JT65 QSO's are they valid??

WSJT 65 (and variants) Discussion

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Postby VK3XDK » Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:18 am

VK4LHD wrote:
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 ****** many do not send this either

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

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Postby VK5APN » Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:25 am

From the WSJT User Manual page 24

Simple really

WSJT procedure.jpg
Frequent Poster
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:41 am

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Postby VK3XDK » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:11 am

the last sentence is interesting!looks like we can skip gridsquares!
Forum Diehard
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Brunswick (Melbourne)

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Postby GM3SEK » Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:34 pm

VK5APN wrote:From the WSJT User Manual page 24

Simple really


Well maybe not that simple...

Confusion arises because the "WSJT" suite of programs covers several different types of propagation and more than one kind of operating procedure. JT65 originated with moonbounce where the procedures should be the same world-wide; but for meteor-scatter there are some differences between US and European procedures. Naturally the WSJT documentation and help screens tend to reflect the American procedures more than the European, and it also exists in several different versions (many of which are years out of date) so you have to pick your way through it all.

It seems like some HF stations using JT65 have been influenced by European meteor-scatter operating, where it is allowable to reply to a CQ with both callsigns and a report in the first transmission. Each station still needs to copy both callsigns and the report, but in Europe the best way to deliver that information has always been left to the judgement of the caller. In a major shower with long bursts, it makes good sense to include everything in the first message; but in shorter sporadic bursts you'd want to focus on the callsigns first, and add in the report later.

That shortcut wouldn't be allowed in America, where you must always take it step by step - don't begin to send a report until after you have identified both callsigns. But JT65 doesn't actually prevent you from including the report in the first call, so European HF operators find it quite natural... and when the SNR is good it's obviously quicker.

But the end-point of the QSO should always be the same: for a QSO to be complete, each station must have copied both callsigns, the report and the confirming "R". If a station moves on before you have received his confirming R, or before he has received the same from you, then neither of you can claim a complete QSO. WSJT contains several different QSO modes, but this requirement is built into all of them.

HF DX and contest operating use different standards for the exchange of callsigns and reports, but they still insist on the final R (or an alternative like "TU", so long as it's being used in exactly the same way).

Bottom line: it can be OK to include the report in the initial call; but it's never OK to walk away without exchanging Rs.

73 from Ian GM3SEK
Forum Novice
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:17 pm

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Postby VK3XDK » Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:13 am

Appears that I may have been un-fair (OR wrong) in some instances, Thankyou for the enlightenment everyone.

But i will continue to send messages the standard (time consuming :) ) way - unless I have been answered with a shortcut in this case contacts will NOT be logged unless I see acknowledgment of signal reports!! (how forgiving on this acknowledgment i am is yet to be decided but looks like RO/RRR's are needed) I need to send 73's to auto log, so these will continue.
Forum Diehard
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Brunswick (Melbourne)

Re: JT65 QSO's are they valid??

Postby VK3ZAZ » Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:56 am

VK3XDK wrote: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 :)

I ran wspr on 80m for a few nites
Both ways to 16000km
5 watts
dipole 60 countries out of 440 in 5BDXCC

Who cares what you run
if you don't tell anyone no one will comment
The bloody snobs look down at QRP and they castigate QRO
I think my best accusation was Ï ran 4KW on 6M once"
HTF do you get 4KW?

Radio twitter I call it :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
like assholes
everyones got an opinion
who cares so long as you are happy

as for getting wiped out on 40M
Its 40M
Listen listen listen
Then tx if you must
I would never join a club that would have me as a member. :om:
Groucho Marx
User avatar
Forum Diehard
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Hamilton Victoria Australia


Return to WSJT

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest