[Moon] Re: Moon Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19, Scheduled EME QSO's
Chuck Smallhouse
w7cs at theriver.com
Wed Feb 21 06:00:39 CET 2007
Although I haven't worked EME for a few years and then only on 144
and1296, as I recall (without looking into old log books) that my
ratio of random to scheduled QSOs was no less than 25:1. If you
count all the EME contest QSOs (in which full info is exchanged) the
ratio is much much larger than 25:1. Not only that, but often you
had more than one station calling on the same frequency then, and
guessing at call signs was not an option. Often more than the
minimum information was passed, such as GE/GM, GL, 73, Merry Xmas,
HNY, TNX, CUL etc. On 1296 I don't think that I ever had a scheduled
QSO, completing about 50 initials. Even on skeds, most operators
would not consider a QSO complete, unless he fully copied both call
signs. During the time that I was active, I completed more than 650
contacts with initial stations, VUCC on 144 as well as WAS (all on
EME) and about 93 DXCCs. The requirement to copy correctly, very
weak signals far into the noise (13-20 wpm), improved my CW ability
so much, that I was later able to pass the 20 WPM CW test for an
Extra Class license.
Also we didn't have e-mail capiblities with real time feedback on QSO
status and completion. In fact my computer generated so much RFI,
that I couldn't have it on while operating EME, and had to hand
position my antennas including a 5M dish on 1296.
Chuck, W7CS, WA6MGZ
At 08:58 AM 2/20/2007, you wrote:
>Send Moon mailing list submissions to
> moon at moonbounce.info
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.moonbounce.info/mailman/listinfo/moon
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> moon-request at moonbounce.info
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> moon-owner at moonbounce.info
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Moon digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. W6PO 2m amp cooling/ ventillation question. (Hugh Duff)
> 2. Here we go again.. (Peter Sundberg)
> 3. Random or scheduled (peter blair)
> 4. Re: Random or scheduled (SM6CKU)
> 5. Re: Random or scheduled (Joe Taylor)
> 6. Re: Random or scheduled (Jim Forsyth)
> 7. Re: Random or scheduled (peter blair)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:37:09 -0500
>From: Hugh Duff <hduff at cogeco.ca>
>Subject: [Moon] W6PO 2m amp cooling/ ventillation question.
>To: MoonNet <moon-net at list-serv.davidv.net>, moon at moonbounce.info
>Message-ID: <45DB3FD5.1000603 at cogeco.ca>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Work and family commitments have limited my hobby time but I'm finally
>getting close to completing my W6PO 2m 8877 amp. I have a question
>about venting the plate compartment;
>
>I designed the amp to use an inverted U shaped cover which also acts to
>seal the top of the anode compartment rather than a rectangular cover
>for the plate compartment and separate cover for the complete amp.
>For a cleaner look I thought about making the cover without vent holes
>in the top. Instead I would vent the hot air through suitably sized
>cutouts high up on the back side of the anode compartment. Obviously the
>better the tube can be cooled and vented, the better but I wonder if
>anyone else done this without any ill effects or would I be asking for
>trouble with overheating ?
>
>Also, Is there a recommended material i.e. mesh/perforated steel etc.
>for RF screening at the blower intake of the input compartment and the
>exhaust hole(s) of the plate compartment ?
>
>73 de Hugh VA3TO
>www.va3to.com
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:30:23 +0000
>From: Peter Sundberg <sm2cew at telia.com>
>Subject: [Moon] Here we go again..
>To: moon at moonbounce.info
>Message-ID: <20070220203039.A3297A4006 at mail.skekraft.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>In his quest for acceptance of the extremely limited transfer of data in a
>JT65 Deep Search QSO, K1JT is endlessly suggesting that all CW operators
>are cheating when working EME skeds.
>
>This is his latest statement, sent via email to all the representatives of
>the IARU Region 1 meeting in Vienna next weekend:
>
>
>"JT65 QSOs require the transfer in each direction of a minimum of 16 bits
>of information. Thus, even when the "Deep Search" decoder is
>used, JT65 QSOs transfer about five times more information than
>the most marginal scheduled QSOs using CW."
>
>
>I must say, this is nothing but an insult.
>
>He is saying that Deep Search transfers FIVE TIMES more info than a CW QSO,
>where I COPY both calls, plus report, plus acknowledgement...???
>
>NOT SO!!!
>
>The standard, and fully accepted, EME procedure says that if I don't COPY
>the information, then it is not a valid QSO! Period.
>
>DJ5HG has recently published a very interesting document, explaining that
>if we fill the CALL3.TXT file with more calls, the DS decoder will ALWAYS
>produce false decodes. Confidence is zero.
>
>Klaus has also suggested quantative guidelines for digital QSO's, where
>confidence in the decode is not an issue. It is fully possible to produce a
>software that would meet these criteria, thus matching digital QSO's with
>old accepted standards for analogue.
>
>see http://www.sm2cew.com/IARU_GeneralComment_DJ5HG.pdf
>
>Klaus ends his document by stating, that Deep Search would not conform to
>these basic guidelines because of the way it is constructed.
>
>Joe Taylors comment about this document is; "Nothing in the DJ5HG analysis
>is incorrect."
>
>
>Furthermore, Joe Taylors statement from April 2006 on Moon-Net:
>
>"Digital communication modes are different. Their quantities of
>information transfer can be measured objectively. The QSO guidelines
>for traditional modes are an obvious and reasonable starting point, but
>you and others have persuaded me that we could benefit from having more
>explicit guidelines for digital QSOs -- probably something quantitative,
>something capable of establishing with objectively high confidence that
>the quantitative guidelines have been met.
>
>I hope to work with DJ5HG, and perhaps others, to produce some
>recommendations which address this perceived need.
>
>Many thanks for your continuing interest!
>
>With best wishes,
>-- Joe, K1JT"
>
>
>It is TIME for Joe Taylor to stand up for his words, and not continously
>belittle the CW operators.
>
>73 de Peter SM2CEW
>www.sm2cew.com
>http://blog.sm2cew.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:58:33 -0000
>From: "peter blair" <g3ltf at btinternet.com>
>Subject: [Moon] Random or scheduled
>To: "freetalk moonnet" <moon at moonbounce.info>
>Message-ID: <008d01c7553a$44174bb0$0200a8c0 at D7BX6Z0J>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Joe Taylor K1JT has stated, in a submission to the IARU
> meeting, his opinion that " Indeed, until fairly recently
> scheduled contacts were the norm
>for nearly all EME work." Regardless of the issue of JT and digital
>modes, I have to say that for me " fairly recently " would be at
>least 20 years ago, probably more.
> Currently I make about 400+ eme QSOs a year mainly on 432,1296
> and 2320 MHz and I estimate that about 10 of these would be skeds.
> I looked back at my 1983/4 log book and there are indeed more skeds
> but still many more QSOs in there were truely random, so " the
> norm for nearly all" is wrong as well even 23 years ago.
> In my view the statement is just not correct..... or have I got it wrong?
>73 Peter G3LTF
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>http://mail.df6na.de/pipermail/moon/attachments/20070220/219e3309/attachment-0001.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:06:16 +0100
>From: "SM6CKU" <ben at parabolic.se>
>Subject: Re: [Moon] Random or scheduled
>To: "peter blair" <g3ltf at btinternet.com>, "freetalk moonnet"
> <moon at moonbounce.info>
>Message-ID: <002c01c7553b$5801e8a0$6601a8c0 at mshome.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Hi Peter
>No, you are very correct and that is certainly my own point of view too!
>73 de Ben
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: peter blair
> To: freetalk moonnet
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:58 PM
> Subject: [Moon] Random or scheduled
>
>
> Joe Taylor K1JT has stated, in a submission to the IARU
> meeting, his opinion that " Indeed, until fairly recently
> scheduled contacts were the norm
> for nearly all EME work." Regardless of the issue of JT and
> digital modes, I have to say that for me " fairly recently " would
> be at least 20 years ago, probably more.
> Currently I make about 400+ eme QSOs a year mainly on 432,1296
> and 2320 MHz and I estimate that about 10 of these would be skeds.
> I looked back at my 1983/4 log book and there are indeed more skeds
> but still many more QSOs in there were truely random, so " the
> norm for nearly all" is wrong as well even 23 years ago.
> In my view the statement is just not correct..... or have I got it wrong?
> 73 Peter G3LTF
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon mailing list
> Moon at moonbounce.info
> http://www.moonbounce.info/mailman/listinfo/moon
>
> Please enter/update your standings: http://www.vhf-dx.net/top.html
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>http://mail.df6na.de/pipermail/moon/attachments/20070220/a9106f79/attachment-0001.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:29:19 -0500
>From: Joe Taylor <joe at Princeton.EDU>
>Subject: Re: [Moon] Random or scheduled
>To: peter blair <g3ltf at btinternet.com>
>Cc: moon at moonbounce.info
>Message-ID: <45DB763F.7070104 at princeton.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Hi Peter,
>
>You're probably right about my "fairly recently" comment; you
>are certainly right when it comes to yourself and other well
>established stations. My point was simply to emphasize that
>scheduled QSOs, even thought they may involve much smaller
>amounts of transferred information, have always been considered
>legitimate QSOs.
>
> -- Joe
>
>peter blair wrote:
> > Joe Taylor K1JT has stated, in a submission to the IARU meeting,
> > his opinion that " Indeed, until fairly recently scheduled contacts
> > were the norm for nearly all EME work."
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:31:47 -0800
>From: "Jim Forsyth" <mail at jimforsyth.com>
>Subject: Re: [Moon] Random or scheduled
>To: "freetalk moonnet" <moon at moonbounce.info>
>Message-ID: <004501c7553e$e9497ff0$0100a8c0 at HIGHDESERT>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Well you have got it wrong in at least one respect. According to
>your quote he did not say "Indeed, until fairly recently scheduled
>contacts were the norm at G3LTF" so you cannot take data from your
>own log and conclude from that that the statement is not correct.
>
>Jim, AF6O
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: peter blair
> To: freetalk moonnet
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:58 PM
> Subject: [Moon] Random or scheduled
>
>
> Joe Taylor K1JT has stated, in a submission to the IARU
> meeting, his opinion that " Indeed, until fairly recently
> scheduled contacts were the norm
> for nearly all EME work." Regardless of the issue of JT and
> digital modes, I have to say that for me " fairly recently " would
> be at least 20 years ago, probably more.
> Currently I make about 400+ eme QSOs a year mainly on 432,1296
> and 2320 MHz and I estimate that about 10 of these would be skeds.
> I looked back at my 1983/4 log book and there are indeed more skeds
> but still many more QSOs in there were truely random, so " the
> norm for nearly all" is wrong as well even 23 years ago.
> In my view the statement is just not correct..... or have I got it wrong?
> 73 Peter G3LTF
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon mailing list
> Moon at moonbounce.info
> http://www.moonbounce.info/mailman/listinfo/moon
>
> Please enter/update your standings: http://www.vhf-dx.net/top.html
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>http://mail.df6na.de/pipermail/moon/attachments/20070220/1e06626e/attachment-0001.htm
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:52:02 -0000
>From: "peter blair" <g3ltf at btinternet.com>
>Subject: Re: [Moon] Random or scheduled
>To: "Jim Forsyth" <mail at jimforsyth.com>, "freetalk moonnet"
> <moon at moonbounce.info>
>Message-ID: <00f501c75541$bc7f19f0$0200a8c0 at D7BX6Z0J>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> OK Jim, but my log is the only one I have to hand so I'm inviting
> others ( if they wish) to make their own estimates of whether the
> generalisation is correct.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Forsyth
> To: freetalk moonnet
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Moon] Random or scheduled
>
>
> Well you have got it wrong in at least one respect. According to
> your quote he did not say "Indeed, until fairly recently scheduled
> contacts were the norm at G3LTF" so you cannot take data from your
> own log and conclude from that that the statement is not correct.
>
> Jim, AF6O
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: peter blair
> To: freetalk moonnet
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:58 PM
> Subject: [Moon] Random or scheduled
>
>
> Joe Taylor K1JT has stated, in a submission to the IARU
> meeting, his opinion that " Indeed, until fairly recently
> scheduled contacts were the norm
> for nearly all EME work." Regardless of the issue of JT and
> digital modes, I have to say that for me " fairly recently " would
> be at least 20 years ago, probably more.
> Currently I make about 400+ eme QSOs a year mainly on
> 432,1296 and 2320 MHz and I estimate that about 10 of these would
> be skeds. I looked back at my 1983/4 log book and there are indeed
> more skeds but still many more QSOs in there were truely
> random, so " the norm for nearly all" is wrong as well even 23 years ago.
> In my view the statement is just not correct..... or have I
> got it wrong?
> 73 Peter G3LTF
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon mailing list
> Moon at moonbounce.info
> http://www.moonbounce.info/mailman/listinfo/moon
>
> Please enter/update your standings: http://www.vhf-dx.net/top.html
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon mailing list
> Moon at moonbounce.info
> http://www.moonbounce.info/mailman/listinfo/moon
>
> Please enter/update your standings: http://www.vhf-dx.net/top.html
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>http://mail.df6na.de/pipermail/moon/attachments/20070220/58b91f21/attachment.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Moon mailing list
>Moon at moonbounce.info
>http://www.moonbounce.info/mailman/listinfo/moon
>
>
>End of Moon Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19
>***********************************
More information about the Moon
mailing list