Date   

Re: VQ9

Steve W3HF
 

Actually, I know I'm not the first because I had a PSK31 QSO with VQ9NL (W4NML) on 15m in 2002. From his QRZ page, it looks like he was in the merchant marine like VQ9JC.

But it's pretty clear that there are very few other PSK operators that visit Chagos.

Steve 
 
 

On 01/31/17, Jerry Heien n9avy@... [070]<070@...> wrote:
 


Steve:

You are probably the only one to make PSK31 contacts from
Diego Garcia. There's been SSB, CW and RTTY, but doubt of any other modes. 

Guess you can claim
A first. !

Jerry n9AVY 


Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Jan 2017, at 19:02, "Stephen Melachrinos w3hf@... [070]" <070@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Historically there had always been a well-equipped club station and a (albeit small) resident ham population. This would have put VQ9 in many logs (though maybe not much on PSK) up through 2011 or so. And even after that, VQ9JC (the current one) has been on the air regularly. So I'm not surprised that it isn't extremely rare.

As for my operation, I finally got the uploads to eQSL and LoTW done today. For those interested in statistics, this was the most successful so far of my three trips to VQ9 as measured by QSO count. It was clearly the most successful in terms of QSOs to north America. And this is not likely to be my last trip. I don't have any specific dates yet, but there will be future opportunities.

73,
Steve
W3HF 
 
On 01/31/17, Matthew King mrk.twg@... [070]<070@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 


The RSGB IOTA site shows 85ish percent of folks have Diego Garcia in their logs. I reckon that's why it's not higher on the list.  

You can bet most of the activations that occurred there weren't in PSK-31, so definitely kudos to Steve! 

73


Matthew King

AK4MK 070 #1708

PODXS 070 Club Executive Director





On Jan 31, 2017 12:55 PM, "Jerry n9avy@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:
 

Was surprised to see that VQ9 was on clublog list as the 141st  most wanted  DXCC .  Thought it would have been higher up the list.  Congrats Steve for putting this one in logs of some lucky one in spite of lousy conditions and a tight work schedulem !

Jerry   n9avy #454






Re: VQ9

Jerry N9AVY
 

Steve:

You are probably the only one to make PSK31 contacts from
Diego Garcia. There's been SSB, CW and RTTY, but doubt of any other modes. 

Guess you can claim
A first. !

Jerry n9AVY 


Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Jan 2017, at 19:02, "Stephen Melachrinos w3hf@... [070]" <070@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Historically there had always been a well-equipped club station and a (albeit small) resident ham population. This would have put VQ9 in many logs (though maybe not much on PSK) up through 2011 or so. And even after that, VQ9JC (the current one) has been on the air regularly. So I'm not surprised that it isn't extremely rare.

As for my operation, I finally got the uploads to eQSL and LoTW done today. For those interested in statistics, this was the most successful so far of my three trips to VQ9 as measured by QSO count. It was clearly the most successful in terms of QSOs to north America. And this is not likely to be my last trip. I don't have any specific dates yet, but there will be future opportunities.

73,
Steve
W3HF 
 
On 01/31/17, Matthew King mrk.twg@... [070]<070@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 


The RSGB IOTA site shows 85ish percent of folks have Diego Garcia in their logs. I reckon that's why it's not higher on the list.  

You can bet most of the activations that occurred there weren't in PSK-31, so definitely kudos to Steve! 

73


Matthew King

AK4MK 070 #1708

PODXS 070 Club Executive Director





On Jan 31, 2017 12:55 PM, "Jerry n9avy@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:
 

Was surprised to see that VQ9 was on clublog list as the 141st  most wanted  DXCC .  Thought it would have been higher up the list.  Congrats Steve for putting this one in logs of some lucky one in spite of lousy conditions and a tight work schedulem !

Jerry   n9avy #454




Re: VQ9

Steve W3HF
 

Historically there had always been a well-equipped club station and a (albeit small) resident ham population. This would have put VQ9 in many logs (though maybe not much on PSK) up through 2011 or so. And even after that, VQ9JC (the current one) has been on the air regularly. So I'm not surprised that it isn't extremely rare.

As for my operation, I finally got the uploads to eQSL and LoTW done today. For those interested in statistics, this was the most successful so far of my three trips to VQ9 as measured by QSO count. It was clearly the most successful in terms of QSOs to north America. And this is not likely to be my last trip. I don't have any specific dates yet, but there will be future opportunities.

73,
Steve
W3HF 
 

On 01/31/17, Matthew King mrk.twg@... [070]<070@...> wrote:
 


The RSGB IOTA site shows 85ish percent of folks have Diego Garcia in their logs. I reckon that's why it's not higher on the list.  

You can bet most of the activations that occurred there weren't in PSK-31, so definitely kudos to Steve! 

73


Matthew King

AK4MK 070 #1708

PODXS 070 Club Executive Director





On Jan 31, 2017 12:55 PM, "Jerry n9avy@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:
 

Was surprised to see that VQ9 was on clublog list as the 141st  most wanted  DXCC .  Thought it would have been higher up the list.  Congrats Steve for putting this one in logs of some lucky one in spite of lousy conditions and a tight work schedulem !

Jerry   n9avy #454




Re: VQ9

Matthew King <mrk.twg@...>
 

The RSGB IOTA site shows 85ish percent of folks have Diego Garcia in their logs. I reckon that's why it's not higher on the list.  

You can bet most of the activations that occurred there weren't in PSK-31, so definitely kudos to Steve! 

73


Matthew King

AK4MK 070 #1708

PODXS 070 Club Executive Director





On Jan 31, 2017 12:55 PM, "Jerry n9avy@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:
 

Was surprised to see that VQ9 was on clublog list as the 141st  most wanted  DXCC .  Thought it would have been higher up the list.  Congrats Steve for putting this one in logs of some lucky one in spite of lousy conditions and a tight work schedulem !

Jerry   n9avy #454


VQ9

Jerry N9AVY
 

Was surprised to see that VQ9 was on clublog list as the 141st  most wanted  DXCC .  Thought it would have been higher up the list.  Congrats Steve for putting this one in logs of some lucky one in spite of lousy conditions and a tight work schedulem !

Jerry   n9avy #454


Re: Why not QSL?

Jerry N9AVY
 

Oops !  was a couple years off. Was actually 36 years  for a YU contact in 1980 on 10m  which came in during 2016.

Looking through LoTW entries there were many  which came through from 2001 and all those years in between. So, some folks either are really slow or are catching up with logs.

jerry



From: "Jerry n9avy@... [070]" <070@...>
To: "070@..." <070@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [070] Why not QSL?

 
Joe:


Some guys are just slow and after they've worked everything, then they decide to QSL, hi !

My oldest QSL came in after 38 years...

If you watch LoTW and Eqsl, you can see the new guys who after years finally decided to use services.

Jerry  n9avy  #454

From: "'ljl2002@...' joe_molon@... [070]" <070@...>
To: "070@..." <070@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [070] Why not QSL?

 
A possible reason for the long delay is maybe that particular Ham has only recently registered with EQSL and decided to upload his entire log from the beginning of time.  I've had QSL's from 7 years ago suddenly show up.
The reason that I signed up for the various logging systems is because so many had asked me for them.  Personally I still enjoy receiving and envelope in the mail with something inside that does not say "you owe".
73
Joe
KA1PPV  #1482


On Monday, January 30, 2017 3:00 PM, "Otets Richard rickocr2005@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:


 
To quickly and briefly jump in here.......
I love to QSL, both with a card and electronically: though I have to confess I have a very small stack of cards that I need to respond to.

I use all the electronic log books, LoTW, EQsl, QRZ etc and upload to them either immediately or soon.

I do get confirmations from years ago though....... as others decide to get into the electronic on line age.......

Ok, done, thanks for listening.
 
Fr Richard
WB8YXF
070 #2328



On Monday, January 30, 2017 2:46 PM, "Jerry n9avy@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:


 
Amen David ! 

Those same people are the same ones who whine & complain when the FCC  does something negative to ham radio and a quick to blame ARRL. 

THE USE OF LOTW is NOT limited to MEMBERS ONLY.  Anyone can use LoTW, member or not.  The only time membership is required is when awards are applied for and then it's about 15 cents per confirmation which is relatively cheap.  Much cheaper over a longer time and you don't through the panic of saying good-bye to a large chuck of your hard-earned cash in one lump.

Most of the PSK/digital operators seem to prefer using Eqsl  vs. LoTW for some reason.  Maybe the fact the HRD and other software incorporates Eqsl as an auto upload ???

Still don't know why some hams wait so long to QSL  or just blow folks off  with zero response.   Always heard that the final courtesy of a QSO  is a QSL.  Guess some hams just have no manners. 

Jerry

 "Whether rumor or not, I have also heard many people don’t use LoTW because they don’t support ARRL or its political views.  I find that somewhat odd since they are pretty much the only voice in Washington that is _for_ our hobby.  Like it or not, they are the best (i.e., only) representation we have."

— 
David, K9DWR
#1604 LONP #255
david@...


>









Re: Why not QSL?

Jerry N9AVY
 

Joe:


Some guys are just slow and after they've worked everything, then they decide to QSL, hi !

My oldest QSL came in after 38 years...

If you watch LoTW and Eqsl, you can see the new guys who after years finally decided to use services.

Jerry  n9avy  #454


From: "'ljl2002@...' joe_molon@... [070]" <070@...>
To: "070@..." <070@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [070] Why not QSL?

 
A possible reason for the long delay is maybe that particular Ham has only recently registered with EQSL and decided to upload his entire log from the beginning of time.  I've had QSL's from 7 years ago suddenly show up.
The reason that I signed up for the various logging systems is because so many had asked me for them.  Personally I still enjoy receiving and envelope in the mail with something inside that does not say "you owe".
73
Joe
KA1PPV  #1482


On Monday, January 30, 2017 3:00 PM, "Otets Richard rickocr2005@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:


 
To quickly and briefly jump in here.......
I love to QSL, both with a card and electronically: though I have to confess I have a very small stack of cards that I need to respond to.

I use all the electronic log books, LoTW, EQsl, QRZ etc and upload to them either immediately or soon.

I do get confirmations from years ago though....... as others decide to get into the electronic on line age.......

Ok, done, thanks for listening.
 
Fr Richard
WB8YXF
070 #2328



On Monday, January 30, 2017 2:46 PM, "Jerry n9avy@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:


 
Amen David ! 

Those same people are the same ones who whine & complain when the FCC  does something negative to ham radio and a quick to blame ARRL. 

THE USE OF LOTW is NOT limited to MEMBERS ONLY.  Anyone can use LoTW, member or not.  The only time membership is required is when awards are applied for and then it's about 15 cents per confirmation which is relatively cheap.  Much cheaper over a longer time and you don't through the panic of saying good-bye to a large chuck of your hard-earned cash in one lump.

Most of the PSK/digital operators seem to prefer using Eqsl  vs. LoTW for some reason.  Maybe the fact the HRD and other software incorporates Eqsl as an auto upload ???

Still don't know why some hams wait so long to QSL  or just blow folks off  with zero response.   Always heard that the final courtesy of a QSO  is a QSL.  Guess some hams just have no manners. 

Jerry

 "Whether rumor or not, I have also heard many people don’t use LoTW because they don’t support ARRL or its political views.  I find that somewhat odd since they are pretty much the only voice in Washington that is _for_ our hobby.  Like it or not, they are the best (i.e., only) representation we have."

— 
David, K9DWR
#1604 LONP #255
david@...


>







Re: Why not QSL?

ljl2002@att.net
 

A possible reason for the long delay is maybe that particular Ham has only recently registered with EQSL and decided to upload his entire log from the beginning of time.  I've had QSL's from 7 years ago suddenly show up.
The reason that I signed up for the various logging systems is because so many had asked me for them.  Personally I still enjoy receiving and envelope in the mail with something inside that does not say "you owe".
73
Joe
KA1PPV  #1482


On Monday, January 30, 2017 3:00 PM, "Otets Richard rickocr2005@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:


 
To quickly and briefly jump in here.......
I love to QSL, both with a card and electronically: though I have to confess I have a very small stack of cards that I need to respond to.

I use all the electronic log books, LoTW, EQsl, QRZ etc and upload to them either immediately or soon.

I do get confirmations from years ago though....... as others decide to get into the electronic on line age.......

Ok, done, thanks for listening.
 
Fr Richard
WB8YXF
070 #2328



On Monday, January 30, 2017 2:46 PM, "Jerry n9avy@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:


 
Amen David ! 

Those same people are the same ones who whine & complain when the FCC  does something negative to ham radio and a quick to blame ARRL. 

THE USE OF LOTW is NOT limited to MEMBERS ONLY.  Anyone can use LoTW, member or not.  The only time membership is required is when awards are applied for and then it's about 15 cents per confirmation which is relatively cheap.  Much cheaper over a longer time and you don't through the panic of saying good-bye to a large chuck of your hard-earned cash in one lump.

Most of the PSK/digital operators seem to prefer using Eqsl  vs. LoTW for some reason.  Maybe the fact the HRD and other software incorporates Eqsl as an auto upload ???

Still don't know why some hams wait so long to QSL  or just blow folks off  with zero response.   Always heard that the final courtesy of a QSO  is a QSL.  Guess some hams just have no manners. 

Jerry

 "Whether rumor or not, I have also heard many people don’t use LoTW because they don’t support ARRL or its political views.  I find that somewhat odd since they are pretty much the only voice in Washington that is _for_ our hobby.  Like it or not, they are the best (i.e., only) representation we have."

— 
David, K9DWR
#1604 LONP #255
david@...


>





Re: RU7D/MM

Jerry N9AVY
 

Dan:

It's at sea  (  /mm  ) on a ship and does not as any country - international waters ?  But it's a nice piece of water and a good QSO.   RU7  should be in European Russia   while  the Sea of Okhotsk in in Asia  (RA9/ RA0). 

Hope that helps.

Jerry  n9avy  #454



From: "Dan Morris dbmorris315@... [070]" <070@...>
To: 070 List Service 070 List Service <070@...>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [070] RU7D/MM

 
Great spot Don — I’ll put this out to the list.   RU7D/MM is in the Okhotsk Sea.  In ACLog it comes up as European Russia (prob based on his call sign).  I tried to enter Okhotsk Sea in the Country but ACLog comes up and says NO DXCC number for that location.    So, what do I enter in the Country field or do I leave it as European Russia (which is really incorrect, I think). . .   first time I’ve logged a /MM in ACLog!!

Dan Morris  KZ3T  070-1065






On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:29 PM, don@... [070] <070@...> wrote:

.....between Japan and China...

Don K9DEB  #2007





Re: RU7D/MM

Dan Morris - KZ3T
 

Great spot Don — I’ll put this out to the list.   RU7D/MM is in the Okhotsk Sea.  In ACLog it comes up as European Russia (prob based on his call sign).  I tried to enter Okhotsk Sea in the Country but ACLog comes up and says NO DXCC number for that location.    So, what do I enter in the Country field or do I leave it as European Russia (which is really incorrect, I think). . .   first time I’ve logged a /MM in ACLog!!

Dan Morris  KZ3T  070-1065






On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:29 PM, don@... [070] <070@...> wrote:

.....between Japan and China...


Don K9DEB  #2007



Re: RU7D/MM

Don Bolstad K9DEB
 

.....between Japan and China...

Don K9DEB  #2007


RU7D/MM

Don Bolstad K9DEB
 

Just worked RU7D/MM  on 20M  14071.576  2201Z  579 signal into No Illinois

LOC QO81AA    Okhotsk Sea  between Japan and Japan


Don K9DEB #2007





Re: Why not QSL?

Randy True
 

RR, it takes me 2 minutes to upload my contacts to LoTW every day. And, like you said , it's FREE.


Randy

W4RTT




From: 070@... <070@...> on behalf of Jerry n9avy@... [070] <070@...>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 2:46 PM
To: 070@...
Subject: Re: [070] Why not QSL?
 
 

Amen David ! 

Those same people are the same ones who whine & complain when the FCC  does something negative to ham radio and a quick to blame ARRL. 

THE USE OF LOTW is NOT limited to MEMBERS ONLY.  Anyone can use LoTW, member or not.  The only time membership is required is when awards are applied for and then it's about 15 cents per confirmation which is relatively cheap.  Much cheaper over a longer time and you don't through the panic of saying good-bye to a large chuck of your hard-earned cash in one lump.

Most of the PSK/digital operators seem to prefer using Eqsl  vs. LoTW for some reason.  Maybe the fact the HRD and other software incorporates Eqsl as an auto upload ???

Still don't know why some hams wait so long to QSL  or just blow folks off  with zero response.   Always heard that the final courtesy of a QSO  is a QSL.  Guess some hams just have no manners. 

Jerry

 
"Whether rumor or not, I have also heard many people don’t use LoTW because they don’t support ARRL or its political views.  I find that somewhat odd since they are pretty much the only voice in Washington that is _for_ our hobby.  Like it or not, they are the best (i.e., only) representation we have."

— 
David, K9DWR
#1604 LONP #255
david@...


>


Re: Why not QSL?

Fr Richard R
 

To quickly and briefly jump in here.......
I love to QSL, both with a card and electronically: though I have to confess I have a very small stack of cards that I need to respond to.

I use all the electronic log books, LoTW, EQsl, QRZ etc and upload to them either immediately or soon.

I do get confirmations from years ago though....... as others decide to get into the electronic on line age.......

Ok, done, thanks for listening.
 
Fr Richard
WB8YXF
070 #2328



On Monday, January 30, 2017 2:46 PM, "Jerry n9avy@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:


 
Amen David ! 

Those same people are the same ones who whine & complain when the FCC  does something negative to ham radio and a quick to blame ARRL. 

THE USE OF LOTW is NOT limited to MEMBERS ONLY.  Anyone can use LoTW, member or not.  The only time membership is required is when awards are applied for and then it's about 15 cents per confirmation which is relatively cheap.  Much cheaper over a longer time and you don't through the panic of saying good-bye to a large chuck of your hard-earned cash in one lump.

Most of the PSK/digital operators seem to prefer using Eqsl  vs. LoTW for some reason.  Maybe the fact the HRD and other software incorporates Eqsl as an auto upload ???

Still don't know why some hams wait so long to QSL  or just blow folks off  with zero response.   Always heard that the final courtesy of a QSO  is a QSL.  Guess some hams just have no manners. 

Jerry

 "Whether rumor or not, I have also heard many people don’t use LoTW because they don’t support ARRL or its political views.  I find that somewhat odd since they are pretty much the only voice in Washington that is _for_ our hobby.  Like it or not, they are the best (i.e., only) representation we have."

— 
David, K9DWR
#1604 LONP #255
david@...


>



Re: Why not QSL?

Jerry N9AVY
 

Amen David ! 

Those same people are the same ones who whine & complain when the FCC  does something negative to ham radio and a quick to blame ARRL. 

THE USE OF LOTW is NOT limited to MEMBERS ONLY.  Anyone can use LoTW, member or not.  The only time membership is required is when awards are applied for and then it's about 15 cents per confirmation which is relatively cheap.  Much cheaper over a longer time and you don't through the panic of saying good-bye to a large chuck of your hard-earned cash in one lump.

Most of the PSK/digital operators seem to prefer using Eqsl  vs. LoTW for some reason.  Maybe the fact the HRD and other software incorporates Eqsl as an auto upload ???

Still don't know why some hams wait so long to QSL  or just blow folks off  with zero response.   Always heard that the final courtesy of a QSO  is a QSL.  Guess some hams just have no manners. 

Jerry

 
"Whether rumor or not, I have also heard many people don’t use LoTW because they don’t support ARRL or its political views.  I find that somewhat odd since they are pretty much the only voice in Washington that is _for_ our hobby.  Like it or not, they are the best (i.e., only) representation we have."

— 
David, K9DWR
#1604 LONP #255
david@...


>


Re: Why not QSL?

Rick - N7WE
 

I've found that getting confirming QSLs when you are working on awards can be very frustrating.  This is my way of dealing with it.  YMMV.

It begins with the belief that life is divided into three parts:  Things you can control, things you can't control but can influence, and things you can neither control nor influence.  Happiness in life depends on knowing which is which.

While struggling to get DXCC (all PSK31) I used emails to solicit missing LoTW confirmations.  I was careful to only email those who indicated they used LoTW and approached it with the: "Here is my log info.  Do I have it right?"  Sometimes I got the QSL and sometimes I didn't.  That was trying to "influence" what I couldn't control.

The only thing I can control is me.  And sometimes I'm not to good at that!  Hi hi!  So I choose to upload everything in my log on a regular basis.  LoTW, eQSL, and QRZ.  I don't log incomplete QSOs.  And I try to remember even though I log it as a completed QSO on my end, the other guy may have a different experience.

My parents used to tell me "Anything worth having is worth waiting for."  I think that's right.  As to DXCC-Digital, the journey was much more enjoyable than actually having it.

Rick - N7WE


Re: Why not QSL?

David, K9DWR
 

It has not been uncommon for me to get 2013 QSLs in LoTW recently. In some cases, I think it’s people that are slow to figure things out. Setting up TQSL is not trivial; I have had to hand-hold pretty much everyone in my area through the process to get them set up. eQSL is easier, but the computer seems to be intimidating for a lot of folks. Granted, that should be less of an issue for people that use PSK, but it’s still a real factor.

Whether rumor or not, I have also heard many people don’t use LoTW because they don’t support ARRL or its political views. I find that somewhat odd since they are pretty much the only voice in Washington that is _for_ our hobby. Like it or not, they are the best (i.e., only) representation we have.


David, K9DWR
#1604 LONP #255
david@graniteweb.com

On Jan 30, 2017, at 10:10, WP4DT-JOSE OSUBA wp4dt@hotmail.com [070] <070@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


That happens with lots of frequencies....In this year 2017 they are confirming in the log In my year 2010

incredible


Re: Why not QSL?

WP4DT-JOSE OSUBA
 

That happens with lots of frequencies....In this year 2017 they are confirming in the log In my year 2010

incredible 

greeting friends 73

JOSE OSUBA  WP4DT@...
ARRL INSTRUCTOR
COORDINATOR DE EVENTS AREA OESTE



De: 070@... <070@...> en nombre de 'John Etling - K3JAE' john@... [070] <070@...>
Enviado: lunes, 30 de enero de 2017 11:07 a.m.
Para: 070@...
Asunto: RE: [070] Why not QSL?
 
 

The issues that bother me the most is:

 

  1. If you make a SKED with someone in the LotW room, it is assumed that by them also being there that they are looking for an LotW confirmation from a state or DXCC. And if a SKED is agreed upon and completed, it seems the next thing a person should do it upload it to LotW (or where ever) knowing full well the reason a sked was made with that particular station. It just seems cold and mean-spirited not to complete the agreement, if you will. If that contact is made, it is pitiful that they would not upload that confirmation knowing that person is waiting for it.
  2. As previously noted, most software packages (like DXLabs, and the hated HRD to name a few) automatically upload the confirmation as soon as you hit log… the hardest thing is to set up your credentials initially in the software. Once done, it is self-containing... nothing more a person needs to do.
  3. I still feel people are worried LotW and eQSL charges to use their services. Neither charge a fee to upload QSL confirmations. Eqsl does charge a fee if you want to use a custom card… but so long as a person goes through the authentication procedures, one becomes authenticated and every confirmation from an authenticated user counts towards their awards, which, luckily most eQSL users are authenticated. I could care less that the card is a “cookie cutter” card from eQSL… All I am looking for is the confirmation.
  4. Every QSO I make is uploaded to LotW, eQSL, HRDLog, ClubLog and QRZ and all I do is literally hit LOG and all the confirmations are sent within a few seconds, save LotW which does require me to send them via TQSL… again 1 simple extra step.

I have made at least 5 IA contacts last 2 years on 20m PSK alone… not one has confirmed in ANY of the aforementioned QSL places. Ironically, the JT users from IA have sent confirmations. I have been waiting for IA to confirm on 20m for now three years… the ONLY state I need to get 20m PSK WAS (both with eQSL and LotW… and the only band I do not have WAS on.

 

 

From: 070@... [mailto:070@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 20:19
To: PODXS 070 Club <070@...>
Subject: Re: [070] Why not QSL?

 

 

I can't explain it either. I love receiving and giving QSL cards. Cards are the final courtesy of a contact. I was like you, avid SWLer during my teens, came back last 22 years as a ham. Big difference in last few years of amateur radio.  The culture has changed - not sure for the best either. As an "old" fuddy duddy ham, in the past we never discussed (1) politics, (2) religion, and (3) sex. Now?? Geez, get on 80 meters and listen to all that trash! Quickly becoming CB radio in my opinion.

73 de Curt, K3URT, 100% verifier!

 

On Jan 29, 2017, at 8:54 PM, oldjavadrinker@... [070] <070@...> wrote:



The last topic of discussion delved into the area of QSL'ing a bit. I didn't want to continue that string but it does make me want to vent a little bit. Years ago as a novice in the 70's the only QSL'ing we did was those wonderful cards we hung up all over the shack. I got out of the hobby for many years after I retired from Army and Law Enforcement I jumped back into hamming in 2014.

Wow, now we have all sorts of methods of QSL'ing. We have bureau's , LoTW, eQSL, HRDnet, etc etc...and oh by the way, old faithful, USPS QSL cards.  With all these methods it would seem so easy to QSL a contact...wouldn't it?  I mean most logging programs can actually upload it to the site automatically or at least with a click of the mouse.

So why am I at LoTW 49% QSL rate, eQSL at 63%, and a handful of QSL cards. The cards, I understand, postage, time, whatever. But when all one has to do is click a mouse to sent TNX for QSO, I don't understand.
Some operators (ME), have 6 or 7 QSO's from MA, no QSL, NM 4, no QSL...shall I go on? 

You almost have to work your WAS two times to get enough QSL's to confirm your award.  I QSL 100% to LoTW and eQSL, and even QRZ and it is not a big effort or inconvenience.  Anyway, I think we deserve to do better for each other. You never know who needs that one QSO to complete an award.

Nothing in this is directed at any one particular ham, club, or group. It is just a little rant on a Sunday night from a part time curmudgeon. :).

Happy QSL'ing all,

73 Steve  
KM4FLF/VE3

 


Re: Why not QSL?

John Etling
 

The issues that bother me the most is:

 

  1. If you make a SKED with someone in the LotW room, it is assumed that by them also being there that they are looking for an LotW confirmation from a state or DXCC. And if a SKED is agreed upon and completed, it seems the next thing a person should do it upload it to LotW (or where ever) knowing full well the reason a sked was made with that particular station. It just seems cold and mean-spirited not to complete the agreement, if you will. If that contact is made, it is pitiful that they would not upload that confirmation knowing that person is waiting for it.
  2. As previously noted, most software packages (like DXLabs, and the hated HRD to name a few) automatically upload the confirmation as soon as you hit log… the hardest thing is to set up your credentials initially in the software. Once done, it is self-containing... nothing more a person needs to do.
  3. I still feel people are worried LotW and eQSL charges to use their services. Neither charge a fee to upload QSL confirmations. Eqsl does charge a fee if you want to use a custom card… but so long as a person goes through the authentication procedures, one becomes authenticated and every confirmation from an authenticated user counts towards their awards, which, luckily most eQSL users are authenticated. I could care less that the card is a “cookie cutter” card from eQSL… All I am looking for is the confirmation.
  4. Every QSO I make is uploaded to LotW, eQSL, HRDLog, ClubLog and QRZ and all I do is literally hit LOG and all the confirmations are sent within a few seconds, save LotW which does require me to send them via TQSL… again 1 simple extra step.

I have made at least 5 IA contacts last 2 years on 20m PSK alone… not one has confirmed in ANY of the aforementioned QSL places. Ironically, the JT users from IA have sent confirmations. I have been waiting for IA to confirm on 20m for now three years… the ONLY state I need to get 20m PSK WAS (both with eQSL and LotW… and the only band I do not have WAS on.

 

 

From: 070@... [mailto:070@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 20:19
To: PODXS 070 Club <070@...>
Subject: Re: [070] Why not QSL?

 

 

I can't explain it either. I love receiving and giving QSL cards. Cards are the final courtesy of a contact. I was like you, avid SWLer during my teens, came back last 22 years as a ham. Big difference in last few years of amateur radio.  The culture has changed - not sure for the best either. As an "old" fuddy duddy ham, in the past we never discussed (1) politics, (2) religion, and (3) sex. Now?? Geez, get on 80 meters and listen to all that trash! Quickly becoming CB radio in my opinion.

73 de Curt, K3URT, 100% verifier!

 

On Jan 29, 2017, at 8:54 PM, oldjavadrinker@... [070] <070@...> wrote:



The last topic of discussion delved into the area of QSL'ing a bit. I didn't want to continue that string but it does make me want to vent a little bit. Years ago as a novice in the 70's the only QSL'ing we did was those wonderful cards we hung up all over the shack. I got out of the hobby for many years after I retired from Army and Law Enforcement I jumped back into hamming in 2014.

Wow, now we have all sorts of methods of QSL'ing. We have bureau's , LoTW, eQSL, HRDnet, etc etc...and oh by the way, old faithful, USPS QSL cards.  With all these methods it would seem so easy to QSL a contact...wouldn't it?  I mean most logging programs can actually upload it to the site automatically or at least with a click of the mouse.

So why am I at LoTW 49% QSL rate, eQSL at 63%, and a handful of QSL cards. The cards, I understand, postage, time, whatever. But when all one has to do is click a mouse to sent TNX for QSO, I don't understand.
Some operators (ME), have 6 or 7 QSO's from MA, no QSL, NM 4, no QSL...shall I go on? 

You almost have to work your WAS two times to get enough QSL's to confirm your award.  I QSL 100% to LoTW and eQSL, and even QRZ and it is not a big effort or inconvenience.  Anyway, I think we deserve to do better for each other. You never know who needs that one QSO to complete an award.

Nothing in this is directed at any one particular ham, club, or group. It is just a little rant on a Sunday night from a part time curmudgeon. :).

Happy QSL'ing all,

73 Steve  
KM4FLF/VE3

 


Re: Why not QSL?

Joseph Miller <kj8o.ham@...>
 

Hi Jerry and the group,

A large number of QSL's that I reject on eQSL are for outdated call signs. KZ#ZZZ upgrades to K#ZZZ, then uploads his entire logbook to both the new and the old call sign. If I make a contact with K#ZZZ, I will confirm it, everything else gets rejected. Note, I get this a lot with European hams where many countries allow a ham to legally have more than one call sign. --- I will research these and confirm accordingly depending on the mood I'm in at the time....

VY 73 de Joe KJ8O




On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Jerry n9avy@... [070] <070@...> wrote:
 

Eqsl's that don't match your logs are usually an error of some sort such as wrong time/date, wrong/mistaken call, partial QSO,  or as Eqsl once stated there are those out there who want to get WAS/DXCC  without getting on the air.  Have had a few in the past.

Jerry  N9AVY  #454




From: "Miketar miketar@... [070]" <070@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 8:10 AM
Subject: [070] Re: Why not QSL?

 
Excellent post, I am waiting for one state that I worked, sent my eqsl (they do use it) but nothing sent back. It is so easy now to respond but why don't they? My Fldigi auto logs to N3FJP and Eqsl gets sent automatically. I still have to manually enter psk31 into QRZ and send LOTW monthly. My WSJT-x auto logs into all three and sends eqsl automatically. Curiously, I periodically will get an eqsl that I have no log entry for. I don't log incomplete qso's, so I wonder if that is what they are.
Thanks all, Mike T., WB2YJS

Sent from my iPad





--
Joe Miller, KJ8O
Affiliated Club Coordinator
ARRL Michigan Section

18081 - 18100 of 68336