FT8 TEST on air "DXpedition Mode" on 6 and 7 March !

FYI - TY7C reportedly is using FT8 DXped mode as a Fox, but so far when I have observed them they are only xmitting one frequency slot data stream. Compared to the recent OTA beta test where the Foxes were transmitting multiple slots (3-5).

And yes, they are on the "normal" FT8 channels, not on the alternate channels designated for use in the beta test. And by xmiting with only one stream, their observed QSO rate was a fraction of what was seen in the beta test, not much better, if any, then achievable using "normal" FT8 mode.

I am currently using WSJT-X v1.9.0 r8533 beta software. It allows switching between "normal" FT8 and DXped mode.

My first FT8 QSO with TY7C was on 30m @ 0039Z 3/9. It was confusing. At first, with them xmting only one stream low in the channel, it seemed it was "normal" FT8, but then I saw some xmsns containing data consistent with DXped mode.

I tried DXped mode but didn't get response, and saw then make some QSO's in what appeared to be "normal" data format. So I switched back to "normal" FT8 mode.

They were not weak, -11db at my end, and my xmtr output was 100w. However, call and call as I did, I had no joy. Then I noted their DT was being reported as >1.5 differential. My PC clock was exact per Time.is. So I tweaked my PC clock a bit manually just using the Win7 utility to better sync with them. That way I was able to get the DT down to 0.2.

Then I was able to pretty quickly made a full QSO. However, I was NOT using FT8 DXped mode, it was just "normal" FT8 with manual selection of TX1 and TX3. So there appears to be compatibility between the DXped mode and "normal" mode if manipulated correctly.

On 3/15 I made another FT8 QSO with them on 40m. That time I did not have to adjust my PC clock (it was again "exact") and again I used "normal" FT8 mode, not DXped Hound.

OH and TY7C is also in-the-log four times on CW and once on RTTY (no tally-ho required)

Best DX and 73, John, WØPV

 

So you are implying many MSK144 meteor scatter contacts are invalid according to IARU, as reports are not exchanged in contest mode and most operators stop at RRR. Yet for some unknown reason, we still get credit and awards for those contacts via ARRL and other organizations.

 

That's an unnecessarily low blow.

 

Good point. I also question the stated IARU position regarding signal reports and QSO validity.

Not just MSK144 but ALL modes in both the ARRL and CQ VHF contests require only the exchange of grid square data. Same is true in the Stew Perry Top Band Distance Challenges.

In the CQ VHF a signal report is specifically to be excluded from any submitted log. In the ARRL and Stew Perry it is only optional.

No RST in the ARRL Sweepstakes exchange either! Many operating events do not require signal reports.

 

Sergio and John,
Near the top of this discussion, Dave W7UUU elmered me that I should make myself acquainted with the entire context of the comments made in the discussion. I think elmering is one of the best elements of ham radio, and I am happy to pay it forward.

1. I do not imply anything. I am referring. If you you want to draw any implications from the information provided, feel free, as long as you present them as your implications, not mine.
2. This is a discussion on the on the air test on HF of the FT8 DXpedition mode. It involves no other mode than FT8, nor other part of the frequency spectrum than HF.
3. As a reply to a direct question from KL1T, I provided a direct reference. KL1T seemed to be satisfied as he "liked" the reply.
4. The information provided comes from an IARU Region 1 meeting in Sun City, South Africa in 2011, and from the very person who presented the proposal. The exact wording can be found in the Region 1 HF Managers Handbook chapter 2-1, page 2 (the 9th page of the pdf document), downloadable from https://iaru-r1.org/index.php/downloads/func-startdown/776/
For the benefit of the readers I quote:

A valid contact is one where both operators during the contact have
1. mutually identified each other
2. received a report, and
3. received a confirmation of the successful identification and the reception of the report.
It is emphasized that the responsibility always lies with the operator for the integrity of the contact.​

In chapter 2-1, page 3 (page 10 of the document), it states that for "report" the RST system is recommended, with the addition of the RSQ system for digimodes below 30 MHz.

Although IARU works to harmonize the three IARU regions, the different regions may have slightly differing wordings of their requirements for an HF QSO, but I believe they all include call sign, report and confirmation that the call sign and report have been received. You may want to check the definition for your IARU region.
5. Award issuers can issue their awards with whatever requirements they want. I believe there are very few award issuers today that require signal reports for a QSO to qualify for their awards, including ARRL for DXCC. However, I remember I saw many years ago that for one award that an RS of minimum 33 was required. Validity for an award is no guarantee that the QSO meets the IARU requirements.
6. Contest-makers can require whatever contest exchange they want, which may or may not include a signal report. Validity for a contest is no guarantee that the QSO meets the IARU requirements.

The above is relevant for my response to KL1T's question.

***​

Now some comments to your message.
7. MSK144 and VHF has nothing to do in this discussion on the HF on the air test of FT8 DXpedition mode.

However, since you bring it up, I'd add some comments:
8. MSK144 seems to be developed by professors Franke & Taylor, the developers of FT8. In the MSK144 part of WSJT-X instruction manual, it appears that the contents of an MSK144 QSO are quite similar to those of an FT8 QSO, and that an MSK144 QSO includes signal reports in the SNR format.
9. The IARU Region 1 requirements for a valid VHF QSO are identical to the requirements for at HF QSO. You will find them in Section 4.1 (page 46/159 according to the page numbering) of the IARU Region 1 VHF Handbook, which you find in https://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php/vhfuhsshf/1737-vhf-manager-handbook-version-8-00 . It appears in section 4.4.9 that the requirements for a meteor scatter QSO are similar to other QSOs (Call sign, report, confirmation of call sign and report). While the two-digit reporting system is different from the RST (as described in section 4.4.8.2), it is still a report, and required for a valid QSO. You may want to check whether your region maintains a similar definition of a VHF QSO.
10. If you read my reply to KL1T, you will find that I say exactly that the formalities are completed when RRR has been received. Finishing off with a 73 is still considered polite and good behaviour, though. Just to keep this message near the topic of this discussion, FT8 DXpedition mode QSOs should also stop at RRR, and move on to the next caller. However, I have noticed from various reports from the on the air test that the software kept repeating RRR messages, apparently expecting a 73 to complete the QSO.
11. If you, under certain circumstances like a contest, want to perform MSK144 QSOs with a different format and content than advised by WSJT-X, please do. However, I believe that your choice will not change the quite clear and easy-to-understand requirements for a valid QSO. And, the contest parts of VHF Handbook clearly states that a report should be part of the exchange. That may vary in your region.
12. What becomes a valid QSO for an award or a contest, is determined by what you and your QSO partner choose to put into a QSL card, a GCR list or an LoTW, eQSL or log upload. I believe that ARRL's DXCC or other award programs, other award issuers or contest makers are in no position to redefine the IARU requirements for a "valid QSO", so the fact that you receive awards/contests credit from them for non-report QSOs, pertains only to their awards/contests, not to its status as a valid QSO. If award/contest credit is your goal, its fine with me. If you want to apply stricter standards, that is fine as well.
13. If you and your QSO partner QSL or upload as a valid QSO, a QSO that included no report, that is entirely on you and him/her. However, that brings forward the final part of the IARU requirements for a valid HF and VHF QSO:

"It is emphasized that the responsibility always lies with the operator for the integrity of the contact."​

If everybody comply with this emphasized reminder of integrity, everything should be OK. If not, repairing any issue with the integrity of the contact is the choice of the operator. I believe its unlikely that non-repair would have any consequences for the operator, other than lowering the standard of integrity.

73 de Frode LA6VQ

 

Dear Frode,

I appreciate your sincerity and effort on the topic.

Certainly the integrity of the operator is paramount. Above all, amateur radio is based on the honor system.

However I still believe requiring a signal report for a so called valid QSO is irrelevant, even to IARU guidelines.

Note as you stated and is cited in the IARU reference for HF, any RS, RST, RSQ "reports" appear to be "recommendations" not requirements.

