From: "Mike Dennison" <mike.dennison@ntlworld.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:58:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4BB0DC53.11486.1CDAEAC@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>
In-reply-to: <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1BB6@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.1100329111459.266B-100000@noname.nodomain.nowhere>, <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1BB6@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de>
Content-description: Mail message body
Subject: Re: LF: Minimum content of a valid QRSS/DFCW QSO?
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


The requirement for the exchange of two complete callsigns makes 
extremely poor use of a limited time slot. Even HF DXers do not do 
this any more.

I believe there are two minimum requirements:

The first is to know for certain that the station you are listening 
to cannot be someone else (or something else). In this case a single 
letter (either pre-arranged or part of the callsign) should be 
adequate.

The second is a piece of unknown information. Usually this would be a 
signal report (though again HF DXers have scrapped the unknown by 
sending 599 every time). The "unknown" can be chosen from a subset, 
such as the numbers in a report or the 'O', 'M' or 'T' used in QRSS-
type modes.

And of course the timing of the transmission will serve as 
confirmation that this is not a random reception.

This may not please the purists, but it is certain proof of two-way 
communication, and (as I said) is better than a 20m DXpedition QSO 
accepted for DXCC will give you.

Mike, G3XDV
==========


> 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
> 
> 
>