I've been using FT8 extensively, if not exclusively at times, on 6M.
I've operated 6M since the mid-80's from the Midwest (Missouri). Propagation
on 6M here is often a black hole for RF. Using FT8, there have been frequent
EU, SA and JA openings, whereas in prior years they have been few and far
I quoted the context.
On 7/3/2018 6:35 PM, Neil Zampella wrote:
Wes,
you're taking that out of context. The structured messages allow for
redundancy if some of the original message is missing. The decoder can take
the sync symbols so that the system can understand what type of message it
No, it's not a failure of the mode, but a question of personal ethics. Other
ops have theirs, I have mine.
On 7/4/2018 7:13 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> JTAlert was informing me that my QSO partner was/had been sending
> me a text message informing me that he had my report and I should be
>
> JTAlert was informing me that my QSO partner was/had been sending
> me a text message informing me that he had my report and I should be
> sending RRR. At that point I stopped transmitting and unloaded the
> software.
Which is why I do not enable the text message capability in JT-Alert
or
I thought Eric CLOSED this thread YESTERDAY! Getting tired of deleting
references to FT-8.
-- Original Message --
From: "Wes Stewart"
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Sent: 7/4/2018 8:46:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FT8: "Magic radio"?
Actually, I was in the proce
Actually, I was in the process of learning about JT65 by doing some listening
tests when FT8 was added to the suite. So I took it up almost immediately after
it was introduced. I think I was up to about 80 "contacts" when someone on the
WSJT-X Yahoo group suggested that JTAlert was a great
I restrict myself to work FT8 with 5W output for 20m to 10m bands where I can
use 2 elements quad up about 20 meter.
Although QSO sometimes depends on other station’s receiving capability, 5W is
good enough to work many DX stations around the world including long path west
Africa and EU.
To
According to the KH1 people fully half of the FT8 callers are using the
wrong software or mode. I don't know if the guy I heard yesterday in the
CW portion of 40 meters was one of them but he was warbling away there
for a good long time; nice signal too-- s9+20db.
73,
Drew
AF2Z
On 07/03/18
One of the very best things about Ham radio is how mindbogglingly huge the tent
is ^_^
de KX2CW
Joan
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra, said Piglet.
Shaka, when the walls fell, said Pooh.
> On Jul 3, 2018, at 14:11, Bill Frantz wrote:
>
> I can't resist.
>
> My accomplishments: I have a DXCC
Glad to see someone else enjoying the reality of FT8.
For all those who are running huge power because they think that’s what it
takes to work FT8 DX — ruining the enjoyment of others in the process —
consider this.
About a week ago, from my little central Florida station, running 75 watts
Basically FT8 adds tremendously to your receiver's sensitivity. The
tradeoff is that the QSOs are highly structured. Not much opportunity
for "How's the weather in Dogpatch?" But if you're willing to accept the
tradeoff you can make QSO's that would otherwise be IMPOSSIBLE. If
you're not
Soon after I started FT8 in April, I like others wondered why I am sitting in
front of the 'tube" listening to the "whales" talk to each other (at least
thats what it sound like!). I quickly got bored, but since there really
wasn't any good DX floating around, I got addicted to it, just working
.. and if you add JT-Alert to the mix, it can do the QRZ lookup for you ..
Neil, KN3ILZ
On 7/3/2018 5:32 PM, Carl Yaffey wrote:
On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Grant Youngman wrote:
and don’t care to find out what the other guy’s name is or what he/she does
when they aren’t punching at their
Wes,
you're taking that out of context. The structured messages allow for
redundancy if some of the original message is missing. The decoder can
take the sync symbols so that the system can understand what type of
message it is, it still needs the callsign and signal report.
More details
Mike,
the only automation is in the middle of the contact, the operator has to
be in front of the radio and computer in order to select a station to
answer, to begin transmission, and to log the QSO.
None of that is automated in WSJT-X. I cannot speak for other programs
that have gone
Andy,
that's not right ... you have to be in the shack to make sure the system
keeps calling as there is a 2 minute timer that will turn off your
transmission. It is also suggested that if you don't get a reply
back after the first two minute period, manually move the Tx freq.
Finally,
Even in my analog EME days, a pretty good test of a CW op, I never once heard a
signal that was there before I started listening. (G4WJS was responding to my
concern about K3's timing issues on FT8 delaying transmission.)
Now the JT65 guys "copy" callsigns by looking up the closest sounding
Grant,
Was that a McBee desk-sized rather than desktop computer? I saw one of those
in my youth, but I live in the town where they were manufactured.
73,
Carl
N8VZ
Sent from my iPhone
===
Carl Jón Denbow, N8VZ
17 Coventry Lane
Athens, Ohio 45701-3718
c...@n8vz.com
Folks - Let's end this OT thread at this time in the interest of relieving other
readers from email overload.
73,
Eric
Mooderator..
/elecraft.com/
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help:
On 2018-07-03 5:16 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
Hence, I dubbed the mode, "Imaginary" since it hears things that
aren't there.
Not true. It takes advantage of large polynomial encoding that allows
the decoder to "get the message" in spite of missing or damaged bits.
That's no different than *an
I do the same thing. I'll add that I am always at the controls during
FT8 contacts. I do nothing automatic with it. I laugh at all the hate
FT8 gets. I don't get it.
73!
Tom - KB2SMS
On 07/03/2018 05:32 PM, Carl Yaffey wrote:
On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Grant Youngman wrote:
and don’t
FT8 Hands-Off Ham Radio ;)
On 03-Jul-18 15:36, Wayne Burdick wrote:
Overheard yesterday on 40 meter SSB, in reference to FT8: “Given the level of
automation and whatnot, maybe they should call it ‘magic radio’ instead of ‘ham
radio’.”
New contest category?
Wayne
N6KR
...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 16:25
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FT8: "Magic radio"?
How is it any different than the RTTY setups used for DXpeditions that
would do essentially the
Yes to both. I have taken advantage of the ability to receive,
even with long dropouts, by turning off my transmissions for a
few seconds to see if I'm on top of another station and
therefore having more problems getting through. This ability
also helps with noise bursts.
The QRM solution is
On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Grant Youngman wrote:
> and don’t care to find out what the other guy’s name is or what he/she does
> when they aren’t punching at their own keyboard
As soon as I start an FT8 “iso”, I go to QRZ and look the person up.
Carl Yaffey K8NU
Recording studio.
"That is FT8. There is no involvement once the contact starts."
That is only true is you choose to make it true. In basic FT8 mode "auto
sequence" and "Call 1st" are operator options which I sometimes choose to
disable. I also sometimes change my TX frequency in the middle of a QSO if I
On 7/3/2018 2:06 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
The RTTY difference is that they come back
In my experience, RTTY in a DX pileup is a pretty slow and frustrating
process for both the DX and the caller. It takes a very skilled op to
average 60 Qs/hour; a good CW op can at least double that.
In a message to this group back in February I wrote:
Quoting G4WJS: "For FT8 the net effect is that
up to about 5 seconds of a message may be missing yet still
be decoded. The amount missing can be either a truncation or
parts of the message below the decoding threshold. The FT8
On 7/3/2018 1:59 PM, ANDY DURBIN wrote:
wo of my KH1 FT8 QSO were completed after I had given up and turned off TX
Enable. Although I was still in the shack I had no involvement in completing
the QSO. I was just a spectator. That is very different from the level of
interaction required to
I can't resist.
My accomplishments: I have a DXCC with 150+ LotW confirmed
entities. I have over 100 entities on both digital and CW, less
on voice. I have a triple play WAS. I have 5 contacts with
KH1/KH7Z in their log, 2 CW, 2 FT8, and 1 SSB. (I'm missing
RTTY.) I'm active in ARES/RACES,
That is FT8. There is no involvement once the contact starts. That is
the beauty of it. The automation is no legal in the USA and many
other places but I doubt it will be addressed much like excessive
power. It is never addressed. Do it right. Don't worry about others.
Have fun.
The
> On Jul 3, 2018, at 1:59 PM, ANDY DURBIN wrote:
>
> "How is it any different than the RTTY setups used for DXpeditions that
> would do essentially the same thing, listen over a wide range and stack the
> calls heard?"
>
> The, in my opinion huge, difference is that FT8 DXpedition mode
"How is it any different than the RTTY setups used for DXpeditions that would
do essentially the same thing, listen over a wide range and stack the calls
heard?"
The, in my opinion huge, difference is that FT8 DXpedition mode does not even
require the operator to be in the shack to complete
FT8 is great technology. Maybe the Fox/Hound mode is, too. Personally, I got
bored with it after about a week and moved on. Certainly, it’s the cat’s meow
if all you care about is logging someone, somewhere, without doing any work,
other than making sure you have the right Windows drivers
I agree.
We have a Club member who lives in a townhouse and who became a ham because
their Dad was a ham.
This ham literally has 100W and a wire dipole, only half of which is outside -
and is in the log at KH1/KH7Z with a 20M FT8 QSO.
Amateur Radio is a technological pursuit. The
Actually if conditions allow, FT8 (Fox) can 'converse' with ten stations
at once (5 audio streams at a cost of lower signal strength) raising the
Q rate and efficiency of the opening(s). The primary differences from
RTTY is that it's narrower, better utilizing the band space; it can
easily
If you haven’t tried FT8, you might be surprised at the skill you’ll need to
use if effectively. It is NOT just automatic.
73, K8NU
Carl Yaffey K8NU
Recording studio.
cyaffeyno_s...@gmail.com
614 268 6353, Columbus OH
http://www.carl-yaffey.com
http://www.grassahol.com
How is it any different than the RTTY setups used for DXpeditions that
would do essentially the same thing, listen over a wide range and stack
the calls heard? FT8 just allows them to complete 1 to 5 contacts at
one time. That to me is pretty amazing! There is still plenty of
skill in
I have been using WSJT-X since before version 1.0 was made available. I was
also an early adopter of JT9 and FT8. I have enjoyed using JT65, JT9, and FT8
for HF and 6 m QSO. Using DXpedition mode to work KH1 was a different
experience. I felt that the operator had been taken much too far
After being a ham since 1981, and passing the CW test only because I was good
at test-taking and it was a multiple choice test, I’m now learning CW all over
again via LCWO.net and the Koch Method. I’m now about halfway through and I’m
doing better than I could have ever imagined. I’m not
Sure was a lot of CW activity on Sunday. Great fun
Wayne
> On Jul 3, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Fred Jensen wrote:
>
> The last Q in the FAQ at the end of Dr. Joe Taylor's instructions for use of
> the DXpedition ["Fox and Hound"] mode of FT8 is:
>
> "Are you trying to kill CW?"
>
> If he is
The last Q in the FAQ at the end of Dr. Joe Taylor's instructions for
use of the DXpedition ["Fox and Hound"] mode of FT8 is:
"Are you trying to kill CW?"
If he is trying to kill CW, listening on 14023 and up suggests that he
is failing.
73,
Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe
Overheard yesterday on 40 meter SSB, in reference to FT8: “Given the level of
automation and whatnot, maybe they should call it ‘magic radio’ instead of ‘ham
radio’.”
New contest category?
Wayne
N6KR
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home:
43 matches
Mail list logo
