Quality QSO

[W4MAJ]

What's your opinion as to what constitutes a QSO? I just got off the air, on 40-meters, with a station where we were only able to exchange call signs. Then the DX station fell below the noise floor.

So does that constitute a QSO or do you have to exchange radio and antenna type, eye color, and breed of dog?

This happens to all of us and I'm curious what you think.

[kd7msc]

I think for a QSO to be logged you must at least exchange callsigns and signal report. Everything else is just gravy. As for me I like to rag chew most of the times but I also like to chase DX and that is usually you are 59 QRZ. Have fun and 73. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[w3dub]

A signal report and callsign exchange is just that to me.. a QSO actually lasts more than 15 seconds. But that is my personal opinion.

In a QSO, I'm looking for more than just "KB3JGU, you're 59 from X, 73"

[kf6rdn]

For awards, legality etc a QSO is callsign exchange, for most contests it's callsign, report (signal or serial number etc)

Obviously the "bare minimum" probably does not a "quality QSO" make.

[AG3Y]

A "contest exchange" is simply callsign, and whatever constitutes the "report", sometimes RST or at least RS, and information like sequential contact number, section, state, etc.

A QSO has always been, in my mind, some exchange of thoughts, information, something that allows you to learn a little more about the other operator other than just the minimum that constitutes a "contest exchange".

In the days of the RCC ( Ragchews Club ) wen "chewing the rag" a good QSO would be at least a half hour long, and a LOT of information could be exchanged between two or more operators involved in that particular QSO. An informal net can consist of more than two stations, but again, a good QSO should go beyond the "bare essentials".

None of this is cast in stone, but a good QSO should make you feel a bond to the other operator when you are finished!

73, Jim

[N2RJ]

A QSO by definition can consist of just a callsign exchange.

A QSO is a contact, after all.

I enjoy both short QSOs and rag chews.

The point for me is not to talk, but is to see how far my signal is getting out. That's what the amateur radio service is about, no?

I don't think ham radio is about simply talking to other people. That's what a telephone is for. Nothing wrong with talking to people over ham radio, of course, but I think that the technical aspect should be first and foremost.

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ April 03 2007,07:52)]I don't think ham radio is about simply talking to other people. #That's what a telephone is for. #Nothing wrong with talking to people over ham radio, of course, but I think that the technical aspect should be first and foremost.
Wow. I often agree with you OM, but on this I couldn't disagree more, though I acknowledge this is certainly a matter of personal preference.

We use our knowledge and experience with ham radio to enable us to talk to other people. We try to get the best out of our receivers so that we can hear them. We try to get the best out of our transmitters so that they can hear us. We try to get the best out of our antennas for both.

We feel good when we improve things, feel disappointed when we make things worse. That's the technical side.

We use our skills at communicating.

If the point was not to talk with other people, then we'd never get on the air except when we'd made some change.

Mike

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (W4MAJ @ April 02 2007,17:45)]What's your opinion as to what constitutes a QSO? I just got off the air, on 40-meters, with a station where we were only able to exchange call signs. Then the DX station fell below the noise floor.

So does that constitute a QSO or do you have to exchange radio and antenna type, eye color, and breed of dog?

This happens to all of us and I'm curious what you think.
I don't think this is fair to those who don't have dogs.

To me, a "QSO" depends on the band, the time of day and the party on the other end. For example, on 75 meter phone at night, it must include an exchange of symptoms of physical illness, prescriptions and possibly location of last surgery. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[K3UD]

There was a time when I was working a contest or DX when I would give out 'accurate' signal reports. I almost never hear anything other than the traditional 5/9 or 599. Now I go with the flow.

Is there anyone here that gives out for real signal reports during contests? I know that WB2WIK does. The last time I worked him in a contest he gave me a 5/7 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

73
George
K3UD

[w3dub]

Quote[/b] (K3UD @ April 03 2007,11:53)]There was a time when I was working a contest or DX when I would give out 'accurate' signal reports. I almost never hear anything other than the traditional 5/9 or 599. Now I go with the flow.

Is there anyone here that gives out for real signal reports during contests? I know that WB2WIK does. The last time I worked him in a contest he gave me a 5/7 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
You know.. that annoys me. Except in contests (Yeah i'm guilty there)... the signal report is a true report. You're in no rush then, and can think of how exactly the signal is. I appreciate it.. helps me to understand how the signal is getting out.

