hi all, 

We must ALWAYS send the sending callsign. Period. 

Downunder, we replace the " " (space) with a "/" between the receiving callsign 
and the report eg. 


VK3AMZ/26 VK2ZIW 26 

So, onlookers can figure out, in garbled MS messages, who's who. 

Does this make sense? 

Alan VK2ZIW 

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:23:47 -0700, George J Molnar wrote 
> Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a 
> good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your 
> callsign. 
> 
> George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP 
> Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator 

> @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM 
> 
> On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote: 
> 
> 

  > 
  > Mike, 
  >   
  > No   I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually.  I 
treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space.  
  >   
  > Bill 
  > 
  >   
  > 
  > From: Michael Black 
  > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM 
  > To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development 
  > Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer 
  >   
  > 
  > Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? 
  > About 7% of users use that according to my logs. 
  > 
  > Mike W9MDB 
  > 
  >   
  > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote: 
  > 
Jay, 
> 
> I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes 
completely 
> for well over a year 
> because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF 
> modes, one 
> of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF 
modes, 
> LOTW 
> and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with 
> WAS,  I am 
> not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and 
I 
> get a 
> resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about 
> ready for McDonalds 
> or the glue factory. 
> 
> Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal 
> QSO 
> and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of 
the 
> essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station 
> receiving an RRR. 
> 
> If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business 
> just as it 
> is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. 
> At one point 
> I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a 
> second 
> time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and 
> offering a 
> retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other 
> stations what 
> to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I 
> terminate the contact 
> immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. 
> The person 
> who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made 
the 
> change 
> so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. 
> 
> As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that 
happened 
> but oh well... 
> 
> I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions 
> should be to 
> enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That 
is 
> both 
> for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to 
program 
> all of the 
> variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark 
> there should 
> be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  
There 
> is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled 
> reasonably well in the WSJT 
> ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. 
> 
> For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto 
> sequencer and advance 
> if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 
> 
> 73 de Bill ND0B 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Jay Hainline 
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM 
> To: WSJT software development 
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto 
sequencer 
> 
> Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up 
to 
> that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just 
> bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send 
the 
> 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at

Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H voice from Downunder

[Alan VK2ZIW]

Hi all,

We must ALWAYS send the sending callsign. Period.

Downunder, we replace the " " (space) with a "/" between the receiving callsign 
and the report eg.

VK3AMZ/26 VK2ZIW 26

So, onlookers can figure out, in garbled MS messages, who's who.

Does this make sense?

Alan VK2ZIW

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:23:47 -0700, George J Molnar wrote
> Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a 
> good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your 
> callsign.
> 
> George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP
> Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator
> @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM
> 
> On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike,
>  
> No   I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually.  I treat 
> RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space.  
>  
> Bill
> 
>  
> 
> From: Michael Black 
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM
> To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development 
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>  
> 
> Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending?
> About 7% of users use that according to my logs.
> 
> Mike W9MDB
> 
>  
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:
> Jay,
> 
> I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
> for well over a year
> because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
> modes, one
> of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
> LOTW
> and 12 and 160 meters.    I get on about twice a year to help folks with
> WAS,  I am
> not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
> get a
> resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about
> ready for McDonalds
> or the glue factory.
> 
> Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
> QSO
> and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
> essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
> receiving an RRR.
> 
> If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
> just as it
> is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact.
> At one point
> I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
> second
> time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and
> offering a
> retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
> stations what
> to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
> terminate the contact
> immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry.
> The person
> who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
> change
> so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.
> 
> As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened
> but oh well...
> 
> I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
> should be to
> enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That is
> both
> for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program
> all of the
> variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark
> there should
> be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  There
> is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled
> reasonably well in the WSJT
> ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX.
> 
> For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto
> sequencer and advance
> if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict.
> 
> 73 de Bill ND0B
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Hainline
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
> To: WSJT software development
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
> 
> Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to
> that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just
> bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the
> 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did
> manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged.
> 
> 73 Jay
> 
> Jay Hainline KA9CFD
> Colchester, IL EN40om
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54
> To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
> 
> The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually
> acted in a
> benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the
> contact
> without the  benefit of logging it.
> 
> 73 de Bill ND0B
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Hainline
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM
> To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with aut

Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer

[Bill Ockert - ND0B]

Jay,

I concur completely on all points.  With JT9 there is NO ambiguity that the 
incorrect
message was sent.   I will feel even less bad about not logging those 
contacts.

