On 12/2/2019 2:54 AM, Martin Davies G0HDB wrote:
In summary, I don't see any need whatsoever for any modification of the 'Call
1st' capability
to include any forms of queuing or callsign lockout
Agreed. This is an operator issue, not a software one.
73, Jim K9YC
On 11/22/2019 2:33 PM, Grant VK5GR wrote:
and FOX mode is playing a big part in the success of that.
I see FT8 and DXpedition mode to be the greatest thing to happen to the
little pistol station since I learned CW 60 years ago.
73, Jim K9YC
___
On 10/24/2019 12:15 PM, DG2YCB, Uwe wrote:
During the current DXpeditions I‘ve observed repeatedly the following:
Signal strength dropped dramatically when number of slots was increased.
Have you studied the documentation for WSJT-X? This is inherent in
multi-slot transmission.
73, Jim K9YC
On 10/20/2019 2:44 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
As best I know, you don't need to ID every contact, and I suspect you
wouldn't even if moving around within a bandwidth as narrow as is
typical for FT8.
Far too much attention to identification is paid by those who don't
operate much, and/or aren't
On 9/25/2019 5:12 PM, Bill Frantz wrote:
but the 7QP will also have a big number.
And there's another wrinkle -- 7QP and NEQP (held the same weekend) have
five character abbreviations (two for state, three for county). But
there's also the question of whether sponsors of these state QSO
On 8/20/2019 8:47 PM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
http://tmda.net/
My web and email host offers this, and I've used it for several decades.
If someone sends DIRECT email to my mailbox and I have not emailed them
directly, they will get this sort of response.
The proper response to
On 8/19/2019 6:23 PM, Star Light wrote:
This is a forum for a “Mensa” person to brag about being a “Mensa” person.
Nothing more. As you would expect, no content, just BS.
Actually, it is forum for the WSJT-X DEVELOPERS -- that is, the guys who
do the hard work (FOR FREE) to write the
I would certainly hope that you would want it for your personal safety,
and for the non-destruction of your home and your equipment! It also
happens that proper bonding of equipment, and obtaining power for all
interconnected equipment from outlets that share the same green wire,
minimizes
Last I looked, the Laws of Physics still govern what happens when
lightning strikes. We have a similar issue with common practice by wired
telephone installers here in the former colonies failing to properly
bond their installations.
My recommendations are in line with those laws and the
On 8/10/2019 6:09 PM, Paul Randall wrote:
Double insulated equipment like a laptop charger doesn’t have any
physical access to a metal part that can be bonded to ground.
Sorry, I failed to comment on this. Most computers have DB15 connectors
for video, and the shells of these connectors
Bill Whitlock (also a Fellow of the AES, and with strong RF
chops) correctly identified the real issues, and my advice is based on
his model. I suggest that you study my tutorial material.
73, Jim K9YC
Cheers Paul G3NJV
Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
The concept of a so-called "ground loop" is completely false. It has no
basis in physics. The "buzz" we hear when equipment is not properly
bonded consists of triplen harmonics of the mains frequency, 50 or 60
Hz, depending on where you live. What DOES couple this trash is the
failure to
The decode at 174737 is a false decode. This occasionally happens.
73, Jim K9YC
On 7/31/2019 12:11 PM, Topher Petty wrote:
I had an interesting one today...
Got a call from 2W2UHM/P grid square RA74 (I know, unlikely), which
terminated oddly...
On 7/29/2019 8:37 AM, Rich Zwirko - K1HTV wrote:
When all 6M DXers in the region are all using the same Tx sequence, we
all have a better chance to decode weak DX signals.
YES! I have sent educational emails to locals on this topic. Another
observation is that we need to listen a lot more,
On 7/28/2019 12:56 PM, Gary Kohtala - K7EK via wsjt-devel wrote:
Also those that call my station with a signal report on their first
transmission (no full callup and no grid).
