Hi, The appeal of JT65 is multi-faceted...works great deep into the noise so I can work stations as meager as more own at some distance. Also the freq tolerance, as you mentioned.
It is automated so a double right click on another call sets things in motion - sit back and watch! Socially it means one need not pass more than minimal info -- a pleasure to ones not wanting to engage discussion with morons like me! Interesting all around, me thinks.. 73 Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > but the nature of the WSJT software is that it will decode signls within a > 600 Hz range. So, unlike many other modes, even if you are off frequency > and not able to hear anything...it will decode. > > Andy > > > > On 5/30/07, Brian A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Let me play devil's advocate. > > > > Regarding HF JT65A operation in practice in the presence of the usual > > atmospherics. > > > > If I can't hear a signal, chances are near zero that it will be found > > tuning about the band by looking at the waterfalls. One almost needs > > to sked such "difficult paths". You have to know he's going to be > > there before looking. > > > > OK but much different from the normal HF mentality of tuning for > > random QSO's. > > > > So you have to depend upon the other guy hearing/seeing your CQ to > > establish one of these random marginal QSO's. But all things being > > equal, he likewise won't find you at random for the same reasons. > > > > I was just wondering how many of these random really weak signal > > contacts actually occur on HF. Like I said in my case it has been zero. > > > > 73 de Brian/K3KO > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio% 40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Andrew O'Brien" > > <andrewobrie@> wrote: > > > > > > All good comments. I agree with Danny AND Rick. I think I can > > safely say > > > that this group is responsible for the sudden explosion of JT65A > > activity on > > > HF, remember it is just one month old as a common HF mode. > > > > > > I'm perplexed too, I can find JT65A activity almost 24 hours per day but > > > rarely hear ALE and Olivia these days. I hear Hell and MFSK16 but > > not as > > > much as JT65A, by a big margin. > > > > > > As Danny correctly identified , JT65A, is simply amazing for extra weak > > > signal detection. Actually, I am not sure if it's the mode or just > > the WSJT > > > software, maybe the combination. I think however, that if someone like > > > Patrick developed software that would perform Olivia , ALE, > > DominoEx, etc , > > > etc...in the same manner as WSJT, hams would use it . Thus, I think > > we have > > > found that many hams enjoy a software product that enables precisely > > timed > > > "beacons" with simple responses to validate reception and a legitimate > > > exchange. > > > > > > In summary, JT65AWSJT performs well under weak conditions and the timing > > > divisions are attractive to experimenting hams. Give the same > > ability to > > > Olivia and Dominoex, easily, and I am sure use of those modes would > > > increase. > > > > > > > > > Andy K3UK > > > > > > On 5/30/07, Danny Douglas <N7DC@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The excitement of using the JT65 program on HF is NOT for those > > signals > > > > you > > > > can clearly hear and probably operate with another mode, but for those > > > > times > > > > that the propagation shows not to be there, you dont hear anything but > > > > possibly a slight raise in static on a band, etc. Then you can put > > this > > > > mode up, leave it alone, and see what pops out. Its for "playing" not > > > > really trying to communicate. FYI if anyone in P5 wants to work > > it, plse > > > > do so. Whether we can hear you or not, we will be there. > > > > > > > > Danny Douglas N7DC > > > > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > > > > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all > > > > DX 2-6 years each > > > > . > > > > QSL LOTW-buro- direct > > > > As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you > > > > use that - also pls upload to LOTW > > > > or hard card. > > > > > > > > moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]<digital_modes% 40yahoogroups.com> > > <digital_modes%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Rick" <mrfarm@ <mrfarm%40frontiernet.net>> > > > > To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio% 40yahoogroups.com><digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 8:58 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT65A HF query/observations > > > > > > > > > I too have been perplexed why these modes that were developed > > for weak > > > > > signals on VHF and above and only have the most meager rudimentary > > > > > exchange, would have any value on HF, relative to already > > existing weak > > > > > signal modes. Perhaps because it seemed "new," some focused on > > trying it > > > > > out? > > > > > > > > > > What I still would like to see is a sound card ARQ modes that is > > > > > scaleable in speed and also can work with weak signals, QSB, etc. > > > > > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > > > > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brian A wrote: > > > > > > I've been playing around with this on 20M. > > > > > > > > > > > > The new version which does the decoding starting at 48 seconds > > is a > > > > > > big help. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the the 25 contacts I've made all were clearly audible. All > > could > > > > > > have been worked on CW with no difficulty. They could have been > > > > > > worked on PSK or other such modes too--much more quickly. Most > > came > > > > > > from answers to my CQ's. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this the experience of others? > > > > > > > > > > > > So what is the benefit on HF? > > > > > > > > > > > > I clearly don't see this as being the future of HF ham radio. It > > > > > > isn't the killer ap. (I'm sure the MS, moonbounce and VHF > > capabilities > > > > > > are great and that was the original design objective) > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm a bit perplexed that stations which are S6 and above show > > up at > > > > > > -6db or so on the display. I know what it is editing. It is a > > pretty > > > > > > useless number to most users. What I want to know is: "how far > > below > > > > > > the current noise floor is the signal that I'm now working". > > It would > > > > > > seem that such a "below the noise" number could be determined and > > > > > > editied. Isn't this what all users (HF and V/UHF) want to know? > > > > > > > > > > > > 73 de Brian/K3KO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > > > > > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > > > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.3/824 - Release Date: > > 5/29/2007 > > > > 1:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
