[Moon] CW/WSJT

[Joe Taylor]

Hi Marko,

Thanks for your permission to share our private correspondence on the 
Moon reflector.  As you suggest, there may be no particular benefit from 
doing so; but one can always hope that there might be.

I look forward to many further discussions of EME topics with you ... 
perhaps next time in Florence, over a beer.

	-- 73, Joe, K1JT

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Taylor" <joe at Princeton.EDU>
> To: "Marko Tsekov" <lz2us at dir.bg>
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Moon] CW/WSJT
> 
>> Hi Marko,
>>
>> Many thanks for your message.  I especially enjoyed our CW QSO in the 
>> recent Dubus event.  When you tail-ended my QSO with SV1BTR, and I 
>> replied (at the end of my final transmission to Jimmy) "LZ2US UP 1", 
>> it was a particular pleasure to find you then calling me "UP 1", just 
>> as I requested, and to quickly complete our own QSO.
>>
>> I quite understand your frustration with the overuse of loggers in the 
>> EME world today -- most especially in contests, but also by 
>> DXpeditions.  If beginners want/need to make skeds, OK; that has 
>> always been a good way to get started.  But I would much prefer to see 
>> the majority of people calling CQ and answering CQs, without any 
>> parallel arrangements.  For some time now -- indeed, since I graduated 
>> from being an "EME beginner" myself -- I have nearly always operated 
>> in this way.
>>
>> Please write to the ARRL Contest Branch and tell them that you think 
>> loggers have no place in a contest.  Also that "Assisted" mode, if it 
>> must exist at all, should be open to a given station ONLY ONCE.  In 
>> subsequent years, a station who has once entered as "Assisted" should 
>> graduate to operating with normal contest procedures, finding stations 
>> and making QSOs without any non-radio pre-arrangement.
>>
>> Do you have any objection to my copying this brief private exchange of 
>> messages to the Moon reflector?  I think it could have some beneficial 
>> effect.
>>
>> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>>
>> Marko Tsekov wrote:
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> Let me first thank for the contest QSO!   Please do not understand  
>>> my words as personal attack!
>>> I respect you as fine CW operator, for sure better than me.
>>>
>>> There is another info,   that  gives me   these thoughts.  Last year  
>>> had agreement with EME DX pedition
>>> (I considered the operator as very good friend of mine, we have close 
>>> relations)  to make CW QSO. I spent  many hours to call him.
>>> At the same time he  did  digital contacts, of course  the logger did 
>>> the leadng role. ( I never use internet at my EME QTH.)
>>>
>>> This year, before  Dubus  contest had agreement with another guy 
>>> (rare contry, I did not worked yet). I considered that
>>> guy as my  very good friend too.  Spent few hours calling  him :-) 
>>> Aftewr the contest I learned which stations he made at the
>>> same time, of course the loggers did play the leading role 
>>> too.Digital operation again.  In fact digital  operation and loggers 
>>> are maried.
>>> The practice shows  that. I trust to what I see.
>>>
>>> What to think or what to say?  Except ........... the logger are 
>>> getting much  stronger than RF.
>>> For me  the EME is very important. It is big pain   for me to see 
>>> where it is going ............unfortunately  the role of RF is 
>>> getting less
>>> and less........  Internet  is doing the job.  Computers trying to 
>>> win the RF :-)  Probably they won :-)   Still wonder.
>>>
>>> 73 Marko lz2us
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Taylor" <joe at Princeton.EDU>
>>> To: "Marko Tsekov" <lz2us at orbinet.bg>; <moon at moonbounce.info>
>>> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:19 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Moon] Moon Digest, Vol 18, Issue 44
>>>
>>>> Hi Marko,
>>>>
>>>> Nobody should be making excuses for anyone who exchanges
>>>> information on a logger and improperly claims to have made
>>>> an EME QSO -- whether in a contest or otherwise.  I
>>>> certainly do not excuse such behavior.  (I also think that
>>>> the use of loggers should not be permitted in contests, but
>>>> that's another matter.)
>>>>
>>>> My count shows that 59 logs were submitted for the 2007 ARRL
>>>> EME Contest in the Digital and Mixed (unassisted)
>>>> categories.  My log is one of them.  I know that there was
>>>> no use of any loggers or other aids in my station, during
>>>> the contest.  I certainly do not agree, as you seem to be
>>>> suggesting, that "most" (or even "many") digital or "mixed"
>>>> operators behaved in any dishonorable way during the contest.
>>>>
>>>> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>>>>
>>>> Marko Tsekov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> If anyone thinks it desirable to have an unassailable
>>>>>> measure of "transferred information" in a contest, let there
>>>>>> be a contest that requires QSO serial numbers or some other
>>>>>> variable information that cannot possibly be known in
>>>>>> advance -- and let the information be measured by Klaus's
>>>>>> quantitative criterion based on the number of possible
>>>>>> outcomes and their relative frequency of appearance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>>>>>
>>>>> Good idea  but .............
>>>>> It is not   very simple to be made.   All information that  I have
>>>>> show that
>>>>> most of  "digital" operators are  in connection via loggers and so on.
>>>>> Perhaps it is  not   necessary to prove what I said :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> 73 de Marko LZ2US 
>