I ignore folks like that. If they don't start the contact with a full
set of calls and grid square there will be no
On 7/28/2019 11:31 AM, Bill Frantz wrote:
The fixed time slots of FT8/FT4 make it hard to find out if there is
another station on the same frequency as you, even if propagation would
let you hear it. It is one of the worst features of these protocols.
An obvious solution is to not call CQ all
On 7/28/2019 8:53 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:
Everyone who uses WSJT-X for FT8 must have noticed the number of
operators who answer a CQ and then, when the QSO is complete, call CQ on
the same frequency. Are all these operators really stupid or are they
being trapped by a weakness in the user
The grid expedition to DL79 and DL99 two weeks ago found that ISCAT
would make QSOs under marginal conditions that wouldn't support FT8 or
MSK144. Last night, AG6EE and I tried it over a path of 40 miles or so,
and were unable to decode either Mode A or Mode B, even though the
signal was
On 7/22/2019 4:52 PM, Ron WV4P wrote:
Seperate Freqs for Contests... Solves it all.
Not really -- see Ed's post. The contester WANTS QSOs from non-contesters.
73, Jim K9YC
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
On 7/22/2019 4:32 PM, Laurie, VK3AMA wrote:
On 23/07/2019 9:14 am, Jim Brown wrote:
Configurations, as suggested by Laurie, is too many mouse clicks,
you're more likely to lose a sequence.
Seriously? 2 mouse clicks is too many.
One to click the configuration menu title, then move you mouse
On 7/22/2019 3:56 PM, Ed Muns wrote:
*/I’m advocating that the contester should take responsibility in either
case—calling a non-contester or being called by a non-contester. It’s
in the contester’s best interest, as well as the interest of the
non-contester, to use an exchange flow that the
On 7/21/2019 10:17 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:
I chose not to participate in the RTTY contest but still wished to make
FT8 QSO on 6 meters. I called CQ K3WYC DM33 thus indicating I was not
in the contest. Multiple stations answered me and replied to my report
with "R grid". Since these stations
On 7/17/2019 12:14 PM, Joe Taylor wrote:
out frequencies we have suggested are made by people who have been
silent when we've asked for community input. It's not helpful to call
those who have worked hard to come up with acceptable defaults
"inconsiderate" or "ignorant" -
Out of context
It has come to my attention that the default FT4 frequency on 40M has
been set to 7047.5 As N5TM put it on Slack VHF-Chat, "this is going to
start an all out war on 40M." I couldn't agree more.
I'm very active on the HF bands, and there's a LOT of CW activity all
the way up to at least 7060.
Two decodes of the same signal, the main signal and a reflected one, the
station is worked before, one decode is grey, the other is green (he's
calling CQ). This is FT8 on 6M. I saw it on successive cycles.
73, Jim K9YC
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
, Jim Brown wrote:
I installed the new 64-bit Windows package on the Win7-64 bit machine
in my shack. I got the error message looking for OpenSSL when I tried
to DL from ARRL, so installed the Windows 1.0.2 Light 64-bit version.
I've rebooted Windows and WSJT-X several times, but still get
I installed the new 64-bit Windows package on the Win7-64 bit machine in
my shack. I got the error message looking for OpenSSL when I tried to DL
from ARRL, so installed the Windows 1.0.2 Light 64-bit version. I've
rebooted Windows and WSJT-X several times, but still get the error
message. I
On 7/14/2019 5:08 AM, Claude Frantz wrote:
Why do contesters send RST at all ?
Because it's in the archaic rules, and we couldn't possibly change
anything. :)
73, Jim K9YC
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
On 7/13/2019 11:50 PM, roland.hartm...@web.de wrote:
If it is an issue on my receiving audio path, than all received stations
should be doubled. This is not happened.
If it is an issue on my sending audio path, than all the other stations
who received my should be doubled. Those is also not
On 7/13/2019 9:32 PM, Reino Talarmo wrote:
In some contest we use RST reports
I do LOTS of contesting, and the RST is ALWAYS 599 or 59. Anyone who
sends anything else is a casual operator, not a contester.