Thank you for the discussion.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message- 
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:42 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto 
sequencer

Bill I know what constitutes a QSO. I always use the standard messages
myself. However this QSO was using the JT9H mode with FEC. There is no
mistake in what was sent and received. There is no partials involved like
there is in ISCAT or FSK441 modes. It's either all or nothing. I think that
needs to be considered. If it is such a big deal, then why isnt WSJTX
hardcoded with the standard messages so they cannot be changed?

This is the final word from me on this subject. Time to move on.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om

-Original Message- 
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 23:27
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto
sequencer


Jay,

From the WSJTX manual...

By longstanding tradition, a minimal valid QSO requires the exchange of
callsigns, a signal report or some other information, and acknowledgments.
WSJT-X is designed to facilitate making such minimal QSOs using short,
formatted messages. The process works best if you use them and follow
standard operating practices. The recommended basic QSO goes something like
this:

1. CQ K1ABC FN42
2. K1ABC G0XYZ IO91
3. G0XYZ K1ABC –19
4. K1ABC G0XYZ R-22
5. G0XYZ K1ABC RRR
6. K1ABC G0XYZ 73

The messages suggested and in fact the messages that WSJTX (and WSJT)
generate reflect RRR as the long standing minimal acknowledgement.

The manual is clear, the software is clear and the effort to do it that was
is actually less than doing it the other way... no messages to change every
time you change modes.

Bill


From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:40 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto
sequencer

Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER
reports had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would
be in receiving 2 "Rogers" instead of 3. :-)



Jay KA9CFD

Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone


 Original message 
From: George J Molnar 
Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: Bill Ockert - ND0B , WSJT software development

Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto
sequencer


Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a
good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your
callsign.



George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP
Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator

@GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM

On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:


Mike,

No   I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually.  I treat
RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space.

Bill


From: Michael Black
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM
To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending?
About 7% of users use that according to my logs.

Mike W9MDB

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:
Jay,

I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
for well over a year
because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
modes, one
of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
LOTW
and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with
WAS,  I am
not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
get a
resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about
ready for McDonalds
or the glue factory.

Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
QSO
and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
receiving an RRR.

If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
just as it
is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact.
At one point
I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
second
time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and
offering a
retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
stations what
to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
terminate the contact
immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry.
The person
who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
change
so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.

As

Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer

[Jay Hainline]

Bill I know what constitutes a QSO. I always use the standard messages 
myself. However this QSO was using the JT9H mode with FEC. There is no 
mistake in what was sent and received. There is no partials involved like 
there is in ISCAT or FSK441 modes. It's either all or nothing. I think that 
needs to be considered. If it is such a big deal, then why isnt WSJTX 
hardcoded with the standard messages so they cannot be changed?

This is the final word from me on this subject. Time to move on.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om

-Original Message- 
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 23:27
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto 
sequencer


Jay,

From the WSJTX manual...

By longstanding tradition, a minimal valid QSO requires the exchange of 
callsigns, a signal report or some other information, and acknowledgments. 
WSJT-X is designed to facilitate making such minimal QSOs using short, 
formatted messages. The process works best if you use them and follow 
standard operating practices. The recommended basic QSO goes something like 
this:

1. CQ K1ABC FN42
2. K1ABC G0XYZ IO91
3. G0XYZ K1ABC –19
4. K1ABC G0XYZ R-22
5. G0XYZ K1ABC RRR
6. K1ABC G0XYZ 73

The messages suggested and in fact the messages that WSJTX (and WSJT) 
generate reflect RRR as the long standing minimal acknowledgement.

The manual is clear, the software is clear and the effort to do it that was 
is actually less than doing it the other way... no messages to change every 
time you change modes.

Bill


From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:40 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto 
sequencer

Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER 
reports had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would 
be in receiving 2 "Rogers" instead of 3. :-)



Jay KA9CFD

Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone


 Original message 
From: George J Molnar 
Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: Bill Ockert - ND0B , WSJT software development 

Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto 
sequencer


Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a 
good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your 
callsign.



George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP
Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator

@GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM

On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:


Mike,

No   I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually.  I treat 
RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space.

Bill


From: Michael Black
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM
To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending?
About 7% of users use that according to my logs.

