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,
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
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
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-
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
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.
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 n...@ockert.us wrote:
Jay,
I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes
completely
for well
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,
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:
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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:
17 matches
Mail list logo