73, Jim K9YC
___
wsjt-devel mailing
On 7/8/2019 3:29 PM, Conrad PA5Y wrote:
Aircraft scatter on 6m occurs of course but not so often, however during
intense Es events sure enough I also see these ghosts on 6m and again no shift.
Conrad, your observations are limited, I suspect, because you may not
live near major airports. It
BTW -- IMD that's 40 dB down is quite good and better than FCC
type-acceptance specs -- it takes a very good rig and a first rate tube
or solid state power amp to achieve that.
73, Jim K9YC
On 7/5/2019 11:27 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
There are two common causes of sidebands with a station
There are two common causes of sidebands with a station that is properly
adjusted and uses good equipment.
1) The best gear (Elecraft K3, K3S, or a Flex 6000-series), and a first
class power amp) have sidebands roughly 40 dB down on both sides of
their signal due to IM distortion in the RF
My near universal operating mode with FT8 is to Hold TX frequency.
When I switch modes from FT8 to MSK144 and back to FT8, I come back to
find it turned off and my TX frequency set to 1500 Hz. Is it possible
for WSJT-X to remember my last settings for a given mode?
Thanks and 73, Jim K9YC
On 4/26/2019 1:30 PM, Deisher, Michael wrote:
BTW, in my experience wsjtx does not work half-bad with acoustic
coupling.
YES! By that I mean, and I think you mean, the computer mic picking up
the sound from the speaker in the radio and, by Windoze accident,
feeding that to WSJT-X.
So I
On 4/26/2019 11:14 AM, Deisher, Michael wrote:
I realized that just after pressing send. The 90Hz bandwidth (I call it
acoustic bandwidth since it is encoded as a PCM audio signal)
You're confusing the vibration of air with an electrical signal at audio
frequencies. The word "acoustic" and
On 4/18/2019 9:32 AM, Scotty W7PSK wrote:
He was +1 here, I doubt he didn't hear me. I had been on that offset
working DX for almost an hour. I finally had to move to another offset.
Never overlook the possibility that the other guy is doing something
dumb, rather than intentional. Traffic
On 4/9/2019 11:29 AM, Timothy Hickman wrote:
I have noticed lately that when I send CQ on FT8 A few stations respond
with the signal report not their grid square.
Is there something here I do not understand?
Yes. Their goal is to reduce the time required to complete a QSO.
73, Jim K9YC
On 4/8/2019 10:55 AM, Richard Solomon wrote:
Theory and practice are sometimes at odds with each other.
NO, they never are. When we think there's a difference, we don't know
enough about one or the other.
A single point ground is an excellent idea, in theory. But when
the shack is located
On 3/31/2019 9:53 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
most Amateur Radio operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to
be worthwhile and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be
very annoying.
That depends on what you might be trying to accomplish. I certainly
would automate my
On 3/22/2019 12:58 PM, Wolfgang wrote:
In SSB the 'bad guys' are the ones yelling endless, even if they
don't hear the DX. And now in FT8 we try to blame the DX beeing
'the 'bad guys' ??? Chasing DX is like a race, we have some
winners and some... who do not make it;-)
Btw., there is a lot of
On 3/17/2019 10:10 PM, lstosk...@cox.net wrote:
So all I need is a PTT line and audio in/out for the Windows machine.
If the radio can do VOX from the input where you feed it WSJT-X audio,
you don't need PTT from the computer.
73, Jim K9YC
___
On 3/16/2019 11:33 PM, Claude Frantz wrote:
Just the one: Which power supply is low noise, in the RFI sense ?
As several of my old EE and math profs often stated, "the proof is left
to the student." There are multiple applications notes and tutorials on
my website describing the ways in
On 3/16/2019 3:58 PM, Martin wrote:
I have a Thinkpad W540 and tried using one of the mobile 19V supplies -
the same voltage as the Lenovo factory power supply. When I booted I
got a new screen I'd never seen before. Lenovo was telling me to go out
and buy a genuine Lenovo power supply. I
On 3/16/2019 12:23 PM, Gary Hinson wrote:
You could check laptops and their power supplies in a friendly laptop shop
(when they are not too busy!), using a portable AM radio.