Mike W9MDB

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:
Jay,

I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
for well over a year
because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
modes, one
of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
LOTW
and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with
WAS,  I am
not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
get a
resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about
ready for McDonalds
or the glue factory.

Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
QSO
and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
receiving an RRR.

If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
just as it
is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact.
At one point
I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
second
time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and
offering a
retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
stations what
to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
terminate the contact
immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry.
The person
who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
change
so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.

As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened
but oh well...

I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
should be to
enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That is
both
for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program
all of the
variations that are floating around out there.   The o

Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer

[Jay Hainline]

Ah, now I understand that although I doubt if I will be working anyone in 
that grid in the Arctic Ocean anytime soon.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om

-Original Message- 
From: George J Molnar
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 23:06
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto 
sequencer

RR73 is also a valid grid square and could cause confusion in software.




George J Molnar
KF2T | AFA9GM
Twitter: @GJMolnar

SUPPORT HR-1301 & S-1685
http://www.arrl.org/amateur-radio-parity-act





On Aug 24, 2015, at 15:40, Jay Hainline  wrote:


Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER 
reports had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would 
be in receiving 2 "Rogers" instead of 3. :-)



Jay KA9CFD

Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone


 Original message 
From: George J Molnar 
Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: Bill Ockert - ND0B , WSJT software development 

Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto 
sequencer


Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a 
good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your 
callsign.



George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP
Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator

@GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM

On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:


Mike,

No   I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually.  I treat 
RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space.

Bill


From: Michael Black
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM
To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending?
About 7% of users use that according to my logs.

Mike W9MDB

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:
Jay,

I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
for well over a year
because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
modes, one
of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
LOTW
and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with
WAS,  I am
not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
get a
resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about
ready for McDonalds
or the glue factory.

Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
QSO
and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
receiving an RRR.

If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
just as it
is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact.
At one point
I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
second
time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and
offering a
retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
stations what
to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
terminate the contact
immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry.
The person
who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
change
so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.

As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened
but oh well...

I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
should be to
enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That is
both
for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program
all of the
variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark
there should
be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  There
is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled
reasonably well in the WSJT
ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX.

For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto
sequencer and advance
if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message-
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to
that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just
bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the
73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did
manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om

-Original Message-
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.ne

Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer

[Bill Ockert - ND0B]

Jay,

>From the WSJTX manual...

By longstanding tradition, a minimal valid QSO requires the exchange of 
callsigns, a signal report or some other information, and acknowledgments. 
WSJT-X is designed to facilitate making such minimal QSOs using short, 
formatted messages. The process works best if you use them and follow standard 
operating practices. The recommended basic QSO goes something like this: 

1. CQ K1ABC FN42 
2. K1ABC G0XYZ IO91 
3. G0XYZ K1ABC –19 
4. K1ABC G0XYZ R-22 
5. G0XYZ K1ABC RRR 
6. K1ABC G0XYZ 73 

The messages suggested and in fact the messages that WSJTX (and WSJT) generate 
reflect RRR as the long standing minimal acknowledgement. 

The manual is clear, the software is clear and the effort to do it that was is 
actually less than doing it the other way... no messages to change every time 
you change modes.  

Bill


From: Jay Hainline 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:40 PM
To: WSJT software development 
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer

Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER reports 
had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would be in 
receiving 2 "Rogers" instead of 3. :-)



Jay KA9CFD 

Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone


 Original message 
From: George J Molnar  
Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00) 
To: Bill Ockert - ND0B , WSJT software development 
 
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer 


Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good 
way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign.



George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP 
Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator

@GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM

On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:


  Mike,

  No   I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually.  I treat 
RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space.  

  Bill

  From: Michael Black 
  Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM
  To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development 
  Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

  Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending?

  About 7% of users use that according to my logs.


  Mike W9MDB


  On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:

Jay,

I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
for well over a year
because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
modes, one
of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
LOTW
and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with
WAS,  I am
not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
get a
resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about
ready for McDonalds
or the glue factory.

Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
QSO
and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
receiving an RRR.

If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
just as it
is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact.
At one point
I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
second
time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and
offering a
retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
stations what
to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
terminate the contact
immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry.
The person
who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
change
so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.

As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened
but oh well...

I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
should be to
enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That is
both
for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program
all of the
variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark
there should
be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  There
is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled
reasonably well in the WSJT
ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX.

