|
Re: 60mtrs in DXView?
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
To add to the discussion: ARRL (or USA) is not the centre of the world. + I didn’t say that the ARRL or the USA are the center of the world. + I said that I agree with the ARRL's view that 60m is too narrow a band for DXing. + I also noted that the DXCC award program -- which is the world's pre-eminent DXing award program -- does not accept 60m QSOs. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
|
|
|
|
Re: 60mtrs in DXView?
Barry Murrell ZS2EZ
It would appear that the USA is lagging WELL behind the rest of the World when it comes to 60m…. even South Africa (which is normally VERY slow to adopt changes due to a convoluted Regulatory process) has had the allocation agreed to INTERNATIONALLY 5 years ago at our disposal for some time now!!!
I have long held the belief that the ARRL have a different agenda when it comes to 60m…. according to agreements reached at WRC-2015 Government and other users should have been steadily vacating the section between 5350-5450, and process should have been put under way YEARS ago to establish a secondary allocation in this section of the band, with a view to it ultimately becoming a primary allocation. As the USA is a participant at WRC, it is baffling why they are so out of sync with the rest of the world on this!
Additionally, DXing is not restricted to FCC regulations or the ARRL’s awards – Dxing is not ONLY restricted to DXCC, DXing is the thrill of making contact with distant places, testing one’s station and operating abilities in different modes of operation. As I have expressed before on this forum, our 60m band here in ZS is certainly wide enough for DXing…. As it is in other countries too!!
That said, DXLab is essentially American software written by an American author, and is provided as a service to the Amateur community – we should all acknowledge that it is Dave’s undisputed right to decide what bands to support in this software, and respect his decision unequivocally. There are many ways to keep track of one’s “totals” on 60m (I am currently on 91 worked!)…. Dave has provided scripts for following entity totals and States worked (incidentally for the paper chasers the 60 Meters Online guys - http://www.60metersonline.com/index.html - offer awards for 60m operations) so the fact that DXView does not include Realtime tracking should not deter one from trying the band…. Just remember to stay within the Regulations applicable to your location!!
Enjoy DX …. And respect each other’s views and choices!! (In my case I don’t work 160m – a 40-60dB permanent noise level makes it futile!!)
73 de BARRY MURRELL ZS2EZ KF26ta - Port Elizabeth, South Africa EPC#0558 DMC#1690 30MDG#4081 DXCC HONOR ROLL (332/340) DXCC(mixed)#41,146 DXCC(RTTY)#1,916 DXCC(phone)#34,990 DXCC(CW)#11,714 DXCC 80m,40m,30m,20m,17m,15m,12m,10m 5BDXCC#8,916 WAS Triple Play #492 WAS(RTTY)#538 WAS(Digital)#163-Endorsements JT65,FT8 WAZ(RTTY)#185 WAE-I(mixed)#72 WAZS(mixed)#214 AAA#1569 AS ZR6DXB: VUCC(50MHZ)#1,334 UKSMG WAE(Silver)#75 UKSMG AFRICA#22 WAC (Satellite) website : www.zs2ez.co.za
From: DXLab@groups.io [mailto:DXLab@groups.io] On Behalf Of wb6bee
ARRL will not address 60 meters until there are statistics to value it's use. NR1DX's comments are valid. If DXab, or some some other recording mechanism, could accumulate statistics on the value and utilization of 60 meters, then (perhaps) ARRL would pay attention. I have sent multiple emails, only to the the "atta boy" response.
|
|
|
|
Re: 60mtrs in DXView?
To add to the discussion: ARRL (or USA) is not the centre of the world. Currently there are more than 180 DXCC's active on 60M, not only with 4 channels but with good bandwidth & modes.
|
|
|
|
Re: 60mtrs in DXView?
Joe Subich, W4TV
60 Meter channels in the US are shared with *GOVERNMENT* Users who
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
are the primary users of those frequencies. The Amateur rules are written specifically to make it easy for those *PRIMARY* users to clear out interfering stations. How easy do you thing it is for typically untrained government operators to clear out a DX pile-up? DXing on 60 meters is liddish in the first degree. Frankly, I'm surprised that NTIA hasn't told the FCC to get the amateurs off the channels based on some of what I've heard. 73, ... Joe, W4TV
On 2020-05-21 10:05 PM, wb6bee wrote:
ARRL will not address 60 meters until there are statistics to value it's use. NR1DX's comments are valid. If DXab, or some some other recording mechanism, could accumulate statistics on the value and utilization of 60 meters, then (perhaps) ARRL would pay attention. I have sent multiple emails, only to the the "atta boy" response.