Naw -- virtually place that sells or repairs stuff, or where humans
live, is almost certain to be so full of noise
On 3/16/2019 8:40 AM, Claude Frantz wrote:
I have noticed that the display of laptops and standalone ones, the
power supply of PC's and laptops are often the source of very bad noise.
Where can we find good recommendations about which product to use or to
avoid ? There is many information
On 3/15/2019 12:41 PM, Carey Fisher wrote:
RF getting into my stereo cause it to produce a 60Hz hum. Why is that?
Probably intermodulation distortion within the victim device.
73, Jim K9YC
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
As others have noted, EVERY conductor is an antenna, and most computers
and rigs are built with manufacturing/design defects that couple RF from
attached cables inside the the box to cause problems.
Here is a tutorial on the topic, and an applications note for finding
and killing RF noise.
Of course. You're not in DXpedition Mode. READ THE WSJT-X MANUAL ABOUT
DXPEDITION MODE.
73, Jim K9YC
On 3/14/2019 1:11 PM, jtul...@roadrunner.com wrote:
PINO:
This same thing has happened to me with three 5X3E QSOs in F/H mode.
Very frustrating!
Does anyone have a solution?
On 3/13/2019 7:11 AM, Bastien F4EYQ wrote:
I've develop a "Radio Cloud" for ham people, This cloud purpose a
logbook "online"
LOTW and eQSL work quite well. Why do we need another one?
73, Jim K9YC
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
On 2/20/2019 3:48 PM, Ken Miller wrote:
I like to utilize the lower portion of the FT8 bands down to 0 hz.
When transmitting that low, your signal is outside the RX bandwidth of
many transceivers that are tuned to the standard frequency. If you want
to do that anyway, simply tune your RX to
On 1/18/2019 5:22 AM, Jari A wrote:
Did I experience another hash error?
Looking at the screen grab shows that the station is signing /QRP. I
work a lot of QRP, but I never sign /QRP, and I won't work a station
signing /QRP. I see it as the station asking for special treatment.
Far more
Yes. The likely cause is failure to implement proper chassis-to-chassis
bonding between all station equipment, including the computer and
computer audio interface. It is also important that all station
equipment get power from the same outlet or outlet box, or, if from
different outlets, the
On 1/3/2019 9:56 AM, Neil Zampella wrote:
FWIW .. some RTTY contesters show up in the normal JT65/JT9/FT8 locations. I
Yes, there are always those who don't have a clue. And there are those
whose only exposure to digital modes is RTTY -- they have no idea what
other modes sound like or the
On 1/2/2019 7:02 PM, Neil Zampella ne...@techie.com [wsjtgroup] wrote:
I see it as a good test of the FT8 decoder's ability to pull out the
data from all the dross.
I see it as an opportunity for FT8 ops to piss off RTTY ops, and it's
not our fault. Thanks to a massive screw-up by the FCC the
On 12/29/2018 1:36 PM, Simon wrote:
How good is magnetic loop antenna, may be with amplifier for receive
only, in REJECTING man made noise, especially at or near city area,
with huge number of SMPS, florescent lamp etc. at people's home?
Loops like this have a very broad "figure of eight"
On 12/28/2018 11:29 PM, Simon wrote:
Is there a source of data for natural and man made noise, as pick up
by an isotopic antenna (or dipole which will be about 2dB higher) in
dBm value, either
a) based on 'fixed paper model" as page 5 of ITU-R document,
R-REC-P.372-13-201609
b) actual
On 12/28/2018 10:00 PM, Simon wrote:
Is FT8 and psk31 generally use around 20 to 30 watts maximum, as a
"social rule", so that one station would not be too strong as to mask
out other station, due to agc of rig?
