LF: Re: Minimum content of a valid QRSS/DFCW QSO?

["Alan Melia" <alan.melia@btinternet.com>]

Hi Stefan that would align with what was done in the TA contacts (as far as
I remember) unlike other modes it is also useful to capture the waterfall
and store for posterity. There can always be a question about recognising a
smudge on the waterfall when you do actually know who is calling. and though
some do not realise having a local post a clean picture may be considered by
some to compromise the QSO. I was always in favour of the trasfer of an
unknown to the receiver element of information. This used to be done on ATV.
Markus did devise a way of validating very weak traces with reference to the
locally received element timing. It is legitimate to lay a timing template
against the waterfall and chech the edge positions to define the character
when you somtimes get a fade or interference in the middle of a long dash,
for instance.

I dont expect itwill count for DXCC :-))

Alan G3NYK

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefan Schäfer" <schaefer@hst.tu-darmstadt.de>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:52 PM
Subject: LF: Minimum content of a valid QRSS/DFCW QSO?


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