|
|
|
|
Re: New Install; SC Looking for Old BandModes File
Joe Subich, W4TV
How do I get SC to find the right file?Spotcollector -> Config -> General -> Sub-band Definition fill in/correct the file path and name. More details in the SC Help file (click the Help button in Config). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2020-05-21 9:30 PM, Ed Deichler wrote: I went through Dave's lengthy method to move DXLab to a new PC with Windows
|
|
|
|
Re: LotW sent field is set to U but QSOs are not in LotW
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
Tried a couple of QSOs. No change in the LotW sent field, it remains U. + OK. Please do the following: 1. On the "QSL Configuration" window's LoTW tab, check the "Permit uploading of QSOs already uploaded to LoTW" box 2. Right-click the Log Page Display entry for the same QSO you just checked, and select "Upload to LoTW" from the pop-up window. Wait an hour, right-click the QSO's Log Page Display entry, and select "Update from LoTW"; any change in the QSO's "LoTW QSL Sent" item? 73, Dave, AA6YQ
|
|
|
|
Re: New Install; SC Looking for Old BandModes File
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comment sbelow
I went through Dave's lengthy method to move DXLab to a new PC with Windows 10. Good news: all went well. Bad news: SpotCollector opens with an error message that an old BandModes text file it is looking for does not exist. I had saved the latest BandModes text from a week ago and loaded it into the SpotCollector folder. The old file is "BandModes 2006-12-16.txt" and the new one that I saved before the transfer is "BandModes 2019-05-02.txt". How do I get SC to find the right file? + In the "Sub-band Definition" panel near the bottom of SpotCollector's Configuration window's General tab, click the Select button, and use the "Open" window that appears to select BandModes 2019-05-02.txt 73, Dave, AA6YQ
|
|
|
|
New Install; SC Looking for Old BandModes File
Ed Deichler
I went through Dave's lengthy method to move DXLab to a new PC with Windows 10. Good news: all went well. Bad news: SpotCollector opens with an error message that an old BandModes text file it is looking for does not exist. I had saved the latest BandModes text from a week ago and loaded it into the SpotCollector folder. The old file is "BandModes 2006-12-16.txt" and the new one that I saved before the transfer is "BandModes 2019-05-02.txt". How do I get SC to find the right file? 73 de Ed
|
|
|
|
Re: 60mtrs in DXView?
ARRL will not address 60 meters until there are statistics to value it's use. NR1DX's comments are valid. If DXab, or some some other recording mechanism, could accumulate statistics on the value and utilization of 60 meters, then (perhaps) ARRL would pay attention. I have sent multiple emails, only to the the "atta boy" response.
We all know the channels are stupid, but it is what we have. Doesn't mean that there is not a DX challenge out there to make something happen Easy is not fun or interesting. IMHO Don WB6BEE
|
|
|
|
Re: LotW sent field is set to U but QSOs are not in LotW
Steve K8JQ
Tried a couple of QSOs. No change in the LotW sent
field, it remains U.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Steve, K8JQ
On 5/21/2020 8:46 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: LotW sent field is set to U but QSOs are not in LotW
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:05 PM, Steve K8JQ wrote: My usual method is to filter the Log QSOs tab, then on the QSL tab => Add Requested => Upload to LotW => Sync LotW QSOs => Sync Lotw QSLs. This won't work because when I click Add Requested there are no QSOs added to the queue because all the QSOs have the sent field set to U. + OK. Locate the Log Page Display entry for one of the QSOs in the group that you say was uploaded but not accepted by LoTW. Right click it and select "update from LoTW" from the pop-up menu. When this operation complete, inspect the QSO's "LoTW QSL Sent" item; to what is it now set? 73,
|
|
|
|
Re: Failure to Upload Qs to LOTW
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ commetns below On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 02:51 PM, Fred - NA2U wrote:
Option 1, Steps 1 and 2+ Set the "QSL Via" panel to LoTW. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
|
|
|
|
Re: LotW sent field is set to U but QSOs are not in LotW
Steve K8JQ
My usual method is to filter the Log QSOs tab, then on the QSL tab
=> Add Requested => Upload to LotW => Sync LotW QSOs =>
Sync Lotw QSLs. This won't work because when I click Add Requested
there are no QSOs added to the queue because all the QSOs have the
sent field set to U.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I tried TQSL. It failed. The popup error message box was titled "Already Uploaded QSOs Detected". Steve, K8JQ
On 5/21/2020 5:24 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Failure to Upload Qs to LOTW
Fred - NA2U
Option 1, Steps 1 and 2
If I set QSL via to QSL cards I do not get an “Update from LOTW” button. I’ll add that the list shows the last failure before the current one was 7/10/18. 73 from the desert, Fred/NA2U On May 21, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@ambersoft.com> wrote:____________________________________________________________ Sponsored by https://www.newser.com/?utm_source=part&;utm_medium=uol&utm_campaign=rss_taglines_more Man Who Served 11 Presidents Dies of COVID http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5ec6f7b7aecd277b67eb0st03duc1 Trump Skips the Mask in Public Tour of Ford Plant http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5ec6f7b7cdf5177b67eb0st03duc2 Former Trump Lawyer Goes Home After a Year in Prison http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5ec6f7b7ed9c677b67eb0st03duc3
|
|
|
|
Re: LotW sent field is set to U but QSOs are not in LotW