In general, that's true on the HF bands, but it's NOT true on 6M and
160M. On
On 12/28/2018 4:54 PM, Simon wrote:
Hi K9YC,
Many thanks for the detailed analysis.
1. Sorry, I do not understand why u said, quoted, "Gauging by the FT8
signals centered around 7075 kHz, I'd call this QTH pretty noisy". This
is the FT8 band at 7074kHz, usb and wsjt-x decoded good copy of
Hello Simon,
The straight vertical lines in the waterfall are harmonics of a stable
clock, perhaps your computer. The "wavy" vertical trace around 7054
looks like the noise from a mains-powered noise source like a
switch-mode power supply or variable-speed motor controller -- the clue
is
On 12/21/2018 8:44 AM, DX Jami via wsjt-devel wrote:
nonstandard call signs such as mine - W4/AH6FX ... or AH6FX/W4
Hi Danny,
US callsigns, with no / identifiers, are valid anywhere in the US. While
using one is legal, it is completely un-necessary. Your call is AH6FX
anywhere in the US,
On 12/5/2018 7:00 PM, Al Pawlowski wrote:
Only a few have posted what range of DT’s they mostly see
My most recent experience is with 1.9, and on 6M from the summer. My
memory is routinely seeing DTs in the range of +/_ 200msec, with
occasional outliers up to 2 sec or so. My sound card is a
On 12/4/2018 4:58 PM, Richard Solomon wrote:
If you really want a PDF file, then still use the browser print function
and direct it to a PDF create application. There are a number of
freeware ones that work fine.
I regularly use Libre Office to create pdf files from Libre Office, Word
or
On 11/20/2018 10:54 AM, Dave Hachadorian wrote:
It worked OK sometimes, but several callers kept coming back for more
info, apparently looking for that final (TX5) “73” from me.
That's partly because some FT8 operators don't have contesting
experience. The sequence you outline is perfectly
On 11/16/2018 5:13 PM, Bob via wsjt-devel wrote:
Why then are you changing everything to go to a different format and
frequency?
The answers to this are on the WSJT-X website. Changes and upgrades are
being made at the request of users.
73, Jim K9YC
On 10/24/2018 8:46 PM, Ed Muns wrote:
*/My Tx cycle had already started by the time I could click on their
call from their CQ in the prior cycle. Is there a technique I’m missing
or is this an inherent issue (delay of 30 seconds)?/*
Experience has been that if you have a good signal at the
On 10/3/2018 10:52 AM, Dave Q wrote:
Joe, pointed out the correct Maryland designation for RTTY is MD.
Yes, it is for ARRL RTTY Roundup, and for many other contests. But MDC
is the exchange for others, so WSJT-X should be able to handle it if,
for example, it is to support ARRL Field Day.
On 9/27/2018 1:32 PM, Dave wrote:
The events I've participated in that require such a designation have
used MDC
Yes. MDC is the correct abbreviation for the ARRL section Maryland-DC,
which is the correct exchange for Field Day, Sweepstakes, and the ARRL
160M contest.
73, Jim K9YC
On 9/1/2018 11:26 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
It's worth mentioning that for more than a decade MAP65, a sister
program of WSJT, WSPR, and WSJT-X, has provided a powerful and uniquely
effective form of diversity reception: polarization diversity. And yes,
the outputs of two receivers ARE simply be
On 9/1/2018 3:14 AM, Iztok Saje wrote:
Instead of overcomplicating protocols, diversity reception shall be
considered.
Diversity reception has been around for nearly a century, and depends on
the very complex computing engine located between the ears of the
operator. My guess is that any
I mostly use WSJT-X on 6M, and have several neighbors who, depending on
the directions of our beams at any given time, can be as strong as 40 dB
over S9. I run a K3 with AGC set to Slow, so if I set drive to the
decoder at 30 dB, any station weaker than about 15dB over S9 will be
below the
On 8/1/2018 6:00 PM, Ed Stallman wrote:
Love both FT8 and N1MM + logger,
So do I, but only for contest logging. My primary log is DXKeeper, which
DOES record start and stop times, and is designed to be a general
purpose logger. N1MM doesn't bother with start and stop times because
contest
On 8/1/2018 9:50 AM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
IMHO better if ops learn how to set up their rigs properly though.
Exactly right. The last page of this link has detailed instructions for
setting audio levels that avoids distortion.
http://k9yc.com/USB_Interfaces.pdf
73, Jim K9YC
On 7/5/2018 5:26 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
There should be no need to edit the prefix in DXKeeper. When attempting
to work a DXpedition you know their callsign perfectly well, in advance.
Yes, but -- when you click on their call when they have called someone
else, you get KH7W, not KH1/KH7W,
On 7/4/2018 6:53 PM, Bill Barrett wrote:
Hello Jim-
I worked them several times and uploaded the contacts Club Log and LOTW but.
On Club Log I see "W" not green "C". No QSL in LOTW.
Just getting started with C.L. am I doing something wrong?
Go to ClubLog, but before you even sign in, click on
On 7/4/2018 4:40 PM, David Fisher wrote:
Later when I uploaded to ClugLog, I was reminded that I logged the wrong
callsign. Easily fixed in ClubLog, but for LOTW, all I could do was log
the contacts again as KH1/KH7X.
I also simply click on their call when they're sending to someone else.
On 7/3/2018 6:24 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
I think the Fox operators are learning to manage their pileups
reasonably well. I listened and watched the show on 40m this morning
for ~2.5 hours, with good signals from Fox. The Op was doing a good
job: he was using 2 slots, thereby keeping the queue
On 7/3/2018 7:16 AM, John Zantek wrote:
You would think it’s that simple, but no. Icom’s required CT-17
level-converter, at $139, only works with an RS-232 connection on the
PC. USB-9pin converters are evidently not supported.
There have been some good designs for replacements for the
On 6/30/2018 9:16 AM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
I just tested this and Fox tried 3 times to respond to a blind call.
Define a "blind call." I would define it as calling someone you can't
copy.
As others have observed, an expedition op with a screenful of callers is
unlikely to
On 6/30/2018 7:14 AM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
Tons of ops calling KH7Z when they can't see them. I assume this only
causes problems as it's quite possible KH7Z with their honker antennas
and can see them but not the other way round.
It's not "big honker antennas" -- the
On 6/25/2018 11:50 PM, Saku wrote:
Do you have a web page "My patches", or similar, combining all your
patches together.
One of the great things about the WSJT development team is that useful
stuff eventually ends up in compiled releases. I wait for those and
install them ASAP.
73, Jim
I must say that I'm getting awfully tired of the bashing of a fine
operating mode that requires a lot more operator sophistication than
those who have never used it assume. I'm a pretty good CW op (starting
in 1955), but I also concentrate on station building, understanding
propagation, and
On 6/6/2018 1:48 PM, John C. Westmoreland, P.E. wrote:
Jim,
OK - so the claim I'm reading here is Hamlib is 1000% bug-free regarding
Vista-64? I'm very skeptical about that; the most obvious issue and
nothing mentioned thus
far obviates this.
I know NOTHING about Vista Hamlib or
On 6/6/2018 12:36 PM, John C. Westmoreland, P.E. wrote:
That's an interesting hypothesis. Since USB is differential signaling -
it has some noise immunity; but I will definitely check into this.
Hum/buzz gets into our systems as a result of failure to implement
proper bonding between
On 6/1/2018 6:15 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
As you might expect, we are busy looking at more comprehensive ways of
addressing the problem. The solution is not one for v1.9.1, however.
Thanks
Jim K9YC
--
Check out the
On 5/31/2018 9:43 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
Of course this could be done in FT8. But as I emphasized in a previous
email, we did not want to use a different solution for FT8 and MSK144.
As currently implemented, MSK144 has no spare bits.
Two thoughts. First, aren't FT8 and MSK144 designed for
On 5/30/2018 6:30 PM, Ned wrote:
This happened to me at the most inopportune time. I was sending a signal
report to DS4AOW for a ATNO on 6m and it sent a NA Contest TX3 exchange
instead of what was expected. The only way I could clear the problem was
to change the mode to to anything other
On 5/11/2018 3:41 PM, Grant Willis wrote:
Standard Mode Useability Feedback
In standard mode when faced with a major pileup, the following ideas
would be very helpful. These are mostly GUI changes.
These suggestions make a lot of sense to me. I worked you from YJ0AG,
and quickly observed
Hi Joe,
I think it would help a lot if details like these of the process, which
is clearly quite well designed, were to be part of user doc for Hounds.
73, Jim K9YC
On 5/8/2018 10:37 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
In Fox mode WSJT-X maintains several queues.
A specified Hound callsign stays in
Thank you and the team for your efforts. I strongly agree with the needs
you have articulated. Let me add this comment.
Virtually ANY major contest and DXpedition results in very high activity
on bands that are open. It's not unusual for either to attract thousands
of operators, and it's
On 3/29/2018 7:49 AM, Rich - K1HTV wrote:
*Being a 160M CW DXer, I too agree that 1826.5 is NOT a good spot for
the FT8 DXpedition frequency, as many other Topband DXers would also
agree. The highest end of the band has plenty of room, but many
antennas, cut for the low end of the band,
On 3/26/2018 5:44 PM, Mike Besemer wrote:
Wow… there had been so much good discussion here about avoiding interference to
other modes, and then this happens. If nothing else, it’s extremely
inconsiderate and the discussion on the PSK31 lists is not favorable for FT8.
I wish the developers
On 3/21/2018 3:16 PM, Ray Jacobs wrote:
You were right they were on the same frequency as regular ft 8 instead
of another frequency, somehow they will have to announce what
frequency they are on. But how do they get the word out?
The DX Cluster system.
73, Jim K9YC
Hello Take,
Apparently those who maintain these bandplans are a bit behind the
times. The Region 2 bandplan for 160M assigns digital modes to
1800-1810, frequencies that are not available in many countries. This is
a very old bandplan, and has been universally ignored for many years.
The
On 10/29/2017 1:40 PM, Joe Taylor wrote:
No doubt you're correct that 3XY has been used for over 18 years. The
callsign compression algorithm used in WSJT, MAP65, WSPR, and WSJT-X
has been around almost as long, since 2001. Nobody has complained (or
even sent us a polite note) about a need
On 9/21/2017 12:42 PM, Joe Taylor wrote:
What would be *really* helpful is for you to work with someone else
and thoroughly exercise the new capabilities. Both MSK144 and FT8.
The idea is that one of you would be trying to make contest QSOs; the
QSO partnet might or might not be in the
On 9/2/2017 6:20 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
The WSJT Development Group is pleased to announce a second candidate
release of WSJT-X Version 1.8.0. Once again this is a beta release.
Many thanks to the team for their contribution to the state of the art,
and for their striving for excellence!
73,
AHA! That's probably it, Rich. Thanks. Cockpit error on my part.
73, Jim K9YC
On 9/1/2017 8:47 AM, ve3...@gmail.com [wsjtgroup] wrote:
Jim,
Were you using DATA mode on the K3? If so, is there any chance the K3
was in AFSK A instead of DATA A? That would account for having to use
reverse.
On 8/18/2017 7:59 AM, w...@att.net [wsjtgroup] wrote:
almost daily, vk3xq and I have a go at it near my sunrise..
Last winter, I often let JT65 run overnight, mostly using my TX vertical
as the antenna, and the next morning, put the stations I logged into a
spreadsheet. In about 4 months,
On 8/8/2017 10:09 AM, Ned wrote:
You might be missing the real attraction for this use of FT8 on
DXpeditions. It's about rate and operator ease. JT65 is not fast and
requires a lot of manual operations to make QSOs. The KH1 DXpedition
in April 2018 is also considering to try FT8 in order to
101 - 200 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
