[Fwd: LF: RSGB 136kHz Award & Slow CW contact protocols.]
Sun, 12 Jul 1998 21:41:54 -0400
John W Gould wrote:
> For the last few weeks I haven't been able to give much time to hobby,
> but have managed to read the e-mail on this listserver. In particular I
> have been able to monitor the discussion on LF operating protocols. The
> reason for this is that at its meeting on 13 June the RSGB HF Committee
> discussed and agreed an outline proposal for an operating award for the
> 136kHz band. It considered carefully the pros and cons, and after
> consulting those UK operators who I could contact by e-mail I fed back
> their comments to the committee. We decided that there was good support
> for an operating award, and agreed the draft details (see below).
> I took the opportunity to announce the new RSGB Award at the 136kHz
> session at Friedrichshafen.
> The recent debate, on what constitutes a contact, has been very
> rewarding. Many have made useful contribtion to the discussion but
> Peter's comments below is a good summary, and Julian Gannaway's, G3YGF,
> reminder about Moonbounce protocol is also very relevant. His comments
> about the length of contact may be of significance in the future, e.g.
> trans-atlantic contacts. Rik Strobe, ON7YD, has been very helpful in
> bring MS protocols to our attention. I will need to confer with Fred
> Handscombe, G4BWP, the RSGB HF Awards Manager. I suspect he will want a
> degree of simplicity - thus a confirmation of a contact, with signal
> report or an "exchange" of letters/numbers would probably suffice. It
> would also seem reasonable for other forms of proof to be acceptable,
> i.e. the waterfall displays. So far as an award is concerned the main
> intention is to promote actual communication and further
> experimentation. It should encourage the gradual improvement of
> transmission and reception, hopefully in tandem.
> The description of the 136kHz Award, just prior to departing for
> Friedrichshafen, was as follows:
> RSGB 136 kHz Award
> This award is to recognise achievements in both transmission and
> reception on the 136 kHz band, and to stimulate experimentation and
> station improvement.
> The award is available in three categories, with endorsements for
> additional countries heard/worked.
> The basic award is for confirmed two-way QSOs on 136 kHz with 5
> countries from the ARRL DXCC/WAE country list.
> The SWL Award is for confirmation of SWL reports from 5 countries. The
> SWL award may also be claimed by amateurs working cross band to stations
> transmitting in the 136 kHz band.
> The third category is for cross band contacts, where the stations
> claiming the award has worked 5 countries by transmitting on the 136 kHz
> band and receiving stations on other amateur bands.
> Cross mode contacts will be allowed for this award. The categories of
> this award may not be mixed, but awards from some or all of the
> categories may be claimed and endorsed concurrently.
> Once the basic award has been claimed, it may be endorsed in steps of
> each additional 5 countries worked or heard.
> The RSGB General rules for HF Awards will apply.
> The ARRL/WAE countries list adds a few more countries within Europe such
> as Shetlands and Sicily which are not on the DXCC list
> 73 John
> In article <MAPI.Id.0016.0065746572204d614544434130303130@MAPI.to.RFC822
> >, Peter Martinez <Peter.Martinez@btinternet.com> writes
> >From Peter Martinez G3PLX Kendal Cumbria
> >On reflection and seeing the other contributions, I would support
> >Mike's idea of exchange of callsigns and acknowledgements, and no
> >need for signal reports. One of the things that concerned me was
> >whether these techniques would be seen BY THE REST OF THE
> >AMATEUR COMMUNITY as cheating or not. That's why I was trying
> >to propose a protocol as similar as possible to something else that
> >IS accepted by the community already. However, if the hard copy of
> >the contact, for example something like I showed in November 1997
> >RadCom of G4JNT's signal, is accepted by everyone as real, then
> >maybe the hard copy itself is actually a far more tangible proof of
> >contact than the two operators just claiming that they DID work
> >each other.
> >However, if we cut it down to just callsigns and rogers, then nothing
> >is actually being transmitted over the air either way that was not
> >known beforehand. Therefore NO INFORMATION has been
> >transmitted, or rather just one bit of information, namely "Did I
> >receive him? Yes!" This, in information theory terms, is the
> >"matched filter" technique that was mentioned here before, and
> >might possibly be regarded as unreal. I would therefore support the
> >idea of transmission of, say, a 5-letter random group in each
> >direction (shorter than numbers). G4JNT was doing something like
> >this on our first 73 kHz tests. The arithmetic trick suggested
> >(6*3=18, 18/6=3) enables ONE of the stations in the QSO to be
> >certain that information was exchanged correctly both ways right
> >after the QSO, and this trick could be adapted to letters using
> >modulo-26 arithmetic, but the redundancy in this proces could be
> >used to correct errors rather than verify the contact, and THAT might
> >be cheating!
> John Gould, G3WKL
> G3WKL @GB7BEN.#43.GBR.EU