For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto
sequencer and advance
if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message-
From: Jay Hainline
Se

Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[George J Molnar]

RR73 is also a valid grid square and could cause confusion in software.



George J Molnar
KF2T | AFA9GM
Twitter: @GJMolnar

SUPPORT HR-1301 & S-1685
http://www.arrl.org/amateur-radio-parity-act



> On Aug 24, 2015, at 15:40, Jay Hainline  wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER 
> reports had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would be 
> in receiving 2 "Rogers" instead of 3. :-)
> 
> 
> 
> Jay KA9CFD 
> 
> Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone
> 
> 
>  Original message 
> From: George J Molnar  
> Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00) 
> To: Bill Ockert - ND0B , WSJT software development 
>  
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto  
> sequencer 
> 
> Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a 
> good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your 
> callsign.
> 
> 
> 
> George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP
> Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator
> @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM
> 
> On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  > wrote:
> 
>> Mike,
>>  
>> No   I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually.  I treat 
>> RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. 
>>  
>> Bill
>>  
>> From: Michael Black 
>> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM
>> To: Bill Ockert - ND0B  ; WSJT software development 
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>>  
>> Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending?
>> About 7% of users use that according to my logs.
>> 
>> Mike W9MDB
>>  
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B > > wrote:
>> Jay,
>> 
>> I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
>> for well over a year
>> because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
>> modes, one
>> of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
>> LOTW
>> and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with
>> WAS,  I am
>> not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
>> get a
>> resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about
>> ready for McDonalds
>> or the glue factory.
>> 
>> Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
>> QSO
>> and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
>> essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
>> receiving an RRR.
>> 
>> If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
>> just as it
>> is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact.
>> At one point
>> I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
>> second
>> time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and
>> offering a
>> retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
>> stations what
>> to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
>> terminate the contact
>> immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry.
>> The person
>> who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
>> change
>> so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.
>> 
>> As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened
>> but oh well...
>> 
>> I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
>> should be to
>> enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That is
>> both
>> for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program
>> all of the
>> variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark
>> there should
>> be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  There
>> is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled
>> reasonably well in the WSJT
>> ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX.
>> 
>> For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto
>> sequencer and advance
>> if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict.
>> 
>> 73 de Bill ND0B
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jay Hainline
>> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
>> To: WSJT software development
>> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>> 
>> Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to
>> that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just
>> bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the
>> 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did
>> manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged.
>> 
>> 73 Jay
>> 
>> Jay Hainline KA9CFD
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[Jay Hainline]

Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER reports 
had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would be in 
receiving 2 "Rogers" instead of 3. :-)


Jay KA9CFD 
Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone

 Original message 
From: George J Molnar  
Date: 08/24/2015  5:23 PM  (GMT-06:00) 
To: Bill Ockert - ND0B , WSJT software development 
 
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto
sequencer 

Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good 
way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign.


George J Molnar, CEM, CHPPNevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator
@GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM
On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:








Mike,
 
No   I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it 
manually.  I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white 
space.  
 
Bill



 

From: Michael Black 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM
To: Bill Ockert 
- ND0B ; WSJT software development 

Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto 
sequencer
 



Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO 
ending?
About 7% of users use that according to my 
logs.

Mike W9MDB


 
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:

Jay,

I 
  do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes 
  completely
for well over a year
because of it.   I am one of 
  about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
modes, one
of about three on 
  both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
LOTW
and 
  12 and 160 meters.    I get on about twice a year to help folks 
  with
WAS,  I am
not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an 
  enjoyable experience and I
get a
resentful when folks start counting 
  teeth...  I already know I am about
ready for McDonalds
or the glue 
  factory.

Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is 
  considered a minimal
QSO
and I am in complete agreement with 
  it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
essential elements of if 
  are complete and that includes one station
receiving an RRR.

If 
  others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
just 
  as it
is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal 
  contact.
At one point
I had a much more lenient policy about that which 
  included sending TX3 a
second
time then emailing the station letting 
  them know what the issue was and
offering a
retry.   However I 
  was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
stations what
to 
  transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
terminate 
  the contact
immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not 
  offer a retry.
The person
who was doing the complaining called me a 
  crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
change
so it must have been 
  exactly the right thing to do.

As a personal side note I was hoping to 
  make it to 60 before that happened
but oh well...

