Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

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

from [Rik Strobbe] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: LF: Minimum content of a valid QRSS/DFCW QSO?
From: Rik Strobbe <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:33:33 +0200
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
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
 
 
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  LF: Re: Minimum content of a valid QRSS/DFCW QSO?, Alan Melia
Next by Date:  RE: LF: RE: for W1VLF, Paul A. Cianciolo
Previous by Thread:  Re: LF: Minimum content of a valid QRSS/DFCW QSO?, Andy Talbot
Next by Thread:  RE: LF: RE: for W1VLF, Paul A. Cianciolo
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]