OMG, LoTW is not valid.
73
-Jim
NU0C
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 09:08:10 +0100, Bill Somerville wrote:
>no it is not just my opinion, for example this document is a good review
>of the various opinions of the recognized bodies that might be involved
>in the validity of QSOs:
>
>http://hf.r-e-f.org
Hi Bill,
I am always like to see your comments which inspire deep consideration for the
readers.
Attached reference indeed requires the confirmation of QSO but it does not say
express consensus method such as “73-RRR-RR73”. Then, I understand it allows
to use “implied” method without sen
The original 2.0.0 RC2 version does not work. I have to use a json trick
make it work. Normal user will not be able to use this trick. I cannot
modify and compile the source.
Another developer sent me a trial version (1.10.0) but that does not
work either.
2018-10-15 21:53 időpontban Neil Zam
FWIW I agree with the pro-73 group. It may be only a courtesy, but are we
so enamored of getting the next QSO that courtesy is unnecessary? Contests
are a different animal, but in day to day operation, I appreciate the
courtesy. In addition the need is documented in the several places, not the
l
On 16/10/2018 12:58, IK1HJS Carlo De Mari wrote:
Is there any of the developers listening...perhaps Bill is one of them...
Hi Carlo,
the option to just send one 73 message and stop has been in WSJT-X for
many versions:
73
Bill
G4WJS.
___
wsjt-dev
Everyone has his own way to make qso, and there is the possibility to
custimize the end of qso in the way you want...
My comment is that this not-compulsory part of the qso should not be
pre-compiled by the software... otherwise tons of 73 and 73 replys will
keep going on the band while the co
73 is only a compliment! QSO is OK, if both stations have given R .
73 Keijo OG55W
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
From: oe1...@oevsv.at
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 11:47 AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Why73 - RRR or RR73 ---isn't it a waste of time ?
Am
Am 16.10.2018 um 09:04 schrieb IK1HJS Carlo De Mari:
[snipped]
Hi Carlo!
In my opinion I would prefer 73's from both partners as confirmation of
the QSO. Only then a QSO (in digital modes) is to be classified as being
complete for me.
vy73
Enrico, OE1EQW
__
1. Configuration
- iMac 4K - 8 GB RAM - 1 TB SSD
- macOS 10.14 Mojave on APFS partition - wsjt-x for macOS
- Windows 10 on NTFS Bootcamp partition - wsjt-x for Windows
- microHAM USB Interface III
- Transceiver Yaesu FT-450D
2. Problem
- After a few hours of operation the output audio drops/disapp
On 16/10/2018 00:37, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
That is your opinion. All that needs to happen is both sides receive
some data. A confirmation is never required. I never get that when
working DXpeditions so why would I expect it on FT8. I never get
confirmations on my 60k contest contacts e
Gary, you didn't say your opinion on the subject. Why don't you dropp
off immediately instead of "SHOUTING" your statements ?
Do you think that everybody is always interested in all subjects of the
list ? The subject is perfectly in the object of the list, and nobody
complains ... it seems tha
11 matches
Mail list logo
