Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Gary Smith]

I protested to the ARRL regarding RTTY 
being classified as digital. I suppose in 
some perverse way it is digital but my 
comments to the League was to keep RTTY 
separate from the digital awards and 
create a separate award for  Digital.

I suggested if their goal was to increase 
participation on the allocated frequencies 
and, make money with increased 
applications for awards, they should 
create a separate DXCC and keep RTTY 
separate from Digital.

As I'm a General Factotum, my thoughts 
mean nothing so it was not implemented and 
I suspect it never will be.

Ah well, meet the old boss, same as the 
old boss...

73,

Gary, the ignored.

KA1J

> >Modes over last 2 hours
> 
> Some may say this is nit picking but to me it is important:
> 
> MOST of those so called modes listed are NOT different modes of
> transmission, they are digital protocols.  A mode of transmission is a
> method for altering a RF carrier so it conveys information.   CW is a
> mode.  So is AM.  Spark is not a mode; it is an altogether different
> way of generating RF.  FSK is a mode.
> 
> With most computer generated digital data transmissions, the method is
> the same; only the digital protocol changes.  Therefore, they are not
> separate discrete modes.  Let's not aggrandize computer generated
> transmission--a lot of digital stuff is one mode, but many different
> formats or protocols.
> 
> 73
> 
> Rob
> K5UJ
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
> 



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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Rob Atkinson]

>Modes over last 2 hours

Some may say this is nit picking but to me it is important:

MOST of those so called modes listed are NOT different modes of
transmission, they are digital protocols.  A mode of transmission is a
method for altering a RF carrier so it conveys information.   CW is a
mode.  So is AM.  Spark is not a mode; it is an altogether different
way of generating RF.  FSK is a mode.

With most computer generated digital data transmissions, the method is
the same; only the digital protocol changes.  Therefore, they are not
separate discrete modes.  Let's not aggrandize computer generated
transmission--a lot of digital stuff is one mode, but many different
formats or protocols.

73

Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[kolson]

Another entry in the "Great American Humorist" contest. Very good!

73, Kevin K3OX

- Original Message -
From: Wes 
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:12:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

CW, it's just like FT-8 but for men.

N7WS

On 1/10/2020 10:03 PM, kol...@rcn.com wrote:
> BTW, sign seen in a local traffic handlers shack back in the late 
> '60's:"Everyone is welcome in my shack be you Ham Radio operator or Phone 
> man."The more things change...73 Kevin K3OX
>

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Martin Kratoska]

I applaud, Dave!

73,
Martin, OK1RR


Dne 11. 01. 20 v 6:02 Dave AA6YQ napsal(a):

+ AA6YQ comments below

It would seem that the new digital modes have re-invigorated ham radio, at 
least activity wise. But if ham radio is so fragile that it cannot sustain in 
the face of interest in a new mode, maybe it deserves to die. I personally 
don't think it will, it is and has always been a big tent...73, Kevin K3OX

+ If CW, AM, SSB, transistors, integrated circuits, VHF repeaters, packet 
clusters, CW decoders, soundcard RTTY applications, soundcard PSK applications, 
panoramic reception, and software-defined radios haven't managed to kill 
amateur radio, I doubt that FT4 or FT8 will succeed.

+ It's been my experience that many ops consider the technology they were using up 
through age 35 to be "standard". Any technology that appears after they reach 
that age will be considered a  mortal threat to amateur radio.

 73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

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



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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Wes]

I guess that I'm not among the many. I'm 78 and have been a ham for almost 62 of 
them.  I took up Satellite work at age 35, EME at 38, RTTY at 68 and I can't 
live without my SDR panadapter.


By coincidence I got a handful of QSLs from the bureau today.  One was from 
JH7OHS for a 432 EME JT65B QSO.  This is astounding; these digital modes are 
great.  I've made FT-8 QSOs when I wasn't even in the shack and now I have an 
EME QSO when I've never been on 432 in my life.


Wes  N7WS


On 1/10/2020 10:02 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:

+ AA6YQ comments below

It would seem that the new digital modes have re-invigorated ham radio, at 
least activity wise. But if ham radio is so fragile that it cannot sustain in 
the face of interest in a new mode, maybe it deserves to die. I personally 
don't think it will, it is and has always been a big tent...73, Kevin K3OX

+ If CW, AM, SSB, transistors, integrated circuits, VHF repeaters, packet 
clusters, CW decoders, soundcard RTTY applications, soundcard PSK applications, 
panoramic reception, and software-defined radios haven't managed to kill 
amateur radio, I doubt that FT4 or FT8 will succeed.

+ It's been my experience that many ops consider the technology they were using up 
through age 35 to be "standard". Any technology that appears after they reach 
that age will be considered a  mortal threat to amateur radio.

 73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

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



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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I wonder what will happen when/if we get a good solar cycle again.   
People just want to use their gear.  If a mode allows it great.  Let 
them have fun.  No reason to think less of them for getting on the 
air.    Remember the good ole days when 10 meters was a blast open every 
where.


W0MU

On 1/10/2020 9:52 PM, kol...@rcn.com wrote:

It would seem that the new digital modes have re-invigorated ham radio, at 
least activity wise. But if ham radio is so fragile that it cannot sustain in 
the face of interest in a new mode, maybe it deserves to die. I personally 
don't think it will, it is and has always been a big tent...73, Kevin K3OX

- Original Message -
From: Hans Hjelmström 
To: W0MU Mike Fatchett 
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:12:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

And its even not Ham radio.Its fake PC Computer business.
Sorry.Its the end of Ham radio
Hans SM6CVX



10 jan 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev W0MU Mike Fatchett :

1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!

On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
statistics for only the past couple of hours,

AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for the
various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
from 1825-1830.

Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.

Modes over last 2 hours
Mode Count
FT8 1549146
FT4 41733
JS8 7895
CW 6894
PSK31 433
JT65 383
OPERA 132
JT9 65
MSK144 37
OLIVIA 22
OLIVIA 8 22
JT6M 18
ROS 14
DOMINO 13
PI4 12
OLIVIA-8 9
PSK63 9
FSK441 8
JT65B 7
WSPR 6
RTTY 5
MT63-500 1
SIM31 1
THOR 1
THOR22 1
PSK 1
CONTESTI 1

What do you think?


Herb, KV4FZ




_._,_._,_
--
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#3244)
<https://groups.io/g/FT8-Digital-Mode/message/3244> | Reply To Group

| Reply To Sender

| Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/69583772/763514> | New Topic
<https://groups.io/g/FT8-Digital-Mode/post>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

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


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Wes]

CW, it's just like FT-8 but for men.

N7WS

On 1/10/2020 10:03 PM, kol...@rcn.com wrote:

BTW, sign seen in a local traffic handlers shack back in the late '60's:"Everyone is 
welcome in my shack be you Ham Radio operator or Phone man."The more things 
change...73 Kevin K3OX



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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[kolson]

BTW, sign seen in a local traffic handlers shack back in the late 
'60's:"Everyone is welcome in my shack be you Ham Radio operator or Phone 
man."The more things change...73 Kevin K3OX

- Original Message -
From: kol...@rcn.com
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 23:52:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

It would seem that the new digital modes have re-invigorated ham radio, at 
least activity wise. But if ham radio is so fragile that it cannot sustain in 
the face of interest in a new mode, maybe it deserves to die. I personally 
don't think it will, it is and has always been a big tent...73, Kevin K3OX

- Original Message -
From: Hans Hjelmström 
To: W0MU Mike Fatchett 
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:12:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

And its even not Ham radio.Its fake PC Computer business.
Sorry.Its the end of Ham radio
Hans SM6CVX


> 10 jan 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev W0MU Mike Fatchett :
> 
> 1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!
> 
> On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>> I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
>> frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
>> statistics for only the past couple of hours,
>> 
>> AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for the
>> various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
>> from 1825-1830.
>> 
>> Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.
>> 
>> Modes over last 2 hours
>> Mode Count
>> FT8 1549146
>> FT4 41733
>> JS8 7895
>> CW 6894
>> PSK31 433
>> JT65 383
>> OPERA 132
>> JT9 65
>> MSK144 37
>> OLIVIA 22
>> OLIVIA 8 22
>> JT6M 18
>> ROS 14
>> DOMINO 13
>> PI4 12
>> OLIVIA-8 9
>> PSK63 9
>> FSK441 8
>> JT65B 7
>> WSPR 6
>> RTTY 5
>> MT63-500 1
>> SIM31 1
>> THOR 1
>> THOR22 1
>> PSK 1
>> CONTESTI 1
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> 
>> Herb, KV4FZ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _._,_._,_
>> --
>> Groups.io Links:
>> 
>> You receive all messages sent to this group.
>> 
>> View/Reply Online (#3244)
>> <https://groups.io/g/FT8-Digital-Mode/message/3244> | Reply To Group
>> 
>> | Reply To Sender
>> 
>> | Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/69583772/763514> | New Topic
>> <https://groups.io/g/FT8-Digital-Mode/post>
>> _
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Dave AA6YQ]

+ AA6YQ comments below

It would seem that the new digital modes have re-invigorated ham radio, at 
least activity wise. But if ham radio is so fragile that it cannot sustain in 
the face of interest in a new mode, maybe it deserves to die. I personally 
don't think it will, it is and has always been a big tent...73, Kevin K3OX

+ If CW, AM, SSB, transistors, integrated circuits, VHF repeaters, packet 
clusters, CW decoders, soundcard RTTY applications, soundcard PSK applications, 
panoramic reception, and software-defined radios haven't managed to kill 
amateur radio, I doubt that FT4 or FT8 will succeed.

+ It's been my experience that many ops consider the technology they were using 
up through age 35 to be "standard". Any technology that appears after they 
reach that age will be considered a  mortal threat to amateur radio.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[kolson]

It would seem that the new digital modes have re-invigorated ham radio, at 
least activity wise. But if ham radio is so fragile that it cannot sustain in 
the face of interest in a new mode, maybe it deserves to die. I personally 
don't think it will, it is and has always been a big tent...73, Kevin K3OX

- Original Message -
From: Hans Hjelmström 
To: W0MU Mike Fatchett 
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:12:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

And its even not Ham radio.Its fake PC Computer business.
Sorry.Its the end of Ham radio
Hans SM6CVX


> 10 jan 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev W0MU Mike Fatchett :
> 
> 1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!
> 
> On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>> I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
>> frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
>> statistics for only the past couple of hours,
>> 
>> AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for the
>> various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
>> from 1825-1830.
>> 
>> Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.
>> 
>> Modes over last 2 hours
>> Mode Count
>> FT8 1549146
>> FT4 41733
>> JS8 7895
>> CW 6894
>> PSK31 433
>> JT65 383
>> OPERA 132
>> JT9 65
>> MSK144 37
>> OLIVIA 22
>> OLIVIA 8 22
>> JT6M 18
>> ROS 14
>> DOMINO 13
>> PI4 12
>> OLIVIA-8 9
>> PSK63 9
>> FSK441 8
>> JT65B 7
>> WSPR 6
>> RTTY 5
>> MT63-500 1
>> SIM31 1
>> THOR 1
>> THOR22 1
>> PSK 1
>> CONTESTI 1
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> 
>> Herb, KV4FZ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _._,_._,_
>> --
>> Groups.io Links:
>> 
>> You receive all messages sent to this group.
>> 
>> View/Reply Online (#3244)
>> <https://groups.io/g/FT8-Digital-Mode/message/3244> | Reply To Group
>> 
>> | Reply To Sender
>> 
>> | Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/69583772/763514> | New Topic
>> <https://groups.io/g/FT8-Digital-Mode/post>
>> _
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Brian Moran via Topband]

 "Stew Perry Next Generation"  or "Ess Pee En Gee" Something for everyone to 
like and not like in that title.-Brian N9ADG

On Friday, January 10, 2020, 6:23:12 PM PST, W0MU Mike Fatchett 
 wrote:  
 
 FT4 is not allocated on 160 for some reason.  If the contest were to use 
Grids then supporting a new contest should be quite simple.

W0MU

On 1/10/2020 7:11 PM, DXer wrote:
> >>I thought  there  was a contest  version  of  FT-8  coming
> out  soon ?   I  forget  what  it  was to  be  labeled  as.
>
> The current version of WSJT-X supports the following contests:
>
> NA VHF Contest;
> EU VHF Contest;
> ARRL Field Day, technically not a contest;
> RTTY Roundup.
>
> To activate contesting 'mode', click on File -> Settings -> Advance 
> tab -> Check the Special operating activity box -> select the contest.
>
> I'll let others with more FT8 contesting experience 'chime in', but 
> the easist way to implement the Topband FT8 Contest would be to use 
> the same exchange as the RU. Anything different than what is currently 
> supported would require programming additions to the WSJT-X code.
>
> JTDX does not support contests. MSHV may not support them either, but 
> I'm not sure.
>
> I won't mention WSJT-Z for obvious reasons. LOL
>
> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
> Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Wes]

FT-8 and RTTY while both using radios hooked to computers, (unless you use a 
Model 28) are significantly different in practice.


I'm not an RTTY fanatic but I do have 255 countries confirmed and a DXCC 
certificate that says "RTTY" on it.  I won't repeat how FT-8 is used but will 
point out that when I operate RTTY, I tune the band looking for signals, I 
determine the RX/TX frequency (frequencies if split), I determine when to call 
and I determine what to send.  Sounds like ham radio to me.


Wes  N7WS

On 1/10/2020 1:30 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
Curious. If it is not Ham Radio then why is my K3 transmitting and receiving 
the signals? Hmmm.  I guess RTTY is not ham radio either.


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

FT4 is not allocated on 160 for some reason.  If the contest were to use 
Grids then supporting a new contest should be quite simple.


W0MU

On 1/10/2020 7:11 PM, DXer wrote:

>>I thought  there  was a contest  version  of  FT-8  coming
out  soon ?   I  forget  what  it  was to  be  labeled  as.

The current version of WSJT-X supports the following contests:

NA VHF Contest;
EU VHF Contest;
ARRL Field Day, technically not a contest;
RTTY Roundup.

To activate contesting 'mode', click on File -> Settings -> Advance 
tab -> Check the Special operating activity box -> select the contest.


I'll let others with more FT8 contesting experience 'chime in', but 
the easist way to implement the Topband FT8 Contest would be to use 
the same exchange as the RU. Anything different than what is currently 
supported would require programming additions to the WSJT-X code.


JTDX does not support contests. MSHV may not support them either, but 
I'm not sure.


I won't mention WSJT-Z for obvious reasons. LOL

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


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

Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[DXer]

>>I  thought  there  was a contest  version  of  FT-8  coming
out  soon ?   I  forget  what  it  was to  be  labeled  as.

The current version of WSJT-X supports the following contests:

NA VHF Contest;
EU VHF Contest;
ARRL Field Day, technically not a contest;
RTTY Roundup.

To activate contesting 'mode', click on File -> Settings -> Advance tab 
-> Check the Special operating activity box -> select the contest.


I'll let others with more FT8 contesting experience 'chime in', but the 
easist way to implement the Topband FT8 Contest would be to use the same 
exchange as the RU. Anything different than what is currently supported 
would require programming additions to the WSJT-X code.


JTDX does not support contests. MSHV may not support them either, but 
I'm not sure.


I won't mention WSJT-Z for obvious reasons. LOL

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

Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Jim Thomson]

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:38:03 -0400
From: Herbert Schoenbohm 
To: TopBand List ,
topband-ow...@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

I just joined Mike.  Thanks

Herb, KV4FZ

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 8:21 PM Mike Waters  wrote:

> The brand new https://groups.io/g/160Digital group should be good for
> that, Herb. Have you joined yet?
>
> 73, Mike
> W0BTU
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 6:04 PM Herbert Schoenbohm <
> herbert.schoenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the huge FT-8 community would come up with something quickly.
>> The potential for a very popular contest is big.   Maybe a website would
>> eventually be established to aid in the process such as FT-8 160 meter
>> contesting replete with a checklist of possible preferences,
>>
>> Let us just do it!
>>
>> Herb, KV4FZ
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:34 PM Mike Waters  wrote:
>>
>>> Why not? I think that an FT8 contest would be a good experiment, at
>>> least.
>>>
>>> It needs a sponsor(s) and some tentative rules. Any suggestions?
>>>
>>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband.

[donroden]

Lets just do it over the internet and say we did.
Don W4DNR


Quoting DXer :


1) you need a modern(relatively new)station


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Martin Kratoska]

Quite few happy experimenters, lots of disgusted DXers.

73,
Martin, OK1RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband.

[DXer]

>>1) you need a modern(relatively new)station

How modern? Until getting an IC-7300 I used an IC-718. Before getting a 
Signalink USB interface to go with it, I used dubbing cables between the 
radio and the computer. Took some 'skill' not to TX garbage with that setup.


Don't tell me now that FT8 must be compatible with a coherer detector to 
be an 'accepted' mode.


Technological change is inevitable, to use the fact that a 20/30/40 year 
old radio is not 'fit for use' with the new mode, somehow blemishes the 
mode, is ridiculous.


