JT65 QSO's are they valid??

WSJT 65 (and variants) Discussion
VK3XDK
Forum Diehard
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Brunswick (Melbourne)

JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK3XDK » Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:57 pm

Gday everyone, I have been having a bit of fun with JT65 on HF (shhh, dont tell the VHF to microwavers :) )

I have found that many (especially the Russians (it seems)) tend to fast-track the standard message exchanges which technically invalids the contact. I wonder if others are finding these bad "habits" Or is it just mistakes on their end?

I have found myself (many times) wondering what to send to their BAD (or cheating?) message selection!
I have also not put all of these contacts in my log (they really are not valid)

Just to note- I have only been working 40M and 20M. It only seems to happen on 20M. (maybe this is a typical 20M thing? :( )

JT65 makes it too easy to begin with, cant we at least we can do it properly? !!!

gotta laugh at the stations using full-High power!


cheers, Graham VK3XDK

ZL4DK
Forum Novice
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:36 am

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by ZL4DK » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:38 pm

Yes I agree the standard message structure of JT65 (and FSK441) gives what is required for a minimal QSO and shrinking this down in any way would seem to make the QSO invalid. However if you look at many DXpedition or HF contest QSOs these rules are broken. I tend to think that technically to exchange callsigns both stations should actually say both callsigns. However in contests I have worked many stations who have never said my callsign, sometimes when I ask them who they are calling/working they just answer "you". Maybe standards have slipped a little over time or maybe my definition of exchanging callsigns is a little pedantic. I guess it doesn't really matter too much. However on a busy band where not all stations can hear each other it is easy to end up giving contest numbers to someone who is not actually working you if stations aren't careful with procedures.

Regards
David ZL4DK

User avatar
VK2KRR
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: The Rock Hill, Sthrn NSW.
Contact:

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK2KRR » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:04 pm

Graham, do you have some examples of what goes on ?
Leigh VK2KRR
The Rock Hill, NSW

Station monitoring Tropospheric & Ionospheric propagation 24 hours a day

VK2FAK
Forum Diehard
Posts: 919
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:28 pm

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK2FAK » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:21 pm

Hi all...

I stick to that standard message format whether they like it or not...

I know of many that will no confirm a QSL if to much of a short cut is taken...

John
Regards

John Vk2FAK

VK2GOM
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1675
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:16 pm

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK2GOM » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:28 pm

Same here - I will exchange calls (from my CQ or answering a CQ), locators, and signal reports each way as a minimum. I will sometimes 'free text' the final 73 depending on the QSO.

The real minimalist (but still valid) QSO's have to be JT65 EME. So any less than that on HF would not be, I would suppose.

73 - Rob VK2GOM / GW0MOH

VK4LHD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:52 am

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK4LHD » Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:19 pm

I'm a very heavy user of JT65 on HF (and a Microwaver. Shhh I won't say anything either Graham) and notice it quite a lot how a lot of stations make short cuts in the QSO by just exchanging calls and signal strength and that's it. I guess in some ways it's only one step that's been taken out but I personally prefer to do the whole procedure and make it a complete contact. I have seen it on a few bands and not just 20M. Some JA's do it a lot on 15M when the band is busy and they are trying to make a many contacts as possible. I never had any problems with people not accepting QSL's for incomplete contact.
But still the most annoying part is the stations running well over 100W and thinking that you need that much power to make contacts. on 20M I use a simple inverted V dipole sitting on the front fence and most of the time running 5-10W with an absolute maximum power 30W and I have worked 66 countries with this setup so there is absolutely no need for high power on this mode. All you doing by using high power is making it harder for others to use the mode.