Dave AA6YQ
+ Aa6YQ comments below
A CWT is a "CW test". A one hour CW contest that runs three times on Wednesdays. I usually make about a hundred contacts. As far as I am aware, the logs for the three CWTs have the same format, no reason for one to be different from the others. I see no difference among them as I look at them in the Log QSOs window. N1MMLogger+ is the source, import ADIF into DXKeeper. + Thanks for the explanation. + Try resubmitting the batch that was submitted but not accepted. Does TQSL reject them as "already submitted"? 73, Dave, AA6YQ
|
|
|
|
Re: LotW sent field is set to U but QSOs are not in LotW
Steve K8JQ
A CWT is a "CW test". A one hour CW contest that
runs three times on Wednesdays. I usually make about a hundred
contacts. As far as I am aware, the logs for the three CWTs have
the same format, no reason for one to be different from the
others. I see no difference among them as I look at them in the
Log QSOs window. N1MMLogger+ is the source, import ADIF into
DXKeeper.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Steve, K8JQ
On 5/21/2020 4:40 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below I made some contacts in each of the three CWTs yesterday. + What's a CWT ? Uploaded to LotW per the instructions on UploadLotWLogPageDisplay - DX Lab Suite Wiki <https://www.dxlabsuite.com/dxlabwiki/UploadLotWLogPageDisplay> , or so I thought. The 1300Z and 0300Z logs appear to have uploaded and sync'ed OK. The 1900Z CWT appears not to have been successful. The LotW sent field is set to U for all of these QSOs. But when I look at the LotW web page Your QSOs, they are not in LotW. + How are the QSOs in your 1900Z CWT different than those in your 1300Z and 0300Z logs? 73, Dave, AA6YQ
|
|
|
|
Re: log problems
Dave AA6YQ
Thanks for sending me your log, Don.
1. Your log contains 19 empty QSOs, each with no callsign, band, mode, date, or time. An empty QSO is created when you click the New button on the Main window's "Log QSOs" tab, but then never populate the new QSO with information. Whenever you select one of these empty QSOs, DXKeeper will flash the captions of these items in red font, insisting that you either supply valid information or delete the QSO. My advice is to set the Sort panel to Call (lower left corner of the Main window's Log QSOs" tab), which will put all of the empty QSOs at the top of the Log Page Display. Delete each empty QSO one at a time by clicking the Delete button just above the Log Page Display. 2. You should rename the log file you are using to NK6A.mdb 73, Dave, AA6YQ
|
|
|
|
Re: assuming LoTW confirmations "count" for IOTA might not be a good idea
Dave AA6YQ
* more AA6YQ comments below
those requirements may be enough for IOTA to consider a QSL as a confirmation but I'm not sure just those attributes will be enough for an accepted IOTA confirmation. For example their requirements for paper cards are much stricter in that the IOTA reference must be printed on the original card, i.e. writing it on afterwards is not acceptable, the information must be provided by the DX station. Seehttps://www.iota-world.org/islands-on-the-air/qsl-card-requirements.html . I would be surprised if LoTW matches would be acceptable without an IOTA reference from the DX station.that does seem to be unconfirmed so far but I'll bet that is exactly what they will require. They are very strict on that with paper QSLs and I doubt that will change. Is all too common for island stations not to include their IOTA reference on QSLs and I have no doubt many also do not include it in their LoTW Station Locations. A similar situation exists for a great deal of US stations who do not specify their grid square on QSLs which makes them invalid for European grid based awards, particularly for hard earned contacts on 6m. * The good news is that it's relatively easy to send an email message to a QSO partner asking them to more fully (or accurately) populate a "Station Location" and resubmit your QSO to LoTW. I've had success with this on several occasions. * The dark side of this capability is that a user can resubmit QSOs with a "Station Location" that contains inaccurate location information, depriving you of a grid or state confirmation that you previously possessed. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
|
|
|
|
Re: URE QDure paper QSL System
Herman / PA3BFH
Hi Dave
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Ok thanks, I didn't know about the default ADIF value, will see what they have to say to that. 73, Herman / PA3BFH Op 21-5-2020 om 22:55 schreef Dave AA6YQ:
+ AA6YQ comments below --
Herman van den Berg / PA3BFH Hoofdweg 132 1433 JX kudelstaart Tel 0297 322011
|
|
|
|
Re: Failure to Upload Qs to LOTW
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
On May 21, 2020, at 1:31 PM, Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@ambersoft.com> wrote:#117,118 + So the question is, which will be faster: A. 6590 individual requests sent to LoTW to report a QSO's status so that DXKeeper can update each one B. Directing LoTW to report that status of all 117,118 of your QSOs, so that DXKeeper can update them each of them + I'll guess that A will be faster: 1. On the Main window's "Lot QSOs" tab, click the Filter panel's LoTW button; your 6590 QSOs should appear in the Log Page Display 2. On the Main window's QSL tab 2a. set the "QSL Via" panel to QSL 2b. click the "Update from LoTW" button, and confirm that you want DXKeeper to query LoTW for the status of each of those 6590 QSOs + This step will take a long time; I suggest that you initiate it before retiring for the evening; don't be surprised if it's still running in the morning. 3. On the Main window's "Lot QSOs" tab, click the Filter panel's LoTW button; how many QSOs are now present in the Log Page Display? 73, Dave, AA6YQ
|
|
|