What a QSO "report" may consist of is not always clear, and may not necessarily anything to do with signal qualities. As seen in Sec 6.3-1 for Lists and Nets - A Code Of Practice, the statement is made,

4. A valid QSO requires some minimum of two-way exchange of information.

That passage further state the exchange "need only be a correctly received RS report ..." but that does not make it a requirement nor negate use of another form of information exchange, such as a grid square or other as seen in contests.

So at the very least this IARU reference is ambiguous within itself and certainly shouldn't be considered authoritative on what is or is not a valid QSO.

For me the least common denominator has now become the ARRL LOTW system (thanks for mentioning it) which has become pretty much the 21st century "gold standard" for validating QSO's, and which DOES NOT include any record of a signal report.

73, John, WØPV

PS - I hope to visit your fine community of Bergen again some day, as my journey on the scenic railroad from Oslo back in 1974 is still indelible in my memory. Hope it is kept open and as breathtakingly beautiful experience as it for me then!

 

John,
I guess quite a few things in ham radio is based on recommendations, among them band plans, QSO procedures, rules of discussion forums, etc. Nothing is carved in stone, but to keep things working on and off the air for most of us, we are all better off complying with the various recommendations and suggestions.

I read you in the way that IARU's thoughts on list operations may leave some ambiguity on the need for reports. When it comes to list operations, however, IARU provide no recommendation, but tells that:

The following suggestions should go a some way to minimising current criticism [against list operations, LA6VQ comment]. It should be noted that these are NOT advisory notes on procedures, but suggestions in relation to operating standards and ethics. ​

And then they go on to the content you refer. I guess that means that there are no recommendations on list operations, only suggestions. However, as you quote, even for list operations IARU suggests signal reports, as they recommend for all sorts of other QSOs. It seems to me that IARU stands firm on signal reports for all sorts of valid QSOs, leaving no room for ambiguity. Save for ITU, which doesn't say much about operating procedures, I believe IARU must be considered the authoritative body for amateur radio, clearly worth listening to. In any event IARU is the body that decided that reports are needed for a valid QSO, ref. the question from KL1T, and they seem to be in the position to do so.

While LoTW in its time was a nice development for fast confirmation of QSOs for DXCC, WAS, WPX (and soon WAZ) and a couple of other awards, that is also all it is. While these are popular awards, that is also all they are. LoTW cannot be regarded as a gold standard for valid QSOs, and probably never had an ambition to. DXCC has no requirement of signal reports, meaning that even invalid QSO may be just fine for LoTW verifications for DXCC. LoTW is not even the gold standard for eQSL or electronic QSO matching, as Club Log's matching feature seemsto be more elegant and modern. But neither require reports in order to match QSOs. Remember, LoTW does not require that the QSOs are valid, only that 1) they are uploaded and 2) they match, so if two hams upload QSOs that were never valid, say no signal reports exchanged, they will still be verified by LoTW.

If signal reports weren't needed, I guess professors Franke, Taylor and their many highly competent friends developing WSJT-X, would have found simpler QSO procedures for FT8, FT8 DXpedition mode, JT65, JT9, and all the other WSJT-X modes.

***​

The Oslo-Bergen railway runs all year, just as beautiful as ever. Same for Bergen, although this winter we have had an unusual long period of frost in Western Norway, so we are ready to thaw for spring. As an inspiration for the next visit, you can make a virtual revisit on the many Youtube videos from this journey. This Bergen-Oslo trainride will give you the entire trip from Bergen to Oslo, minute-by-minute, in full HD. Enjoy!

***​

It also seems like this discussion on the FT8 DXpedition test two weeks ago, has reached its terminal. It may be time to wrap it up.

73 de Frode LA6VQ

 

You are mistaken. Try for an award. Any award. And tell me there is no skill involved in achieving that award. Give it a try. Start with something simple like 5 band WAS. Go on. work at it. And let us know how long it took and how simple it was. You can do it all on FT8. or you can mix and match. Please report back with your results. Along the way please make notes on your strategy for getting all of those states on 5 bands. It won't be quite as easy as you think. Respectfully yours, James K0UA