Cheers
Robert.
VK4LHD

VK3XDK
Forum Diehard
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Brunswick (Melbourne)

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK3XDK » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:08 am

VK2KRR wrote:Graham, do you have some examples of what goes on ?
Um, not recorded BUT an example is

I send CQ,
station answers vk3xdk ***** -15 (which has skipped a step to start with, and leaves me wondering what the reply should be)

So typically i would send
**** Vk3xdk -10 (which keeps me correct this end)

Then many times i have looked at the next RX period to see them trying to work someone else. Seems as soon as they see a report- they disappear. (they dont even acknowledge that they have my report sometimes )

I should add that most (%90 ? ) of stations DO go through the correct messages, ( especially if they see me running only 5W on the previous contacts :) )
Last edited by VK3XDK on Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
VK3DXE
Forum Diehard
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK3DXE » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:12 am

I would probably go so far as looking them up on QRZ.COM and emailing them that I don't consider it a valid contact. Also maybe watch them for a while and email others they have had "contacts" with? Not a valid contact in my book.
Alan VK3DXE
QF21nv

VK3XDK
Forum Diehard
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Brunswick (Melbourne)

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK3XDK » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:41 am

VK4LHD wrote:I'm a very heavy user of JT65 on HF (and a Microwaver. Shhh I won't say anything either Graham) and notice it quite a lot how a lot of stations make short cuts in the QSO by just exchanging calls and signal strength and that's it. I guess in some ways it's only one step that's been taken out but I personally prefer to do the whole procedure and make it a complete contact. I have seen it on a few bands and not just 20M. Some JA's do it a lot on 15M when the band is busy and they are trying to make a many contacts as possible. I never had any problems with people not accepting QSL's for incomplete contact.
But still the most annoying part is the stations running well over 100W and thinking that you need that much power to make contacts. on 20M I use a simple inverted V dipole sitting on the front fence and most of the time running 5-10W with an absolute maximum power 30W and I have worked 66 countries with this setup so there is absolutely no need for high power on this mode. All you doing by using high power is making it harder for others to use the mode.

Cheers
Robert.
VK4LHD
I really agree with your High power comments,
You start to find ( i think i find) that when 1 or 2 stations are using high power, others start winding up to be heard. This creates a very noisy band when there is some propagation around "clobbering " the QRPs
Amazing how often you see 20M jt65 full of 20-over signals!

User avatar
VK3ZAZ
Forum Diehard
Posts: 799
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Hamilton Victoria Australia

What is a QSO?

Post by VK3ZAZ » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:10 pm

Whatever turns you on.

The only data I do is WSPR because the far end can only know who I am by decoding me.

A QSO is where an exchange of information occurs unknown to the other end before the qso.
IE RST or GRID or even a call-sign.
So if you enter a call-sign and grid into a template and some guy at other end comes onto VKlogger and says I have the decode and you are 5x5
is that an exchange or unknown info?

It is one reason why the EME CW records will prevail however there are some that say even those are corrupted if you know the call of the far end.

But then DX Summit and other clusters effectively compromise just about every dx-pedition that is worked where u know the call you know they are qsx UP and all you need to do is call call call call call and then you get 599 even though you maybe 339.

But in the scale of things people don't know where the internet ends and ham radio bands start any more.
Different age different people.

The mode has to be accommodated and us old fogies need to step aside.

Just don't ask me to do data because I am not interested.
And if you are not interested in CW or you cant read the code to save your life well, we understand each other don't we.


And yes the guy who lit up 6M with 1500w of wspr last year was a wanker imo.

Just like all the other 100w and 50 w wsperers.

its WEAK SIGNAL PROP not QRO prop

we know how to work each other with KW.

show people something that is new and not boring.

prove your JT mode is valid and not compromised..

2 cents
Tread your own path :om:

VK4WDM
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:40 pm

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK4WDM » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:32 pm

I do a lot of JT65 and stick to the agreed protocol. The only exception is if I see a station that I have worked before sending several CQs without an answer I will just send him a signal report to let him know he is being heard - I would not claim that as a valid contact for award purposes. It is logged as "signal report only."

I do get some emails asking to confirm a report and I tell them that I only confirm reports via radio.