Like MAJ said, it's going to vary among every ham.. but signal report exchanges are just that to me... QSO is a conversation http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[WB2WIK]

You're 59, 59 here...repeat all info...repeat all info...your call also? your call also?

[w3dub]

LOL I LOVE THAT.. Yeah, if I was TRULY 59 you wouldn't need a entire repeat! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[kl7aj]

Quote[/b] (kd7msc @ April 02 2007,17:49)]I think for a QSO to be logged you must at least exchange callsigns and signal report. Everything else is just gravy. As for me I like to rag chew most of the times but I also like to chase DX and that is usually you are 59 QRZ. Have fun and 73. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
yes.....VALID qso and QUALITY qso can be two very different things.

Breed of dog should be a minimum exchange. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

eric

[cu2jt]

Quote[/b] (kd7msc @ April 02 2007,17:49)]....
As for me I like to rag chew most of the times but I also like to chase DX and that is usually you are 59 QRZ
....
Yes, you get a 59 or 599 from the DX after he has asked for your call sign several times.

If you consider CU as a DX, you can combine ragchew with chasing DX. My normal QSO lasts for at least 10 minutes. I like to get acquainted with the guy in the other end.

If I want a quickie, I work contests.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ April 03 2007,10:10)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ April 03 2007,07:52)]I don't think ham radio is about simply talking to other people. That's what a telephone is for. Nothing wrong with talking to people over ham radio, of course, but I think that the technical aspect should be first and foremost.
Wow. I often agree with you OM, but on this I couldn't disagree more, though I acknowledge this is certainly a matter of personal preference.

We use our knowledge and experience with ham radio to enable us to talk to other people. We try to get the best out of our receivers so that we can hear them. We try to get the best out of our transmitters so that they can hear us. We try to get the best out of our antennas for both.

We feel good when we improve things, feel disappointed when we make things worse. That's the technical side.

We use our skills at communicating.

If the point was not to talk with other people, then we'd never get on the air except when we'd made some change.

Mike
No, you have it all wrong.

Ham radio was never first and foremost about talking to people. That is merely incidental.

Ham radio is a vehicle for experimenting with electronics and communications technology.

Talking with people is secondary and incidental to it.

The evidence of this is in both part 97 and also other countries' ham radio regulations.

Part 97:

Quote[/b] ](a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.

© Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill.

Essentially there is nothing in there that says that ham radio is simply for people to talk.

It is mostly about training in both communications technique and technology.

In Great Britain the radio regulations (at least used to) say that the only traffic allowed are remarks of a personal nature, and remarks relating to radio and electronics experiments (can't remember the exact wording).

In Trinidad and Tobago my license up until last year said "experimental wireless telegraphy license"

In Cuba hams were required to build a radio before they could get on the air.

Ham radio is indeed first and foremost about experimentation and self training. It is much less about simply talking with people.

[KE5FRF]

I have to disagree a little with Ryan too. And I also acknowledge that this is a matter of preference. I think ham radio is what YOU want it to be. For some of us, it certainly is about talking to people, making friends. For me, it isn't just about seeing how far my signal can go. I have Australia in my logbook. If it was about seeing how far my signal could go, it seems my interest in amateur radio would have ended with that QSO!

For me, it is about honing a skill and making friends in far away places. I would be the first to agree that I don't care for phone modes much because it seems too much like talking on a telephone. CW offers a comradere, and when I am talking to another CW op, I feel like we already have a lot in common..even if in reality we are very different. Here on QRZ, we open ourselves up. We discuss politics, regionality, religion, etc...and so we leave nothing unsaid or unspoken. Some of us even divulge without saying it our social status and our financial security. On the air, the guy I am talking to is neither rich nor poor, fat nor thin, gay nor straight, smart nor stupid. He is just another CW op. Unless he tells me some personal information, I treat him the same as any other, and his place in the logbook is just as important. Some ops you will encounter many times. Last night I QSOed with David, WQ3T in Pittsburgh. I do not know him, but we talked about our children. It was our third QSO I think. When I see his call, I immediately recognize it now. To me, that is special. So, it IS more than just the "contact" for me, it is the communication that is important. I had another QSO with a 28 year old op yesterday. This has got to be the youngest CW op in America!!!lol...I was disappointed that he seemed eager to end the QSO. His sending wasn't perfect, and I think he might have been a little self concious. I always feels a little let down by ops who are happy with a "ur 599" QSO. While sometimes that is good enough for me, I'd rather at least ask a question ot three and feel like I had a real QSO.

But that, of course, is a matter of personal preference as I said.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ April 03 2007,20:52)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ April 03 2007,10:10)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ April 03 2007,07:52)]I don't think ham radio is about simply talking to other people. #That's what a telephone is for. #Nothing wrong with talking to people over ham radio, of course, but I think that the technical aspect should be first and foremost.
Wow. I often agree with you OM, but on this I couldn't disagree more, though I acknowledge this is certainly a matter of personal preference.

We use our knowledge and experience with ham radio to enable us to talk to other people. We try to get the best out of our receivers so that we can hear them. We try to get the best out of our transmitters so that they can hear us. We try to get the best out of our antennas for both.

We feel good when we improve things, feel disappointed when we make things worse. That's the technical side.

We use our skills at communicating.

If the point was not to talk with other people, then we'd never get on the air except when we'd made some change.

Mike
No, you have it all wrong.

Ham radio was never first and foremost about talking to people. #That is merely incidental.

Ham radio is a vehicle for experimenting with electronics and communications technology.

Talking with people is secondary and incidental to it.

The evidence of this is in both part 97 and also other countries' ham radio regulations.

Part 97:

Quote[/b] ](a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.

© Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill.

Essentially there is nothing in there that says that ham radio is simply for people to talk.

It is mostly about training in both communications technique and technology.

In Great Britain the radio regulations (at least used to) say that the only traffic allowed are remarks of a personal nature, and remarks relating to radio and electronics experiments (can't remember the exact wording). #

In Trinidad and Tobago my license up until last year said "experimental wireless telegraphy license"

In Cuba hams were required to build a radio before they could get on the air. #

Ham radio is indeed first and foremost about experimentation and self training. #It is much less about simply talking with people.
I think the key, Ryan, in the regulations is that our communications are intended to be "of a personal nature". That means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I agree that this doesn't mean "for personal use" or "for personal communication". But it I don't think it puts any particular use of amateur radio over another.

[KI4NGN]

Everything quoted from part 97 boils down to communications. Unless you communicate with just yourself or automated stations, you must be communicating with other hams. License qualifications (having to build a radio, etc.) are just that...qualifications for a license to use the equipment.

Talking with other hams, regardless of the mode, is what it has ultimately always been about.

[ne3r]

I think I agree with Ryan in a way. The content of the QSO is of lesser importance than than the act of having the QSO, with a station that you (and/or hams in your club, if it is a club station) have set up, built, designed, and/or installed.

I enjoy the contest type QSO almost as much as I do a rag chew. If I find some DX running a pile up, I'll join the fun and make a quick QSO, if I find someone who wants to talk for a bit, I'll do that too.

I look at it this way, the quick contest QSO is easy, and proves the concept that yes, you can get a signal to some far off land, but the rag chew goes beyond the proof of concept and proves that you've built a station that can actually pass information to and from that far off land.

So, what is quality to me? Just about any QSO is a quality QSO.

73
Joe
NE3R

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ April 02 2007,23:32)]In the days of the RCC ( Ragchews Club ) wen "chewing the rag" a good QSO would be at least a half hour long, and a LOT of information could be exchanged between two or more operators involved in that particular QSO.
Hopefully, a two hour long 10m packet QSO would qualify?

Of course, this was roughly about 14-15 years ago when you could find conversational packet QSOs. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ April 03 2007,22:20)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ April 03 2007,20:52)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ April 03 2007,10:10)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ April 03 2007,07:52)]I don't think ham radio is about simply talking to other people. That's what a telephone is for. Nothing wrong with talking to people over ham radio, of course, but I think that the technical aspect should be first and foremost.
Wow. I often agree with you OM, but on this I couldn't disagree more, though I acknowledge this is certainly a matter of personal preference.

We use our knowledge and experience with ham radio to enable us to talk to other people. We try to get the best out of our receivers so that we can hear them. We try to get the best out of our transmitters so that they can hear us. We try to get the best out of our antennas for both.

We feel good when we improve things, feel disappointed when we make things worse. That's the technical side.

We use our skills at communicating.