I believe if there 
  is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
should be 
  to
enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal 
  QSOs.   That is
both
for integrity of the QSO reasons and 
  because it would be a pain to program
all of the
variations that are 
  floating around out there.   The only question mark
there 
  should
be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the 
  contact.  There
is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I 
  believe is handled
reasonably well in the WSJT
ISCAT auto sequencer that 
  I hope to move over the WSJTX.

For those users who feel otherwise they 
  can always override the auto
sequencer and advance
if they feel the auto 
  sequencer was being too strict.

73 de Bill 
  ND0B


-Original Message-
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: 
  Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: 
  Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Not 
  logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up 
  to
that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and 
  just
bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was 
  send the
73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that 
  point. I did
manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was 
  logged.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL 
  EN40om

-Original Message-
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
Sent: 
  Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: 
  Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

The 
  auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually
acted 
  in a
benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely 
  ended the
contact
without the  benefit of logging it.

73 de 
  Bill ND0B


-Original Message-
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: 
  Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[George J Molnar]

Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good 
way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign.



George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP
Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator
@GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM

> On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:
> 
> Mike,
>  
> No   I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually.  I treat 
> RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. 
>  
> Bill
>  
> From: Michael Black
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM
> To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>  
> Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO  ending?
> About 7% of users use that according to my logs.
> 
> Mike W9MDB
>  
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:
>> Jay,
>> 
>> I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
>> for well over a year
>> because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
>> modes, one
>> of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
>> LOTW
>> and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with
>> WAS,  I am
>> not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
>> get a
>> resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about
>> ready for McDonalds
>> or the glue factory.
>> 
>> Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
>> QSO
>> and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
>> essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
>> receiving an RRR.
>> 
>> If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
>> just as it
>> is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact.
>> At one point
>> I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
>> second
>> time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and
>> offering a
>> retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
>> stations what
>> to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
>> terminate the contact
>> immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry.
>> The person
>> who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
>> change
>> so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.
>> 
>> As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened
>> but oh well...
>> 
>> I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
>> should be to
>> enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That is
>> both
>> for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program
>> all of the
>> variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark
>> there should
>> be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  There
>> is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled
>> reasonably well in the WSJT
>> ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX.
>> 
>> For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto
>> sequencer and advance
>> if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict.
>> 
>> 73 de Bill ND0B
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jay Hainline
>> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
>> To: WSJT software development
>> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>> 
>> Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to
>> that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just
>> bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the
>> 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did
>> manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged.
>> 
>> 73 Jay
>> 
>> Jay Hainline KA9CFD
>> Colchester, IL EN40om
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
>> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54
>> To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>> 
>> The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually
>> acted in a
>> benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the
>> contact
>> without the  benefit of logging it.
>> 
>> 73 de Bill ND0B
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jay Hainline
>> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM
>> To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>> 
>> I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using
>> WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was
>> running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message
>> button. The auto sequencer on

[wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[Bill Ockert - ND0B]

Mike,

No   I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually.  I treat 
RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space.  

Bill

From: Michael Black 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM
To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development 
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending?

About 7% of users use that according to my logs.


Mike W9MDB


On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:

  Jay,

  I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
  for well over a year
  because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
  modes, one
  of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
  LOTW
  and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with
  WAS,  I am
  not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
  get a
  resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about
  ready for McDonalds
  or the glue factory.

  Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
  QSO
  and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
  essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
  receiving an RRR.

  If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
  just as it
  is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact.
  At one point
  I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
  second
  time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and
  offering a
  retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
  stations what
  to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
  terminate the contact
  immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry.
  The person
  who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
  change
  so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.

  As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened
  but oh well...

  I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
  should be to
  enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That is
  both
  for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program
  all of the
  variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark
  there should
  be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  There
  is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled
  reasonably well in the WSJT
  ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX.

  For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto
  sequencer and advance
  if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict.

  73 de Bill ND0B


  -Original Message-
  From: Jay Hainline
  Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
  To: WSJT software development
  Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

  Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to
  that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just
  bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the
  73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did
  manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged.

  73 Jay

  Jay Hainline KA9CFD
  Colchester, IL EN40om

  -Original Message-
  From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
  Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54
  To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
  Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

  The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually
  acted in a
  benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the
  contact
  without the  benefit of logging it.

