[TRLog] 6.60 Observations ...

[Mike Heideman]

Billy Cox wrote:

> TR has a sequence that allows "record on the fly" with the
> DVK ... I'd like to have a Control-J option that PREVENTS that ...
> as in the WW SSB and the SB SS, I'd fumble something at the
> keyboard and managed to wipe out my F1/etc. message ...

You must have hit CTRL-F1 instead of F1.  This never happened to us in
our first use of DVP this past weekend, but I agree that it would be
nice to be able to turn it off.

> Next up ... The following happened near the end of the contest:
> Here's a snapshot of a portion of the log on PC-A:
>
> 15SSB 18-Nov-01 22:06 1072B K7RFI ...
> 40SSB 18-Nov-01 22:06 1073A WO8HIO  ......
> 15SSB 18-Nov-01 22:08 1073B AC4IK      ......
>
> See the problem ?   1073 was assigned TWICE !
>
> Here's PC-B's log ... for the same time slice ...
>
> 15SSB 18-Nov-01 22:06 1072B K7RFI ...
> 15SSB 18-Nov-01 22:08 1073B AC4IK      ......

You have encountered one of the "features" that multi-op stations have
frequently reported on the reflector.  Usually this happens when
something prevents network transmission for some reason.  Since PC-B
doesn't have the WO8HIO QSO, my best guess is that you accidentally hit
ALT-Y on that computer and deleted the QSO.  Each computer maintains its
own numbering, incrementing every time it logs a QSO or receives a QSO
from the other computer.  Serial numbers coming from the other computer
are ignored, so it will remain one number behind unless you do something
about it.

We've adopted a standard way of dealing with this, as suggested by
someone on the reflector.  The trick is to log a bogus QSO on the
computer that is behind (use your callsign or just re-enter the previous
QSO information to make it a dupe, assuming you're logging dupes).
Then, use ALT-Y on your other computer to delete the contact (ALT-Y on
all other computers if more than 2 in the network).  This will
"increment" the number on the lagging computer without incrementing it
on the others, getting things back in sync.

> I thought that was it ... but now, after looking closer at the log.
> Same thing "sort of" happened again ... several times.
>
> 15SSB 18-Nov-01 22:36 1101B N4FR
> 80SSB 18-Nov-01 22:37 1103A W1NG
> 15SSB 18-Nov-01 22:40 1103B K5QQ
> 15SSB 18-Nov-01 22:40 1104B WE9A

This is an obvious result of the two, off-by-one, sequences of numbers
produced by the two computers.

> They should not be penalized for whatever went wrong here.
> Ideas ? Or will the corrected CABRILLO format make these
> errors OK when what I sent is compared to what they put in
> THEIR logs ?

I would correct the log to reflect what you believe you sent and submit
that to ARRL.  We've occasionally given the same number to two stations
accidentally and not immediately caught it and corrected it before both
stations have gone.  I just include a note in my email with the Cabrillo
attachment that states that several of our sent serial numbers are
duplicated because of the logging software.

> TR provided interlock between PC-A/Rig-A and PC-B/Rig-B
> TR provided dueling CQing between PC-A/Rig-A and PC-B/Rig-B
> <these two would seem to be very related as to programming?

I agree, these features would be really nice.  For a two-transceiver
M/S, we have a tangle of audio cables and A/B switches that let both
operators hear either just their own receiver or one receiver in each
ear (kinda like SO2R).  That makes it relatively easy to do dueling CQs
without gaps.  Interlocks can independently prevent simultaneous
transmission.

-Mike, N7MH



--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog
Submissions:              trlog@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-trlog@contesting.com
Feature Wishlist:	  http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html