I receive many SWL reception reports I am happy to acknowledge but I am unsure of whether this one should be confirmed or not. I had a QSO to a Brazillion PU1 call and I never received my signal report so the QSO did not complete and therefore I did not log it. Can you advise if the SWL reception report should be confirmed. If yes how far do you go , I heard you answer a CQ from Icebox Antarctica but they never came back please confirm my reception report! I would ideally like to see both calls start stop times and the exchanged signal reports before confirming a heard QSO for a SWL report the same info I require for a complete QSO. What do you think?

Mike VA3MYK

---

VA3MYK Michael Hanuszczak

Of course this is an SWL opinion:

Have you done that CQ to station XY?
If yes, and the SWL reports you that CQ call, than he has reached his task that is to listen to you and to give you his RST of your signal.
It doesn't matter from a practical point of view if your CQ ended - or not - in a complete QSO, as far as you can check that the reported CQ has really been sent by you that day that time that mode that frequency to XY station.

If The station XY has not replied to your CQ it's your problem not of the SWL. This missing answer from XY doesn't decrease the technical value that you should appreciate from the SWL report.

The real issue is that almost no HAM is Recording a CQ call into his log if it's not generating a complete QSO, that's why 2 years ago, after some week of eQSL use, I stopped almost immediately to sent eQSL upon simple CQ calls. I realized that hams are not logging CQ calls: so useless to send something they cannot check.

look at this, it's from WSJT-X decoder, i cannot invent these strings they are authomatically generated and reported in PKS reporter by the decoder that sends spots.

time dB DT freq message

1936 -2 2.3 768 # CQ LA5TFA JP99

1936 -4 0.8 275 # WA7JS CT1FBK RRR

1936 -1 2.4 649 # CQ PU2WDF GG66

1936 -10 2.9 1472 # 9H1KR W3BI R-13

1936 -19 2.1 1686 # KC0EM CO2BG -10

1936 -15 3.8 1888 # KA3YGL RRTU73

1938 -4 0.9 284 # WA7JS CT1FBK 73

1938 -1 2.4 658 # CQ PU2WDF GG66

1938 -15 2.8 1007 # CQ DB1ID JN49

1938 -10 3.1 1479 # 9H1KR W3BI R-13

1938 -14 3.0 1565 # CQ KD8JV EM79

1938 -19 2.2 1696 # 15W G5RV 73

1938 -13 3.8 1897 # CQ HA0ML KN17

1939 -2 2.4 663 # PU2WDF LA5TFA JP99

1939 -16 2.6 1012 # DB1ID WB8JUI EN81

1939 -18 2.5 1713 # 5W 80MLOOP 73

1939 -12 2.8 2091 # WD0ECA IK6BSN -13

1939 -22 2.4 2951 @ CQ LB6B JP20

at 19:36 I get the cuban CO2BG...but no other further message from him and nor from KC0EM, the decoder did not decode anything at minute 37

was the QSO completed but I lost it in QRN or not?
Shall I tell him that I was able to listen to him or not?
Would he be happy to know that I caught him with a signal of -19dB or not?
is there someone that can tell me that I have not listened to him?
was the decoder inventing this reception?



73, oscar
Edited by IT2024SWL oscar marazzini on Mar 28, 2015 at 07:54 PM
Edited by IT2024SWL oscar marazzini on Mar 28, 2015 at 08:06 PM

Thank you Oscar for the reply . I was hoping for a few more replies.
I can see what your saying but I need a little more proof than a single unanswered CQ call before I would consider confirming the QSL. A signal report of a single line of a JT-65 QSO is of no interest to me. As a amateur radio operator I need to know that my signal is making the trip out to parts unknown is not a result of bouncing off space junk , fluffy white clouds or divine intervention and that it will never repeat itself ever again. If the guys equipment heard the CQ call he should have heard at least 1 of the numerous calls made before or 1 of the calls made after and requested the QSL on one of those more partly or fully complete instead of the single unanswered CQ request. After all he is collecting the Calls and not the CQ request.

I confirmed the PU1 QSO even though it gave a 599 report instead of a db report but I tell you if he would have said the QSO did not complete who knows maybe I would have hand delivered the QSL myself.

73's to you Oscar and wish you the Best DX

Mike VA3myk

---

VA3MYK Michael Hanuszczak

thank you Mike for this nice exchange as well.
I agree, for a CQ call I don't send a report, a single line of a JT 65 QSO doesn't give me any warranty that the QSO has been completed. Normally I don't send a report for this.

BUT would it come the day in which the moons of Mars are in good mood allowing me to receive even a single JT65 line from VR6BB or from HV4NAC (none of them is subscribers of eQSL).....

Enjioy your radios

73s, Oscar

---

IT2024SWL oscar marazzini