Return-Path: Received: from mtain-dg08.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-dg08.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.65.16]) by air-df02.mail.aol.com (v127_r1.1) with ESMTP id MAILINDF024-5ee94bb0ba89330; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:34:49 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-dg08.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id F022B38000101; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NwG2A-0005qi-Mz for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:33:42 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NwG2A-0005qZ-9A for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:33:42 +0100 Received: from cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.43]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NwG28-0007kP-Ib for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:33:42 +0100 Received: from smtps02.kuleuven.be (smtpshost02.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.75]) by cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E6A77B802A for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:33:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PC_van_Rik.fys.kuleuven.be (dhcp-10-33-85-106.fys.kuleuven.be [10.33.85.106]) by smtps02.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E65F3862 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:33:30 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:33:33 +0200 To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100329143330.63E65F3862@smtps02.kuleuven.be> X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Minimum content of a valid QRSS/DFCW QSO? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_27977016==.ALT" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d41104bb0ba861d5a X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 --=====================_27977016==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Stefan, for EME (see : http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/g3sek_op_proc.pdf ) The definition of a minimum valid QSO is that both stations have copied all of the following: 1. Both callsigns from the other station 2. Signal report from the other station (or some other previously unknown piece of information, e.g. the other station's Locator grid) 3. R from the other station, to acknowledge complete copy of 1 and 2. I believe this is a standard that also can be used for weak signal modes on LF. What you suppose almost meets this requirements, except for the fact that you (and Marcus) need to transmit both (full) callsigns at least once: Me: "dk7fc/p k" (the /p may be cancelled but it is "my label" ;-) ) Markus: "dk7fc df6nm O k" Me: "df6nm fc r M sk" Markus: "r sk" I think the "fc" in the 3dr transmission is not required. About the /p : optional, it takes 20 minutes in DFCW120 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T At 15:52 29/03/2010, you wrote: >Dear Group, > >Recently i talked to Markus/DF6NM what has at least to be >transmitted within a valid QSO in very slow DFCW. I mean a 2way >contact, not a beacon reception report! > >Those of you (and others) who have done successful TA QSOs may give >me an example. Are there official rules/laws about that? > >If i would do a QSO with Markus like that, would it be valid?: > >Me: "dk7fc/p k" (the /p may be cancelled but it is "my label" ;-) ) >Markus: "fc df6nm O k" >Me: "nm fc r M sk" >Markus: "r sk" > > >73, Stefan/DK7FC > > --=====================_27977016==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Stefan,

for EME (see : http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/g3sek_op_proc.pdf )

The definition of a minimum valid QSO is that both stations have copied all of the following:
1. Both callsigns from the other station
2. Signal report from the other station (or some other previously unknown piece of
information, e.g. the other station’s Locator grid)
3. R from the other station, to acknowledge complete copy of 1 and 2.

I believe this is a standard that also can be used for weak signal modes on LF.
What you suppose almost meets this requirements, except for the fact that you (and Marcus) need to transmit both (full) callsigns at least once:

Me: "dk7fc/p k"  (the /p may be cancelled but it is "my label" ;-) )
Markus: "dk7fc df6nm O k"
Me: "df6nm fc r M sk"
Markus: "r sk"

I think the "fc" in the 3dr transmission is not required.
About the /p : optional, it takes 20 minutes in DFCW120

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

At 15:52 29/03/2010, you wrote:
Dear Group,
 
Recently i talked to Markus/DF6NM what has at least to be transmitted within a valid QSO in very slow DFCW. I mean a 2way contact, not a beacon reception report!
 
Those of you (and others) who have done successful TA QSOs may give me an example. Are there official rules/laws about that?
 
If i would do a QSO with Markus like that, would it be valid?:
 
Me: "dk7fc/p k"  (the /p may be cancelled but it is "my label" ;-) )
Markus: "fc df6nm O k"
Me: "nm fc r M sk"
Markus: "r sk"
 
 
73, Stefan/DK7FC
 
 
--=====================_27977016==.ALT--