Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

Ladies and Gentlemen, Isn't it time to just stop the discussion?? 73, George, K8GG _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM? :^)

>>No one 'owns" a band segment on 160M under what is a VOLUNTARY >>BANDPLAN - and the band segments do "flex" in contests when there is >>so much activity to warrant the overlap that naturally occurs. The concept described above may have worked from time immemorial, up to, and excluding, the

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

Thing is, FT8 is by transmitted signal measurement, a narrow band mode just like CW. Even narrower than typical CW. Yet we have CW signals interfering with FT8 users self-perceived window, when they are 2kc away from each other. So a regulation by transmitted signal bandwidth does not seem to

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

1) A few of us (myself, W4ZV and K1KI (I think) favored a true CW sub-band on 160M as we have always had in place on the upper bands like 80/40/20/15/10. W8JI and I (then AD8I) also filed petitions with the FCC to create a CW (narrow band as on all of the HF bands) sub band between 1800 and

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

I know this has been “Discussed Out,” but I just want to ask why the window is in the 1840 area instead of the 1990 area? They are asking for QRM at 1840. It will be a losing battle during contests. Just sayin’ Chuck W5PR Sent from Mail for Windows 10 _ Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: use the wasteland

Why? Move SSB up there where it belongs. The FT8 operators have every bot as much right to operate where they can make DX contacts (common frequency window with most of the rest of the world) as those who use any other mode. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 11/29/2017 5:46 PM, N7DF via Topband

Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

Hi Jeff Agree with most of your comments . . . However - if there was a 160m CW sub-band, it might be a RULE in the USA . . . but it wouldn't apply elsewhere . . . So what would be the point?! I think 160m works pretty well as it is. (and compared to all the other bands, it's still the most

Topband: use the wasteland

since most of the band between 1900 and 2000 KHz is seldom used it seems that the best solution to the FT8 isue is to move contacts using this mode up to a frequency in this segment like 1980 or so. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: CQWW 160m observations

As I mentioned before, the problem that I found was that there weren't many NA stations calling CQ. I heard quite a few calling EU stations, but that was on THEIR frequency. I didn't want to put out a CQ Call during the contest, as I would have had hundreds of EU stations calling me ! (I

Re: Topband: FT8 and digital QRM

160 is the only HF band where all HF modes (except CW) have no restrictions. The FT8 guys will really enjoy the CQ WW 160 SSB contest! At least 160 isn't all that useful to the 2.8 kHz wide Sailmail guys -- they really use the full 2.8 kHz. The band segmants are pretty consistent on all the bands.

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

Jeff, Many thanks or the well explained history of the 160M band plan. This is good info for relatively newcomers to the band like me. Rich K7ZV On Wed, November 29, 2017 12:38 pm, k1zm--- via Topband wrote: > Hi All > > > > This FT8 discussion is fascinating really. It harkens me to remember

Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32

Jeff, Well put. In EI the band for CW HP extends from 1810 to 1850 only. >From our point of view it would make more sense if digimodes were in the phone band limited to lower power. The phone band has much more spectrum and is mostly vacant in Europe except of course for an SSB contest.So

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

Hi All This FT8 discussion is fascinating really. It harkens me to remember the origins of the current ARRL 160M bandplan that we try to follow today on Topband. A number of us (myself included) were on the 160M ARRL BANDPLANNING COMMITTEE some years ago and there were several schools of

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm - 3khz wideband digital

My two cents is - at least with FT8 so far 99.99 percent of the folks stay in the 2 - 3 khz segment . I am amazed I see virtually nothing about the proliferation of 3 khz wideband digital two way hash on all HF bands . For instance last night on the ZA1WW on 3536 , it covered both the ZA and

Topband: FT8 and digital QRM

>I noticed a few freq cops on the cluster announcements where some FT8 users think they deserve clear >space which we know does not exist is a shared band that we have. What I have failed to understand over the years is why the digital stations were 'assigned' a spot in the middle of the 'CW

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Although this might not be a gigantic issue on 160 it is a big issue on 20. During peak time in CQWW I was copying CW contest signals up to around 14125. Parking spots are hard to come by on 20 and 40. Nobody owns a freq, except the "pig farmers" on 75. 73 Bill KH7XS/K4XS

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

Well said. Just a few weeks ago, someone made the point that we should be thankful that there is activity up there. The gist of it was that during the year, much of the time the only activity on 160m is digital. "Use it or lose it" was his point. I do not wish to discuss this. 73, Mike

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Hi Ed, Being a gentleman isn't not about putting one's own interests ahead of everybody else, either. 73, Bill KU8H On 11/29/2017 11:47 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote: I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is to accept everyone else's interests above your own. A

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

When you say if not me, then one of the other 1000 of participants... it sounds a little like if other people are going to have poor operating technique, so should I. I never said that FT8 takes precedence over any other group. What I am saying is that there is no need to deliberately jump on a

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

You should ask that question on the FT8 users group actually. There is an interest group that is wanting to use the frequency for a short time. When you get there (or can you tell your computer) and there is already activity - can you QSY to 30M? Why is it that the FT8 interest group takes

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

To me, the reality is FT8 is no matter how someone spins it, using a tiny part of the spectrum. A reality is few there are using power with FT8, my Cook Island contact with FT8 was with something like 40 or so watts and to many using FT8, that is high power. As I see it, here's what'll

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

This is Joe Taylor K1JTs description of how WSJT-X default frequencies (windows) are established: "The authors of WSJT, MAP65, WSPR, and WSJT-X have never attempted to impose standards for operating frequencies of our various modes. Sometimes we have made initial suggestions, usually with

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

1. I operate both CW and FT8 on 160m, and am far from unique in that regard. 2. WSJT-X, the application many FT8 ops utilize, includes a waterfall display that shows CW signals 3. WSJT-X gives its users control over where they transmit, so a "pre-existing" CW signal can be avoided 4. WSJT-X

Topband: FT8 discussion

All - I think most of the issues around the FT8 spectrum use - and CW QRM have been aired. I think most of use have gotten used to seeing carriers on our spectrum displays up around 1838-1840 - and generally that doesn't present a problem for most other uses of the band. A little understanding

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Just because you have the right to be on a frequency, if you know another interest group wants to use it and it has become that group's normal operating segment -- whether by gentleman's agreement or band plan, then why do you feel the need to use that space? Just selfish I guess. No one

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

>>established band usage Out of curiosity, exactly who "established" 1840 + 2.5 KHz as the FT8 "window"? Mark K3MSB On Nov 29, 2017 12:04 PM, "Brian D G3VGZ" wrote: I shall be operating this weekend full legal limit *below* 1837.5 CW, and also FT*/JT65/JT9 at up

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

I shall be operating this weekend full legal limit *below* 1837.5 CW, and also FT*/JT65/JT9 at up to the legal limit above 1838. There's no reason both can't co-exist. It should be a rule in contests that all stations deliberately operatimg out of the established band usage to be disqualified. I

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is to accept everyone else's interests above your own. A "gentleman" is respectful of others and treats others as he/she wants to be treated. No one owns a frequency channel at least in the US - read your license. If

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

I think you are missing the larger issue here. It is not *just* 2.5 Khz out of 1800-2000. Consider that many folks have directional antennas that are cut for the lower part of the band - typically covering 1800-1860 at best. So - that 2.5 Khz starts to represent at least 4 percent of the

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

I've been watching this thread with interest, having recently taken the plunge and experimented with FT8 (but got bored very quickly!). Three comments on aspects that I don't think have been covered: 1. FT8 is very new (albeit it seems to be taking the world by storm) and I suspect many operators

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

I think we may be missing a key point...There are probably many 1000’s of 160m cw/ssb ops out there who have never heard –or heard of- FT8. They probably think the noisy tone they hear is some local QRN and don’t relate it at all to another ham signal. We all have to live with some QRM once in

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Jeez -- enough already...how difficult is it to avoid 2.5 khz of bandwidth that is not even in the DX portion of the band! Leave FT8 alone and fight the QRM below 1835. 73, Greg-N4CC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

As has been said, 160 meter FT8 transmissions are all within the audio bandwidth of an SSB signal on 1840 although technically they could operate anywhere on the 160 meter band.That said, I've never heard anyone operate FT8 outside of that slot, and for good reason. However, would the folks

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Perhaps I shouldn't have started this thread! The whole point of my original posting was that I was definitely transmitting more than 500Hz HF of the FT8 tones, so from an 'analogue' perspective there should have been no problem. As others have mentioned, FT8 is received though an SSB

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Yes, you could and should. It needs to be looked from everyone's point of view. Of course, that deal falls apart for the 20m sstv guys. They own the frequency. Mike On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bill Cromwell wrote: > Hi, > > Well...we could look at who was on

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Hi, Well...we could look at who was on first from the CW op's point of view just as easily. It just depends on who's ox is being gored. As for not listening longer than a few seconds after QRL that is just reasonable. Some of us (me for example) listen around for five or ten minutes *before*

Topband: 160 inverted L radials question

Hi folks:Iam in the process to reinstall an inverted L antenna. Due to the category 5 hurricane that passthru the island of ST.CROIX usvi i loss 2 towers and antennas.one of the towers use to support and inverted L antenna for 160 with radials all over the tower. I will reinstall the inverted

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Tim is correct. Also, when you do operate most digital modes today (FT8, RTTY, JT65, etc), it is 50/50 if you even have the volume turned up as you are focusing on the waterfall. Heck, even when I do RTTY, I usually just watch the cross hairs on the simulated scope since that is the way I grew

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

You don’t understand how the FT8 guys work. They have a 2kHz slice they all work in whether they were there first or not by usual CW practice. They only transmit every 30 seconds and no CW operator is gonna wait a whole 30 seconds for a response to QRL?. Not that a FT8 guy can respond to a QRL

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

My scenario had the CW man on the frequency FIRST. On 11/29/2017 4:54 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote: A typical CW guy will hear FT8 or JT65 as a kinda whiny wobbly intermittent carrier. And will probably think it’s just some neighborhood switching power supply noise. He won’t CQ right on top of it

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

A typical CW guy will hear FT8 or JT65 as a kinda whiny wobbly intermittent carrier. And will probably think it’s just some neighborhood switching power supply noise. He won’t CQ right on top of it (because he wants to hear a DX respondent) but he will have no problem firing up 500 Hz away.

Re: Topband: 160m beacons list update

Hi JC, thanks. The YR2TOP beacon responsible is YO2LC se we should talk about it to him. If I understood well what he is doing to preserve the band a bit is that his 100W beacon is turned off during the big contests. Yes, the frequency of the beacon as same as 100W out is an unhappy choice I

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Wes I agree 100%; different protocol for two different species. I have ears and not a USB port! My PC does. N4IS JC -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Wes Stewart Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 10:50 PM To: topband@contesting.com

Topband: 160m beacons list update

Hello all, just FYI, I updated the beacons list today. I will be appreciated to get any report or info about beacons from 160m band in Your location to put it into the list or to update it here accordingly... https://160mband.blogspot.ch/2015/07/160m-band-beacons-list.html\ Thank you for your