[Moon] QSO or not?

Wed May 2 17:40:53 CEST 2007

Hi Joe

well it is obvious to me that freedom of speech, freedom of advancing EME
knowledge even on subjects not related to RF, is open to all. This is
worthwhile, at least for me. Therefore, i do not quite understand the new terms
you use and assumptions you make, in a rather provocative way. I do not follow
your tone and speculative comments.
But i prefer to not go into them as this is not fruitfull for the well being of
our favorite mode.

EME, at least to my knowledge, has high operating standards and an admirable
history in the course of the last 35+ years. For those that respect that, i
find it educating to ask well meant and well mannered questions in reference to
a QSO that did not take place; so as to get to know more about a new mode, in
case operating status within a pile up or one of its features, was the reason
for the alleged QSO.
Apparently, we were told it was a typing error from the dxpedition side. But if
it was not and noone had asked? Wouldn't it be interesting to learn why it
happened so as to not repeat itself? The approach of never ask, never tell, is
the preferred agenda of JT65? I doubt it, and i hope you agree.
Because the reason for posting my question in the first place was the ''Believe
what you see'' doctrine and I am glad i didn't. 

73,
Jimmy SV1BTR

> Hi Jimmy and all,
> 
> jimmyv at hol.gr wrote:
> > Dear Bernd
> > 
> > thank you for your reply. 
> > I am glad it was a typing error, as this can happen to anyone. 
> > Now even a mistake in a cw qso, one side thinking it was complete and other
> side
> > believing it is not, can also very rarely happen under marginal conditions,
> even
> > to experienced operators.
> > 
> > Have a good travel & 73,
> > Jimmy SV1BTR
> 
> So, it seems that once again the "QSO Police" made a big 
> noise over nothing ... and others made the noise louder and 
> more unpleasant by adding their own irrelevant interpretations.
> 
> Perhaps the most revealing sentence in the brief flurry of 
> emails is this one:
> 
> DF2ZC at gmx.de wrote:
>  > Of course if it had been a cw QSO and I had made this
>  > typing error, nobody would have written an email to the
>  > reflector.
> 
> To all those who hunger for more activity on CW EME, 
> especially on 144 MHz: it might make a big difference if 
> your club seemed more friendly and welcoming to potential 
> new members.  You seem to go out of your way to make it as 
> unfriendly as possible.
> 
> 	-- 73, Joe, K1JT
> 

  Ημερομηνία:Wed,  2 May 2007 11:19:54 +0300
    Από:jimmyv at hol.gr
Απάντηση-Προς:jimmyv at hol.gr
 Θέμα:[Moon] QSO or not?
       Προς:moon at moonbounce.info, moon-net at list-serv.davidv.net

Hello all

I am trying to understand how JT65 works sometimes (even without Deep Search!),
especially when it comes to expeditions. I am confused. 
Could you please explain to me how is possible to have a QSO as complete in the
log of an expedition, when the station calling them says it is not complete?
However, expedition says it has data files for all QSOs. So does the station
trying to work them. So where is the error? 
This is even more profound because in the case of JT65 it is even more
difficult
to make a personal judgement mistake. Since software algorithms do the decision
making for you and we have been told that reliability of a contact remains
intact. Regardless of signal level.

As i do not question the integrity and experience of operators in the specific
expedition (in fact they are experienced operators with good operating
standards), neither do i question the experience and integrity of the
particular station calling them, then is it the JT65 software generating the
error? I think, and hope, not.

Perhaps is it the plain shorthand messages? To me, it looks like this being the
reason, because shorthand messages are not accompanied with callsigns (unless
the Big exception of someone transferring both reports and callsigns as unknown
text). Therefore, using the standard format of shorthand messages, in a pileup
situation, one can not be sure if the RO or Rs received was for him or
not...(as logger extract shows below at 5:19)
We have seen situations with other expeditions in the past.

To substantiate my argument and subsequent confusion with facts, pls find below
extracts of ON4KST logger showing PE1BTX saying to ZB2/DH7FB he did not have
complete QSO with ZB2 expedition. At the end of this mail, pls see the log of
ZB2 expedition where QSO is listed as complete.

Once more, i will repeat this is nothing personal and NOT aiming the operators
involved; the specific case is merely used as another example. But just
scratching my head as to how some QSOs eventually take place and the totally
different outcomes reached. Your help in understanding what is happening is
appreciated!

Thanks in advance & 73,
Jimmy SV1BTR

ON4KST logger:
05:26:40 PE1BTX Gerard 4X12/QRO Frank, but despite my NC congrats on your FB
operation, you gave a lot of stations a new DXCC 
05:24:05 DH7FB frank gerard, yes in next time we will also do this 
05:19:50 PE1BTX Gerard 4X12/QRO Frank, could be, pse look my EME log
http://www.pe1btx.nl/EME%20initials%20all%20bands.htm 
05:19:16 DH7FB frank gerard, so the received "ro" came fm another stn maybe 
05:16:17 PE1BTX Gerard 4X12/QRO Yep, NC for me, but already wkd ZB2IQ back in
1983 on ES, and confirmed 
05:13:57 PE1BTX Gerard 4X12/QRO Found my QSO complete in the log, but never
send RO to him on 21st, so not complete for me, did not even had a decent
decode
on 21st, very strange 

PE1BTX Log (bottom of his webpage)
http://www.pe1btx.nl/EME%20initials%20all%20bands.htm 

ZB2 log:
http://www.df2zc.de/hamradioresults/seite5/022c0a991e127580c/index.html#022c0a992008a0a01
EME
21.04.2007
1110-1113 PE1BTX O/RO -21 dB C 9

> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 