If the point was not to talk with other people, then we'd never get on the air except when we'd made some change.

Mike
No, you have it all wrong.

Ham radio was never first and foremost about talking to people. That is merely incidental.

Ham radio is a vehicle for experimenting with electronics and communications technology.

Talking with people is secondary and incidental to it.

The evidence of this is in both part 97 and also other countries' ham radio regulations.

Part 97:

Quote[/b] ](a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.

© Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill.

Essentially there is nothing in there that says that ham radio is simply for people to talk.

It is mostly about training in both communications technique and technology.

In Great Britain the radio regulations (at least used to) say that the only traffic allowed are remarks of a personal nature, and remarks relating to radio and electronics experiments (can't remember the exact wording).

In Trinidad and Tobago my license up until last year said "experimental wireless telegraphy license"

In Cuba hams were required to build a radio before they could get on the air.

Ham radio is indeed first and foremost about experimentation and self training. It is much less about simply talking with people.
I think the key, Ryan, in the regulations is that our communications are intended to be "of a personal nature". That means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I agree that this doesn't mean "for personal use" or "for personal communication". But it I don't think it puts any particular use of amateur radio over another.
"For personal use" simply impliess that you aren't making any money. It is amateur radio after all.

But make no mistake, the technical aspect is supposed to take precedence.

There are lots of other means to go out and talk, which don't involve complicated equipment, antennas, propagation and the like.

Like I said, nothing is wrong with talking, but the technical aspect is first and foremost.

Nothing is wrong with regular round tables, for example or rag chewing about non electronic/radio stuff.

However, a ham who knows nothing about radio beyond operating it to talk and has no desire to learn about radio and communications technology including electronics theory really shouldn't be in the hobby.

In fact the hobby gets old quick for those people, because a lot of hams talk about the equipment and technical aspects, or even stuff like weather forecasting or even computers.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ April 04 2007,04:39)]Everything quoted from part 97 boils down to communications. Unless you communicate with just yourself or automated stations, you must be communicating with other hams. License qualifications (having to build a radio, etc.) are just that...qualifications for a license to use the equipment.

Talking with other hams, regardless of the mode, is what it has ultimately always been about.
Then why is all of this electronic theory in the exam?

It makes no sense to force this on people who simply want to operate an appliance.

Here's an interesting quote from the FCC when the Technician license was created:

Quote[/b] ]This class was established expressly for serious minded experimenters who need spectrum space in which to air test their equipment. It was not established as a communications service and should not be regarded as a stepping stone between the Novice and General operator classes. The Technician class of amateur license has as its purpose the provision for serious amateur experimenters to explore the higher frequencies and otherwise contribute to the art.

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ April 04 2007,07:22)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ April 04 2007,04:39)]Everything quoted from part 97 boils down to communications. Unless you communicate with just yourself or automated stations, you must be communicating with other hams. License qualifications (having to build a radio, etc.) are just that...qualifications for a license to use the equipment.

Talking with other hams, regardless of the mode, is what it has ultimately always been about.
Then why is all of this electronic theory in the exam?

It makes no sense to force this on people who simply want to operate an appliance. #

Here's an interesting quote from the FCC when the Technician license was created:

Quote[/b] ]This class was established expressly for serious minded experimenters who need spectrum space in which to air test their equipment. It was not established as a communications service and should not be regarded as a stepping stone between the Novice and General operator classes. The Technician class of amateur license has as its purpose the provision for serious amateur experimenters to explore the higher frequencies and otherwise contribute to the art.
Yes, experiment and contribute to the art of radio communications.

The difference between amateur radio and other services is that we are authorized to build, maintain, and repair the equipment that we operate.

The exams contain all of the technical matter as a means of assuring some minimum level of qualification to obtain that authorization.

You don't need a license to build a transmitter any more than you need a license to purchase one. You do need a license to operate it.

The key word is operate. You don't need a license if you're not going to operate the equipment. What does operate mean? Communicate with other hams!

Whether they use it or not, all amateurs have the authority to build, maintain, and repair their equipment.

The bottom line purpose of amateur radio is to communicate. Yes, there are many other ways to communicate, but we get into this hobby because we (some, many, most) enjoy having and using the authority to build, maintain, and repair the gear that we operate.

It would be pointless to get the license if we weren't going to operate the equipment, which means if we didn't communicate.

Mike