Message-ID: <000601c2a50e$0b89ca60$4d6a0450@oemcomputer>
From: "Mike Dennison" <mike.dennison@ntlworld.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <000b01c2a4ff$bc781fc0$ea00a8c0@f3a3a2>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:18:45 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: QSO format
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

G3AQC wrote:

> I am attempting a X band contact on 73kHz, and would like to discuss a
> minimal X band QSO format,remembering that openings are short.
> As I understand it the requirments are for an exchange of full callsigns,
> and reports.If this so I would like to :-
> 1) drop CQ,  not required since QSO has been agreed.
> 2) drop RST, T is always 9 ! and S depends on the recieve set- up,so what
> matters is R readability.
> I therfore propose the following format for an imaginary QSO between
G3AQC,
> DFCW/QRSS  and W4DEX CW on HF.
>
> 1) G3AQC K
> 2) G3AQC de W4DEX  O O O  K
> 3) DEX R5 K
> 4) G3AQC de W4DEX R5 73 VA  EE
> 5) EE
>
> In the event that the QRSS/DFCW station misses a report he will request a
> repeat by sending  R IMI.
> How does this sound ?
> 73 Laurie.

In line 3, you need to send 'R 5' (roger your report, you are readability
5), not 'R5' (readability 5).
Purists may prefer to send a report, rather than readability, but I agree
that this is meaningless especially if the HF link is below standard owing
to using compromise antennas.
A QRSS repeat request should be just a question mark, IMI.
Line (5) is surplus to requirements.
This is as brief as possible but still includes the 'essential' elements,
full exchange of callsigns, reports and rogers.

Good luck with the QSO.

On a general point about QRSS procedures, I still see 'TNX' or 'TKS' being
sent, 'TU' is much shorter. Also do we need to send the very long '73'?

Mike, G3XDV
http://www.lf.thersgb.net
=================