>>6) you like to be bored by doing ham radio

No comment...except that it looks like you have not explored all that 
people do in hamradio. The stuff I don't like, I don't get involved, 
including crashing discussions on topics I don't care.


I won't enumerate the stuff I think it's boring in the hobby, because it 
surely is fun to the 'practioners' of those activities.


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Mike Waters]

The brand new https://groups.io/g/160Digital group should be good for that,
Herb. Have you joined yet?

73, Mike
W0BTU

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 6:04 PM Herbert Schoenbohm <
herbert.schoenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the huge FT-8 community would come up with something quickly.  The
> potential for a very popular contest is big.   Maybe a website would
> eventually be established to aid in the process such as FT-8 160 meter
> contesting replete with a checklist of possible preferences,
>
> Let us just do it!
>
> Herb, KV4FZ
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:34 PM Mike Waters  wrote:
>
>> Why not? I think that an FT8 contest would be a good experiment, at least.
>>
>> It needs a sponsor(s) and some tentative rules. Any suggestions?
>>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

I think the huge FT-8 community would come up with something quickly.  The
potential for a very popular contest is big.   Maybe a website would
eventually be established to aid in the process such as FT-8 160 meter
contesting replete with a checklist of possible preferences,

Let us just do it!

Herb, KV4FZ

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:34 PM Mike Waters  wrote:

> Why not? I think that an FT8 contest would be a good experiment, at least.
>
> It needs a sponsor(s) and some tentative rules. Any suggestions?
>
> 73, Mike
> W0BTU
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 12:38 PM Herbert Schoenbohm <
> herbert.schoenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the frequency
>> conservation this would present and look at the activity statistics for
>> only the past couple of hours,
>>
>> AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for
>> the various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
>> from 1825-1830.
>>
>> Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.
>>
>> Modes over last 2 hours
>> Mode Count
>> FT8 1549146
>> FT4 41733
>> JS8 7895
>> CW 6894
>> [Snip]
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband.

[dj7ww]

1) you need a modern(relatively new)station

6) you like to be bored by doing ham radio

73
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces+dj7ww=t-online...@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of DXer
Sent: Samstag, 11. Januar 2020 00:12
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband.

The FT8 comet is back:

1) It's still legal;
2) It's still not mandatory to use it;
3) It only 'wastes' up to 3kHz on each band;
4) Lots of people are having fun with it.
.

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

Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband.

[DXer]

The FT8 comet is back:

1) It's still legal;
2) It's still not mandatory to use it;
3) It only 'wastes' up to 3kHz on each band;
4) Lots of people are having fun with it.
.
.
.

I can think of so many of Yoga Bera's sayings to reply to the negative 
reactions.


As for an FT8 contest, they are there already. I thought about it, I 
tried it a couple of times, and went back to normal and F FT8.


I still think that a mode that relies on time sync is not a good fit for 
contests. For that, RTTY is still king.


73 de Vince, VA3VF


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Glenn Wyant]

Hans,

Do you ever get away from presenting all of us
with your " negative ham radio " comments in
regards to FT8 ?

I dont think I have ever seen any comments from
yourself that were actually promoting the hobby.

Glenn VA3DX

- Original Message - 
From: "Hans Hjelmström" 

To: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" 
Cc: 
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband



And its even not Ham  radio.Its fake PC Computer business.
Sorry.Its the end of Ham radio
Hans SM6CVX



10 jan 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev W0MU Mike Fatchett :

1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!

On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
statistics for only the past couple of hours,

AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for 
the

various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
from 1825-1830.

Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.

Modes over last 2 hours
Mode Count
FT8 1549146
FT4 41733
JS8 7895
CW 6894
PSK31 433
JT65 383
OPERA 132
JT9 65
MSK144 37
OLIVIA 22
OLIVIA 8 22
JT6M 18
ROS 14
DOMINO 13
PI4 12
OLIVIA-8 9
PSK63 9
FSK441 8
JT65B 7
WSPR 6
RTTY 5
MT63-500 1
SIM31 1
THOR 1
THOR22 1
PSK 1
CONTESTI 1

What do you think?


Herb, KV4FZ




_._,_._,_
--
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#3244)
<https://groups.io/g/FT8-Digital-Mode/message/3244> | Reply To Group

 | Reply To Sender

 | Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/69583772/763514> | New Topic
<https://groups.io/g/FT8-Digital-Mode/post>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


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


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




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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Cecil]

Don’t let him discourage you Herb,  I think an FT8 contest would be fun.

We can discuss it further but won’t do it here…

Cecil
K5DL

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Steef PA2A
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 4:10 PM
To: topband@contesting.com; herbert.schoenb...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

Herb,

the stupid FT8 mode should be ignored by hams owning more than 2 
braincells.

73s Steef PA2A

I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
statistics for only the past couple of hours,

AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for 
the
various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
from 1825-1830.

Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.

Modes over last 2 hours
Mode Count
FT8 1549146
FT4 41733
JS8 7895
CW 6894
PSK31 433
JT65 383
OPERA 132
JT9 65
MSK144 37
OLIVIA 22
OLIVIA 8 22
JT6M 18
ROS 14
DOMINO 13
PI4 12
OLIVIA-8 9
PSK63 9
FSK441 8
JT65B 7
WSPR 6
RTTY 5
MT63-500 1
SIM31 1
THOR 1
THOR22 1
PSK 1
CONTESTI 1

What do you think?

Herb, KV4FZ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Steef PA2A]

Herb,

the stupid FT8 mode should be ignored by hams owning more than 2 
braincells.


73s Steef PA2A

I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
statistics for only the past couple of hours,

AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for 
the

various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
from 1825-1830.

Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.

Modes over last 2 hours
Mode Count
FT8 1549146
FT4 41733
JS8 7895
CW 6894
PSK31 433
JT65 383
OPERA 132
JT9 65
MSK144 37
OLIVIA 22
OLIVIA 8 22
JT6M 18
ROS 14
DOMINO 13
PI4 12
OLIVIA-8 9
PSK63 9
FSK441 8
JT65B 7
WSPR 6
RTTY 5
MT63-500 1
SIM31 1
THOR 1
THOR22 1
PSK 1
CONTESTI 1

What do you think?

Herb, KV4FZ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Cecil]

Stealth derogatory expressions…that’s a new approach.  

Cecil
K5DL  

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jean-Paul Albert via Topband
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 3:42 PM
To: W0MU Mike Fatchett
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

Humm, it should be fun...
You can be in the contest and same time behind barbecue...
Are remote stations allowed ?

73´s 

Jean-Paul 


F6FYA en direct depuis son iPad. 

> Le 10 janv. 2020 à 21:40, W0MU Mike Fatchett  a écrit :
> 
> The FT8 DMC   Digital Mode Club on Facebook has nearly 10,000 members.
> 
>> On 1/10/2020 1:30 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>> Curious. If it is not Ham Radio then why is my K3 transmitting and receiving 
>> the signals? Hmmm.  I guess RTTY is not ham radio either.
>> 
>>> On 1/10/2020 12:12 PM, Hans Hjelmström wrote:
>>> And its even not Ham  radio.Its fake PC Computer business.
>>> Sorry.Its the end of Ham radio
>>> Hans SM6CVX
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 10 jan 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev W0MU Mike Fatchett :
>>>> 
>>>> 1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!
>>>> 
>>>> On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>>>>> I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
>>>>> frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
>>>>> statistics for only the past couple of hours,
>>>>> 
>>>>> AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for 
>>>>> the
>>>>> various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
>>>>> from 1825-1830.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Modes over last 2 hours
>>>>> Mode Count
>>>>> FT8 1549146
>>>>> FT4 41733
>>>>> JS8 7895
>>>>> CW 6894
>>>>> PSK31 433
>>>>> JT65 383
>>>>> OPERA 132
>>>>> JT9 65
>>>>> MSK144 37
>>>>> OLIVIA 22
>>>>> OLIVIA 8 22
>>>>> JT6M 18
>>>>> ROS 14
>>>>> DOMINO 13
>>>>> PI4 12
>>>>> OLIVIA-8 9
>>>>> PSK63 9
>>>>> FSK441 8
>>>>> JT65B 7
>>>>> WSPR 6
>>>>> RTTY 5
>>>>> MT63-500 1
>>>>> SIM31 1
>>>>> THOR 1
>>>>> THOR22 1
>>>>> PSK 1
>>>>> CONTESTI 1
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Herb, KV4FZ
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _._,_._,_
>>>>> --
>>>>> Groups.io Links:
>>>>> 
>>>>> You receive all messages sent to this group.
>>>>> 
>>>>> View/Reply Online (#3244)
>>>>> <https://groups.io/g/FT8-Digital-Mode/message/3244> | Reply To Group
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>>   | Reply To Sender
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>>   | Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/69583772/763514> | New Topic
>>>>> <https://groups.io/g/FT8-Digital-Mode/post>
>>>>> _
>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
>>>>> Reflector
>>>> _
>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>>> _
>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>> 
>> _
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Jean-Paul Albert via Topband]

Humm, it should be fun...
You can be in the contest and same time behind barbecue...
Are remote stations allowed ?

73´s 

Jean-Paul 


F6FYA en direct depuis son iPad. 

> Le 10 janv. 2020 à 21:40, W0MU Mike Fatchett  a écrit :
> 
> The FT8 DMC   Digital Mode Club on Facebook has nearly 10,000 members.
> 
>> On 1/10/2020 1:30 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>> Curious. If it is not Ham Radio then why is my K3 transmitting and receiving 
>> the signals? Hmmm.  I guess RTTY is not ham radio either.
>> 
>>> On 1/10/2020 12:12 PM, Hans Hjelmström wrote:
>>> And its even not Ham  radio.Its fake PC Computer business.
>>> Sorry.Its the end of Ham radio
>>> Hans SM6CVX
>>> 
>>> 
 10 jan 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev W0MU Mike Fatchett :
 
 1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!
 
 On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
> I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
> frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
> statistics for only the past couple of hours,
> 
> AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for 
> the
> various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
> from 1825-1830.
> 
> Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.
> 
> Modes over last 2 hours
> Mode Count
> FT8 1549146
> FT4 41733
> JS8 7895
> CW 6894
> PSK31 433
> JT65 383
> OPERA 132
> JT9 65
> MSK144 37
> OLIVIA 22
> OLIVIA 8 22
> JT6M 18
> ROS 14
> DOMINO 13
> PI4 12
> OLIVIA-8 9
> PSK63 9
> FSK441 8
> JT65B 7
> WSPR 6
> RTTY 5
> MT63-500 1
> SIM31 1
> THOR 1
> THOR22 1
> PSK 1
> CONTESTI 1
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> Herb, KV4FZ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _._,_._,_
> --
> Groups.io Links:
> 
> You receive all messages sent to this group.
> 
> View/Reply Online (#3244)
>  | Reply To Group
> 
>  
>   | Reply To Sender
> 
>  
>   | Mute This Topic  | New Topic
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
> Reflector
 _
 Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>>> _
>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>> 
>> _
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Wes]

Michael publishes a Club Log Summary of DX Activity each week.

If you look at the Most Active Modes, you will take away that FT8 is the 
predominate mode.  That said, if you drill down and look at the statistics for 
DXpeditions, you can see many where CW still prevails.by a significant 
margin.    Even this doesn't tell the whole story as some DXpeditions don't even 
have any CW ops anymore; TK1KJ for example.  Does this prove the superiority of 
FT8?  I don't think so.


I have a friend, a superb op and fellow member of a very active DX club, who has 
been on many many major DXpeditions.  He has now bought into using FT8 on 
expeditions.  As he told me, "I don't have to listen to it, I can do other 
things."  Ham radio?  Not to my way of thinking.


Wes  N7WS

  On 1/10/2020 12:15 PM, Michael Walker wrote:

Yes, the success is staggering.

There are graphs that show the FT8 usage and I would paste it into the body
of the email, but I can't.  Clublog published it somewhere.   It shows a
deep decline on CW and a minor decline on SSB and this was 2 years ago.
https://ei7gl.blogspot.com/2019/03/club-log-stats-show-rise-of-ft8-mode-in.html

Geral K5SDR summed it up well here:
https://www.flexradio.com/ft8-tipping-point-for-ham-radio/

Mike va3mw



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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

The FT8 DMC   Digital Mode Club on Facebook has nearly 10,000 members.

On 1/10/2020 1:30 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
Curious. If it is not Ham Radio then why is my K3 transmitting and 
receiving the signals? Hmmm.  I guess RTTY is not ham radio either.


On 1/10/2020 12:12 PM, Hans Hjelmström wrote:

And its even not Ham  radio.Its fake PC Computer business.
Sorry.Its the end of Ham radio
Hans SM6CVX



10 jan 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev W0MU Mike Fatchett :

1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!

On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
statistics for only the past couple of hours,

AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended 
for the
various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental 
QSO's

from 1825-1830.

Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.

Modes over last 2 hours
Mode Count
FT8 1549146
FT4 41733
JS8 7895
CW 6894
PSK31 433
JT65 383
OPERA 132
JT9 65
MSK144 37
OLIVIA 22
OLIVIA 8 22
JT6M 18
ROS 14
DOMINO 13
PI4 12
OLIVIA-8 9
PSK63 9
FSK441 8
JT65B 7
WSPR 6
RTTY 5
MT63-500 1
SIM31 1
THOR 1
THOR22 1
PSK 1
CONTESTI 1

What do you think?


Herb, KV4FZ




_._,_._,_
--
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#3244)
 | Reply To Group
 


  | Reply To Sender
 


  | Mute This Topic  | New Topic

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

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

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


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


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Curious.  If it is not Ham Radio then why is my K3 transmitting and 
receiving the signals? Hmmm.  I guess RTTY is not ham radio either.


On 1/10/2020 12:12 PM, Hans Hjelmström wrote:

And its even not Ham  radio.Its fake PC Computer business.
Sorry.Its the end of Ham radio
Hans SM6CVX



10 jan 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev W0MU Mike Fatchett :

1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!

On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
statistics for only the past couple of hours,

AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for the
various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
from 1825-1830.

Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.

Modes over last 2 hours
Mode Count
FT8 1549146
FT4 41733
JS8 7895
CW 6894
PSK31 433
JT65 383
OPERA 132
JT9 65
MSK144 37
OLIVIA 22
OLIVIA 8 22
JT6M 18
ROS 14
DOMINO 13
PI4 12
OLIVIA-8 9
PSK63 9
FSK441 8
JT65B 7
WSPR 6
RTTY 5
MT63-500 1
SIM31 1
THOR 1
THOR22 1
PSK 1
CONTESTI 1

What do you think?


Herb, KV4FZ




_._,_._,_
--
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#3244)
 | Reply To Group

  | Reply To Sender

  | Mute This Topic  | New Topic

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

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

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


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[dj7ww]

No wonder, imagine how many robots are active on all bands in parallel per
station.


-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces+dj7ww=t-online...@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett

1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[fortra]

Hi guys,

as a former radio officer and a ham for 51
years, i firmly belive, that hearing is beliving..

Not the other way around, seeing is beliving...
We, hams has last word, ear, eye on modes...

Nermin S58DX

-Izvorno sporočilo- 
From: Cecil

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 9:02 PM
To: Hans Hjelmström
Cc: Topband@contesting.com ; W0MU Mike Fatchett
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

Some international diplomacy?

Save it!

K5DL

Sent from my iPad


On Jan 10, 2020, at 1:13 PM, Hans Hjelmström  wrote:

And its even not Ham  radio.Its fake PC Computer business.
Sorry.Its the end of Ham radio
Hans SM6CVX



10 jan 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev W0MU Mike Fatchett :

1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!


On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
statistics for only the past couple of hours,

AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for 
the

various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
from 1825-1830.

Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.

Modes over last 2 hours
Mode Count
FT8 1549146
FT4 41733
JS8 7895
CW 6894
PSK31 433
JT65 383
OPERA 132
JT9 65
MSK144 37
OLIVIA 22
OLIVIA 8 22
JT6M 18
ROS 14
DOMINO 13
PI4 12
OLIVIA-8 9
PSK63 9
FSK441 8
JT65B 7
WSPR 6
RTTY 5
MT63-500 1
SIM31 1
THOR 1
THOR22 1
PSK 1
CONTESTI 1

What do you think?


Herb, KV4FZ




_._,_._,_
--
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#3244)
<https://groups.io/g/FT8-Digital-Mode/message/3244> | Reply To Group

| Reply To Sender

| Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/69583772/763514> | New Topic
<https://groups.io/g/FT8-Digital-Mode/post>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


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


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


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


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Cecil]

Some international diplomacy? 

Save it!

K5DL

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 10, 2020, at 1:13 PM, Hans Hjelmström  wrote:
> 
> And its even not Ham  radio.Its fake PC Computer business.
> Sorry.Its the end of Ham radio
> Hans SM6CVX
> 
> 
>> 10 jan 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev W0MU Mike Fatchett :
>> 
>> 1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!
>> 
>>> On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>>> I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
>>> frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
>>> statistics for only the past couple of hours,
>>> 
>>> AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for the
>>> various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
>>> from 1825-1830.
>>> 
>>> Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.
>>> 
>>> Modes over last 2 hours
>>> Mode Count
>>> FT8 1549146
>>> FT4 41733
>>> JS8 7895
>>> CW 6894
>>> PSK31 433
>>> JT65 383
>>> OPERA 132
>>> JT9 65
>>> MSK144 37
>>> OLIVIA 22
>>> OLIVIA 8 22
>>> JT6M 18
>>> ROS 14
>>> DOMINO 13
>>> PI4 12
>>> OLIVIA-8 9
>>> PSK63 9
>>> FSK441 8
>>> JT65B 7
>>> WSPR 6
>>> RTTY 5
>>> MT63-500 1
>>> SIM31 1
>>> THOR 1
>>> THOR22 1
>>> PSK 1
>>> CONTESTI 1
>>> 
>>> What do you think?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Herb, KV4FZ
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _._,_._,_
>>> --
>>> Groups.io Links:
>>> 
>>> You receive all messages sent to this group.
>>> 
>>> View/Reply Online (#3244)
>>>  | Reply To Group
>>> 
>>> | Reply To Sender
>>> 
>>> | Mute This Topic  | New Topic
>>> 
>>> _
>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>> 
>> _
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Mike Waters]

Why not? I think that an FT8 contest would be a good experiment, at least.

It needs a sponsor(s) and some tentative rules. Any suggestions?

73, Mike
W0BTU

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 12:38 PM Herbert Schoenbohm <
herbert.schoenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the frequency
> conservation this would present and look at the activity statistics for
> only the past couple of hours,
>
> AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for
> the various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
> from 1825-1830.
>
> Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.
>
> Modes over last 2 hours
> Mode Count
> FT8 1549146
> FT4 41733
> JS8 7895
> CW 6894
> [Snip]
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Mike Waters]

This, sir, is not helpful. Our moderator has explicitly stated that
negative comments about FT8 are not allowed.

Respectfully,
Mike W0BTU

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 1:12 PM Hans Hjelmström  wrote:

> And its even not Ham  radio.Its fake PC Computer business.
> Sorry.Its the end of Ham radio
> Hans SM6CVX
>
>
> > 10 jan 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev W0MU Mike Fatchett :
> >
> > 1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!
> >
> > On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
> >> I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
> >> frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
> >> statistics for only the past couple of hours,
> >>
> >> AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for
> the
> >> various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
> >> from 1825-1830.
> >>
> >> Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.
> >>
> >> Modes over last 2 hours
> >> Mode Count
> >> FT8 1549146
> >> FT4 41733
> >> JS8 7895
> >> CW 6894
> >> PSK31 433
> >> JT65 383
> >> OPERA 132
> >> JT9 65
> >> MSK144 37
> >> OLIVIA 22
> >> OLIVIA 8 22
> >> JT6M 18
> >> ROS 14
> >> DOMINO 13
> >> PI4 12
> >> OLIVIA-8 9
> >> PSK63 9
> >> FSK441 8
> >> JT65B 7
> >> WSPR 6
> >> RTTY 5
> >> MT63-500 1
> >> SIM31 1
> >> THOR 1
> >> THOR22 1
> >> PSK 1
> >> CONTESTI 1
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >>
> >> Herb, KV4FZ
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _._,_._,_
> >> --
> >> Groups.io Links:
> >>
> >> You receive all messages sent to this group.
> >>
> >> View/Reply Online (#3244)
> >>  | Reply To Group
> >> <
> ft8-digital-m...@groups.io?subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BFT8-Digital-Mode%5D%20Number%20of%20WSJT%20Users
> >
> >>  | Reply To Sender
> >> <
> k2...@aol.com?subject=Private:%20Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BFT8-Digital-Mode%5D%20Number%20of%20WSJT%20Users
> >
> >>  | Mute This Topic  | New Topic
> >> 
> >> _
> >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
> >
> > _
> > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Michael Walker]

Yes, the success is staggering.

There are graphs that show the FT8 usage and I would paste it into the body
of the email, but I can't.  Clublog published it somewhere.   It shows a
deep decline on CW and a minor decline on SSB and this was 2 years ago.
https://ei7gl.blogspot.com/2019/03/club-log-stats-show-rise-of-ft8-mode-in.html

Geral K5SDR summed it up well here:
https://www.flexradio.com/ft8-tipping-point-for-ham-radio/

Mike va3mw


On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:06 PM W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:

> 1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!
>
> On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
> > I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
> > frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
> > statistics for only the past couple of hours,
> >
> > AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for
> the
> > various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
> > from 1825-1830.
> >
> > Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.
> >
> > Modes over last 2 hours
> > Mode Count
> > FT8 1549146
> > FT4 41733
> > JS8 7895
> > CW 6894
> > PSK31 433
> > JT65 383
> > OPERA 132
> > JT9 65
> > MSK144 37
> > OLIVIA 22
> > OLIVIA 8 22
> > JT6M 18
> > ROS 14
> > DOMINO 13
> > PI4 12
> > OLIVIA-8 9
> > PSK63 9
> > FSK441 8
> > JT65B 7
> > WSPR 6
> > RTTY 5
> > MT63-500 1
> > SIM31 1
> > THOR 1
> > THOR22 1
> > PSK 1
> > CONTESTI 1
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> >
> > Herb, KV4FZ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _._,_._,_
> > --
> > Groups.io Links:
> >
> > You receive all messages sent to this group.
> >
> > View/Reply Online (#3244)
> >  | Reply To Group
> > <
> ft8-digital-m...@groups.io?subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BFT8-Digital-Mode%5D%20Number%20of%20WSJT%20Users
> >
> >   | Reply To Sender
> > <
> k2...@aol.com?subject=Private:%20Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BFT8-Digital-Mode%5D%20Number%20of%20WSJT%20Users
> >
> >   | Mute This Topic  | New Topic
> > 
> > _
> > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Hans Hjelmström]

And its even not Ham  radio.Its fake PC Computer business.
Sorry.Its the end of Ham radio
Hans SM6CVX


> 10 jan 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev W0MU Mike Fatchett :
> 
> 1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!
> 
> On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>> I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
>> frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
>> statistics for only the past couple of hours,
>> 
>> AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for the
>> various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
>> from 1825-1830.
>> 
>> Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.
>> 
>> Modes over last 2 hours
>> Mode Count
>> FT8 1549146
>> FT4 41733
>> JS8 7895
>> CW 6894
>> PSK31 433
>> JT65 383
>> OPERA 132
>> JT9 65
>> MSK144 37
>> OLIVIA 22
>> OLIVIA 8 22
>> JT6M 18
>> ROS 14
>> DOMINO 13
>> PI4 12
>> OLIVIA-8 9
>> PSK63 9
>> FSK441 8
>> JT65B 7
>> WSPR 6
>> RTTY 5
>> MT63-500 1
>> SIM31 1
>> THOR 1
>> THOR22 1
>> PSK 1
>> CONTESTI 1
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> 
>> Herb, KV4FZ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _._,_._,_
>> --
>> Groups.io Links:
>> 
>> You receive all messages sent to this group.
>> 
>> View/Reply Online (#3244)
>>  | Reply To Group
>> 
>>  | Reply To Sender
>> 
>>  | Mute This Topic  | New Topic
>> 
>> _
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

1.5 million hits for FT8? WOW!

On 1/10/2020 11:38 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
statistics for only the past couple of hours,

AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for the
various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
from 1825-1830.

Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.

Modes over last 2 hours
Mode Count
FT8 1549146
FT4 41733
JS8 7895
CW 6894
PSK31 433
JT65 383
OPERA 132
JT9 65
MSK144 37
OLIVIA 22
OLIVIA 8 22
JT6M 18
ROS 14
DOMINO 13
PI4 12
OLIVIA-8 9
PSK63 9
FSK441 8
JT65B 7
WSPR 6
RTTY 5
MT63-500 1
SIM31 1
THOR 1
THOR22 1
PSK 1
CONTESTI 1

What do you think?


Herb, KV4FZ




_._,_._,_
--
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#3244)
 | Reply To Group

  | Reply To Sender

  | Mute This Topic  | New Topic

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


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

Topband: FT-8 Contest would be great for Topband

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

I know the purists will flame me for this but look at the
frequency conservation this would present and look at the activity
statistics for only the past couple of hours,

AIf the contest was designed well sub-channels could be recommended for the
various continents as Stew Perry use to urge for intercontinental QSO's
from 1825-1830.

Here are the amazing stats for only two hours.

Modes over last 2 hours
Mode Count
FT8 1549146
FT4 41733
JS8 7895
CW 6894
PSK31 433
JT65 383
OPERA 132
JT9 65
MSK144 37
OLIVIA 22
OLIVIA 8 22
JT6M 18
ROS 14
DOMINO 13
PI4 12
OLIVIA-8 9
PSK63 9
FSK441 8
JT65B 7
WSPR 6
RTTY 5
MT63-500 1
SIM31 1
THOR 1
THOR22 1
PSK 1
CONTESTI 1

What do you think?


Herb, KV4FZ




_._,_._,_
--
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#3244)
 | Reply To Group

 | Reply To Sender

 | Mute This Topic  | New Topic

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[K4SAV]

K5ESW said:
"The difference in the FT8 reported SNR and how most hams think of SNR
seems explained well by Jim, KC5RUO.
http://www.arrl.org/forum/topics/view/1957
https://tapr.org/pdf/DCC2018-KC5RUO-TheReal-FT8-JT65-JT9=SNR.pdf


Thanks Paul.  I had read one of those articles before. I didn't find the 
more detailed one earlier when I was looking.  He is relating the S/N 
reported by the digital modes to what it really should be. Without 
digging thru all those numbers and just listening to FT8 it was pretty 
obvious that the reported S/N didn't have much meaning for the average 
person.  That was very obvious by considering the example I gave 
previously of a S9+40 dB signal being reported as 1 dB below the noise 
floor when my receiver was reading the noise floor at S1.  That is a 
huge difference.  It just means the reported S/N numbers need to be ignored.


The really important feature that needs to be measured is not the 
reported S/N but the minimum S/N that FT8 will decode.  That's when 
using a real noise number that hams can relate to, like what your 
receiver reads on narrow bandwidth on a frequency with no signals 
present.  (That would be useful for comparing CW to FT8.) That's usually 
atmosphere noise for those that don't have local QRN problems.  I'm 
afraid that FT8 doesn't use that real noise number when describing its 
operation.  It uses something else that most people can't relate to.  So 
what does decoding a signal 24 dB below the noise floor mean?  Who's 
definition of noise floor?  Certainly not mine.


The results of my experiments were that FT8 can decode signals 
approximately 24 dB below the S meter reading of the whole 1.5 KHs band 
(signal plus noise included).  That conclusion was based totally on 
measurements, which I repeated many times.  It was never exactly the 
same number every time (but close)  but this was over the air testing 
with QSB not something in a lab setup.  You won't be able to read S 
meters exactly.


That's not a difficult measurement to make but it helps a lot if your 
receiver has S meters for both the main and sub receivers.  Set the main 
receiver on 1.5 KHz bandwidth and the sub receiver on about 100-200 Hz 
bandwidth and measure the signal strength of the signal being decoded.  
You have to be sure that you isolate the right signal.


From those measurement you can see that the minimum signal decoded is 
going to be a function of how many stations there are on the band and 
their strength.  I did verify that happening.  I also confirmed that 
when narrowing the bandwidth on the receiver doing the decoding that 
lower level signals can be decoded.  You would think that decoding would 
continue down below the noise floor if there weren't any strong signals 
on the band, however that didn't happen with any testing I did.  FT8 
pooped out at a S/N number of about +15 dB.


Still waiting for someone else to make similar measurements.  I get the 
feeling that I am the only person to ever make these measurements.


Jerry, K4SAV



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

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Paul Ferguson]

Jerry,

The difference in the FT8 reported SNR and how most hams think of SNR 
seems explained well by Jim, KC5RUO. 

http://www.arrl.org/forum/topics/view/1957

https://tapr.org/pdf/DCC2018-KC5RUO-TheReal-FT8-JT65-JT9=SNR.pdf

He says for FT8, the noise bandwidth that impacts FT8 software´s 
ability to decode data is 6.250 Hz. WSJT calculates the total power 
(all signals and noise) in the 2500 Hz bandwith, and uses it as the 
denominator in SNR calculations. 

Jim says "it would make more sense to measure the SNR in the bandwidth 
that's really used by the receiver; but it may be hard to determine or 
define that "true" receive bandwidth. So in short, your eyes and ears 
are not deceiving you. Those JT65/JT9/FT8 signals are very much so well 
above the noise." 

The following shows if you focus on a single FT8 signal in a 6.250 Hz 
bandwidth, the WSJT reported SNR needs to have 26 dB added:

SNRFSKFT8 = SNRreportedFT8 + (10 x LOG (2500 Hz/6.250 Hz))
SNRFSKFT8 = SNRreportedFT8 + (10 x LOG (400))
SNRFSKFT8 = SNRreportedFT8 + 26 dB

73,
Paul K5ESW
Raleigh, NC

> I'm not sure how FT-8 calculates the reported S/N number. I found very
> little information on the subject and what I did find was not easily
> understandable.  What I did was an experiment in which I was able to
> get 
> close to the same number being reported.  According to what I have
> read 
> about FT-8, it does not implement the same method as I was using in my
> testing.
> 
> It was very obvious to me that the number being reported was useless. 
> Example:  How would you be able to report a S/N of -1 dB when the 
> station is S9+40 db on the S meter and the receiver reads S1 when
> tuned 
> to a spot with no stations.  (Actual measurement)
> 
> I made a guess that the number being reported was actually a signal to
> noise plus signal ratio S1(S1 + N), where N is the sum of everything
> else in the passband.  The S9+40 db station in the example would be
> the 
> main contributor to the overall level of the total stuff in the
> passband 
> and that total is just a little more than his signal alone, so -1 dB
> now 
> makes sense.  This seems to work and it works on other FT-8 signals as
> well.
> 
> Jerry, K4SAV
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Charlie Young]

Hello Jerry



When FT8 came out in 2017, I tried it.  Once past the gee whiz factor of the 
technology, I did not care for it. Being a traditional CW DX chaser on all 
bands, making FT8 QSO’s did nothing for me. Like kissing your sister.  As the 
activity picked up on FT8, some soul searching was done.  To continue building 
Challenge points, it was either adopt FT8 or quit working new ones, primarily 
on 6 meters, where most of my Challenge opportunity exists.  So, I bit the 
bullet and moved to FT8, so far only for new ones, and primarily on 6.



FT8 has transformed 6 Meters.  The activity has  nearly all moved to FT8. If 
you start from scratch today on 6 with CW or SSB only, I don’t know if you 
could make DXCC in a lifetime.  Will Topband become like this?  I hope not, but 
don’t know.   The FT8 mode is very effective on 6, QSO’s are in my log which 
would not be there except for FT8.  Lots of these QSO’s.   Once can argue 
whether these are QSO’s in the same sense as a CW QSO, but the ARRL says they 
are, and they are the sponsors/keeper of the awards.  I don’t personally like 
FT8, but it is a useful tool for making Challenge points.  The needed slots are 
not available on conventional modes, at least not on 6 meters.



I have spent the entire 6M E skip season in 2018 and 2019 on 6M FT8, and have 
tried to find meaning in the dB report. Strictly by observation, I can’t 
correlate the SNR report with an S Meter reading at all.  If my noise level is 
low, there are several layers of signal audible below S-1 on my IC7610.   It is 
very common to see a +10 to +15 SNR reading on a sub S-1 signal that does not 
even move the S meter at all.   I sometimes get lower SNR reports from locals, 
who do move the S meter to S9 or more.



It seems to have more to do with my baseline powerline noise level, and the 
number of signals in the passband.  What I do now is pay no attention at all to 
 the SNR report.  None.  It certainly seems to have no bearing on whether I 
could make a CW QSO or not with the signal.   Actually, what myself and other 
experienced CW ops have noticed is we frequently can hear very weak signals on 
FT8 that do not decode at all.  These would be workable on CW for sure.  
However, if the QSB during a transmit cycle drops the signal below the 
detection threshold for 3 or 4 seconds during a TX cycle, it is not going to 
decode.   Those are the types of signals which might be workable by good CW 
ops.  That said, I can frequently decode and work signals that do not meet my 
hearing threshold.  They just have to hang in for the entire TX cycle and be 
above the threshold for FT8.



This summer, I ran side by side comparisons with JTDX and FT8 on very weak 
signals.  This went on for 3 weeks or so, and I became convinced JTDX had 
superior weak signal decoding and switched to it.  JTDX has multiple decoders 
and other features which result in more sensitive decodes.  These are 
predictable.   On a moderately filled band,  WSJTX misses decodes that are -20 
or below and JTDX typically gets these.  The decodes are pretty accurate; I 
don’t get very many garbage decodes.  JTDX was directly responsible for a QSO 
with 6W1TA which WSJTX missed decoding.



