Elecraft › [K3]

FW: FW: 4W6A Video, count the K3's !

Classic

List

Threaded

3 messages Options

Anndel

FW: FW: 4W6A Video, count the K3's !

I find it strange that in ARRL's LOTW that no signal reports are required
for both DXCC and WAS awards. From reading all the posts about this subject
RST in addition to callsign exchanges makes a valid QSO. I was taught and
still hold true that both are required and I even exchange my callsign
working those DXpeditions such as 4W6A. When I used to frequent and now
occasionally come up on the Triple H Net (7.190 mhz, 0700 UTC), NCS and
relays assisted with the callsigns from a light station but signal reports,
you're on your own. For awards on that net, a valid QSO required callsign
and signal report exchanges and awards required QSL cards.

Enuff talk, now I'm off to build my K3 :)

73 Delwyn KH6DC

-----Original Message-----
From: N2TK, Tony [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 5:36 AM
To: 'Dale Putnam'; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] FW: 4W6A Video, count the K3's !

As long as you don't care or want a confirmation you can pretty much claim
whatever you want. If you logged hearing them, then you can say you are a
SWL. Maybe that is sufficient for you?
Some of us do want a confirmation so we want to make sure we have a good QSO
and are in their log, regardless of what the signal exchange is. The
important part of the exchange is the call sign. That is what makes it
unique, not a signal report or a name.

When contesting there are some assumed practices that are accepted to keep
up the "rate" and still have an "exchange" besides the call sign;
- "5nn" instead of "599" on CW
- In ARRL SSB Test use "59K" instead of "59 kilowatt" for power level for
DX stations.

There are many other accepted practices that all boil down to being in the
"log" with an accepted call and other exchanged info, if required. And you
do need a transmitter to do this. :-)

73,
N2TK, Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dale Putnam
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:24 AM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FW: 4W6A Video, count the K3's !

And if all that is required is that, exactly what is the "exchange" ... I
can gather that information with a rx. No Tx.. NO QSO! Maybe we have slid
down the slippery slope so far that an exhange isn't required any longer...
in that case I claim both current dexpedtions,because I have logged hearing
them. Doesn't matter if they heard me or not. right?

--... ...--
Dale - WC7S in Wy
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:04:54 -1000
> Subject: [Elecraft] FW: 4W6A Video, count the K3's !
>
> I beg to differ unless I'm mistaken but DXCC doesn't require signal
> report exchanges. All that's required are the frequency, date and
> time in UTC, callsign and mode. These are the required parameters
> that needs to be uploaded in ARRL's Logbook of the World for DXCC
credits/awards.

>
> 73 Delwyn KH6DC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dale Putnam
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 5:37 PM
> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 4W6A Video, count the K3's !
>
>
> Because without an rst, however it is derived, the qsl isn't valid for

dxcc.

>
> --... ...--
> Dale - WC7S in Wy
> > From: [hidden email]
> > To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> > Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:19:22 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 4W6A Video, count the K3's !
> >
> > Of course I thought it through Dave. In the video you'll hear the DX
> > operation say, "I gave him an 599 but he was an S1".
> >
> > My point was "why bother with a signal report at all if the station
> doesn't
> > ask for it".
> >
> > Ron AC7AC
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Have you guys actually thought this through??
> >
> > In most cases, the DX is trying to work as many people as possible
> > as fast as they can. Giving you an "accurate" signal report
> > requires them to decide how strong you are (takes a small amount of
> > time) as well as manually type into the logger a different number
> > than the default (takes a lot of time, relatively speaking, to tab
> > and type). Everyone else in the pileup is going to be glad you didn't

get your "accurate" report.
> >
> > As for that "accurate" report, in most cases you aren't going to
> > have a clue what kind of antenna the DX is using or even what
> > direction it may be pointing at the moment, so signal strength is
utterly meaningless.

> > The DX isn't "lying" about anything. You are simply deluding
> > yourself if you think their report means anything other than that
> > you were strong/readable enough to get through the pileup, which you
> > should have recognized by that point anyway. If you want a number
> > different than 599, make up your own and log it ... it will easily
> > have every bit as as much relevance under those conditions.
> >
> > Dave AB7E
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this
> > email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

David Gilbert

Re: FW: FW: 4W6A Video, count the K3's !

I suspect that the ARRL long ago decided that crosschecking signal
reports was totally impractical. They'd need your logs as well as your
cards. They could do that with LOTW, but then they'd be in the position
of having a stricter policy for LOTW than they would for cards.

73,
Dave AB7E

On 10/4/2011 12:11 PM, Anndel wrote:

> I find it strange that in ARRL's LOTW that no signal reports are required
> for both DXCC and WAS awards. From reading all the posts about this subject
> RST in addition to callsign exchanges makes a valid QSO. I was taught and
> still hold true that both are required and I even exchange my callsign
> working those DXpeditions such as 4W6A. When I used to frequent and now
> occasionally come up on the Triple H Net (7.190 mhz, 0700 UTC), NCS and
> relays assisted with the callsigns from a light station but signal reports,
> you're on your own. For awards on that net, a valid QSO required callsign
> and signal report exchanges and awards required QSL cards.
>
> Enuff talk, now I'm off to build my K3 :)
>
> 73 Delwyn KH6DC
>

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: FW: FW: 4W6A Video, count the K3's !

Administrator

End of the 599 versus real signal reports thread.

In general please -always- take operating policy discussions of this
type off list immediately to prevent unnecessary noise overload for others.

73, Eric
List moderator

---
www.elecraft.com

On 10/4/2011 12:55 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> I suspect that the ARRL long ago decided that crosschecking signal
> reports was totally impractical. They'd need your logs as well as your
> cards. They could do that with LOTW, but then they'd be in the position
> of having a stricter policy for LOTW than they would for cards.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html