73

Wayne VK4WDM

ZL3JT
Forum Novice
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:50 pm

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by ZL3JT » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:36 pm

A"valid" QSO for ARRL DXCC does not contain signal reports. Both station logs must have the following information in each log:

Call sign of the station contacted, the date, the band or frequency, the time in UTC, and the mode used.

JT65 is a "digital mode" so therefore it comes in the "DATA" mode category for DXCC awards.

Signal reports, no matter what is exchanged are not required to "validate" a QSO.

Some say the ARRL is not the authority for this, but the list of "entities" they produce is the main yard stick for all DX awards.

73

User avatar
VK2KRR
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: The Rock Hill, Sthrn NSW.
Contact:

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK2KRR » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:32 pm

Hi Graham

I'd fully agree with you there, its not a valid QSO if they dont confirm the correct reception of your report.
Even EME QSO format confirms the reception of the report OOO with confirmation RO.

That becomes the hard part about a digital QSO is that you dont know whats going on sometimes if they dont follow a QSO procedure. You dont know they've stopped or "completed" your QSO until you see them calling some other callsign. If they actually followed procedure and had a 73 transmission at the end would help.

Some people seem to so desperate to make contacts they'll take all kinds of short cuts.
Leigh VK2KRR
The Rock Hill, NSW

Station monitoring Tropospheric & Ionospheric propagation 24 hours a day

VK3XDK
Forum Diehard
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Brunswick (Melbourne)

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK3XDK » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:33 pm

Yea, you never see anyone missing any part of an EME QSO (I think that's why i find it so ridiculous on HF)
On eme, (as many know) it often even means waiting for a second "RO" or "73" just to make sure (especially if there is birdies around)

Many times we (me or the other stations) have stopped a EME QSO because someone else has sent message information to the logger. (Very frustrating but it invalidates the contact)

One thing that has become obvious with EME JT65QSOs is that being just "RO" or "73" One has to be careful that it is clear that they are going to the correct station. In a multiple RX situation I have nearly been caught out a couple of times. It is normally not a problem unless you have already semi worked somebody and they had disappeared so you try someone else. Any confusion normally means starting again with the QSO.

On HF i wonder if these "cheating" stations tell their mates-
3000 QSOs

OR

3000 signals seen?

I wonder if they even mention digital/JT65?

It would maybe not be so much of a problem except once these stations think they have worked you, they will ignore you from then on (all right for them i suppose)

I suppose it is a bit like the modern "hire a station" where people can work the world through someone else's setup (normally huge) even via internet.

TMWFTW (that's my winge for the week :) )

VK8NSB
Forum Novice
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:50 pm
Location: Darwin

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK8NSB » Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:41 pm

I am also a JT65 Dxer, and being a VK8 and I think the only one that is active on JT65, everytime I get on the mode I get a solid wall of people calling me, its amazing also but after a season on JT65 I get E-mails from people asking me to be on this mode more for them ... Yes I do short cut the QSO's, I do it to work the most amount of stations in the small time I get on the radio these days ..

I believe a QSO on any band / Mode is the exchange of a call sign and the signal report .. Thats what is happening with my JT65 QSO's.

I run 15w most times on Digimodes, and sometimes I have dropped pwr to 5w and still make great QSO's. As I have always said, the antenna is the most important part of any Amateurs station.

73,s Stuie VK8NSB
Stuie

VK8NSB
Darwin NT
Top End Australia

VK3XDK
Forum Diehard
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Brunswick (Melbourne)

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK3XDK » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:04 pm

I can understand situations where it would be very tempting to take a short cut- I get fairly "bored" my self at times going through the procedures, especially if the signals are big and there is no doubt. BUT if it is good for one-it is good for the other and we end up with a situation where we might as well jump on the telephone or internet.

BTW, i have just had a play on 40M/5W. Wondered why i was getting no answers- it appears that a "high power station" has been calling over me (obviously didnt hear me and started to call. he (or she)) is 20 over.

before anyone starts to give me s**** about my set-up, I actually do very well on 40M normally :)

VK3HJ
Forum Diehard
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:07 pm
Location: Benloch, Victoria.
Contact:

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK3HJ » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:30 pm

I guess nobody sends "QRL?" before calling CQ?
One gripe about digital modes generally, is that sometimes it appears that the digital caller does not "listen" on frequency to be sure it is clear first, or in this case "look" at the spectrum to be sure where he's going to call is clear of traffic.
As far as DX pileups in general go, the practice is NOT to send the DX station's callsign. He already knows it, and sending it wastes time. However, you had better be darned sure of the callsign of the DX BEFORE you log that QSO. When there are many DXpeditions on air concurrently, one often sees stations think they are working one DX, when they are actually working another. I always hang around long enough to see (or hear) the ID of the DX station, before I go looking for other DX. Always verify for yourself the DX cluster spot information. It's often wrong.
The various modes and sub-modes would each have their particular procedures, and it is incumbent upon the operator to be aware of them before messing things up.
As far as "short QSOs" go, they have their place, but few things annoy me more than the QSO where the CQ-er is obviously not busy, but has already started calling CQ again when I pass it back to him.
I prefer the modes I can copy by ear, but do have the capability for the computer modes too and sometimes play there too.
BTW, how many DX entities would there be active on air on the JT modes?
73,
Luke VK3HJ

VK3XDK
Forum Diehard
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Brunswick (Melbourne)

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK3XDK » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:49 pm

VK3HJ wrote:I guess nobody sends "QRL?" before calling CQ?
One gripe about digital modes generally, is that sometimes it appears that the digital caller does not "listen" on frequency to be sure it is clear first, or in this case "look" at the spectrum to be sure where he's going to call is clear of traffic.
As far as DX pileups in general go, the practice is NOT to send the DX station's callsign. He already knows it, and sending it wastes time. However, you had better be darned sure of the callsign of the DX BEFORE you log that QSO. When there are many DXpeditions on air concurrently, one often sees stations think they are working one DX, when they are actually working another. I always hang around long enough to see (or hear) the ID of the DX station, before I go looking for other DX. Always verify for yourself the DX cluster spot information. It's often wrong.

*****YES True, and i also notice that jt65 does go straight to replied report when the callsign is d-clicked (in a report first situ)

The various modes and sub-modes would each have their particular procedures, and it is incumbent upon the operator to be aware of them before messing things up.
As far as "short QSOs" go, they have their place, but few things annoy me more than the QSO where the CQ-er is obviously not busy, but has already started calling CQ again when I pass it back to him.
I prefer the modes I can copy by ear, but do have the capability for the computer modes too and sometimes play there too.
BTW, how many DX entities would there be active on air on the JT modes?
73,
Luke VK3HJ
I also notice that there is enough room to send "NO QSO" and they seem to take notice, us little fella's may be able to change something?

It is a very (embarrassingly easy) way to make DX contacts (Note, i am talking about the "easy" HF bands (40M and up)), surely we could do it correctly- it only takes around 4 (or 5?) min.

User avatar
VK5IR
Forum Diehard
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK5IR » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:21 am

Can some one please give me an example of a short-cut QSO?

I usually skip the RRR and go straight to sending "73" after an exchange, but that's the only way I can see how you can short-cut a QSO in JT65.
73
Theo
VK5IR

VK4LHD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:52 am

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Post by VK4LHD » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:55 am

Can some one please give me an example of a short-cut QSO?

I usually skip the RRR and go straight to sending "73" after an exchange, but that's the only way I can see how you can short-cut a QSO in JT65.

When they mean short cut they mean only doing a signal report and that's it. No RRR or 73.
in other words.

VK5MTM VK4LHD QG63
VK4LHD VK5MTM -08
VK5MTM VK4LHD R-06

And that's it. No RRR or 73 reply they go straight to the next contact. Some just skip the RRR and go to 73 which I don't mind too much but I see some don't even give the 73 and you only know the QSO is over when you see them calling another station.

Post Reply