Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

[k8gg]

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? :^)

[DXer]

>>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 creation of FT8/JT65/FT9.


FT8, and other yet to be developed modes, require a different approach 
to band planning.


For lack of a better term, FT8 is a contained mode, meaning, the 
software establishes a 2-2.5 kHz container. All activity occurs within 
this container. Outside of it there is no activity, no 'D/QRM', to use 
the malicious lingo adopted so far in this discussion.


It's easy for an SSB or CW operator to move a few kHz away, and still 
make contacts, not so with FT8.


If each individual FT8 user was to QSY in the same manner as a CW user, 
he/she may in reality be moving 2-2.5 kHz at the time. Multiply this by 
many users, and the CW frequencies that you 'own' will be gone.


Gentlemen, are you sure you want this to happen? Instead of a single 
2-2.5 kHz FT8 segment, you may end up with multiples segments.


The 20M FT8 segment is already over populated. People are already 
talking about expanding below and above the establised segment. If the 
popularity of the mode is sustained, or grows further, you may have a 
much bigger issue in your hands. Better start introducing lots of new CW 
users to protect 'your' frequencies.


73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[Tim Shoppa]

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 be the magic 
arrow some of us thought a few years ago. I include myself in the “some of us”.

Tim N3QE

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 8:15 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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 1850 KHz.  ARRL refused to even give tacit support and the FCC
> dismissed those petitions in spite of overwhelming comments in favor
> of a narrow band only sub-band.
> 
> 73,
> 
>   ... Joe, W4TV
> 
> 
>> On 11/29/2017 3:38 PM, k1zm--- via Topband wrote:
>> 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 thought that took 
>> place at the time:
>> 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.
>> 2) However, the CHARTER of the ARRL committee was determined NOT to be 
>> inclusive of a formal petition to the FCC to establish true, formal 
>> sub-bands on 160M.
>> 3) INSTEAD - the current bandplan was what was adopted which placed digital 
>> where it presently resides - as I recall it was on 1838 and not on 1840 by 
>> the way.
>> 4) When those of us favoring FCC action on the matter inquired about 
>> CONTESTS - (especially those on SINGLE SIDEBAND) - we were told that 160M 
>> spectrum would "FLEX" to accommodate what would be SSB activity down to 1803 
>> here in the USA and above 1813 over in EU since the lower band edge is 1810 
>> over in Region 1
>> In other words, if this is not cyrstal clear - it was EXPECTED that SSB 
>> would penetrate below 1842 during an SSB contest - and that CW would "FLEX" 
>> over the band segments that were usually considered for DIGITAL and SSB 
>> modes.during a competitive operating event.
>> In actual practice this has worked reasonably well - until the rise of the 
>> interest in FT8 - where some folks seem to think now that 1838-1840 is 
>> somehow INVIOLATE.  This is an INCORRECT assumption in my opinion.
>> 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.
>> It is also an illusory assumption to believe that since the 160m band goes 
>> all the way to 2000khz that all space on Topband is of equivalent VALUE 
>> during a contest event. Europe, for example, cannot operate below 1810 and 
>> most European countries cannot run FULL POWER above 1850Khz.  Also some 
>> countries in EU today still are limited to narrow band slots from 1810 to 
>> 1830 or from 1810 to only 1850..  So it is quite LIKELY that during a 
>> contest event there is going to be a lot of operation around 1838-1842 and 
>> it is not likely to be FT8 either.if the contest is a CW event or an SSB 
>> event.
>> What needs to happen (and usually does)is that after these contests are 
>> completed, the band FLEXES again back to our more normal, accepted 
>> conventions - meaning that CW is usually occurring from 1810 - 1835 or so 
>> (not by a rule - but just by gentleman's bandplanning convention) and that 
>> SSB usually occurs above 1843 or so.
>> On a final note - W4ZV and I authored a FORMAL FCC petition after our 160M 
>> Bandplan service was completed and over 1000 amateurs worldwide filed 
>> supportive comments.  What we asked the FCC to do was create a TRUE CW 
>> sub-band on 160M from 1800 to 1835 or so here in the USA as I recall - but 
>> in the end Bill Cross at the FCC ridiculed the petition and the FCC denied 
>> it out of hand - which meant that what we have in place today is the 
>> VOLUNTARY 160M ARRL BANDPLAN that we now follow - and we all need to 
>> understand that NO BAND SEGMENT on 160M is reserved for anyone or any mode.  
>> Here in the US, CW is authorized from 1800-2000 inclusive as is SSB - what 
>> we all usually do is try to respect what we have as a bandplan MOST OF THE 
>> TIME and not complain when a contest comes along.
>> BY THE WAY - here's one for you.  I recently witnessed an HL5IVL digital qso 
>> where the HL5 was on FT8 around 1820 (because his 160M band was limited to 
>> 1825 and below) and the counterparty on this same qso was on 1840 or so on 
>> FT8.I do 

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

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

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 1850 KHz.  ARRL refused to even give tacit support and the FCC
dismissed those petitions in spite of overwhelming comments in favor
of a narrow band only sub-band.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 11/29/2017 3:38 PM, k1zm--- via Topband wrote:

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 thought that took place at the 
time:


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.


2) However, the CHARTER of the ARRL committee was determined NOT to be 
inclusive of a formal petition to the FCC to establish true, formal sub-bands 
on 160M.


3) INSTEAD - the current bandplan was what was adopted which placed digital 
where it presently resides - as I recall it was on 1838 and not on 1840 by the 
way.


