Here's the exchange I see frequently which RR73 would most certainly curtail….
CQ W9MDB EM49
W9MDB OH3T KP11
OH3T W9MDB -04
W9MDB OH3T R-03
OH3T W9MDB RRR
W9MDB OH35 73
OH3T W9MDB 73 – mind you I don't do this anymore once I found out RRR is
73-equivalent
Wait a minute….
CQ W9MDB EM49
This is what I see others doing (not me anymore) because the RRR is not easily
recognized as end of transmission unless you can glean that info from the help
docs.
I see all sort of ways done to shortcut it, RR73, R73, R 73, RR 73. It's too
bad there is a technical reason to avoid doing the RR73.
I've got over 8,000 JT modes in my log.
Just a count of what's seen since Sep 2014 in my ALL.TXT
RRR = 51809
RR73 = 4216
R73 = 201
R 73 = 168
73
Mike W9MDB
From: Toni Sormunen [mailto:o...@sral.fi]
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 1:54 AM
To: WSJT software development; o...@sral.fi
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] RRR as 73
Greetings!
This is my first post to this developer list. I have been following this list
for quite some time already.
I have been active on JT modes for nearly 3 years now (HF exclusively) 2500+ JT
mode QSOs in the log.
Regarding this discussion on RRR & RR73 and speeding up the report exchange
here are my 2 cents.
I am sorry to say that the proposed RR73 does not speed up anything. It just
adds a new dimension to message exchange. Please let me demonstrate my point.
These are actual QSO examples from my logs.
Standard QSO:
0443 Tx 2546 @ CQ OH3T KP11
0444 -4 -0.0 2547 @ OH3T UN7DA NO00
0445 Tx 2546 @ UN7DA OH3T -04
0446 -3 -0.0 2547 @ OH3T UN7DA R-03
0447 Tx 2546 @ UN7DA OH3T 73
0448 -12 0.0 2547 @ OH3T UN7DA 73
QSO with kind courtesy at the end:
2159 Tx 2546 @ CQ OH3T KP11
2200 -10 0.4 2542 @ OH3T DF9YW JO41
2201 Tx 2546 @ DF9YW OH3T -10
2202 -12 0.3 2542 @ OH3T DF9YW R-21
2203 Tx 2546 @ DF9YW OH3T 73
2204 -10 0.4 2543 @ TU TONI 73
QSO with RRR 73 (could be as well RR73) at the end:
0201 Tx 1497 # CQ OH3T KP11
0202 -18 -0.1 1494 # OH3T CO2YQ EL83
0203 Tx 1497 # CO2YQ OH3T -18
0204 -20 0.1 1494 # OH3T CO2YQ R-16
0205 Tx 1497 # CO2YQ OH3T 73
0206 -21 0.2 1495 # OH3T RRR 73
>From the examples above we can easily draw the conclusion that RR73 does not
>change the standard QSO structure. It is still six (6) overs to complete
>exchange of all information. Please notice, that I have omitted sending RRR
>for quite some time already. RRR does not add, in my opinion, any value to the
>QSO exchange.
The only way to speed up the QSO is to remove some information from the
exchange. Now we have to go to the very fundamental definition of the QSO. It
is mandatory to 1. exchange calls, and 2. exchange report. This is generally
accepted definition of the QSO. Locator, name, tx power, etc. is not needed.
For QRP and weak signal work the locator is a valuable tool and I like the 6
over standard QSO structure. However, if a DX would like to speed up the QSO
rate the following QSO structure of four (4) overs should be considered. This
is especially valuable when DX calls CQ on one QRG and his customers are
replying split.
0605 Tx 2561 @ CQ OH3T KP11
0606 13 0.1 2561 @ OH3T OH3NE +07 (*)
0607 Tx 2561 @ OH3NE OH3T R+13
0608 13 0.1 2561 @ OH3T OH3NE 73
0609 Tx 2561 @ CQ OH3T KP11
(*) some people send R+07 at this point, but I propose Tx2 instead of Tx3,
because it lands more nicely to the structure.
(If I get Tx3 I will still reply with Tx3 on my next over.)
Here (time 0609) I have omitted sending 73. 73 is implicit in the next CQ.
Otherwise I would have repeated sending the R+13 report.(This QSO exhange was
constructed by me working me :) with remote connection to our club station
OH3NE. That is why the reports are what they are.. Having confessed that, quite
a few stations have worked me with this exact four over QSO mode already, and I
have worked quite a few DX with this exact way (recent T6 activation for
example).
CU on the bands!
73s,
Toni oh3t
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Guy G4DWV/4X1LT <g...@drteeth.co.uk> wrote:
Michael Black <mdblack98@...> writes:
>
>
> Since RRR is the 73 for the CQ side this is a simple patch that allows RRR
to act the same as 73 for getting the log pop up window and advancing the
Next button.
> Does this sound OK or are there other side effects?
If RRR is the 73 for the CQ side, changing it to RR73 (as I have seen
proposed elsewhere) would make that quite clear - in 6 months of almost
exclusive JTx use, I never knew that as hams each end up sending separate 73
messages after the RRR.
73 de Guy G4DWV/4X1LT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
