Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

10 watts??? really? That is QRO power.. Try ONE watt on 160.. cw.!! Have a great day, --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy "Actions speak louder than words" 1856 - Abraham Lincoln From: Topband on behalf of Brian Pease

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

10 Watts is considered high power on the digital modes. Is using 1000 Watts on 160m (+20dB) and 250Hz receive filters (+10dB) on both ends of a CW QSO more challenging than 10W on JT65 on the same link? Perhaps not. On 5/15/2017 7:44 PM, Jim Murray via Topband wrote: I hate to weigh in

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

    I hate to weigh in on this since it's been beaten to death already but just another opinion.  Over the years I've tried several digital modes starting with psk31.  There weren't many  signals on the band at that time but now I see there are many.  Not to long ago I ventured into JT65 and

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

Gentlemen, The topic of WSJT came up at the Central States VHF Society gathering about 12 to 15 years ago in Milwaukee. There were some very angry old timers who, like some here, had earned awards on CW and phone and felt that the awards were being “cheapened” by the use of WSJT on meteor

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

I already saw this discussion on EME foruns, then at HF foruns and now at Top Band... The Facts are that JT65 (or JT9) is MORE sensitive, USE IT it if you want to... just like the QRP versus QRO , use it if you want to. You can find me on 1838. Pedro - CT1EKD _ Topband