  73 de Bill ND0B


  -Original Message-
  From: Jay Hainline
  Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM
  To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
  Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

  I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using
  WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was
  running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message
  button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to
  TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the
  auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I
  copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as
  sending calls and 73.

  The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was
  pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX 1.6.1
  copy has always had TX4 programmed with

Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[Bill Ockert - ND0B]

Jay,

No toes stepped on.   I am actually quite surprised the discussion is about 
setting
the auto sequencer up to complete on less than minimal contacts.  I fully
expected instead to be having a discussion about the legitimacy of the
auto sequencer in general.

Bill



-Original Message- 
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:01 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

I am not the one that sent RR73. I just try and get along and use common
sense to complete the contact. :-)

It's too bad the world cant agree on a global standard for the sequences
which is the base of the issue. People think they want to tinker with it. I
just thought it might be good to think about how the auto sequence works.

Nevermind if I stepped on a toe.

73 Jay KA9CFD

-Original Message- 
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 3:40 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Jay,

I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
for well over a year
because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
modes, one
of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
LOTW
and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with
WAS,  I am
not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
get a
resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about
ready for McDonalds
or the glue factory.

Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
QSO
and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
receiving an RRR.

If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
just as it
is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact.
At one point
I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
second
time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and
offering a
retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
stations what
to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
terminate the contact
immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry.
The person
who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
change
so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.

As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened
but oh well...

I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
should be to
enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That is
both
for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program
all of the
variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark
there should
be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  There
is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled
reasonably well in the WSJT
ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX.

For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto
sequencer and advance
if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message- 
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to
that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just
bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the
73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did
manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om

-Original Message- 
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually
acted in a
benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the
contact
without the  benefit of logging it.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message- 
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using
WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was
running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message
button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to
TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the
auto sequencer can be programme

Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[Michael Black]

Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending?
About 7% of users use that according to my logs.

Mike W9MDB

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B  wrote:

> Jay,
>
> I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes
> completely
> for well over a year
> because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
> modes, one
> of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
> LOTW
> and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with
> WAS,  I am
> not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
> get a
> resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about
> ready for McDonalds
> or the glue factory.
>
> Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
> QSO
> and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
> essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
> receiving an RRR.
>
> If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
> just as it
> is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact.
> At one point
> I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
> second
> time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and
> offering a
> retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
> stations what
> to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
> terminate the contact
> immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry.
> The person
> who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
> change
> so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.
>
> As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened
> but oh well...
>
> I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
> should be to
> enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That
> is
> both
> for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program
> all of the
> variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark
> there should
> be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  There
> is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled
> reasonably well in the WSJT
> ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX.
>
> For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto
> sequencer and advance
> if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict.
>
> 73 de Bill ND0B
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Hainline
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
> To: WSJT software development
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>
> Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to
> that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just
> bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send
> the
> 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did
> manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged.
>
> 73 Jay
>
> Jay Hainline KA9CFD
> Colchester, IL EN40om
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54
> To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>
> The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually
> acted in a
> benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the
> contact
> without the  benefit of logging it.
>
> 73 de Bill ND0B
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Hainline
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM
> To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
>
> I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using
> WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was
> running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message
> button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to
> TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where
> the
> auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I
> copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as
> sending calls and 73.
>
> The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was
> pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX
> 1.6.1
> copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and RRR.
>
> 73 Jay
>
> Jay Hainline KA9CFD
> Colchester, IL EN40om
>
>
>
>
> --
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/li

Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[Chris Sullivan]

I think the answer to this is simple. All it requires is that all JT mode
programs print "RRR 73" when (sending and) receiving the standard RRR
message. It's just a sequence of bits after all, and not the actual text
RRR. Then the calling station could feel happy that they've sent 73 to the
responding station and not done one of (a) finished the QSO with a clinical
RRR before sending the next CQ, or (b) squandering another 2 minutes send a
fourth transmission to give the tradition ham radio signoff.

As far as I can tell people send RR73 or RRR73 or something similar just
because they want to be polite. Being Canadian I understand completely. Mind
you, getting everyone to update their versions would be a challenge.

(What really drives me nuts though is the CQ station responding to my call
with R-xx, which sometimes tricks me into sending RRR if I don't notice)

73,
Chris VE3NRT

-Original Message-
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B [mailto:n...@ockert.us] 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:40 PM
To: WSJT software development 
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Jay,

I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
for well over a year
because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF 
modes, one
of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
LOTW
and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with 
WAS,  I am
not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
get a resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am
about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory.

Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
QSO
and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
receiving an RRR.

If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal
contact. 
At one point
I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was
and offering a
retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other 
stations what
to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do
not offer a retry. 
The person
who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.

As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened
but oh well...

I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
should be to
enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That is

both
for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program
all of the
variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark 
there should
be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  There
is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled
reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over
the WSJTX.

For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto
sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message-
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to
that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just
bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the
73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did
manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om

-Original Message-
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually
acted in a benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely
ended the contact without the  benefit of logging it.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message-
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using
WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was
running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message
button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to
TX2 to send the report again. I

Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[Jay Hainline]

I am not the one that sent RR73. I just try and get along and use common 
sense to complete the contact. :-)

It's too bad the world cant agree on a global standard for the sequences 
which is the base of the issue. People think they want to tinker with it. I 
just thought it might be good to think about how the auto sequence works.

Nevermind if I stepped on a toe.

73 Jay KA9CFD

-Original Message- 
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 3:40 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Jay,

I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely
for well over a year
because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
modes, one
of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes,
LOTW
and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with
WAS,  I am
not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I
get a
resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about
ready for McDonalds
or the glue factory.

Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal
QSO
and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station
receiving an RRR.

If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
just as it
is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact.
At one point
I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a
second
time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and
offering a
retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
stations what
to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
terminate the contact
immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry.
The person
who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
change
so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.

As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened
but oh well...

I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
should be to
enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That is
both
for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program
all of the
variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark
there should
be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  There
is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled
reasonably well in the WSJT
ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX.

For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto
sequencer and advance
if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message- 
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to
that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just
bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the
73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did
manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om

-Original Message- 
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually
acted in a
benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the
contact
without the  benefit of logging it.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message- 
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using
WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was
running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message
button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to
TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the
auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I
copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as
sending calls and 73.

The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was
pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX 1.6.1
copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and RRR.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om



--

Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[Bill Ockert - ND0B]

Jay,

I do not view it as harsh.  Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely 
for well over a year
because of it.   I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF 
modes, one
of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of  one on JT HF modes, 
LOTW
and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with 
WAS,  I am
not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I 
get a
resentful when folks start counting teeth...  I already know I am about 
ready for McDonalds
or the glue factory.

Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal 
QSO
and I am in complete agreement with it.   A QSO is complete when all of the
essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station 
receiving an RRR.

If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business 
just as it
is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. 
At one point
I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a 
second
time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and 
offering a
retry.   However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other 
stations what
to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I 
terminate the contact
immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. 
The person
who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the 
change
so it must have been exactly the right thing to do.

As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened 
but oh well...

I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions 
should be to
enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs.   That is 
both
for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program 
all of the
variations that are floating around out there.   The only question mark 
there should
be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact.  There
is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled 
reasonably well in the WSJT
ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX.

For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto 
sequencer and advance
if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message- 
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to
that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just
bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the
73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did
manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om

-Original Message- 
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually
acted in a
benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the
contact
without the  benefit of logging it.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message- 
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using
WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was
running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message
button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to
TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the
auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I
copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as
sending calls and 73.

The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was
pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX 1.6.1
copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and RRR.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om



--
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


--
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



--
___
wsjt-deve

Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[Jay Hainline]

Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to 
that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just 
bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 
73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did 
manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om

-Original Message- 
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually
acted in a
benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the
contact
without the  benefit of logging it.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message- 
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using
WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was
running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message
button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to
TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the
auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I
copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as
sending calls and 73.

The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was
pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX 1.6.1
copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and RRR.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om



--
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


--
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



--
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[Bill Ockert - ND0B]

The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually 
acted in a
benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the 
contact
without the  benefit of logging it.

73 de Bill ND0B


-Original Message- 
From: Jay Hainline
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using
WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was
running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message
button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to
TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the
auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I
copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as
sending calls and 73.

The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was
pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX 1.6.1
copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and RRR.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om



--
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel 


--
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

[wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer

[Jay Hainline]

I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using 
WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was 
running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message 
button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to 
TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where the 
auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I 
copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as 
sending calls and 73.

The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was 
pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX 1.6.1 
copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and RRR.

73 Jay

Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL EN40om



--
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel