Re: LF: WSPR a QSO mode not just beacon

[Rik Strobbe <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be>]

Roger

for WSPR QSO's you need WSJT7, that beside other modes also supports WSPR.
TheWSPR protocol is widened to allow the exchange of report and other  
information.
This in contradiction to the WSPR software where the format is limited  
to call-locator-power.
WSJT7 also does not upload to wsprnet.org and the WSPR software  
ignores any format that differs from call-locator-power.
So a WSPR QSO is really 2-way without any 3rd party (such as  
wsprnet.org) being involved.
73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

Quoting Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com>:

> Now I am unclear what really constitutes a WSPR QSO. Does me getting  
>  a WSPR database report from XX3XXX and he getting on from me at  
> much  the same time on the same database constitute a QSO? Or does  
> it have  to be a "real" QSO a bit like JT6m?
> I agree with Rik that an HF contest exchange contains less (mutually  
>  useful) data than either of these.
> 73s
> Roger G3XBM
>
> 2009/11/20 James Cowburn   
> <james.cowburn@virgin.net<mailto:james.cowburn@virgin.net>>
> Dear All,
>
> According to the ARRL, WSPR contacts, if verified as two way, will qualify
> towards DXCC awards as they consider these to be a QSO mode and not simply a
> beacon.
>
> As there is an exchange of callsign, locator and signal strength then that
> was deemed sufficient by the ARRL to qualify for DXCC and as a QSO in a data
> mode much like RTTY or PSK31 for example.
>
> This was discussed at the recent RSGB conference in a session on WSPR.
>
> With best regards
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   
> owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org<mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org<mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>] On Behalf Of mal   
> hamilton
> Sent: 20 November 2009 19:54
> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org<mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WD2XES WSPR 136.0
>
> Recently there has been an upsurge in wspr BEACON appliance operators and
> your suggested frequency area is not the place for them. The bottom end
> would keep Beacon acty out of the way. There would still be room for the odd
> EU qrs operator, can't say I have heard many in recent years. The freq area
> 137 - 138 k/cs is frequently occupied by Russian and other EU dxers for
> inter Country working using CW and     QRS and 136.5 - 137 for local CW
> working.
> NA stns wishing to work EU would still use 137 - 138 on CW and  QRS and not
> be clobbered by wspr carriers going ON/OFF.
> I hope you see the logic
> G3KEV
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <w1tag@charter.net<mailto:w1tag@charter.net>>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org<mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>>
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 7:16 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WD2XES WSPR 136.0
>
>
> > Thanks for the suggestion, but I doubt it will cause you any more
> interference than it has for the last 5 years. From our perspective, the
> lower end of the band has long been reserved for EU to NA operation.
> > John, W1TAG
> >
> > ---- mal hamilton   
> > <g3kevmal@talktalk.net<mailto:g3kevmal@talktalk.net>> wrote:
> > > om I woud suggest you Beacon at the extreme bottom end of the band and
> not
> > > in the middle of the CW and QRS DX portion.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
> http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
> G3XBM    GQRP 1678      ISWL G11088