eQSL.cc Forum
Help!  eQSL.cc Home  Forums Home  Search  Login 
Viewing User Profile for: WO7R Larry Loen
About Contact
Joined: Jul 27, 2013 06:34 AM
Last Post: Apr 30, 2019 06:32 PM
Last Visit: Jun 16, 2021 07:11 AM
Website:  
Location:
Interests:
Favorite Bands:
Favorite Modes:


Send Private Message
Post Statistics
WO7R Larry Loen has contributed to 5 posts out of 11626 total posts (0.04%) in 3,898 days (0.00 posts per day).

20 Most recent posts:
Digital » FT4 NODE' Apr 30, 2019 06:32 PM (Total replies: 3)

Why is there no support for the DATA tag as a workaround?

I know that DATA is not "standard" either, but both LOTW and Clublog seem to support it.

I have already received an SWL report that fudged FT8 as the mode. This will lead to trouble.

There are going to be thousands of QSOs in this new mode in no tme. This is not like other experiments where there were few QSOs before acceptance by ADIF.

I would urge the eQSL team to come up with a better alternative than "wait". Nobody else of consequence seems to be waiting.

I can see not supporting the tag, FT4, itself yet. For all we know, it may still be dropped or have its name changed. But, the QSOs will be coming by the thousands whatever its eventual fate. DATA seems like the way around it.

WO7R Larry Loen


I tried to upload my new (pre-release) FT4 QSOs today.

FT4 is not yet accepted by ADIF. That is probably right as it is still undergoing a beta test. But, real QSOs by the hundreds are being made.

Clublog and LOTW both allow the (apparently non-standard) tag "DATA" to be used as a mode (LOTW does this two ways, but one of them is just supporting <MODE:4>DATA in the actual ADIF; Clublog allows this "mode" directly in the ADIF also). Both allow them to match under "DATA" as well. This is good enough for awards purposes.

What do I do about my eQSL ADIF until this is approved? It rejects both DATA and FT4 at present.

I suppose I could wait for support and do a re-upload at that time, but most people do not have the flexibility of my ADIF data flow.

Why doesn't eQSL support the "DATA" workaround that the other "majors" do?

WO7R Larry Loen

Getting more eQSLs » Non AG member eQSL. What's the point? Jul 10, 2017 09:30 AM (Total replies: 5)

In addition to non-AG becoming AG, there is value in knowing that both sides agree that the QSO happened.

For instance, if you are doing CQ DX Marathon, you submit one and only one QSO for a given country.

Well, there are pirates out there and it is hard to keep track of them all. If you take the trouble to notice which QSOs you get in here that match, and use them, you get a lot of certainty that the QSO you selected is going to be accepted when they tally up the count for the year. It would be very embarassing to lose your QSO with England or France (or, more likely FK, KH2 or some such) just because you didn't take the trouble to pick out the one you know worked.

Yes, I know you are supposed to be very sure about the QSOs you make for CQ Marathon. But, that still doesn't prevent you from mis-typing the call, working pirates, and other such things.

WO7R Larry Loen

Support - English speaking » How to upload QSOs in the new FT8 mode? Jul 5, 2017 03:02 AM (Total replies: 0)

How does one upload QSOs using the new, experimental FT8 digital mode?

There does not seem to be a proper ADIF entry for this.

Clublog, none the less, accepts FT8 (it converts it to its own, interrnal, all purpose "data" entry).

LOTW seems to have this non-standard mode called DATA, which I do not see defined in ADIF 3.0.3 or 3.0.4, but seems to mean "generalized digital". At any rate, it uploads there, though it is not clear that it is really put into their database. Edit: It turns out that it did and I matched at least one QSO by someone enterprising enough to figure out that DATA works.

But, eQSL seems to be very strict. Except ADIF doesn't seem to allow for something to be done while new modes transition from experimental to actual.

I realize simply handling FT8, as such, is a little risky in that the final ADIF may be some thing else.

But, there ought to be some sort of generalized "digital" we could use in the meantime.

What is it? Would DATA do the job for now?



WO7R Larry Loen
Edited by WO7R Larry Loen on Jul 5, 2017 at 04:01 AM

Support - English speaking » 2m "credits" or "matches" Jun 26, 2017 11:28 PM (Total replies: 0)

I have just uploaded my first 2m QSOs and they seem to appear in my Outbox just fine.

I see one presumed match, from ON4KML who is shaded for having displayed my eQSL and (one presumes) archived my card.

But, that same QSO does not show up in my Inbox or any awards listing. Nor is it in my archive.

How can that be? I would think that at least ON4KML's QSO matched and should show up, shouldn't it?

WO7R Larry Loen