4) When those of us favoring FCC action on the matter inquired about CONTESTS - 
(especially those on SINGLE SIDEBAND) - we were told that 160M spectrum would 
"FLEX" to accommodate what would be SSB activity down to 1803 here in the USA 
and above 1813 over in EU since the lower band edge is 1810 over in Region 1


In other words, if this is not cyrstal clear - it was EXPECTED that SSB would penetrate 
below 1842 during an SSB contest - and that CW would "FLEX" over the band 
segments that were usually considered for DIGITAL and SSB modes.during a competitive 
operating event.


In actual practice this has worked reasonably well - until the rise of the 
interest in FT8 - where some folks seem to think now that 1838-1840 is somehow 
INVIOLATE.  This is an INCORRECT assumption in my opinion.


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.


It is also an illusory assumption to believe that since the 160m band goes all 
the way to 2000khz that all space on Topband is of equivalent VALUE during a 
contest event. Europe, for example, cannot operate below 1810 and most European 
countries cannot run FULL POWER above 1850Khz.  Also some countries in EU today 
still are limited to narrow band slots from 1810 to 1830 or from 1810 to only 
1850..  So it is quite LIKELY that during a contest event there is going to be 
a lot of operation around 1838-1842 and it is not likely to be FT8 either.if 
the contest is a CW event or an SSB event.


What needs to happen (and usually does)is that after these contests are 
completed, the band FLEXES again back to our more normal, accepted conventions 
- meaning that CW is usually occurring from 1810 - 1835 or so (not by a rule - 
but just by gentleman's bandplanning convention) and that SSB usually occurs 
above 1843 or so.


On a final note - W4ZV and I authored a FORMAL FCC petition after our 160M 
Bandplan service was completed and over 1000 amateurs worldwide filed 
supportive comments.  What we asked the FCC to do was create a TRUE CW sub-band 
on 160M from 1800 to 1835 or so here in the USA as I recall - but in the end 
Bill Cross at the FCC ridiculed the petition and the FCC denied it out of hand 
- which meant that what we have in place today is the VOLUNTARY 160M ARRL 
BANDPLAN that we now follow - and we all need to understand that NO BAND 
SEGMENT on 160M is reserved for anyone or any mode.  Here in the US, CW is 
authorized from 1800-2000 inclusive as is SSB - what we all usually do is try 
to respect what we have as a bandplan MOST OF THE TIME and not complain when a 
contest comes along.


BY THE WAY - here's one for you.  I recently witnessed an HL5IVL digital qso 
where the HL5 was on FT8 around 1820 (because his 160M band was limited to 1825 
and below) and the counterparty on this same qso was on 1840 or so on FT8.I 
do nope we do not see too much of this kind of event - this one was 
understandable given the band restrictions in Korea.- but it would concern me 
to find FT8 all over the band all the time - because that would (most likely) 
create a lot of food fights going forward.


At the end of the day - we must respect that 160M is a most UNUSUAL band and 
there are no really HARD ans FAST inviolate sub-bands in the traditional sense 
that we find on the higher bands.


Personally - I am not an FT8 user - but I respect the rights of others to use 
this new mode.  We cannot hold back technology here - that never works very 
well - but we do need to understand the need to be 

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

[Chuck Dietz]

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 Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: use the wasteland

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

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 wrote:

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 Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

[Roger Kennedy]

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 gentleman-ly in my
opinion!)

However - I wish more NA stations would actually transmit between 1800 and
1810 kHz (and listen for EU above 1810, like the old days), as this is
lovely clear chunk of the band.

And please note that between about 1811 and 1815 are some horrible wide
beacons over here, so not a good place to hear DX.

73 Roger G3YRO

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: use the wasteland

[N7DF via Topband]

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

[Roger Kennedy]

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 only came on at odd times, looking
for DX)

By the way . . . conditions seemed much better last night . . . and l kept
calling CQ DX from about 23.30 to 00.30Z . . . but despite being spotted on
the cluster and seeing good signal reports on NA RBN stations, only ONE
station actually called me !

Roger G3YRO


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 and digital QRM

[Michael Clarson]

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. The JT modes (including FT8)
start around .040, and RTTY above until one hits the phone band, where
"data" is not allowed, except on 160.  When there is no contest, there
seems to be room for everyone.--Mike, WV2ZOW

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Ralph Parker  wrote:
>>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 bands'. How much less
> opportunity there would be for QRM between modes if the digital folks were
> up at the top of the CW area. This pretty much applies to all the HF bands.
> A real head-scratcher, IMHO.
>
> Disclaimer: I am mostly a CW op.
>
> VE7XF
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[Rich C]

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 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 thought that
> took place at the time:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 2) However, the CHARTER of the ARRL committee was determined NOT to be
> inclusive of a formal petition to the FCC to establish true, formal
> sub-bands on 160M.
>
>
> 3) INSTEAD - the current bandplan was what was adopted which placed
> digital where it presently resides - as I recall it was on 1838 and not
> on 1840 by the way.
>
>
> 4) When those of us favoring FCC action on the matter inquired about
> CONTESTS - (especially those on SINGLE SIDEBAND) - we were told that 160M
> spectrum would "FLEX" to accommodate what would be SSB activity down to
> 1803 here in the USA and above 1813 over in EU since the lower band edge
> is 1810 over in Region 1
>
>
> In other words, if this is not cyrstal clear - it was EXPECTED that SSB
> would penetrate below 1842 during an SSB contest - and that CW would
> "FLEX" over the band segments that were usually considered for DIGITAL
> and SSB modes.during a competitive operating event.
>
>
> In actual practice this has worked reasonably well - until the rise of
> the interest in FT8 - where some folks seem to think now that 1838-1840
> is somehow INVIOLATE.  This is an INCORRECT assumption in my opinion.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> It is also an illusory assumption to believe that since the 160m band
> goes all the way to 2000khz that all space on Topband is of equivalent
> VALUE during a contest event. Europe, for example, cannot operate below
> 1810 and most European countries cannot run FULL POWER above 1850Khz.
> Also some countries in EU today still are limited to narrow band slots
> from 1810 to 1830 or from 1810 to only 1850..  So it is quite LIKELY that
> during a contest event there is going to be a lot of operation around
> 1838-1842 and it is not likely to be FT8 either.if the contest is a CW
> event or an SSB event.
>
>
> What needs to happen (and usually does)is that after these contests are
> completed, the band FLEXES again back to our more normal, accepted
> conventions - meaning that CW is usually occurring from 1810 - 1835 or so
> (not by a rule - but just by gentleman's bandplanning convention) and
> that SSB usually occurs above 1843 or so.
>
>
> On a final note - W4ZV and I authored a FORMAL FCC petition after our
> 160M Bandplan service was completed and over 1000 amateurs worldwide
> filed supportive comments.  What we asked the FCC to do was create a TRUE
> CW sub-band on 160M from 1800 to 1835 or so here in the USA as I recall -
> but in the end Bill Cross at the FCC ridiculed the petition and the FCC
> denied it out of hand - which meant that what we have in place today is
> the VOLUNTARY 160M ARRL BANDPLAN that we now follow - and we all need to
> understand that NO BAND SEGMENT on 160M is reserved for anyone or any
> mode.  Here in the US, CW is authorized from 1800-2000 inclusive as is
> SSB - what we all usually do is try to respect what we have as a bandplan
> MOST OF THE TIME and not complain when a contest comes along.
>
>
>
> BY THE WAY - here's one for you.  I recently witnessed an HL5IVL digital
> qso where the HL5 was on FT8 around 1820 (because his 160M band was
> limited to 1825 and below) and the counterparty on this same qso was on
> 1840 or so on FT8.I do nope we do not see too much of this kind of
> event - this one was understandable given the band restrictions in
> Korea.- but it would concern me to find FT8 all over the band all the
> time - because that would (most likely) create a lot of food fights going
> forward.
>
>
> At the end of the day - we must respect that 160M is a most UNUSUAL band
> and there are no really HARD ans FAST inviolate sub-bands in the
> traditional sense that we find on the higher bands.
>
>
> Personally - I am not an FT8 user - but I respect the rights of others to
> use this new mode.  We cannot hold back technology here - that never
> works very well - but we do need to understand the need to be FLEXIBLE -
> especially during competitive operating events (eg: contests).
>
>
> 73 JEFF   K1ZM/VY2ZM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Sawyer 

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

[Doug Turnbull]

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
with a CW band limited to only 40 kHz in a CQWW 160M contest which is really
active flex operating is important and a fact of life.It use to be that
1835 to 1840 was a DX window for CW!

  One of our good friends even suggested that FT8 stations might go to
1500 watts well this is illegal in EI unless participating in certain
contests and I know of none so far for FT8.   Also such an operator is going
to be unpopular with his fellows just as he would be if using PSK.

  I too get annoyed with contesters when not contesting but there are
the WARC bands sensibly kept clear of all contesting.   FT8 users migrate
during a big contest just as CW operators must make room during a big SSB
contest on TB.

  The USA is not the entire world.   Regulations and conditions are
different.Contesting is not going to be unnecessarily confined and it
appears that flexibility is expected for a major contest.   We do have the
WARC bands and thankfully not many contests occur during the weekdays.

  My good friend EI2KM aka F8FUA whose EI license is based at my QTH was
on FT8 here pre and post the CQWW 160M test.   He was helped in getting some
issues sorted by EI6FR a FOC who is known by his friends as the "Choo Choo"
for his ability to go all night and if needs be the next day using the
paddle.   Declan carries out a conversation whilst operating.   A good CW
man might well also enjoy FT8.   We have a technological hobby and any mode
which can delve into the noise floor is of interest.   This is not a CW vs
FT8 issue.

 Take care my good friends and keep pounding the brass.

 73 Doug EI2CN ex KN4WQZ

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
topband-requ...@contesting.com
Sent: 29 November 2017 20:44
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32

Send Topband mailing list submissions to
topband@contesting.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
topband-requ...@contesting.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
topband-ow...@contesting.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: FT8 qrm (Brian D G3VGZ)
   2. Re: FT8 qrm (Mark K3MSB)
   3. Re: FT8 qrm (Greg)
   4. FT8 discussion (Tree)
   5. Re: FT8 qrm (Dave AA6YQ)
   6. Re: FT8 qrm (Peter Sundberg)
   7. Re: FT8 qrm (Gary Smith)
   8. Re: FT8 qrm (Ed Sawyer)
   9. Re: FT8 qrm (Greg)
  10. Re: FT8 qrm (Bill Cromwell)
  11. Re: FT8 discussion (Mike Waters)
  12. Re: FT8 qrm (cqtestk...@aol.com)
  13. FT8 and digital QRM (Ralph Parker)
  14. Re: FT8 qrm -  3khz wideband digital (HP)
  15. Re: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m (k...@aol.com)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:04:03 +
From: Brian D G3VGZ 
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

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 refuse to work those stations which flaunt the band plans.


"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 "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 I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted
> mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency.  By the
> way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M.
> 
>  
> 
> If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
> window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in
> my opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
> complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
> that should be hilarious.
> 
>  
> 
> I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble
> they read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
> 

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

[k1zm--- via Topband]

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 thought that took place at the 
time:


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.  


2) However, the CHARTER of the ARRL committee was determined NOT to be 
inclusive of a formal petition to the FCC to establish true, formal sub-bands 
on 160M.


3) INSTEAD - the current bandplan was what was adopted which placed digital 
where it presently resides - as I recall it was on 1838 and not on 1840 by the 
way.


4) When those of us favoring FCC action on the matter inquired about CONTESTS - 
(especially those on SINGLE SIDEBAND) - we were told that 160M spectrum would 
"FLEX" to accommodate what would be SSB activity down to 1803 here in the USA 
and above 1813 over in EU since the lower band edge is 1810 over in Region 1


In other words, if this is not cyrstal clear - it was EXPECTED that SSB would 
penetrate below 1842 during an SSB contest - and that CW would "FLEX" over the 
band segments that were usually considered for DIGITAL and SSB modes.during a 
competitive operating event.


In actual practice this has worked reasonably well - until the rise of the 
interest in FT8 - where some folks seem to think now that 1838-1840 is somehow 
INVIOLATE.  This is an INCORRECT assumption in my opinion.


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.


It is also an illusory assumption to believe that since the 160m band goes all 
the way to 2000khz that all space on Topband is of equivalent VALUE during a 
contest event. Europe, for example, cannot operate below 1810 and most European 
countries cannot run FULL POWER above 1850Khz.  Also some countries in EU today 
still are limited to narrow band slots from 1810 to 1830 or from 1810 to only 
1850..  So it is quite LIKELY that during a contest event there is going to be 
a lot of operation around 1838-1842 and it is not likely to be FT8 either.if 
the contest is a CW event or an SSB event.


What needs to happen (and usually does)is that after these contests are 
completed, the band FLEXES again back to our more normal, accepted conventions 
- meaning that CW is usually occurring from 1810 - 1835 or so (not by a rule - 
but just by gentleman's bandplanning convention) and that SSB usually occurs 
above 1843 or so.


On a final note - W4ZV and I authored a FORMAL FCC petition after our 160M 
Bandplan service was completed and over 1000 amateurs worldwide filed 
supportive comments.  What we asked the FCC to do was create a TRUE CW sub-band 
on 160M from 1800 to 1835 or so here in the USA as I recall - but in the end 
Bill Cross at the FCC ridiculed the petition and the FCC denied it out of hand 
- which meant that what we have in place today is the VOLUNTARY 160M ARRL 
BANDPLAN that we now follow - and we all need to understand that NO BAND 
SEGMENT on 160M is reserved for anyone or any mode.  Here in the US, CW is 
authorized from 1800-2000 inclusive as is SSB - what we all usually do is try 
to respect what we have as a bandplan MOST OF THE TIME and not complain when a 
contest comes along.


BY THE WAY - here's one for you.  I recently witnessed an HL5IVL digital qso 
where the HL5 was on FT8 around 1820 (because his 160M band was limited to 1825 
and below) and the counterparty on this same qso was on 1840 or so on FT8.I 
do nope we do not see too much of this kind of event - this one was 
understandable given the band restrictions in Korea.- but it would concern me 
to find FT8 all over the band all the time - because that would (most likely) 
create a lot of food fights going forward.


At the end of the day - we must respect that 160M is a most UNUSUAL band and 
there are no really HARD ans FAST inviolate sub-bands in the traditional sense 
that we find on the higher bands.


Personally - I am not an FT8 user - but I respect the rights of others to use 
this new mode.  We cannot hold back technology here - that never works very 
well - but we do need to understand the need to be FLEXIBLE - especially during 
competitive operating events (eg: contests).


73 JEFF   K1ZM/VY2ZM











-Original Message-
From: Ed Sawyer 
To: topband 
Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:44 pm
Subject: 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 

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm - 3khz wideband digital

[HP]

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 most of the pile calling 

And then there is my problem with Century link ADSL carriers every 4 khz across 
160-80-40 at 5 to 10 db out of noise. On 80 happens to be 3535.934 - the ZA was 
about 3535.970 pretty rough . 

Also amazes me I seem to be the only one in the country with the 4 khz combs 
(which sometimes are just limited to the ham bands bottom edge up 70- 100 khz 
almost as if intentional ) 



Hank K7HP 

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: FT8 and digital QRM

[Ralph Parker]

>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 bands'. How 
much less opportunity there would be for QRM between modes if the 
digital folks were up at the top of the CW area. This pretty much 
applies to all the HF bands.

A real head-scratcher, IMHO.

Disclaimer: I am mostly a CW op.

VE7XF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[cqtestk4xs--- via Topband]

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
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Greg 
To: 'topband' 
Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:26 pm
Subject: 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

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

[Mike Waters]

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
www.w0btu.com

On Nov 29, 2017 11:54 AM, "Tree"  wrote:

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 of the new mode is useful - so people can understand
how to avoid causing QRM.

Thanks.

The Management
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Bill Cromwell]

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 "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 I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted
mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency.  By the
way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M.



If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in my
opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
that should be hilarious.



I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble they
read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
since June.



Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.



73



Ed  N1UR

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
.



--
bark less - wag more
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Greg]

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 frequency that you know has other use when there is a whole band -- not
just 1800 - 1860...but 1800 to 2000 khz (yes, you can use an antenna tuner
in the top part of the band).  

I know 1840 will be overrun during the contest...because some people just
don't know, don't care, or won't have an awareness of where they are
operating. FT8 folks won't go away because of a few weekends of contesting
either.

I do have an agenda, Ed.  My agenda is that it isn't any harder to be
courteous than not.

73, Greg-N4CC

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 11:23 AM
To: 'Greg'; topband@contesting.com
Subject: 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
precedence over the contesting group actually?

If you think that 1838 - 1941 will remain QRM from for the 160M contest

So if not me, it will be one of the other 1000 participants globally that
are happy to use the found clear frequency.

Sounds like you have an agenda Greg.

73

Ed  N1UR

-Original Message-
From: Greg [mailto:n...@windstream.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:44 PM
To: sawye...@earthlink.net
Subject: 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
questions the "right" to use a frequency; they question the intelligence of
someone who deliberately tries to enforce their "right" when they have other
options that don't create a conflict.  

FT8 is no more flawed than CW.  If there is a pileup on the cw DX frequency,
you won't be able to copy either.  Does that make CW a flawed mode?  I'm not
advocating for FT8; I'm advocating for decency and common sense.

It takes so little effort to be considerate of others...but then the world
seems to be getting less hospitable all the time.  Unfortunate.  73,
Greg-N4CC

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:48 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: 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 I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted
mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency.  By the
way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M.

 

If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in my
opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
that should be hilarious.  

 

I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble they
read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
since June.  

 

Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.

 

73

 

Ed  N1UR

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Ed Sawyer]

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
precedence over the contesting group actually?

If you think that 1838 - 1941 will remain QRM from for the 160M contest

So if not me, it will be one of the other 1000 participants globally that
are happy to use the found clear frequency.

Sounds like you have an agenda Greg.

73

Ed  N1UR

-Original Message-
From: Greg [mailto:n...@windstream.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:44 PM
To: sawye...@earthlink.net
Subject: 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
questions the "right" to use a frequency; they question the intelligence of
someone who deliberately tries to enforce their "right" when they have other
options that don't create a conflict.  

FT8 is no more flawed than CW.  If there is a pileup on the cw DX frequency,
you won't be able to copy either.  Does that make CW a flawed mode?  I'm not
advocating for FT8; I'm advocating for decency and common sense.

It takes so little effort to be considerate of others...but then the world
seems to be getting less hospitable all the time.  Unfortunate.  73,
Greg-N4CC

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:48 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: 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 I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted
mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency.  By the
way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M.

 

If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in my
opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
that should be hilarious.  

 

I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble they
read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
since June.  

 

Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.

 

73

 

Ed  N1UR

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Gary Smith]

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 happen when 
people start landing in the middle of the 
FT8 spectrum and jumping all over those 
there using it; you'll see the FT8 power 
increase as is necessary to maintain 
communications & you'll have 1500 watt FT8 
signals that will be in multiple 
simultaneous transmissions that you can't 
notch out with the manual or auto notch. 
It will ruin your contest to stay there.

Bottom line is the guy parked there on CW 
(my favorite mode) will either stay there 
to make some kind of point and forfeit the 
contest (a'la cutting his nose to spite 
his face), or they'll do the smart thing 
and move a couple KHz away to a clear 
frequency and enjoy the contest without 
irritation.

73,

Gary
KA1J


> 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 available
> usable band - possibly more. Some DX cannot operate below 1805 or
> higher, which makes the band that much smaller, and that 2.5 Khz
> starts to represent an even bigger chuck of prime spectrum. For FT-8
> users expecting a QRM experience this weekend, I wish them well...
> 
> Tom - VE3CX
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Greg  wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Peter Sundberg]

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 IARU Region 
2 in mind.  But the frequencies in use today are effectively 
established by users, not by us.  When conventional usage seems well 
enough established by the community, we have added mode-specific 
default frequencies to a list in WSJT-X "


To me it seems pretty clear that if the software is pre-programmed 
with a set of default frequencies for different bands, the users are 
NOT spinning the VFO to find a clear space. Last summer this concept 
created quite a bit of commotion in Region 1 among users of a higher 
band as the WSJT-X default frequency was not in correspondence with 
the R1 bandplan.


So, to answer your question Mark - Mr Taylor and his colleague 
authors of a software bundle.


73
Peter SM2CEW





At 17:17 2017-11-29, Mark K3MSB wrote:

>>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 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 refuse to work those stations which flaunt the band plans.


"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 "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 I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted
> mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency.  By the
> way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M.
>
>
>
> If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
> window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in
> my opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
> complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
> that should be hilarious.
>
>
>
> I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble
> they read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
> exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
> since June.
>
>
>
> Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
> QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.
>
>
>
> 73
>
>
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> _ Topband Reflector Archives -
> http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>


--
Brian D
G3VGZ G3T
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Dave AA6YQ]

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 could be extended to be able immediately stop decoding FT8 (or JT65) 
signals and send QRL in CW at a frequency designated by clicking in its 
waterfall; many FT8 users employ relatively low power with modest antennas, 
however, so this may not always be effective.

5. It's not unreasonable to expect competent ops to be aware of what modes are 
typically used in what segments of a band, and to listen for an appropriate 
length of time before first transmitting to ensure they don't QRM an ongoing 
QSO.

  73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tim Shoppa
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 7:53 AM
To: Wes Stewart
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: 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 anyway. The 
vast majority of FT8 guys do not operate CW anyways.

So that 2kc slice it�s not a matter of who was there �first� by CW standards. 
The FT8 guys have been there since June of this year and to them, June is when 
they were there first.

And if a CW guy fires up 1-2kc away from a weak warbly FT8 carrier,  he thinks 
nothing of it. And if the CW guy is anywhere in the wide 2kc FT8 slice then all 
FT8 operators will regard it as QRM that renders the entire slice worthless.

It is odd that we have two fundamentally narrow bandwidth modes yet they do not 
coexist well. It�s ridiculous to think they could coexist in a contest weekend 
anyway. Those FT8 guys that were rudely surprised by CW this past weekend, 
that�s nothing compared to what�s gonna happen this coming weekend.

Tim N3QE

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 7:29 AM, Wes Stewart  wrote:
> 
> 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 (because he wants to hear a DX 
>> respondent) but he will have no problem firing up 500 Hz away.
>> 
>> But the digital guys e.g. FT8 have 2khz wide filters. So there is a 
>> fundamental assymetry here.
>> 
>> Tim N3QE
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my VAX-11/780
>> 
>>> On Nov 28, 2017, at 10:50 PM, Wes Stewart  wrote:
>>> 
>>> So what's the protocol when a CW man checks a frequency, hears nothing, 
>>> sends a couple of QRL? and hears nothing and begins to run stations.  Then 
>>> sometime later a guy running an imaginary mode...oops...sorry, FT8 shows up 
>>> and wants to park on the CW man's frequency?  Who is to blame?  I'll answer 
>>> my own question: the FT8 guy who is QRMing an occupied frequency.
>>> 
>>> Besides the FT8 guys can always resort to JTAlert to QSO via text messaging 
>>> as one west African station apparently tried to do with me.
>>> 
>>> Wes  N7WS
>>> 
>>> 
 On 11/28/2017 10:45 AM, Bryon Paul Veal N�AH wrote:
 There were ops all over the FT8 segments, refused to even try and work 
 them and some were some pretty rare mults for CQWWCW...gentleman 
 agreements are of the past.sucks
 
 PAUL. N0aH
> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: FT8 discussion

[Tree]

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 of the new mode is useful - so people can understand
how to avoid causing QRM.

Thanks.

The Management
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Greg]

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
questions the "right" to use a frequency; they question the intelligence of
someone who deliberately tries to enforce their "right" when they have other
options that don't create a conflict.  

FT8 is no more flawed than CW.  If there is a pileup on the cw DX frequency,
you won't be able to copy either.  Does that make CW a flawed mode?  I'm not
advocating for FT8; I'm advocating for decency and common sense.

It takes so little effort to be considerate of others...but then the world
seems to be getting less hospitable all the time.  Unfortunate.  73,
Greg-N4CC

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:48 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: 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 I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted
mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency.  By the
way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M.

 

If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in my
opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
that should be hilarious.  

 

I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble they
read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
since June.  

 

Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.

 

73

 

Ed  N1UR

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Mark K3MSB]

>>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 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 refuse to work those stations which flaunt the band plans.


"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 "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 I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted
> mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency.  By the
> way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M.
>
>
>
> If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
> window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in
> my opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
> complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
> that should be hilarious.
>
>
>
> I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble
> they read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
> exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
> since June.
>
>
>
> Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
> QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.
>
>
>
> 73
>
>
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> _ Topband Reflector Archives -
> http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>


--
Brian D
G3VGZ G3T
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Brian D G3VGZ]

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 refuse to work those stations which flaunt the band plans.


"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 "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 I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted
> mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency.  By the
> way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M.
> 
>  
> 
> If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
> window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in
> my opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
> complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
> that should be hilarious.
> 
>  
> 
> I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble
> they read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
> exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
> since June.
> 
>  
> 
> Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
> QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.
> 
>  
> 
> 73
> 
>  
> 
> Ed  N1UR
> 
> _ Topband Reflector Archives -
> http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 
> 


-- 
Brian D 
G3VGZ G3T
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Ed Sawyer]

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 I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted
mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency.  By the
way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M.

 

If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in my
opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
that should be hilarious.  

 

I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble they
read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
since June.  

 

Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.

 

73

 

Ed  N1UR

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Tom Haavisto]

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 available usable band
- possibly more.
Some DX cannot operate below 1805 or higher, which makes the band that much
smaller, and that 2.5 Khz starts to represent an even bigger chuck of prime
spectrum.
For FT-8 users expecting a QRM experience this weekend, I wish them
well...

Tom - VE3CX


On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Greg  wrote:

> 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
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Don Field]

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 are unaware of where it exists on the bands, unless
they are data modes operators themselves (which, typically, many long-term
topband operators are not)
2. Many FT8 "users" are actually computers - I know of a number of folk who
have automated FT8 to the extent that they go to bed at night and in the
morning look to see what their PC has "worked". As far as I know, their PC
doesn't specifically check for a clear channel although it will normally be
trying to find a slot between other FT8 signals within the audio bandwidth.
3. Apropos of which, most FT8 QSO are split frequency - it makes no sense
to call a station co-channel. So even if a frequency appears to be clear,
it may be that there is a station already in QSO with an FT8 QSO partner
1kHz or more away (the WSJT software handles this "split" operation
automatically). So a quick "QRL?" will not be heard.

As is usually the case in life, nothing is simple!

73 Don G3XTT

On 29 November 2017 at 15:49, Roger Parsons via Topband <
topband@contesting.com> wrote:

> 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 bandwidth filter. Where wideband noise is the
> limiting factor on reception (eg VHF) it is a valid technique to put the
> ultimate selectivity at the end of the receive chain. It is not valid where
> there are likely to be strong signals from some other mode within the
> receiver IF passband. Therefore, my opinion FT8 (and many other digital
> modes) are not suitable in situations where there is intense activity on
> nearby frequencies. I think it is unreasonable to suggest that there should
> be an unused 'guard band' just to overcome receiver and system deficiencies.
>
>
> (And of course I am aware that these limitations could be overcome using
> SDR architecture, but that is another story.)
>
>
> 73 Roger
> VE3ZI
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[JAYB1943]

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 a 
while so try and make the best of it – along with some better advertising 
about the data frequencies in common use. Remember to have fun guys jay 
ny2ny 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Greg]

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

[Dave Chasey]

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 that would call QRL on CW and operate in the middle of that slot,
potentially QRMing many FT8 QSO's in progress be willing to support someone
on FT8 start calling CQ in the middle of the DX window on 160?After all,
they may be wanting to work DX!   Yes, that's a silly argument, and I in no
way would suggest anyone do that, but it illustrates a point.   It's easy to
look at any mode other than your preferred mode at the time as being QRM,
but their interests are as valid as the next guy's.Then there are the
well-established nets that fire up at a certain time on a certain frequency
that creates the "I was here first" versus the "A lot of folks know to meet
here on this freq at this time" competing interests.   Very few of us know
all of the competing interests, so people just need to be gentlemen (and
ladies) and work together to make it a better experience for all.

...Dave - N9FN

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Walker
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:58 AM
To: Bill Cromwell 
Cc: topband 
Subject: 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 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* sending QRL. Filters open. Waterfall on (if we have 
> them). Nobody in ham radio has been assigned a frequency that 'belongs to
them'.
>
> That said, there are "gentlemen's agreements". Those only apply *if* 
> there are gentlemen. The band offers 200 kc of spectrum - at least for
U.S. hams.
> That seems like a great plenty. It's the "Gentlemen's Band" so lets 
> get back to being gentlemen and accommodate all of the other gentlemen 
> (and ladies too). Maybe we can infect some of the other bands with 
> more civility while we are at it.
>
> 73,
>
> Bill  KU8H
>
>
> On 11/29/2017 07:59 AM, Michael Walker wrote:
>
>> 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
with RTTY.
>>
>> The point is that hams own the spectrum and they get to do with it 
>> what they choose within the limits of their license.  Worldwide.
>>
>> No one makes you use any mode you don't want to.  Spin the dial.  Move
on.
>> Life is too short.
>>
>> Mike va3mw
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>>
> --
> bark less - wag more
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Roger Parsons via Topband]

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 bandwidth filter. Where wideband noise is the limiting factor on 
reception (eg VHF) it is a valid technique to put the ultimate selectivity at 
the end of the receive chain. It is not valid where there are likely to be 
strong signals from some other mode within the receiver IF passband. Therefore, 
my opinion FT8 (and many other digital modes) are not suitable in situations 
where there is intense activity on nearby frequencies. I think it is 
unreasonable to suggest that there should be an unused 'guard band' just to 
overcome receiver and system deficiencies. 


(And of course I am aware that these limitations could be overcome using SDR 
architecture, but that is another story.)


73 Roger
VE3ZI
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Michael Walker]

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 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*
> sending QRL. Filters open. Waterfall on (if we have them). Nobody in ham
> radio has been assigned a frequency that 'belongs to them'.
>
> That said, there are "gentlemen's agreements". Those only apply *if* there
> are gentlemen. The band offers 200 kc of spectrum - at least for U.S. hams.
> That seems like a great plenty. It's the "Gentlemen's Band" so lets get
> back to being gentlemen and accommodate all of the other gentlemen (and
> ladies too). Maybe we can infect some of the other bands with more civility
> while we are at it.
>
> 73,
>
> Bill  KU8H
>
>
> On 11/29/2017 07:59 AM, Michael Walker wrote:
>
>> 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 with RTTY.
>>
>> The point is that hams own the spectrum and they get to do with it what
>> they choose within the limits of their license.  Worldwide.
>>
>> No one makes you use any mode you don't want to.  Spin the dial.  Move on.
>> Life is too short.
>>
>> Mike va3mw
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>>
> --
> bark less - wag more
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Bill Cromwell]

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* sending QRL. Filters open. Waterfall on (if we have them). 
Nobody in ham radio has been assigned a frequency that 'belongs to them'.


That said, there are "gentlemen's agreements". Those only apply *if* 
there are gentlemen. The band offers 200 kc of spectrum - at least for 
U.S. hams. That seems like a great plenty. It's the "Gentlemen's Band" 
so lets get back to being gentlemen and accommodate all of the other 
gentlemen (and ladies too). Maybe we can infect some of the other bands 
with more civility while we are at it.


73,

Bill  KU8H

On 11/29/2017 07:59 AM, Michael Walker wrote:

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 with RTTY.

The point is that hams own the spectrum and they get to do with it what
they choose within the limits of their license.  Worldwide.

No one makes you use any mode you don't want to.  Spin the dial.  Move on.
Life is too short.

Mike va3mw
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



--
bark less - wag more
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: 160 inverted L radials question

[StellarCAT]

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 L on a 
different location about 25 or 30 feet away from the original location.my 
question is could i use the same radials from the previous location just 
running one wire attach to the radial system to the new inverted Lground 
section?
ThanksKP2BH/Jimmy
_ Jimmy,The replies you are getting seem a bit over the top ... 
forgive me for saying that to those that replied “it won’t work”. We’re talking 
about160 here – so 30’ is what, 0.06 WL’s! I’d do it if that is what you can do 
... and add to it in the opposite direction... I doubt seriously thatyou’re 
going to see any real disadvantage to doing it in this manner. You’ll have 
decreased losses where you have the more denseground field unless you can add 
to it going in the direction you’re moving it in which case it won’t really 
make that much difference. Gary   K9RX
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Michael Walker]

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 with RTTY.

The point is that hams own the spectrum and they get to do with it what
they choose within the limits of their license.  Worldwide.

No one makes you use any mode you don't want to.  Spin the dial.  Move on.
Life is too short.

Mike va3mw
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Tim Shoppa]

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 anyway. The 
vast majority of FT8 guys do not operate CW anyways.

So that 2kc slice it’s not a matter of who was there “first” by CW standards. 
The FT8 guys have been there since June of this year and to them, June is when 
they were there first.

And if a CW guy fires up 1-2kc away from a weak warbly FT8 carrier,  he thinks 
nothing of it. And if the CW guy is anywhere in the wide 2kc FT8 slice then all 
FT8 operators will regard it as QRM that renders the entire slice worthless.

It is odd that we have two fundamentally narrow bandwidth modes yet they do not 
coexist well. It’s ridiculous to think they could coexist in a contest weekend 
anyway. Those FT8 guys that were rudely surprised by CW this past weekend, 
that’s nothing compared to what’s gonna happen this coming weekend.

Tim N3QE

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 7:29 AM, Wes Stewart  wrote:
> 
> 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 (because he wants to hear a DX 
>> respondent) but he will have no problem firing up 500 Hz away.
>> 
>> But the digital guys e.g. FT8 have 2khz wide filters. So there is a 
>> fundamental assymetry here.
>> 
>> Tim N3QE
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my VAX-11/780
>> 
>>> On Nov 28, 2017, at 10:50 PM, Wes Stewart  wrote:
>>> 
>>> So what's the protocol when a CW man checks a frequency, hears nothing, 
>>> sends a couple of QRL? and hears nothing and begins to run stations.  Then 
>>> sometime later a guy running an imaginary mode...oops...sorry, FT8 shows up 
>>> and wants to park on the CW man's frequency?  Who is to blame?  I'll answer 
>>> my own question: the FT8 guy who is QRMing an occupied frequency.
>>> 
>>> Besides the FT8 guys can always resort to JTAlert to QSO via text messaging 
>>> as one west African station apparently tried to do with me.
>>> 
>>> Wes  N7WS
>>> 
>>> 
 On 11/28/2017 10:45 AM, Bryon Paul Veal NØAH wrote:
 There were ops all over the FT8 segments, refused to even try and work 
 them and some were some pretty rare mults for CQWWCW...gentleman 
 agreements are of the past.sucks
 
 PAUL. N0aH
> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Wes Stewart]

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 (because he wants to hear a DX 
respondent) but he will have no problem firing up 500 Hz away.

But the digital guys e.g. FT8 have 2khz wide filters. So there is a fundamental 
assymetry here.

Tim N3QE


Sent from my VAX-11/780


On Nov 28, 2017, at 10:50 PM, Wes Stewart  wrote:

So what's the protocol when a CW man checks a frequency, hears nothing, sends a 
couple of QRL? and hears nothing and begins to run stations.  Then sometime 
later a guy running an imaginary mode...oops...sorry, FT8 shows up and wants to 
park on the CW man's frequency?  Who is to blame?  I'll answer my own question: 
the FT8 guy who is QRMing an occupied frequency.

Besides the FT8 guys can always resort to JTAlert to QSO via text messaging as 
one west African station apparently tried to do with me.

Wes  N7WS



On 11/28/2017 10:45 AM, Bryon Paul Veal NØAH wrote:
There were ops all over the FT8 segments, refused to even try and work them and 
some were some pretty rare mults for CQWWCW...gentleman agreements are of the 
past.sucks

PAUL. N0aH


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Tim Shoppa]

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.

But the digital guys e.g. FT8 have 2khz wide filters. So there is a fundamental 
assymetry here.

Tim N3QE


Sent from my VAX-11/780

> On Nov 28, 2017, at 10:50 PM, Wes Stewart  wrote:
> 
> So what's the protocol when a CW man checks a frequency, hears nothing, sends 
> a couple of QRL? and hears nothing and begins to run stations.  Then sometime 
> later a guy running an imaginary mode...oops...sorry, FT8 shows up and wants 
> to park on the CW man's frequency?  Who is to blame?  I'll answer my own 
> question: the FT8 guy who is QRMing an occupied frequency.
> 
> Besides the FT8 guys can always resort to JTAlert to QSO via text messaging 
> as one west African station apparently tried to do with me.
> 
> Wes  N7WS
> 
> 
>> On 11/28/2017 10:45 AM, Bryon Paul Veal NØAH wrote:
>> There were ops all over the FT8 segments, refused to even try and work them 
>> and some were some pretty rare mults for CQWWCW...gentleman agreements are 
>> of the past.sucks
>> 
>> PAUL. N0aH
>> 
> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m beacons list update

[Petr Ourednik]

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 guess...

73 - Petr, OK1RP



On Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 12:03 PM, JC wrote:
> Hi Petr
> 
> I kind understand your request, however I would like to share my view,
> Beacon on 160m is really DQRM, like YO on 1810.5 running 100w. Several DX
> stations runs 100w and work thousands of QSO.s. Please how is responsible
> for the YO beacon, turn it off, please again. 
> 
> The MUF is always above 3 MHz!
> 
> 160m is very narrow 50KHz for most countries.  Beacons on 160m just eat
> band
> and DQRM.
> 
> My two cents, 
> 
> JC
> N4IS
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Petr
> Ourednik
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 4:54 AM
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: 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 kind help,
> 
> 73 - Petr, OK1RP
> --
> http://ok1rp.blogspot.com
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 


-- 
73 - Petr, OK1RP
B: goo.gl/Fd2JhJ
G+: goo.gl/w3u2s9
G+: goo.gl/gP99xq
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[JC]

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
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

So what's the protocol when a CW man checks a frequency, hears nothing, sends a 
couple of QRL? and hears nothing and begins to run stations.  Then sometime 
later a guy running an imaginary mode...oops...sorry, FT8 shows up and wants to 
park on the CW man's frequency?  Who is to blame?  I'll answer my own question: 
the FT8 guy who is QRMing an occupied frequency.

Besides the FT8 guys can always resort to JTAlert to QSO via text messaging as 
one west African station apparently tried to do with me.

Wes  N7WS


On 11/28/2017 10:45 AM, Bryon Paul Veal NØAH wrote:
> There were ops all over the FT8 segments, refused to even try and work 
> them and some were some pretty rare mults for CQWWCW...gentleman 
> agreements are of the past.sucks
>
> PAUL. N0aH
>

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: 160m beacons list update

[Petr Ourednik]

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 kind help,

73 - Petr, OK1RP
--
http://ok1rp.blogspot.com
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband