I am headed to 17 myself - maybe I’ll see you there :)
> On Apr 30, 2019, at 11:02 AM, Hasan al-Basri
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim, and tnx 20m FT4 qso.
>
> I have been spotted on 40m, 20m, 30m in the last 10 min or so. I have not
> seen any spots from my 17m signal, nor have I seen any sigs.
>
>
Hi Jim, and tnx 20m FT4 qso.
I have been spotted on 40m, 20m, 30m in the last 10 min or so. I have not
seen any spots from my 17m signal, nor have I seen any sigs.
I'll try a few CQs on 15 and 10 to see if any spots show up.
73, N0AN
Hasan
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:50 AM James Shaver wrote:
*my. Not “it”
Auto correct on iOS hates me.
> On Apr 30, 2019, at 10:47 AM, James Shaver wrote:
>
> I watched one CW signal on 40 intentionally move until it was zero beat with
> MY signal. Not a single QSO was disrupted by them. Hilariously, their
> attempt to QRM gave me great data about
I watched one CW signal on 40 intentionally move until it was zero beat with it
signal. Not a single QSO was disrupted by them. Hilariously, their attempt to
QRM gave me great data about how easily the protocol will reject DQRM of that
nature. The irony is delicious.
Jim S.
N2ADV
> On Apr
are you talking about the 7047 frequency?
Is so, then possibly the issue is because of the W1AW CW Practice
frequency is
7.0475
Could be a problem?
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/30/2019 6:43 AM, Gary Kohtala - K7EK
It's already happening. Just a few minutes ago on the current 40m FT4
frequency I am hearing multipleattempts at jamming and harassment. People
tuning up and swishing their VFO's, sending unidentifiedCW messages such as "Go
away", etc. They have to be very optimistic thinking that (m)any of
On 30/04/2019 12:25, Christoph Berg wrote:
Band Iter0 Iter1 Notes
-
80 3595 3575 (plus 3568 Region 3)
40 7090 7047
Shouldn't 60m be included here as well? (Also FT8)
(My assumption is that FT4 will take much of the existing FT8 traffic,
60 is never included because people don’t read before they transmit (I know
that’s a shocker) and were transmitting out of band or illegally because of the
vast differences between 60 meter rules.
> On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:25 AM, Christoph Berg wrote:
>
> Re: Bill Somerville 2019-04-29
>
Re: Bill Somerville 2019-04-29
<6c16f722-5577-e692-e1a3-78a3c38b9...@classdesign.com>
> In summary WSJT-X v2.1.0 RC5 will have the following FT4 suggested
> frequencies (the Iter1 column):
>
> Band Iter0 Iter1 Notes
> -
> 80 3595 3575 (plus
On 29/04/2019 16:05, Grant VK5GR wrote:
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the JT65 folks, your suggestion
in my mind has some merit. I would go as far to say an alternate
strategy is to take the old JT65 frequencies and use them for FT4, and
have the JT65 folks move to the JT9 channels –
[mailto:geo...@molnar.tv]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2019 12:16 AM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on
frequencies
A quick two cents…
Is there a good reason why FT4 could not use the existing JT65 and JT9 watering
holes on all
A quick two cents…
Is there a good reason why FT4 could not use the existing JT65 and JT9 watering
holes on all bands? They are quite clear most of the time, and considerate
operators could certainly share, especially with JT9.
In areas where licenses don’t allow operation on the watering
Hi Grant,
My main criteria was to try and offer suggestions that stay within the
band plan narrow band digital mode sections. Although there are no good
solutions for some bands (80m, 40m and 20m particularly) I think going
below those sections is not justifiable as that would be straying
welcome!
Regards,
Grant
From: Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@classdesign.com]
Sent: Monday, 29 April 2019 9:00 PM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting
Hi Grant,
thanks for taking the time to look at possibilities
On 29/04/2019 12:30, Bill Somerville wrote:
So in summary, I am suggesting amending our proposed suggested
frequencies for FT4 to:
*3595 kHz all regions 1 and 2**
**3568 kHz region 3*
*7074 kHz all regions*
10140 kHz all regions - shared with JT9 and JS8CALL
*14080 kHz all regions*
18104
Hi Grant,
thanks for taking the time to look at possibilities for FT4 band slots.
Comments in line below.
On 26/04/2019 12:15, Grant VK5GR wrote:
Joe et al,
A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4
probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to
: Saturday, 27 April 2019 8:59 AM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting
I'm not sure a WARC ban (not band, but ban) is necessary. This is
touted as a contest mode but people will use it for regular DX
contacts if it saves them time versus
ontesting band for FT8 so not as critical
>> - but my suggestion would be look below 50.313 not above.
>>
>> For discussion folks.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Grant VK5GR
>> WIA Appointee to the IARU Region 3 Band Plan committee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>&
Grant VK5GR
> WIA Appointee to the IARU Region 3 Band Plan committee
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Taylor [mailto:j...@princeton.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2019 1:04 AM
> To: WSJT software development
> Subject: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for
Appointee to the IARU Region 3 Band Plan committee
-Original Message-
From: Joe Taylor [mailto:j...@princeton.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2019 1:04 AM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting
To: WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
. Not likely to get a
> lot of airplay as a international contesting band for FT8 so not as
> critical
> - but my suggestion would be look below 50.313 not above.
>
> For discussion folks.
>
> Regards,
> Grant VK5GR
> WIA Appointee to the IARU Region 3 Band Plan com
T software development
Subject: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting
To: WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS
Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started
serious work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mo
On 23/04/2019 16:40, Tom Melvin wrote:
I don’t want to assume so will ask - FT4 aimed at ‘Contest Friendly digital
modes’ - cool - BUT will it cater for the pile of weird contest rules that are
out there. The abundance of requests for QSO Parties, Field Days where
non-standards messages.
Hi Tom, GM8MJV.
My thoughts exactly.
However of course it's not just UK contesting it's the EU and most of
Region 1 where 6 character locators are needed to be exchanged.
73's all
Dave, M0HJS.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 16:43, Tom Melvin wrote:
>
>
> Hi All
>
> I don’t want to assume so will
Thanks to Michael Chen, BD5RV, for translating "The FT4 Protocol for
Digital Contesting" into Chinese. The English document and all
available translations are now will posted on the WSJT-X web page:
https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/wsjtx.html
Scroll down to near the bottom.
Thanks to Saku Nylund, OH1KH, for translating "The FT4 Protocol for
Digital Contesting" into Finnish.
I have posted the translation here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol_fi.pdf
A link to this document in English and all available translations will
soon be posted on the
Thanks Joe, Steve, and Bill. This looks very good.
1. Where do you want folks to submit their feedback after using the RC? You
all seem to be good at dealing with the firehose of emails coming in to
wsjt-devel, but maybe you want to set up something just for this.
2. Any chance of having "Best
Thanks to Dany Bélanger, VE2EBK, for translating "The FT4 Protocol for
Digital Contesting" into French.
I have posted the translation here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol_fr.pdf
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
___
wsjt-devel mailing
Hi All
I don’t want to assume so will ask - FT4 aimed at ‘Contest Friendly digital
modes’ - cool - BUT will it cater for the pile of weird contest rules that are
out there. The abundance of requests for QSO Parties, Field Days where
non-standards messages. Heck for us UK VHF types - 6
Thanks to Miguel Iborra, EA4BAS, for translating "The FT4 Protocol for
Digital Contesting" into Spanish.
I have posted the translation here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol_es.pdf
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
___
wsjt-devel mailing
Hi:
The Dev Team raise again the level. Given FT8 success, FT4 Could be
another killer mode. I hope so. Now some questions, When the Dev Team
expects the mode will be available for loading QSO with it. Yes I know it
is premature but... have to ask. Until that QSO are advised to upload as
avril 2019 17:34
À : WSJT software development
Objet : [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting
To: WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS
Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started serious
work on a faster, more contes
On 4/22/19 at 1:41 PM, a...@abartlett.org (Adam Bartlett) wrote:
I could also see some non-contest uses for it - think SOTA/WWFF/POTA type
'activations' which are not WARC band restricted but where an operator may
wish to use a higher throughput rate for QSOs. While primarily a contest
tool,
I could also see some non-contest uses for it - think SOTA/WWFF/POTA type
'activations' which are not WARC band restricted but where an operator may
wish to use a higher throughput rate for QSOs. While primarily a contest
tool, FT4 could serve as a mechanism for operators who operate non-contest
Hi Jordan,
On 4/22/2019 14:30, Jordan Sherer KN4CRD wrote:
Contesting on the WARC bands is discouraged. It seems reasonable to
think that including calling frequencies on 10/18/24 MHz should be
avoided for this mode since it is specifically designed for radio
contesting. Do you agree?
Of
Thanks to Enrico Schürrer, OE1EQW, for translating "The FT4 Protocol for
Digital Contesting" into German.
I have posted the translation here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol_de.pdf
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
___
wsjt-devel
Interesting development, Joe. One thought here, though.
> The result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically designed for *radio
contesting*
Contesting on the WARC bands is discouraged. It seems reasonable to think
that including calling frequencies on 10/18/24 MHz should be avoided for
this
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 22, 2019, at 10:34, Joe Taylor wrote:
>
> To: WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
> From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS
>
> Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started serious
> work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can
To: WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS
Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started
serious work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can
compete with RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the
benefits of
39 matches
Mail list logo
