Hi, I can't believe I'm jumping on a discussion by THE experts - Bob, Patrick and others.

I must confess that I have sometimes used MHEARD to ACK several callsigns all at once, with very limited success. Since this was an impromptu approach, the other stations had no idea that I was trying to save air time.  ( sorry the idea using a beacon as a CQ/ACK never occurred but is quite interesting )

Secondly, I have used UISS with ACK enabled only because I had a non-optimal TX antenna and wanted a "physical layer ACK", to ensure my packets were being heard at the bird.  The good thing is that once I got this, I was essentially off the air waiting for a response to my CQ or QSO ACK.   I did however set the path to satellite callsign only.

Thirdly, I'll be using a portable setup with laptop et al - SatPC32, SDRsharp (as RX), IC7000 (as TX), and a logging program.

Lastly, this is my AHHA moment - now I know how I get QSO ACKs from Patrick so fast, while I have to struggle with UISS screen to send my QSO ACK. Most enlightening discussion !

73!  Umesh, K6VUG

------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 00:05:46 +0000 (UTC) From: Ryan Noguchi ai6do@yahoo.com To: AMSAT amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] APRS FD method Message-ID: 2021625973.717858.1529193946171@mail.yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I am not sure your approach would meet the definition of a complete QSO. Station A makes a general CQ call, and station>B would simply list your call as a QSL in the status text. Then how does station A acknowledge station B's QSL - adding B's call sign to the status text from A?

Yes, that's correct. The CONOPS that Bob WB4APR has outlined is sufficient to qualify as a QSO. Both parties have sent their call and exchange, received same from the other party, and have mutually acknowledged receipt. Both A and B are calling CQ in each beacon they transmit. They simply append the calls of the stations they are "answering" at the same time that they call CQ themselves.?

The elegance of the concept is that all communications are beacons--with everyone calling CQ and answering other CQers at the same time--rather than point-to-point messages. It's a very efficient use of the limited resource.?I like the idea in principle.

Add in the time of having to edit the status text on the?>APRS-ready radios, and it gets messy fast.

This is my second biggest concern with the concept, especially for those of us who will not be at a computer terminal. I tend to agree that this may be cumbersome to implement on just an HT, but I'll try it out to see how it compares.?

What I think is a more fatal flaw is that this just isn't the way we do things the other 363 days of the year. It isn't just a matter of "saying something different" on Field Day. This is a fundamentally different way to make QSOs than we do on packet satellites every other day but Field Day, which is not a recipe for success. It's a classic game theory problem. If I'm the only one following this protocol, I won't be making any QSOs.?

Has anyone in recent history successfully made an APRS Field Day QSO in the manner that Bob describes?

73, Ryan AI6DO

------------------------------