So far, I have worked no new ones on FT8 Topband or 80M, but have listened   
With a steady S9 plus 20 to 40 dB roar of NA to NA signals, I am a bit 
skeptical about how effective it will be contrasted to 6.  However, this year 
my plan is to pay attention to the low bands on FT8 and see how it works.   I 
will use JTDX for my testing.



Again, my only interest in FT8 is to work new ones.  I could care less about 
making hundreds of routine QSO’s on the mode.  Lots of folks do enjoy it, 
witness the huge amount of activity.



FT8 has been around since mid 2017.  Imagine all the Challenge points, Digital 
and Mixed DXCC credits that have been awarded.  I don’t see the ARRL 
backtracking on their initial approach to FT8/FT4 etc.  For myself, I had an 
attitude adjustment and moved on.



73 Charlie N8RR











Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10




From: Topband  on behalf of K4SAV 

Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 5:09:55 PM
To: topband@contesting.com 
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

I'm not sure how FT-8 calculates the reported S/N number. I found very
little information on the subject and what I did find was not easily
understandable.  What I did was an experiment in which I was able to get
close to the same number being reported.  According to what I have read
about FT-8, it does not implement the same method as I was using in my
testing.

It was very obvious to me that the number being reported was useless.
.Example:  How would you be able to report a S/N of -1 dB when the
station is S9+40 db on the S meter and the receiver reads S1 when tuned
to a spot with no stations.  (Actual measurement)

I made a guess that the number being re

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

On 8/1/2019 1:27 PM, James Wolf wrote:

I think there is some misunderstanding of bandwidth using FT-8.


The power limited Shannon limit I posted about today is
independent of equivalent noise bandwidth
  



The equivalent noise bandwidth of an FT8 detected tone is only 6.25 Hz.  So


-26 dB S/N ratio in a 2500 Hz bandwidth is 0 dB in a 6.25 Hz bandwidth. 
Thus using the conventional version* of the Shannon limit, the

maximum theoretical bit rate is 6.25 bits/second.  FT8 supposedly can
do about this rate at -24 dB S/N in 2500 Hz.  IOW, it is within 2 dB
of the Shannon limit.

This is all self consistent.

*At a SNR of 0 dB (Signal power = Noise power) the Capacity in bits/s is 
equal to the bandwidth in hertz, according to Wikipedia.


Rick N6RK



Jim Wolf,  KR9U


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[K4SAV]

I'm not sure how FT-8 calculates the reported S/N number. I found very 
little information on the subject and what I did find was not easily 
understandable.  What I did was an experiment in which I was able to get 
close to the same number being reported.  According to what I have read 
about FT-8, it does not implement the same method as I was using in my 
testing.


It was very obvious to me that the number being reported was useless.  
.Example:  How would you be able to report a S/N of -1 dB when the 
station is S9+40 db on the S meter and the receiver reads S1 when tuned 
to a spot with no stations.  (Actual measurement)


I made a guess that the number being reported was actually a signal to 
noise plus signal ratio S1(S1 + N), where N is the sum of everything 
else in the passband.  The S9+40 db station in the example would be the 
main contributor to the overall level of the total stuff in the passband 
and that total is just a little more than his signal alone, so -1 dB now 
makes sense.  This seems to work and it works on other FT-8 signals as well.


Jerry, K4SAV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Marco Cogoni]

If anybody's interested in trying my version of the python FT8 decoder with
a more sensible SNR
implementation just go here: https://github.com/mcogoni/weakmon
I modified the code to look for the lowest power bin within the input
bandwidth and each
individual signal is compared to this.
To obtain better SNR values avoid multiple passes for decoding since it
implies
subtracting the strongest signals, bin by bin, from the waterfall so the
relative
powers get all modified for the "hidden" signals.

marco / IS0KYB

Il giorno gio 1 ago 2019 alle ore 21:46 Richard (Rick) Karlquist <
rich...@karlquist.com> ha scritto:

> It is instructive to calculate the Shannon
> maximum theoretical data rate (power limited case)
> (refer to wikipedia page for Shannon-Hartley theorem).
>
> If S/N ratio (BW=2,500 Hz) = -24 dB,
> then S/N ratio (BW=1Hz) = -24 + 10 log 2,500 = -24 +34
> = +10 dB. 10 dB converted to a dimensionless ratio is 10.
>
> Now, channel capacity = C <= 1.44 X 10 = 14.4 bits/second.
>
> This rate is a little more than twice the FT-8 rate.
>
> Now a days, achieving 1/2 of the Shannon limit is
> possible for AWGN.  If your noise isn't AWGN, well
> then that is another source of error.
>
> Thus the claim of -24 dB sensitivity seems plausible,
> where the S/N is the true signal vs AWGN, as opposed
> to whatever random number FT-8 reports.
>
> So I think the beef with FT-8 is in the way it
> calculates the displayed S/N.  We used to call
> those "marketing specs".
>
> It is also notable that FT-8 uses at least twice
> the average power compared to CW.  If you compared
> them on an average power basis (vs PEP) the FT-8
> advantage, if any, would drop 3 dB.
>
> On CW, you could send your call many times
> in 15 seconds for "error correction" and take advantage
> of QSB peaks.  That tends to level the playing field.
> More playing field leveling is using Super Check Partial
> analogous to what FT-8 does.
>
> Rick N6RK
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>


-- 
marco cogoni
CRS4
http://sibamanna DOT duckdns DOT org
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

It is instructive to calculate the Shannon
maximum theoretical data rate (power limited case)
(refer to wikipedia page for Shannon-Hartley theorem).

If S/N ratio (BW=2,500 Hz) = -24 dB,
then S/N ratio (BW=1Hz) = -24 + 10 log 2,500 = -24 +34
= +10 dB. 10 dB converted to a dimensionless ratio is 10.

Now, channel capacity = C <= 1.44 X 10 = 14.4 bits/second.

This rate is a little more than twice the FT-8 rate.

Now a days, achieving 1/2 of the Shannon limit is
possible for AWGN.  If your noise isn't AWGN, well
then that is another source of error.

Thus the claim of -24 dB sensitivity seems plausible,
where the S/N is the true signal vs AWGN, as opposed
to whatever random number FT-8 reports.

So I think the beef with FT-8 is in the way it
calculates the displayed S/N.  We used to call
those "marketing specs".

It is also notable that FT-8 uses at least twice
the average power compared to CW.  If you compared
them on an average power basis (vs PEP) the FT-8
advantage, if any, would drop 3 dB.

On CW, you could send your call many times
in 15 seconds for "error correction" and take advantage
of QSB peaks.  That tends to level the playing field.
More playing field leveling is using Super Check Partial
analogous to what FT-8 does.

Rick N6RK
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Mike Waters]

Do either JT9 or FT8 *really* need a wide SSB filter? What happens if we
use a good narrow CW filter instead?

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 2:03 PM K4SAV  wrote:

> W0BTU directed a question to me about JT-9.  I have never tested JT-9 so
> I don't have any information to supply on that subject.
>
> The S/N number supplied by FT-8 was only a curiosity to me because I
> could see a huge disparity between what was being reported versus what I
> was observing on my receiver.  The reported S/N seems to be about
> useless, but the really important question was what is the lowest signal
> to noise FT-8 can decode,(real S/N, not the reported number). That was
> the main question I wanted to answer with testing.
>
> A little off subject but people also need to stop using S/N numbers as a
> measure of antenna gain.
>
> Jerry, K4SAV
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[K4SAV]

W0BTU directed a question to me about JT-9.  I have never tested JT-9 so 
I don't have any information to supply on that subject.


The S/N number supplied by FT-8 was only a curiosity to me because I 
could see a huge disparity between what was being reported versus what I 
was observing on my receiver.  The reported S/N seems to be about 
useless, but the really important question was what is the lowest signal 
to noise FT-8 can decode,(real S/N, not the reported number). That was 
the main question I wanted to answer with testing.


A little off subject but people also need to stop using S/N numbers as a 
measure of antenna gain.


Jerry, K4SAV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Michael Walker]

You might want to listen to this TAPR presentation on Noise and Noise
calculations.

https://youtu.be/xXXj1Ko4ZXg

I found it pretty interesting.

Mike va3mw


On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:12 PM uy0zg  wrote:

> Is the main problem here in efficiency?
>
> The main thing here - the signal is not heard by a person!
> ---
> Nick, UY0ZG
> http://www.topband.in.ua
>
> Tim Shoppa 2019-08-01 20:40:
>
>
> > The "work signals way down in the noise you could never work otherwise"
> > myth, is just part of the myth that FT8 is an effective operating mode,
> > when really it's the least efficient mode for a good op to work Q's or
> > DXCC's. See my detailed 2018 statistics by mode here:
> > http://n3qe.org/n3qe2018.jpg
> >
> > Tim N3QE
> >
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[uy0zg]

Is the main problem here in efficiency?

The main thing here - the signal is not heard by a person!
---
Nick, UY0ZG
http://www.topband.in.ua

Tim Shoppa 2019-08-01 20:40:



The "work signals way down in the noise you could never work otherwise"
myth, is just part of the myth that FT8 is an effective operating mode,
when really it's the least efficient mode for a good op to work Q's or
DXCC's. See my detailed 2018 statistics by mode here:
http://n3qe.org/n3qe2018.jpg

Tim N3QE


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Tim Shoppa]

We went thorugh a similar discussion here a year ago about the "cooked" S/N
statistics. Or at least they are cooked in a way that no CW operator would
cook them, by considering a bandwidth 50 times wider than the FT8 signal.
On a quiet WARC FT8 band (no interfering carriers) signals that are -18dB
according to FT8 S/N would have been easily copied by any CW operator. And
signals that are -22dB or lower probably could've been copied maybe with a
few repeats.

I know I often have a waterfall spectrum display running, and I work CW
signals all the time that I don't see at all on the waterfall.

The "work signals way down in the noise you could never work otherwise"
myth, is just part of the myth that FT8 is an effective operating mode,
when really it's the least efficient mode for a good op to work Q's or
DXCC's. See my detailed 2018 statistics by mode here:
http://n3qe.org/n3qe2018.jpg

Tim N3QE

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:17 AM K4SAV  wrote:

> I get the feeling that I must be the only person that has ever tested
> FT-8 to the extreme to see what it can do. It seems that everyone else
> just assumes it will do what the published information says.  It will
> not.  Below is a summary of my testing.
>
> First I did a bunch of testing to see if I could figure out how the
> software determined the S/N number.  I measured the strength of a
> station calling CQ and subtracted that from the S meter reading for the
> 2500 Hz USB band and that resulted in a number very close to what FT8
> reports.  I repeated the test multiple times.
>
> Official documentation says FT8 can decode signals 24 dB below the noise
> floor.  That's an interesting comment because FT8 has no way of
> determining the level of the noise floor.  Even during the off period
> when no one is transmitting it can't determine the noise floor because
> the noise floor is not represented in the audio signal.  The receiver
> ACG brings the noise back up when no one is transmitting.  Actually for
> FT8 the amount of audio is greater in the off period than it is when
> stations are transmitting.  The only way to measure the noise floor is
> by making the measurement in the RF world, which FT8 can't do.
>
> Actually what the program does is count everything in the 2500 Hz
> bandwidth as noise. (That is comprised mainly of strong signals, not
> noise.) It is limited to decoding signals 24 dB below that level.  From
> that info you can guess that if you narrow the bandwidth to eliminate
> most of the strong signals FT8 will decode weaker signals.  Yes that
> works.  Verified it myself and others have also found this to be true.
> You guys that like to operate FT-8 should take note of that comment.
>
> I thought maybe it could decode stuff below the noise floor if all the
> signals were also below the noise floor, so I tested for that.  I found
> out that the program poops out long before the noise floor is reached.
> With my tests where I decreased the gain of signals from the NE (just
> after sunset in the NE) by pointing my antenna west and increasing the
> gain such that the biggest signals were 15 dB above the noise floor, FT8
> just about quits. There were probably 50 or more stations on the band
> and it was making one decode about every 5 or 10 minutes.
>
> FT8 has a deep search mode where it uses stored data to make guesses at
> call signs some times.  I tested that too.  Before I started WSJTX I set
> up a poor signal to noise ratio test. Started WSJTX in the normal mode
> and it did very poorly.  Then I turned on deep search, increased the S/N
> and let the program look at the band for a little while.  Then I went
> back to the poor S/N condition without turning FT-8 off and turned on
> deep search and it made a lot more decodes.  Nearly all of those decodes
> were reported at -24 dB.  I think those were guesses and it just assigns
> -24 dB for guesses.
>
> I was fooled by the results of a test I did when adding enough noise to
> the audio to cover up the signals and FT8 continued to decode the
> signals.  However I had previously had deep search on and it had already
> memorized the band when I did that.  It was just guessing that the same
> station is on the same frequency as previously.
>
> I keep hearing reports from people that claim they are getting decodes
> without hearing anything in the audio. I set up conditions where that
> should have happened, but it never decoded anything.
>
> In summary. it appears that on an almost dead band, CW (with narrow
> bandwidth) has about a 15 dB advantage at decoding weak signals.  On a
> very crowded band if FT-8 is using a 2500 Hz bandwidth, CW has a huge
> (many dBs) advantage over FT-8 because FT-8 can only decode about 24 dB
> below whatever your S meter is reading.  At 2500 Hz bandwidth in the
> FT-8 band on 160 my radio usually hangs at 20 to 30 dB over S9.
>
> I was using a TS-990S receiver with no audio processing or noise
> limiting or blanking.
>
> If anyone else has run similar tests. I would 

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Michael Walker]

Good morning

Do we know if the SNR is calculated over the RF passband filter width, or
is is calculated over AF filter bandwidth in the WSJTx engine, which it
knows?  There is a big difference.

Mike va3mw


On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:09 AM Marco Cogoni  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree with Jerry. I spent a few weeks trying to use FT8 to obtain
> antenna radiation patterns and I discovered how the SNR is computed:
> it's totally flawed. Basically WSJTX computes the number in two steps:
> the first one estimates how strong the adjacent frequency bins are with
> respect to the bin of interest. Then this value is corrected by
> estimating the baseline noise in a 2.5kHz bandwidth.
>
> The bad is that in this way the program is trying to unify a QRM concept
> (how strong adjacent noise is) with band noise (due to QRN or whatever
> wide band there is).
>
> I found out the problem because using WSPR SNR estimations lead to
> antenna patterns that are very similar to NEC simulated antennas but FT8
> data produced WORSE patterns for the BEST antennas. This is due to the
> fact that best antennas receive far more signals so WSJTX gives a worse
> SNR.
>
> I tried to talk with Joe Taylor about this, but he said that this method
> is what he thinks it is best for a general use, if I have a better one,
> just go and modify the code yourself.
>
> I have a feeling that this way of computing the SNR was chosen because
> it makes you think, as Jerry pointed out, that FT8 can magically decode
> signals that are absolutely not hearable. That's highly dubious.
>
> What FT8 does achieve is an extreme overlapping of signals over 2.5kHz,
> but at the expense of not really being able to tell the SNR...
>
> If you want to dig deeper in the FT8 implementation have a look at AB1HL
> Robert Morris' FT8 Python implementation that is heavily commented and
> very very educational: https://github.com/rtmrtmrtmrtm/basicft8
>
> He also wrote a full code/decode high performance software (not so easy
> to understand...): https://github.com/rtmrtmrtmrtm/weakmon
>
> Hope it helps!
>
>
> 73,
>
> marco / IS0KYB
>
>
> On 01/08/19 15:17, K4SAV wrote:
> > I get the feeling that I must be the only person that has ever tested
> > FT-8 to the extreme to see what it can do. It seems that everyone else
> > just assumes it will do what the published information says.  It will
> > not.  Below is a summary of my testing.
> >
> > First I did a bunch of testing to see if I could figure out how the
> > software determined the S/N number.  I measured the strength of a
> > station calling CQ and subtracted that from the S meter reading for
> > the 2500 Hz USB band and that resulted in a number very close to what
> > FT8 reports.  I repeated the test multiple times.
> >
> > Official documentation says FT8 can decode signals 24 dB below the
> > noise floor.  That's an interesting comment because FT8 has no way of
> > determining the level of the noise floor.  Even during the off period
> > when no one is transmitting it can't determine the noise floor because
> > the noise floor is not represented in the audio signal.  The receiver
> > ACG brings the noise back up when no one is transmitting.  Actually
> > for FT8 the amount of audio is greater in the off period than it is
> > when stations are transmitting.  The only way to measure the noise
> > floor is by making the measurement in the RF world, which FT8 can't do.
> >
> > Actually what the program does is count everything in the 2500 Hz
> > bandwidth as noise. (That is comprised mainly of strong signals, not
> > noise.) It is limited to decoding signals 24 dB below that level.
> > From that info you can guess that if you narrow the bandwidth to
> > eliminate most of the strong signals FT8 will decode weaker signals.
> > Yes that works.  Verified it myself and others have also found this to
> > be true.  You guys that like to operate FT-8 should take note of that
> > comment.
> >
> > I thought maybe it could decode stuff below the noise floor if all the
> > signals were also below the noise floor, so I tested for that.  I
> > found out that the program poops out long before the noise floor is
> > reached.  With my tests where I decreased the gain of signals from the
> > NE (just after sunset in the NE) by pointing my antenna west and
> > increasing the gain such that the biggest signals were 15 dB above the
> > noise floor, FT8 just about quits. There were probably 50 or more
> > stations on the band and it was making one decode about every 5 or 10
> > minutes.
> >
> > FT8 has a deep search mode where it uses stored data to make guesses
> > at call signs some times.  I tested that too.  Before I started WSJTX
> > I set up a poor signal to noise ratio test. Started WSJTX in the
> > normal mode and it did very poorly.  Then I turned on deep search,
> > increased the S/N and let the program look at the band for a little
> > while.  Then I went back to the poor S/N condition without turning
> > FT-8 off and turned on 

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Mike Waters]

Very interesting. How does JT9 compare, especially in regards to the noise
floor issue that Mark raised?

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Mike Waters]

I meant Jerry, not Mark. Sorry.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 10:15 AM Mike Waters  wrote:

> Very interesting. How does JT9 compare, especially in regards to the noise
> floor issue that Mark raised?
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 performance

[Marco Cogoni]

Hi,

I agree with Jerry. I spent a few weeks trying to use FT8 to obtain 
antenna radiation patterns and I discovered how the SNR is computed: 
it's totally flawed. Basically WSJTX computes the number in two steps: 
the first one estimates how strong the adjacent frequency bins are with 
respect to the bin of interest. Then this value is corrected by 
estimating the baseline noise in a 2.5kHz bandwidth.


The bad is that in this way the program is trying to unify a QRM concept 
(how strong adjacent noise is) with band noise (due to QRN or whatever 
wide band there is).


I found out the problem because using WSPR SNR estimations lead to 
antenna patterns that are very similar to NEC simulated antennas but FT8 
data produced WORSE patterns for the BEST antennas. This is due to the 
fact that best antennas receive far more signals so WSJTX gives a worse SNR.


I tried to talk with Joe Taylor about this, but he said that this method 
is what he thinks it is best for a general use, if I have a better one, 
just go and modify the code yourself.


I have a feeling that this way of computing the SNR was chosen because 
it makes you think, as Jerry pointed out, that FT8 can magically decode 
signals that are absolutely not hearable. That's highly dubious.


What FT8 does achieve is an extreme overlapping of signals over 2.5kHz, 
but at the expense of not really being able to tell the SNR...


If you want to dig deeper in the FT8 implementation have a look at AB1HL 
Robert Morris' FT8 Python implementation that is heavily commented and 
very very educational: https://github.com/rtmrtmrtmrtm/basicft8


He also wrote a full code/decode high performance software (not so easy 
to understand...): https://github.com/rtmrtmrtmrtm/weakmon


Hope it helps!


73,

marco / IS0KYB


On 01/08/19 15:17, K4SAV wrote:
I get the feeling that I must be the only person that has ever tested 
FT-8 to the extreme to see what it can do. It seems that everyone else 
just assumes it will do what the published information says.  It will 
not.  Below is a summary of my testing.


First I did a bunch of testing to see if I could figure out how the 
software determined the S/N number.  I measured the strength of a 
station calling CQ and subtracted that from the S meter reading for 
the 2500 Hz USB band and that resulted in a number very close to what 
FT8 reports.  I repeated the test multiple times.


Official documentation says FT8 can decode signals 24 dB below the 
noise floor.  That's an interesting comment because FT8 has no way of 
determining the level of the noise floor.  Even during the off period 
when no one is transmitting it can't determine the noise floor because 
the noise floor is not represented in the audio signal.  The receiver 
ACG brings the noise back up when no one is transmitting.  Actually 
for FT8 the amount of audio is greater in the off period than it is 
when stations are transmitting.  The only way to measure the noise 
floor is by making the measurement in the RF world, which FT8 can't do.


Actually what the program does is count everything in the 2500 Hz 
bandwidth as noise. (That is comprised mainly of strong signals, not 
noise.) It is limited to decoding signals 24 dB below that level.  
From that info you can guess that if you narrow the bandwidth to 
eliminate most of the strong signals FT8 will decode weaker signals.  
Yes that works.  Verified it myself and others have also found this to 
be true.  You guys that like to operate FT-8 should take note of that 
comment.


I thought maybe it could decode stuff below the noise floor if all the 
signals were also below the noise floor, so I tested for that.  I 
found out that the program poops out long before the noise floor is 
reached.  With my tests where I decreased the gain of signals from the 
NE (just after sunset in the NE) by pointing my antenna west and 
increasing the gain such that the biggest signals were 15 dB above the 
noise floor, FT8 just about quits. There were probably 50 or more 
stations on the band and it was making one decode about every 5 or 10 
minutes.


FT8 has a deep search mode where it uses stored data to make guesses 
at call signs some times.  I tested that too.  Before I started WSJTX 
I set up a poor signal to noise ratio test. Started WSJTX in the 
normal mode and it did very poorly.  Then I turned on deep search, 
increased the S/N and let the program look at the band for a little 
while.  Then I went back to the poor S/N condition without turning 
FT-8 off and turned on deep search and it made a lot more decodes.  
Nearly all of those decodes were reported at -24 dB.  I think those 
were guesses and it just assigns -24 dB for guesses.


I was fooled by the results of a test I did when adding enough noise 
to the audio to cover up the signals and FT8 continued to decode the 
signals.  However I had previously had deep search on and it had 
already memorized the band when I did that.  It was just guessing that 
the same 

Topband: FT-8 performance

[K4SAV]

I get the feeling that I must be the only person that has ever tested 
FT-8 to the extreme to see what it can do. It seems that everyone else 
just assumes it will do what the published information says.  It will 
not.  Below is a summary of my testing.


First I did a bunch of testing to see if I could figure out how the 
software determined the S/N number.  I measured the strength of a 
station calling CQ and subtracted that from the S meter reading for the 
2500 Hz USB band and that resulted in a number very close to what FT8 
reports.  I repeated the test multiple times.


Official documentation says FT8 can decode signals 24 dB below the noise 
floor.  That's an interesting comment because FT8 has no way of 
determining the level of the noise floor.  Even during the off period 
when no one is transmitting it can't determine the noise floor because 
the noise floor is not represented in the audio signal.  The receiver 
ACG brings the noise back up when no one is transmitting.  Actually for 
FT8 the amount of audio is greater in the off period than it is when 
stations are transmitting.  The only way to measure the noise floor is 
by making the measurement in the RF world, which FT8 can't do.


Actually what the program does is count everything in the 2500 Hz 
bandwidth as noise. (That is comprised mainly of strong signals, not 
noise.) It is limited to decoding signals 24 dB below that level.  From 
that info you can guess that if you narrow the bandwidth to eliminate 
most of the strong signals FT8 will decode weaker signals.  Yes that 
works.  Verified it myself and others have also found this to be true.  
You guys that like to operate FT-8 should take note of that comment.


I thought maybe it could decode stuff below the noise floor if all the 
signals were also below the noise floor, so I tested for that.  I found 
out that the program poops out long before the noise floor is reached.  
With my tests where I decreased the gain of signals from the NE (just 
after sunset in the NE) by pointing my antenna west and increasing the 
gain such that the biggest signals were 15 dB above the noise floor, FT8 
just about quits. There were probably 50 or more stations on the band 
and it was making one decode about every 5 or 10 minutes.


FT8 has a deep search mode where it uses stored data to make guesses at 
call signs some times.  I tested that too.  Before I started WSJTX I set 
up a poor signal to noise ratio test. Started WSJTX in the normal mode 
and it did very poorly.  Then I turned on deep search, increased the S/N 
and let the program look at the band for a little while.  Then I went 
back to the poor S/N condition without turning FT-8 off and turned on 
deep search and it made a lot more decodes.  Nearly all of those decodes 
were reported at -24 dB.  I think those were guesses and it just assigns 
-24 dB for guesses.


I was fooled by the results of a test I did when adding enough noise to 
the audio to cover up the signals and FT8 continued to decode the 
signals.  However I had previously had deep search on and it had already 
memorized the band when I did that.  It was just guessing that the same 
station is on the same frequency as previously.


I keep hearing reports from people that claim they are getting decodes 
without hearing anything in the audio. I set up conditions where that 
should have happened, but it never decoded anything.


In summary. it appears that on an almost dead band, CW (with narrow 
bandwidth) has about a 15 dB advantage at decoding weak signals.  On a 
very crowded band if FT-8 is using a 2500 Hz bandwidth, CW has a huge 
(many dBs) advantage over FT-8 because FT-8 can only decode about 24 dB 
below whatever your S meter is reading.  At 2500 Hz bandwidth in the 
FT-8 band on 160 my radio usually hangs at 20 to 30 dB over S9.


I was using a TS-990S receiver with no audio processing or noise 
limiting or blanking.


If anyone else has run similar tests. I would love to hear about it.

Jerry, K4SAV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 My Recent Experience

[Dan Edward Dba East edwards]

 amen, Cecil..
73, w5xz, dan

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019, 5:45:49 PM CDT, Cecil  
wrote:  
 
 It seems to be a recurring issue herecan’t shake the elitist attitude.

Do what you enjoy doing...don’t beat others up for doing the same...if you find 
yourself alone re-evaluate...

Cecil

Sent from my iPad

> On May 29, 2019, at 5:39 PM, DXer  wrote:
> 
> Really sad to see that this 'comet' is already back in Topband 'orbit'.
> 
> Do we have new list members, by any chance? People that are hearing/reading 
> about FT8 on topband for the first time?
> 
> Nobody went to Dayton last week? What about the Topband Dinner? I was there, 
> and FT8 was not an issue.
> 
> I must have missed the 'multitude' of posts about the Hamvention.
> 
> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 My Recent Experience

[Cecil]

It seems to be a recurring issue herecan’t shake the elitist attitude.

Do what you enjoy doing...don’t beat others up for doing the same...if you find 
yourself alone re-evaluate...

Cecil

Sent from my iPad

> On May 29, 2019, at 5:39 PM, DXer  wrote:
> 
> Really sad to see that this 'comet' is already back in Topband 'orbit'.
> 
> Do we have new list members, by any chance? People that are hearing/reading 
> about FT8 on topband for the first time?
> 
> Nobody went to Dayton last week? What about the Topband Dinner? I was there, 
> and FT8 was not an issue.
> 
> I must have missed the 'multitude' of posts about the Hamvention.
> 
> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 My Recent Experience

[DXer]

Really sad to see that this 'comet' is already back in Topband 'orbit'.

Do we have new list members, by any chance? People that are 
hearing/reading about FT8 on topband for the first time?


Nobody went to Dayton last week? What about the Topband Dinner? I was 
there, and FT8 was not an issue.


I must have missed the 'multitude' of posts about the Hamvention.

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 My Recent Experience

[Cecil]

AMEN...

Pass the cornbread!

K5DL

Sent from my iPad

> On May 29, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Eric Rosenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> As one who has operated from obscure locatons (including 9L, J2, and YJ)
> with gear that I carried on an airplane, I find your comments both naive
> and snobbish.
> 
> As I write this, I'm sitting in a room on small island (PJ7) running QRP
> FT8 into a loop antenna on the balcony. Although I made a couple of Q's on
> CW, my intent was to use FT8. All keyboarding... no mic or paddle.
> 
> It's been lots of fun, and that's what ham radio is all about. TheFT8 UI
> has lots of fascinating information, much of which I can use for future
> travel.
> 
> I'm not here to win any prizes or awards. I do have the extreme
> satisfaction of giving 25 stations this rare mult during the WPX contest,
> and making many more FT8 contacts as I've been on nightly for short periods
> of time over the last couple of nights.
> 
> And yes, they will all get paper QSL cads (remember them?). No computers
> running in your shack? No need for LoTW!
> 
> Remember when folks said SSB would kill ham radio? how about PSK vs RTTY?
> AM vs FM on the VHF bands? The list goes on: packet clusters, the reverse
> beacon network, LoTW, panadapters. Add FT8 as the latest cause of the
> demise and/or death of CW, contesting, and ham radio (any or all of them).
> What's next?
> 
> So get off your high horse. It's not about you, it's about the guy on the
> other end... the one *without* a tower, *without* a yagi, *without* an
> amplifier and all the gizmos you may have. The guy who worked hard to work
> you and then sent you a card via the bureau. Don't forget him!
> 
> 73,
> Eric W3DQ
> At the moment PJ7/W3DQ
> 
> --
> On Tue, 28 May 2019, Mark K3MSB  wrote:
> 
> I spent 9 days in Haiti as HH6/K3MSB a few weeks ago on a missions trip to
> Les Cayes, which is in the remote southwestern part of the island.  As the
> fellow I was traveling with was a ham,  we of course hung some wires at our
> guest house and had some on-the-air fun.   This was good as there really
> isn't much to do in the evenings down there.   Actually, aside from
> reading,  there isn't anything to do in the evenings down there.But I
> digress.
> 
> To protect the innocent (or the guilty)  I'll call my friend “John”.
> 
> I did CW and John did some CW but mainly FT-8.John wanted me to do some
> FT-8, but after watching him for a bit I said to “wake me when it's time
> for some real radio”.   I've seen FT-8 before and I just can't get into
> it.  I can't get into any computer mode, mainly because I've been a software
> engineer for almost 40 year and dealing with computers at home is a
> non-starter with me.I like ARC-5s, BC-348s,  and Navy RBB's
> myself..But again, I digress..
> 
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 My Recent Experience

[Eric Rosenberg]

As one who has operated from obscure locatons (including 9L, J2, and YJ)
with gear that I carried on an airplane, I find your comments both naive
and snobbish.

As I write this, I'm sitting in a room on small island (PJ7) running QRP
FT8 into a loop antenna on the balcony. Although I made a couple of Q's on
CW, my intent was to use FT8. All keyboarding... no mic or paddle.

It's been lots of fun, and that's what ham radio is all about. TheFT8 UI
has lots of fascinating information, much of which I can use for future
travel.

I'm not here to win any prizes or awards. I do have the extreme
satisfaction of giving 25 stations this rare mult during the WPX contest,
and making many more FT8 contacts as I've been on nightly for short periods
of time over the last couple of nights.

And yes, they will all get paper QSL cads (remember them?). No computers
running in your shack? No need for LoTW!

Remember when folks said SSB would kill ham radio? how about PSK vs RTTY?
AM vs FM on the VHF bands? The list goes on: packet clusters, the reverse
beacon network, LoTW, panadapters. Add FT8 as the latest cause of the
demise and/or death of CW, contesting, and ham radio (any or all of them).
What's next?

So get off your high horse. It's not about you, it's about the guy on the
other end... the one *without* a tower, *without* a yagi, *without* an
amplifier and all the gizmos you may have. The guy who worked hard to work
you and then sent you a card via the bureau. Don't forget him!

73,
Eric W3DQ
At the moment PJ7/W3DQ

--
On Tue, 28 May 2019, Mark K3MSB  wrote:

I spent 9 days in Haiti as HH6/K3MSB a few weeks ago on a missions trip to
Les Cayes, which is in the remote southwestern part of the island.  As the
fellow I was traveling with was a ham,  we of course hung some wires at our
guest house and had some on-the-air fun.   This was good as there really
isn't much to do in the evenings down there.   Actually, aside from
reading,  there isn't anything to do in the evenings down there.But I
digress.

To protect the innocent (or the guilty)  I'll call my friend “John”.

I did CW and John did some CW but mainly FT-8.John wanted me to do some
FT-8, but after watching him for a bit I said to “wake me when it's time
for some real radio”.   I've seen FT-8 before and I just can't get into
it.  I can't get into any computer mode, mainly because I've been a software
engineer for almost 40 year and dealing with computers at home is a
non-starter with me.I like ARC-5s, BC-348s,  and Navy RBB's
myself..But again, I digress..


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 My Recent Experience

[Renee K6FSB]

amen to another computer free shack.
I too waste much time on 'puters as it is.
however to each their own. I did enjoy the story.
Renée, k6fsb

On 2019-05-29 5:57 a.m., Rob Atkinson wrote:

I can't get into any computer mode, mainly because I've been a software
engineer for almost 40 year and dealing with computers at home is a
non-starter with me.I like ARC-5s, BC-348s,  and Navy RBB's
myself..

Same here.  Computer science major; 30 years in front of monitors and
keyboards all day; database management, writing codeand I know
hams who spend days and days fiddling with PCs and logging
softwareWhy?   What a waste of valuable radio time in my opinion.
Not only do I reject computer "modes," but I run a computer free
shack.   Great FT8 story by the way.

73
Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
.



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

Re: Topband: FT-8 My Recent Experience

[donroden]

Back in the good old days, all we had was PSK-31 and we were proud to have it.
It was uphill both ways in the snow.
Don W4DNR


Quoting Rob Atkinson :


I can't get into any computer mode, mainly because I've been a software
engineer for almost 40 year and dealing with computers at home is a
non-starter with me.I like ARC-5s, BC-348s,  and Navy RBB's
myself..


Same here.  Computer science major; 30 years in front of monitors and
keyboards all day; database management, writing codeand I know
hams who spend days and days fiddling with PCs and logging
softwareWhy?   What a waste of valuable radio time in my opinion.
Not only do I reject computer "modes," but I run a computer free
shack.   Great FT8 story by the way.

73
Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector



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

Topband: FT-8 My Recent Experience

[Rob Atkinson]

> I can't get into any computer mode, mainly because I've been a software
>engineer for almost 40 year and dealing with computers at home is a
>non-starter with me.I like ARC-5s, BC-348s,  and Navy RBB's
>myself..

Same here.  Computer science major; 30 years in front of monitors and
keyboards all day; database management, writing codeand I know
hams who spend days and days fiddling with PCs and logging
softwareWhy?   What a waste of valuable radio time in my opinion.
Not only do I reject computer "modes," but I run a computer free
shack.   Great FT8 story by the way.

73
Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: FT-8 My Recent Experience

[Mark K3MSB]

I spent 9 days in Haiti as HH6/K3MSB a few weeks ago on a missions trip to
Les Cayes, which is in the remote southwestern part of the island. As
the fellow I was traveling with was a ham,  we of course hung some wires at
our guest house and had some on-the-air fun.   This was good as there
really isn't much to do in the evenings down there.   Actually, aside from
reading,  there isn't anything to do in the evenings down there.But I
digress.

To protect the innocent (or the guilty)  I'll call my friend “John”.

I did CW and John did some CW but mainly FT-8.John wanted me to do some
FT-8, but after watching him for a bit I said to “wake me when it's time
for some real radio”.   I've seen FT-8 before and I just can't get into it.
  I can't get into any computer mode, mainly because I've been a software
engineer for almost 40 year and dealing with computers at home is a
non-starter with me.I like ARC-5s, BC-348s,  and Navy RBB's
myself..But again, I digress

One evening I went to sleep with John doing his FT-8 thing – we shared a
room.   I awoke around 0100 local and looked at John and I wondered if he
was asleep or dead.I watched him for a good two minutes before he
finally moved.He hit something on the keyboard and then went immobile
for another minute or so.   Sleeping or dead?This cycle repeated itself
until the I was fairly sure death was not in the equation and I went back
to sleep.   Knowing John wasn't dead was a relief as we didn't have air
conditioning there, and I'm sure things would have gotten smelly rather
quickly.

A few days later FT-8 came up again and I said I've always maintained it's
not a “real” mode as it's computer to computer with almost no human
interaction except hitting a key every now and then.

He then tried to impress me.

John said “But I can do other things while making a QSO!”.He initiated
an FT-8 QSO then. wait for it. went to the bathroom.Upon his
return he triumphantly showed me he had made a QSO  “while in the
bathroom”.   I can't remember hearing the toilet flush, so I'm not sure
what he was doing in the bathroom,  but I do know that concurrent with his
activity in the bathroom, he did in fact make an FT-8 QSO.

I told him I saw no reason for me to change my views on FT-8.   He made a
lot more QSOs than I did I guess that's good.

As an aside,  I did carry a 160M Dipole with me (had to get my money's
worth for the checked baggage fee..).   We had planned to spend one
night on 160 with a dipole hung off the 250 Ft transmitter tower, but
logistically we just couldn't do it.   Hopefully next time towards the fall
of the year!!

73 Mark K3MSB & HH6/K3MSB
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 vs CW

[Phil Duff]

> On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:24 PM, FZ Bruce  wrote:
> 
> If he expires, the FT-8 could go on.

A misconception.   K1JT's WSJT-X software has a transmit watchdog timer with I 
believe a 5 minute max limit - can be set lower of course.

de NA4M


-. .- ….- --
Phil Duff  na4m[at]suddenlink[dot]net
















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

Re: Topband: FT-8 vs CW

[VE6WZ Steve]

That’s what you call a “dead-easy” QSO.

From Babcocks iPhone

> On Apr 25, 2019, at 12:24 PM, FZ Bruce  wrote:
> 
> My two cents worth. I'm getting tired of the subject also. But I do
> not see it as human to human as an operator can go away while the
> device is still going. If he expires, the FT-8 could go on. If the
> ARRL did not feel right calling him/it a silent key, they could list
> it as a silent call sign. ( ; > )) 
> 
> 73
> Bruce k1fz
> 
>-From: "Victor Goncharsky via
> Topband" 
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Cc: 
> Sent: Thursday April 25 2019 12:25:31PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 vs CW
> 
> Just a short story for this FT-8 vs CW/SSB discussion.
> We, with Helen UR5WA, have been waiting for QSL card from VR2XAN for
> 160m QSOs in CQWWCW 2017.
> Two direct requests both with IRC and $$$ have been sent but no
> answer.
> Tried some Italian assistance - same result.
> So the obvious decision was to give FT8 a try.
> This resulted in VR2KW QSOs and the next day LoTW confirmation.
> We have no interest nor intention to apply for Digital DXCC, but if
> there's no other option we'll work new ones on FT8. "The world is
> changed".
> 
> -- 
> 73, Victor Goncharsky US5WE/K1WE (UW5W in VHF contests, ex UB5WE),
> P.E.
> UARL Technical and VHF Committies
> DXCC Honor Roll #1 (Mixed, Phone), 10BDXCC, 8BWAS
> DXCC card checker (160 meters).
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband [1] - Topband
> Reflector
> 
> 
> Links:
> --
> [1] http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 vs CW

[FZ Bruce]

My two cents worth. I'm getting tired of the subject also. But I do
not see it as human to human as an operator can go away while the
device is still going. If he expires, the FT-8 could go on. If the
ARRL did not feel right calling him/it a silent key, they could list
it as a silent call sign. ( ; > )) 

73
Bruce k1fz

-From: "Victor Goncharsky via
Topband" 
To: topband@contesting.com
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday April 25 2019 12:25:31PM
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 vs CW

Just a short story for this FT-8 vs CW/SSB discussion.
 We, with Helen UR5WA, have been waiting for QSL card from VR2XAN for
160m QSOs in CQWWCW 2017.
 Two direct requests both with IRC and $$$ have been sent but no
answer.
 Tried some Italian assistance - same result.
 So the obvious decision was to give FT8 a try.
 This resulted in VR2KW QSOs and the next day LoTW confirmation.
 We have no interest nor intention to apply for Digital DXCC, but if
there's no other option we'll work new ones on FT8. "The world is
changed".

 -- 
 73, Victor Goncharsky US5WE/K1WE (UW5W in VHF contests, ex UB5WE),
P.E.
 UARL Technical and VHF Committies
 DXCC Honor Roll #1 (Mixed, Phone), 10BDXCC, 8BWAS
 DXCC card checker (160 meters).
 _
 Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband [1] - Topband
Reflector
 

Links:
--
[1] http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 vs CW

[Victor Goncharsky via Topband]

Just a short story for this FT-8 vs CW/SSB discussion.
We, with Helen UR5WA, have been waiting for QSL card from VR2XAN for 160m QSOs 
in CQWWCW 2017.
Two direct requests both with IRC and $$$ have been sent but no answer.
Tried some Italian assistance - same result.
So the obvious decision was to give FT8 a try.
This resulted in VR2KW QSOs and the next day LoTW confirmation.
We have no interest nor intention to apply for Digital DXCC, but if there's no 
other option we'll work new ones on FT8.  "The world is changed".


-- 
73, Victor Goncharsky US5WE/K1WE (UW5W in VHF contests, ex UB5WE), P.E.
UARL Technical and VHF Committies
DXCC Honor Roll #1 (Mixed, Phone), 10BDXCC, 8BWAS
DXCC card checker (160 meters).
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 vs CW

[Mike Waters]

*In addition to CW contesting*, this might be fun to try sometime for us
old men with chronic fatigue, mono, and Lyme. Thank you!

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 12:38 PM Joe  wrote:

> ...
> Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started serious
> work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can compete with
> RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the benefits of FT8.  The
> result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically designed for radio
> contesting. ...
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 vs CW

[Joe]

To:   WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS

Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started serious
work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can compete with
RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the benefits of FT8.  The
result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically designed for radio
contesting.

Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting
on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and helped us
to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe
FT4 has considerable promise for its intended purpose.

We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group.  If you might be
interested in participating and offering your considered feedback, please
read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting",
posted here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf

We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 on
April 29, one week from today.  The document linked above includes

  - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration

  - Operating instructions for FT4

  - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform

  - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of
simulated propagation conditions

  - Schedule for upcoming test sessions

Please consider helping us to make FT4 a successful mode for digital
contesting

With best wishes and 73,

-- Joe (K1JT), Steve (K9AN), and Bill (G4WJS)

Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/24/2019 12:34 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

Someone on 75m this morning said that there was a new FT-4 mode, meant for
contesting. I know nothing about it.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector




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

Re: Topband: FT-8 vs CW

[Bill Cromwell]

Hi Rick,

I don't have a memory keyer. I do intend to set up a computer or 
something to make the calls (CQ) while I do other things near the 
radios. When somebody replies it will be back to sending by hand for me.


I do prefer CW. I am not even sure where a working mic is hidden - I 
think I have two or three. But hams who want to work ft-8 or other 
digital stuff are fine with me. I have noticed they are NOT in my way. I 
am not in their way:)


I even tune to their signals to see who I can hear just to get a 'real 
time' idea about propagation. That is far from useless. But making QSOs 
that way is more boring for me than watching paint dry. Contest "QSOs" 
too. But never say never:) I have been know to add a few "contacts" in 
contests.


73,

Bill  KU8H

On 4/24/19 1:12 PM, rick darwicki via Topband wrote:

So how many of us still send the whole QSO with a key?Buttons on my Pro III do 
most of the work (like mouse clicks with FT-8), I only send the other station's 
call (like typing it in with FT-8)
I have a friend here in Yorba Linda running 100W to a short vertical that never worked 
east of the Mississippi on CW.He now has about 25 DXCC using FT-8. There are times when 
you cannot even hear an audio tone and you still make a "QSO"
DX on 160 is like a DX-pedition   5NN, RR ur 5NN 73 dit dit.
I can count on one hand the QSO's where someone sent OP HR Roger running 1KW to 
phased verticals and 500 foot beverage NE/SW
Countless people have told me they never get on 160 because there is never 
anyone on, except during ARRL and CQ contests.More and more are getting on 
because there always seems to be guys on FT-8.
My DXCC on 160 is all CW and I may have worked a few SSB stations during 
contests, only locals on SSB otherwise.
If there is a country I need, I'll work it ANY mode.
The problem is FT-8 is supposed to be a low power mode and naturally some are 
running 1 KW and swamping the little guys
No matter who is in the White House, it hasn't changed how I live or how often 
I go out to eat. FT-8 isn't going to change my enjoyment of ham radio.
SSB, PSK, EME, AM, Slow Scan TV etc have all fought their battles.
If FT-8 was at 1895 or prohibited during contest weekends, we probably wouldn't 
even know it was on the band.

Rick N6PE

==


Dying is easy, the hard part is living






  


 On Tuesday, April 23, 2019, 11:21:48 PM PDT, topband-requ...@contesting.com 
 wrote:
  
  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: Topband Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22 (Andree DL8LAS)
   2. Re: Topband Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22 (daraym...@iowatelecom.net)
   3. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (Victor Goncharsky)
   4. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (uy0zg)
   5. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (VE6WZ_Steve)
   6. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (GEORGE WALLNER)
   7. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (Mike Waters)
   8. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (W7RH)
   9. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (Mike Waters)
   10. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (uy0zg)
   11. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (uy0zg)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:50:57 + (UTC)
From: Andree DL8LAS 
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22
Message-ID: <1521797704.3392014.1556038257...@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


Hey topbanders,
I am also every morning 2:30 UTC? on 160m CW, check at first W1AW beacon? 
1802,5 Mhz. Signal is mostly clear RST 559.
Than i call CQ and check RBN, the NA skimmer received me from 10-24dB. But no 
answer from NA stations. Conditions are not bad, so please listen more for DX 
from EU.
vy 73? Andy DL8LAS

www.dl8las.de

www.dl8las.com
On Dienstag, 23 April, 2019 topband-request  wrote:
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. Lack of NA Activity on CW (Roger Kennedy)
? 2. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (lennart.michaels...@telia.com)
? 3. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (Peter Sundberg)
? 4. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (uy0zg)
? 

Re: Topband: FT-8 vs CW

[Mike Waters]

Someone on 75m this morning said that there was a new FT-4 mode, meant for
contesting. I know nothing about it.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: FT-8 vs CW

[rick darwicki via Topband]

So how many of us still send the whole QSO with a key?Buttons on my Pro III do 
most of the work (like mouse clicks with FT-8), I only send the other station's 
call (like typing it in with FT-8)
I have a friend here in Yorba Linda running 100W to a short vertical that never 
worked east of the Mississippi on CW.He now has about 25 DXCC using FT-8. There 
are times when you cannot even hear an audio tone and you still make a "QSO"
DX on 160 is like a DX-pedition   5NN, RR ur 5NN 73 dit dit.
I can count on one hand the QSO's where someone sent OP HR Roger running 1KW to 
phased verticals and 500 foot beverage NE/SW
Countless people have told me they never get on 160 because there is never 
anyone on, except during ARRL and CQ contests.More and more are getting on 
because there always seems to be guys on FT-8.
My DXCC on 160 is all CW and I may have worked a few SSB stations during 
contests, only locals on SSB otherwise.
If there is a country I need, I'll work it ANY mode.
The problem is FT-8 is supposed to be a low power mode and naturally some are 
running 1 KW and swamping the little guys
No matter who is in the White House, it hasn't changed how I live or how often 
I go out to eat. FT-8 isn't going to change my enjoyment of ham radio.
SSB, PSK, EME, AM, Slow Scan TV etc have all fought their battles.
If FT-8 was at 1895 or prohibited during contest weekends, we probably wouldn't 
even know it was on the band. 

Rick N6PE

==


Dying is easy, the hard part is living






 

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019, 11:21:48 PM PDT, topband-requ...@contesting.com 
 wrote:  
 
 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: Topband Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22 (Andree DL8LAS)
  2. Re: Topband Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22 (daraym...@iowatelecom.net)
  3. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (Victor Goncharsky)
  4. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (uy0zg)
  5. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (VE6WZ_Steve)
  6. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (GEORGE WALLNER)
  7. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (Mike Waters)
  8. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (W7RH)
  9. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (Mike Waters)
  10. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (uy0zg)
  11. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (uy0zg)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:50:57 + (UTC)
From: Andree DL8LAS 
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22
Message-ID: <1521797704.3392014.1556038257...@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


Hey topbanders,
I am also every morning 2:30 UTC? on 160m CW, check at first W1AW beacon? 
1802,5 Mhz. Signal is mostly clear RST 559. 
Than i call CQ and check RBN, the NA skimmer received me from 10-24dB. But no 
answer from NA stations. Conditions are not bad, so please listen more for DX 
from EU. 
vy 73? Andy DL8LAS 

www.dl8las.de

www.dl8las.com
On Dienstag, 23 April, 2019 topband-request  wrote:
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. Lack of NA Activity on CW (Roger Kennedy)
? 2. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (lennart.michaels...@telia.com)
? 3. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (Peter Sundberg)
? 4. Re: Lack of NA Activity on CW (uy0zg)
? 5. Re: Fresnel Zone (Emir Memic)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:16:30 +0100
From: "Roger Kennedy" 
To: 
Subject: Topband: Lack of NA Activity on CW
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain;??? charset="us-ascii"


I get that many stations only use FT8 these days (out of laziness?) . . . 

But there are plenty of Top Band DXers (like me) who would never ever use
FT8 . . . but many of these people hardly ever come on the band !

It takes a pretty big setup to have a decent 160m DX station . . . what's
the point in having invested all that time and money if the only time you
ever come on the band is to work some DX-pedition?!

Personally, what gives me a buzz is working ANY station on 160m more than a
couple of thousand miles away. (it's the only band where 

Re: Topband: FT-8

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: w5zn 
> .snip
> Last weekend leading up to and during CQWW 160, all of the FT8 folks
> bitterly complained that the CW guys had taken over the entire band and
> destroyed FT8.
> .snip


In the US anyway, it was pretty clear to me that folks were steering clear
of 1840 thru and including 1843. But contesters were operating at 1839.5
and 1839.7 and 1844. The FT8 signals did not seem to be occupying close to
the edges though. Can't speak to what was going on in Europe.

There *were* some absolutely bodacious signals in the contest, a lot of
them. 20 or 30 over S9 on a calibrated K3. All the way, 1800 to 1840, 1845
to 1875. Think the SSB guys that live on 1850 and 1847 LSB were hearing a
lot of CW, and probably just turned on their autonotch.

I do think some cheap front ends, or too broad IF's may have been
absolutely CRUSHED by the sum RF signal voltage on the band. The answer
there, as always when one needs a clear 10 kHz to keep front end or IF's
from going mush, is to get a modern receiver. The K3 is into its 11th year
since release. Time enough to modernize a bit.

I thought it was rather decent of the boys to stay away from the FT8 slot.

73, Guy K2AV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8

[cqtestk4xs--- via Topband]

The catch is DAILY operating.  Few signals on 160 CW anymore...that's the rub.
KH7XS


-Original Message-
From: w5zn 
To: topband 
Sent: Fri, Feb 1, 2019 1:33 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8

This is all very comical to me and reached a hilarious high point last 
weekend. All of the CW folks say FT8 has destroyed CW activity on the 
band.

Last weekend leading up to and during CQWW 160, all of the FT8 folks 
bitterly complained that the CW guys had taken over the entire band and 
destroyed FT8.

I'm not a judge and don't stay in a Holiday Inn Express but it appears 
to me both modes are healthy!

73 Joel W5ZN

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

Re: Topband: FT-8

[Jan Erik Holm]

23 december 1997 I worked KH6AT on 160m SSB. Bryce wrote
on the QSL card: First ever SSB QSO between KH6 and Europe.

I hope that he was right.

73 Jim SM2EKM
--
On 2019-02-01 05:18, K9FD wrote:

Aloha Len,
Remember those QSOs,  very rare SSB contact as I dont work SSB, but your 
signal was

loud so I gave it a try.
Good year for 160,  hoping they will return in the next couple years.
73 Merv  K9FD  ex KH7C

Hi Dave and all.
Cleaning my radio room but will keep a dear QSL card from year 2009 
stating

two different QSOs on SSB, reports 59, 58 and one on CW stating 569 CW.
Oh, the card is from KH7C ex K9FD for a two way QSO on 160 between Sweden
and Hawaii.
That is it!
73
Len SM7BIC

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Topband  För 
daraym...@iowatelecom.net

Skickat: den 31 januari 2019 23:37
Till: cqtestk...@aol.com; topband@contesting.com
Ämne: Re: Topband: FT-8

There is simply no substitute for the real, direct, visceral 
connection one
has with the person on the other end with either CW or SSB modes.  
I'll be

in charge of the QSO, thank you.   Not my computer.

73. . . Dave, W0FLS

-Original Message-
From: cqtestk4xs--- via Topband
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:59 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: FT-8

This thread has been addressed on various reflectors.
I've tried it, made around 400 contacts or so, and found the mode pretty
boring.  Even with my pileups on FT-8 the mode left me cold.  I felt the
same way with RTTY...tried it and found it boring.  Why?  With CW 
SSB/AM I

felt a connection with the other person, someone sending with a key or a
person speaking to me.  With RTTY and especially FT-8 my machine is 
decoding
your machine.  Oh yeah, I know my XCVR is a machine and so is yours, 
but for

me it's not the same.
I understand why guys get all hot and bothered about the new mode, it 
gives
the guys who don't know CW a chance to work DX on a mode other than 
SSB and
gives the weaker signal guys a chance to work DX.  For the guys with 
bigger
stations it gives them a chance to work the rarer ones on tough bands 
like,
160 or 6.  Maybe that's why I'm not into FT-8, I've got a big station, 
and
can work CW.  Also, I've never been really into putting the new one in 
the

log as much as many guys are...I'm more of a contester.
If you want to work your pileups and/or work 300 countries on FT-8, 
that's

fine with me.  I'm not going to look down my nose at you but please don't
condescendingly  tell me I'm a dinosaur or refuse to accept new 
technology.

I'm accepting it, I just don't want to be part of it.  No hard feelings.
Bill KH7XS/KH7B/K4XS
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


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


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


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


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

Re: Topband: FT-8

[w5zn]

This is all very comical to me and reached a hilarious high point last 
weekend. All of the CW folks say FT8 has destroyed CW activity on the 
band.


Last weekend leading up to and during CQWW 160, all of the FT8 folks 
bitterly complained that the CW guys had taken over the entire band and 
destroyed FT8.


I'm not a judge and don't stay in a Holiday Inn Express but it appears 
to me both modes are healthy!


73 Joel W5ZN

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

Re: Topband: FT-8

[Michael Walker]

So

I get up at 3 in the morning and go down to the CW part of the band to see
if I can hear any of you guys calling CQ.  NADA ... from what I can tell,
the band is dead.  Not one signal.

I go up to the FT8 section, and it looks like 20M.  It is packed with
signals.  This happens all the time.

For all of you wining about how you don't like FT8, how many of actually
called CQ in the last week?  Month?  Let's be honest now.  :)

I know many who have been working Japan from the east coast on FT8 over the
past few weeks as well.

"If you build it, they will come"

The point is, that no one makes you want to work a mode you don't want to.
However, I don't see many CW signals on 160 unless there is a 160 CW
contest.The waterfall is a solid blue (and I can hear pretty well).

my 2 cents from the Great White North.

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

Re: Topband: FT-8

[Wes]

A great summary of my feelings.

Wes  N7WS


On 2/1/2019 4:03 AM, Mike Smith VE9AA wrote:

Bill just about summarized my feelings.  I get no satisfaction from modes
where I can't even hear anything

in the speaker.  I love that technology is marching forward, BUT I want to
be there with it.

I am with CW and SSB and to a much lesser degree RTTY (I do a vy small
amount of RTTY (maybe 2-3% of my contesting a year is RTTY)..but even with
RTTY I'm involved, tuning signals, adjusting filters, guessing callsigns
when the software won't quite get it.

  


The one thing I don't like about FT-8, is that on 6m I can (sometimes) call
my guts out on CW or SSB and not work anyone (even though prop is there),
whereas up the band there are FT-8 signals all piled on top of one another.
Same for 160m I guess.

  


It's partially generational.  Give me DX "now" and don't make me work for it
at all (so says the masses).

  


I'll stop there before I get into real trouble, hi !

  


Mike VE9AA

  


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

Re: Topband: FT-8

[Mike Smith VE9AA]

Bill just about summarized my feelings.  I get no satisfaction from modes
where I can't even hear anything

in the speaker.  I love that technology is marching forward, BUT I want to
be there with it.

I am with CW and SSB and to a much lesser degree RTTY (I do a vy small
amount of RTTY (maybe 2-3% of my contesting a year is RTTY)..but even with
RTTY I'm involved, tuning signals, adjusting filters, guessing callsigns
when the software won't quite get it.

 

The one thing I don't like about FT-8, is that on 6m I can (sometimes) call
my guts out on CW or SSB and not work anyone (even though prop is there),
whereas up the band there are FT-8 signals all piled on top of one another.
Same for 160m I guess.

 

It's partially generational.  Give me DX "now" and don't make me work for it
at all (so says the masses).

 

I'll stop there before I get into real trouble, hi !

 

Mike VE9AA

 

This thread has been addressed on various reflectors.

I've tried it, made around 400 contacts or so, and found the mode pretty 

boring.  Even with my pileups on FT-8 the mode left me cold.  I felt the
same 

way with RTTY...tried it and found it boring.  Why?  With CW SSB/AM I felt a


connection with the other person, someone sending with a key or a person 

speaking to me.  With RTTY and especially FT-8 my machine is decoding your 

machine.  Oh yeah, I know my XCVR is a machine and so is yours, but for me
it's 

not the same.

I understand why guys get all hot and bothered about the new mode, it gives
the 

guys who don't know CW a chance to work DX on a mode other than SSB and
gives 

the weaker signal guys a chance to work DX.  For the guys with bigger
stations 

it gives them a chance to work the rarer ones on tough bands like, 160 or 6.


Maybe that's why I'm not into FT-8, I've got a big station, and can work CW.


Also, I've never been really into putting the new one in the log as much as 

many guys are...I'm more of a contester.

If you want to work your pileups and/or work 300 countries on FT-8, that's
fine 

with me.  I'm not going to look down my nose at you but please don't 

condescendingly  tell me I'm a dinosaur or refuse to accept new technology.


I'm accepting it, I just don't want to be part of it.  No hard feelings.

Bill KH7XS/KH7B/K4XS

Mike, Coreen & Corey

Keswick Ridge, NB

 

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

Re: Topband: FT-8

[K9FD]

Aloha Len,
Remember those QSOs,  very rare SSB contact as I dont work SSB, but your 
signal was

loud so I gave it a try.
Good year for 160,  hoping they will return in the next couple years.
73 Merv  K9FD  ex KH7C

Hi Dave and all.
Cleaning my radio room but will keep a dear QSL card from year 2009 stating
two different QSOs on SSB, reports 59, 58 and one on CW stating 569 CW.
Oh, the card is from KH7C ex K9FD for a two way QSO on 160 between Sweden
and Hawaii.
That is it!
73
Len SM7BIC

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Topband  För daraym...@iowatelecom.net
Skickat: den 31 januari 2019 23:37
Till: cqtestk...@aol.com; topband@contesting.com
Ämne: Re: Topband: FT-8

There is simply no substitute for the real, direct, visceral connection one
has with the person on the other end with either CW or SSB modes.  I'll be
in charge of the QSO, thank you.   Not my computer.

73. . . Dave, W0FLS

-Original Message-
From: cqtestk4xs--- via Topband
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:59 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: FT-8

This thread has been addressed on various reflectors.
I've tried it, made around 400 contacts or so, and found the mode pretty
boring.  Even with my pileups on FT-8 the mode left me cold.  I felt the
same way with RTTY...tried it and found it boring.  Why?  With CW SSB/AM I
felt a connection with the other person, someone sending with a key or a
person speaking to me.  With RTTY and especially FT-8 my machine is decoding
your machine.  Oh yeah, I know my XCVR is a machine and so is yours, but for
me it's not the same.
I understand why guys get all hot and bothered about the new mode, it gives
the guys who don't know CW a chance to work DX on a mode other than SSB and
gives the weaker signal guys a chance to work DX.  For the guys with bigger
stations it gives them a chance to work the rarer ones on tough bands like,
160 or 6.  Maybe that's why I'm not into FT-8, I've got a big station, and
can work CW.  Also, I've never been really into putting the new one in the
log as much as many guys are...I'm more of a contester.
If you want to work your pileups and/or work 300 countries on FT-8, that's
fine with me.  I'm not going to look down my nose at you but please don't
condescendingly  tell me I'm a dinosaur or refuse to accept new technology.
I'm accepting it, I just don't want to be part of it.  No hard feelings.
Bill KH7XS/KH7B/K4XS
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

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


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

Re: Topband: FT-8

[lennart.michaelsson]

Hi Dave and all.
Cleaning my radio room but will keep a dear QSL card from year 2009 stating
two different QSOs on SSB, reports 59, 58 and one on CW stating 569 CW.
Oh, the card is from KH7C ex K9FD for a two way QSO on 160 between Sweden
and Hawaii.
That is it!
73
Len SM7BIC

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Topband  För daraym...@iowatelecom.net
Skickat: den 31 januari 2019 23:37
Till: cqtestk...@aol.com; topband@contesting.com
Ämne: Re: Topband: FT-8

There is simply no substitute for the real, direct, visceral connection one
has with the person on the other end with either CW or SSB modes.  I'll be 
in charge of the QSO, thank you.   Not my computer.

73. . . Dave, W0FLS

-Original Message-
From: cqtestk4xs--- via Topband
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:59 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: FT-8

This thread has been addressed on various reflectors.
I've tried it, made around 400 contacts or so, and found the mode pretty
boring.  Even with my pileups on FT-8 the mode left me cold.  I felt the
same way with RTTY...tried it and found it boring.  Why?  With CW SSB/AM I
felt a connection with the other person, someone sending with a key or a
person speaking to me.  With RTTY and especially FT-8 my machine is decoding
your machine.  Oh yeah, I know my XCVR is a machine and so is yours, but for
me it's not the same.
I understand why guys get all hot and bothered about the new mode, it gives
the guys who don't know CW a chance to work DX on a mode other than SSB and
gives the weaker signal guys a chance to work DX.  For the guys with bigger
stations it gives them a chance to work the rarer ones on tough bands like,
160 or 6.  Maybe that's why I'm not into FT-8, I've got a big station, and
can work CW.  Also, I've never been really into putting the new one in the
log as much as many guys are...I'm more of a contester.
If you want to work your pileups and/or work 300 countries on FT-8, that's
fine with me.  I'm not going to look down my nose at you but please don't
condescendingly  tell me I'm a dinosaur or refuse to accept new technology. 
I'm accepting it, I just don't want to be part of it.  No hard feelings.
Bill KH7XS/KH7B/K4XS
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector 

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

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

Re: Topband: FT-8

[AB2E Darrell]

Hi all,
I agree with Tony K4QE and the others. Need human interaction or it ain't ham 
radio any more,.

Prior to Stephen Hawking's death, he declared the greatest threat to human 
existence will be AI

"The system goes on-line August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from 
strategic defense.
Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m." 
from Terminator 2

"FT-8 became self-aware at ..."

73 Darrell Ab2E

From: Topband  on behalf of Anthony Scandurra 
via Topband 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 6:18 PM
To: daraym...@iowatelecom.net
Cc: cqtestk...@aol.com; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8

AMEN!

TBDXC Member #91

https://www.tbdxc.net <https://www.tbdxc.net/>

73, Tony K4QE

> On Jan 31, 2019, at 5:36 PM, daraym...@iowatelecom.net wrote:
>
> There is simply no substitute for the real, direct, visceral connection one 
> has with the person on the other end with either CW or SSB modes.  I'll be in 
> charge of the QSO, thank you.   Not my computer.
>
> 73. . . Dave, W0FLS
>
> -Original Message- From: cqtestk4xs--- via Topband
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:59 PM
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: FT-8
>
> This thread has been addressed on various reflectors.
> I've tried it, made around 400 contacts or so, and found the mode pretty 
> boring.  Even with my pileups on FT-8 the mode left me cold.  I felt the same 
> way with RTTY...tried it and found it boring.  Why?  With CW SSB/AM I felt a 
> connection with the other person, someone sending with a key or a person 
> speaking to me.  With RTTY and especially FT-8 my machine is decoding your 
> machine.  Oh yeah, I know my XCVR is a machine and so is yours, but for me 
> it's not the same.
> I understand why guys get all hot and bothered about the new mode, it gives 
> the guys who don't know CW a chance to work DX on a mode other than SSB and 
> gives the weaker signal guys a chance to work DX.  For the guys with bigger 
> stations it gives them a chance to work the rarer ones on tough bands like, 
> 160 or 6.  Maybe that's why I'm not into FT-8, I've got a big station, and 
> can work CW.  Also, I've never been really into putting the new one in the 
> log as much as many guys are...I'm more of a contester.
> If you want to work your pileups and/or work 300 countries on FT-8, that's 
> fine with me.  I'm not going to look down my nose at you but please don't 
> condescendingly  tell me I'm a dinosaur or refuse to accept new technology. 
> I'm accepting it, I just don't want to be part of it.  No hard feelings.
> Bill KH7XS/KH7B/K4XS
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
 Virus-free. 
www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8

[Stephen Hawkins]

Dave,

On 1/31/19 4:36 PM, daraym...@iowatelecom.net wrote:
There is simply no substitute for the real, direct, visceral 
connection one has with the person on the other end with either CW or 
SSB modes. I'll be in charge of the QSO, thank you.   Not my computer.


73. . . Dave, W0FLS


My feelings exactly.

Steve

--
Stephen Hawkins NG0G
n...@arrl.net
73 49 111 01001001



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

Re: Topband: FT-8

[Anthony Scandurra via Topband]

AMEN!

TBDXC Member #91

https://www.tbdxc.net <https://www.tbdxc.net/>

73, Tony K4QE

> On Jan 31, 2019, at 5:36 PM, daraym...@iowatelecom.net wrote:
> 
> There is simply no substitute for the real, direct, visceral connection one 
> has with the person on the other end with either CW or SSB modes.  I'll be in 
> charge of the QSO, thank you.   Not my computer.
> 
> 73. . . Dave, W0FLS
> 
> -Original Message- From: cqtestk4xs--- via Topband
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:59 PM
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: FT-8
> 
> This thread has been addressed on various reflectors.
> I've tried it, made around 400 contacts or so, and found the mode pretty 
> boring.  Even with my pileups on FT-8 the mode left me cold.  I felt the same 
> way with RTTY...tried it and found it boring.  Why?  With CW SSB/AM I felt a 
> connection with the other person, someone sending with a key or a person 
> speaking to me.  With RTTY and especially FT-8 my machine is decoding your 
> machine.  Oh yeah, I know my XCVR is a machine and so is yours, but for me 
> it's not the same.
> I understand why guys get all hot and bothered about the new mode, it gives 
> the guys who don't know CW a chance to work DX on a mode other than SSB and 
> gives the weaker signal guys a chance to work DX.  For the guys with bigger 
> stations it gives them a chance to work the rarer ones on tough bands like, 
> 160 or 6.  Maybe that's why I'm not into FT-8, I've got a big station, and 
> can work CW.  Also, I've never been really into putting the new one in the 
> log as much as many guys are...I'm more of a contester.
> If you want to work your pileups and/or work 300 countries on FT-8, that's 
> fine with me.  I'm not going to look down my nose at you but please don't 
> condescendingly  tell me I'm a dinosaur or refuse to accept new technology. 
> I'm accepting it, I just don't want to be part of it.  No hard feelings.
> Bill KH7XS/KH7B/K4XS
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT-8

[daraymond]

There is simply no substitute for the real, direct, visceral connection one 
has with the person on the other end with either CW or SSB modes.  I'll be 
in charge of the QSO, thank you.   Not my computer.


73. . . Dave, W0FLS

-Original Message- 
From: cqtestk4xs--- via Topband

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:59 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: FT-8

This thread has been addressed on various reflectors.
I've tried it, made around 400 contacts or so, and found the mode pretty 
boring.  Even with my pileups on FT-8 the mode left me cold.  I felt the 
same way with RTTY...tried it and found it boring.  Why?  With CW SSB/AM I 
felt a connection with the other person, someone sending with a key or a 
person speaking to me.  With RTTY and especially FT-8 my machine is decoding 
your machine.  Oh yeah, I know my XCVR is a machine and so is yours, but for 
me it's not the same.
I understand why guys get all hot and bothered about the new mode, it gives 
the guys who don't know CW a chance to work DX on a mode other than SSB and 
gives the weaker signal guys a chance to work DX.  For the guys with bigger 
stations it gives them a chance to work the rarer ones on tough bands like, 
160 or 6.  Maybe that's why I'm not into FT-8, I've got a big station, and 
can work CW.  Also, I've never been really into putting the new one in the 
log as much as many guys are...I'm more of a contester.
If you want to work your pileups and/or work 300 countries on FT-8, that's 
fine with me.  I'm not going to look down my nose at you but please don't 
condescendingly  tell me I'm a dinosaur or refuse to accept new technology. 
I'm accepting it, I just don't want to be part of it.  No hard feelings.

Bill KH7XS/KH7B/K4XS
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector 


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

Topband: FT-8

[cqtestk4xs--- via Topband]

This thread has been addressed on various reflectors.
I've tried it, made around 400 contacts or so, and found the mode pretty 
boring.  Even with my pileups on FT-8 the mode left me cold.  I felt the same 
way with RTTY...tried it and found it boring.  Why?  With CW SSB/AM I felt a 
connection with the other person, someone sending with a key or a person 
speaking to me.  With RTTY and especially FT-8 my machine is decoding your 
machine.  Oh yeah, I know my XCVR is a machine and so is yours, but for me it's 
not the same.
I understand why guys get all hot and bothered about the new mode, it gives the 
guys who don't know CW a chance to work DX on a mode other than SSB and gives 
the weaker signal guys a chance to work DX.  For the guys with bigger stations 
it gives them a chance to work the rarer ones on tough bands like, 160 or 6.  
Maybe that's why I'm not into FT-8, I've got a big station, and can work CW.  
Also, I've never been really into putting the new one in the log as much as 
many guys are...I'm more of a contester.
If you want to work your pileups and/or work 300 countries on FT-8, that's fine 
with me.  I'm not going to look down my nose at you but please don't 
condescendingly  tell me I'm a dinosaur or refuse to accept new technology.  
I'm accepting it, I just don't want to be part of it.  No hard feelings.
Bill KH7XS/KH7B/K4XS
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?

[Prasad VU2PTT]

Yes Merv, we got clarification on the rulings at the national Hamfest from
the Ministry official on 28th December.

Manoj VU2CPL told me he had worked you on 23rd :)


73 de Prasad VU2PTT, W2PTT (ex-AF6DV), A45VA


ARSI, ARRL, FOC, CWOPS, IFROAR, MARC
NCDXF, INDEXA, SCCC, EUPSK, IOTA
ARRL DXCC Checkpoint
CQ Awards Checkpoint
Coordinator - VU Contest Group www.vucg.in
Webmaster - Logger32 www.logger32.net



On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 9:20 AM K9FD  wrote:

> FB Prasad,
> I worked a VU2 on 1840  on DEC 23 2018  so I assume that was just before
> the new rulings.
> Thanks for the new info.
> 73 Merv  K9FD/KH6
>
> > Merv and all,
> >
> > We had 1820-1860 kHz in VU but a newly released National Frequency
> Allocation Plan has changed it to 1800-1825 kHz.
> >
> > Talks are under way to try and get back the old frequency allocation but
> until then we will have to go low and work split on FT8 or other digital
> modes. Couple of folks are still using the old allocation based on their
> interpretation  :)
> >
> > Putting up my 160 vertical back up today after my lightning hit in May,
> hope to work a few in CQ160.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Prasad VU2PTT.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 26-Jan-2019, at 5:21 AM, K9FD  wrote:
> >>
> >> I have worked VU2 on FT-8 on 1840 and see them calling cq quite often,
> >> JA work split,  there is no reason to work down at 1826 or there abouts
> >> unless your just trying to irritate others.
> >>
> >> Merv K9FD
> >>> Peter, Not all countries allow FT-8 ops on 1840.  JA's work split on
> >>> 11908.  Last night attempts to work a VU2 he was only able to legally
> TX
> >>> around 1816 with my FT-8 being on 1844.  The agreement came way before
> FT-8
> >>> or other digital modes.  They also don't take in consideration for some
> >>> DX-peditions where split operating is required.
> >>>
> >>> Herb, KV4FZ
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:49 PM Peter Bertini <
> radioconnect...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a
> bit low
>  in the band for digital modes?  I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze
> all of
>  the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles.
> 
>  Pete k1zjh
>  _
>  Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>  Reflector
> 
> >>> _
> >>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
> >> _
> >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?

[K9FD]

FB Prasad,
I worked a VU2 on 1840  on DEC 23 2018  so I assume that was just before
the new rulings.
Thanks for the new info.
73 Merv  K9FD/KH6


Merv and all,

We had 1820-1860 kHz in VU but a newly released National Frequency Allocation 
Plan has changed it to 1800-1825 kHz.

Talks are under way to try and get back the old frequency allocation but until 
then we will have to go low and work split on FT8 or other digital modes. 
Couple of folks are still using the old allocation based on their 
interpretation  :)

Putting up my 160 vertical back up today after my lightning hit in May, hope to 
work a few in CQ160.

73,

Prasad VU2PTT.

Sent from my iPhone


On 26-Jan-2019, at 5:21 AM, K9FD  wrote:

I have worked VU2 on FT-8 on 1840 and see them calling cq quite often,
JA work split,  there is no reason to work down at 1826 or there abouts
unless your just trying to irritate others.

Merv K9FD

Peter, Not all countries allow FT-8 ops on 1840.  JA's work split on
11908.  Last night attempts to work a VU2 he was only able to legally TX
around 1816 with my FT-8 being on 1844.  The agreement came way before FT-8
or other digital modes.  They also don't take in consideration for some
DX-peditions where split operating is required.

Herb, KV4FZ

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:49 PM Peter Bertini 
wrote:


I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low
in the band for digital modes?  I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of
the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles.

Pete k1zjh
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
Reflector


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

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


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?

[Manoj Ramawarrier]

Hello All,

As stated by Prasad already, the new allocation has limited our allocation to 
1800-1825 kHZ.

We were hoping to get a clarification from our licensing authority and were 
told in December last week that the new allocation plan would be followed.
You would have seen me QRV on FT8 before that, but now we are all limited to 
1800-1825. Thanks Merv for the QSO on FT8 and CW.

For those who don’t do CW and looking for a QSO with VU, we will have to come 
to an agreed QRG to transmit within our allocation.

Herb and me tried a test 2 days back and I had tried same with Miriam VY2HH a 
few weeks back.

So, even though we got 3 new bands including 60m in the new allocation, we lost 
a big usable chunk on 160m.

I am hoping efforts to restore the band plan bear some fruit soon.

If you hear an FT8 signal within 1800-1825, it may be a VU2 calling…

BTW, Good luck to all for the contest..

73

Manoj VU2CPL



> On 26-Jan-2019, at 7:15 AM, Prasad VU2PTT  wrote:
> 
> Merv and all,
> 
> We had 1820-1860 kHz in VU but a newly released National Frequency Allocation 
> Plan has changed it to 1800-1825 kHz. 
> 
> Talks are under way to try and get back the old frequency allocation but 
> until then we will have to go low and work split on FT8 or other digital 
> modes. Couple of folks are still using the old allocation based on their 
> interpretation  :)
> 
> Putting up my 160 vertical back up today after my lightning hit in May, hope 
> to work a few in CQ160.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Prasad VU2PTT.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 26-Jan-2019, at 5:21 AM, K9FD  wrote:
>> 
>> I have worked VU2 on FT-8 on 1840 and see them calling cq quite often,
>> JA work split,  there is no reason to work down at 1826 or there abouts
>> unless your just trying to irritate others.
>> 
>> Merv K9FD
>>> Peter, Not all countries allow FT-8 ops on 1840.  JA's work split on
>>> 11908.  Last night attempts to work a VU2 he was only able to legally TX
>>> around 1816 with my FT-8 being on 1844.  The agreement came way before FT-8
>>> or other digital modes.  They also don't take in consideration for some
>>> DX-peditions where split operating is required.
>>> 
>>> Herb, KV4FZ
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:49 PM Peter Bertini 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low
 in the band for digital modes?  I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of
 the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles.
 
 Pete k1zjh
 _
 Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
 Reflector
 
>>> _
>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>> 
>> _
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?

[Prasad VU2PTT]

Merv and all,

We had 1820-1860 kHz in VU but a newly released National Frequency Allocation 
Plan has changed it to 1800-1825 kHz. 

Talks are under way to try and get back the old frequency allocation but until 
then we will have to go low and work split on FT8 or other digital modes. 
Couple of folks are still using the old allocation based on their 
interpretation  :)

Putting up my 160 vertical back up today after my lightning hit in May, hope to 
work a few in CQ160.

73,

Prasad VU2PTT.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 26-Jan-2019, at 5:21 AM, K9FD  wrote:
> 
> I have worked VU2 on FT-8 on 1840 and see them calling cq quite often,
> JA work split,  there is no reason to work down at 1826 or there abouts
> unless your just trying to irritate others.
> 
> Merv K9FD
>> Peter, Not all countries allow FT-8 ops on 1840.  JA's work split on
>> 11908.  Last night attempts to work a VU2 he was only able to legally TX
>> around 1816 with my FT-8 being on 1844.  The agreement came way before FT-8
>> or other digital modes.  They also don't take in consideration for some
>> DX-peditions where split operating is required.
>> 
>> Herb, KV4FZ
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:49 PM Peter Bertini 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low
>>> in the band for digital modes?  I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of
>>> the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles.
>>> 
>>> Pete k1zjh
>>> _
>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>>> Reflector
>>> 
>> _
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?

[K9FD]

I have worked VU2 on FT-8 on 1840 and see them calling cq quite often,
JA work split,  there is no reason to work down at 1826 or there abouts
unless your just trying to irritate others.

Merv K9FD

Peter, Not all countries allow FT-8 ops on 1840.  JA's work split on
11908.  Last night attempts to work a VU2 he was only able to legally TX
around 1816 with my FT-8 being on 1844.  The agreement came way before FT-8
or other digital modes.  They also don't take in consideration for some
DX-peditions where split operating is required.

Herb, KV4FZ

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:49 PM Peter Bertini 
wrote:


I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low
in the band for digital modes?  I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of
the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles.

Pete k1zjh
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
Reflector


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


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

Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

Peter, Not all countries allow FT-8 ops on 1840.  JA's work split on
11908.  Last night attempts to work a VU2 he was only able to legally TX
around 1816 with my FT-8 being on 1844.  The agreement came way before FT-8
or other digital modes.  They also don't take in consideration for some
DX-peditions where split operating is required.

Herb, KV4FZ

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:49 PM Peter Bertini 
wrote:

> I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low
> in the band for digital modes?  I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of
> the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles.
>
> Pete k1zjh
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?

[Ed Muns]

FT8 is at 1840, with the corresponding signals spread between 1840-1842,
very contained.  No fear of "squeezing CW".

Ed W0YK

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Bertini
Sent: 25 January, 2019 08:49
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?

I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low
in the band for digital modes?  I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of
the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles.

Pete k1zjh
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?

[Peter Bertini]

I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low
in the band for digital modes?  I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of
the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles.

Pete k1zjh
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: FT-8 on 160m using DXE NCC-2

[Jason Pecora]

Good evening everyone. I just wanted to post a link to a video that I made
using the DXE NCC-2. I have had some high tension power line work done
about 1/8 mile from my qth over this summer, and since then I have been
subject to 10-20 over 9 noise floors on 160m. What used to be a S-2 S-4
band for me was now not so fun anymore. While I wait for the power line
crew to do repair work I decided to give the DXE NCC-2 a try. I have tried
other manufactures noise cancelers in the past and came to the conclusion
that all they do is attenuate both the noise and the signal. The DXE
version was a lot more money then the others, but everything I have ever
bought from them has worked beyond my expectations. Last year I installed
their DXE 4 square RX system and it worked great, but unfortunately this
noise I am hearing is coming from the NE direction (Europe) and it's loud
even on the 4 square. So I decided to buy the NCC-2 and I'm glad I did. I
did the comparison on FT-8 because it is very easy to see that with the
unit on, I hear stations 10-20 db stronger on FT-8 that without I would
never hear at all. I have consistently seen signals that are -25 db
increase to a average +2 db signal. So I will copy the link below so you
all can view it, I have yet to try and phase the 160m loop with the DXE 4
square. Maybe this weekend I will play around with that. If your looking to
improve your signal to noise this unit is defiantly something to look
into...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByBeSg9auCA

Jay KB8O
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT-8 question

[Clive GM3POI]

My plan is to add four active verticals each feeding back to my house. They
will be spaced over the entire 7 acres I have here. My hope is I can pick
the vertical that carries the highest noise content and then cancel that
noise from my various RX antennas.  If I find I have an existing RX antenna
that is aiming at a noise source then I may use that as well. The days of
trying to deal with noise sources is near over.
73 Clive GM3POI

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Grant
Saviers
Sent: 03 December 2017 04:14
To: Jim Thomson; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT-8 question

Hi Jim,

Well, yes on the 5 acres, but still suburban.  But, I do notice that FT8 on
the vertical 160 T often decodes as well as my DXE 4 sq receive which has
directivity and thus less noise.  Same comment from another op here locally.
I don't see any advantage to subsegment filtering, and in fact I think a
wide bandwidth DSP/IF will have less phase distortion.  That's what the FT8
"manual" says also.  I run "wide open" 3 KHz on my Pro3 and don't see any
problems other than AGC pumping and desense from locals. 
(its hard to turn on/off AGC completely).  I checked out 160 tonight with
the cw contest on, FT8 decoded most of the FT8 signals even with CW all over
the FT8 "segment".  (let's not revisit THAT!!)  Listening on your 80m dipole
will probably help, it did for me at another QTH. Then 
there is all the advice from N4IS.   It is also fascinating to watch the 
FT8 decoder pretty much ignore the woodpecker on 80m when I work 80m AM
greyline into Asia from here (Seattle).

Grant KZ1W

On 12/2/2017 9:07 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> Folks on FT-8 use a 2.5 khz  ssb wide RX  filter.FT-8 is supposed to
be good for 20 db  below the noise floor.
> I assume that means 20 db below the noise floor of the 2.5 khz RX filter ?
>
> But a 250 hz cw filter would drop the noise floor by 10 db... vs the 2.5
khz wider filter... if CW mode used.
>
> So  if Im reading this correctly,  FT-8 mode, using a 2.5 khz filteris
really only 10 db better than a 250 hz cw filter, using cw mode ?
>
> If that is the case,  being able to copy signals 10 db  weaker than the
noise floor of a  250 hz filter is still nothing to sneeze at.
>
> The issue I see with FT-8.. on any band is the requirement for a  2.5 khz
filter and possibly being prone to qrm.
>
> Right now, my issue is extreme high noise levels on 160m... on a 100 by
130 city lot.Point a semi directional RX ant in the desired
direction and its
> also pointed at a noise source.  Seems like I am surrounded by noise on
160m.   Im going to drag out by noise canceller and try some more rx
experiments,
> b4 I throw in the towel.FT-8 might just be an option for folks like
myself that are plagued with high levels of noise.   Another possible option
might be
> the use of real time  remote RX.   Another possible option might be using
my 80m rotary dipole for 160m RX.   As is, its infuriating listening to high
noise
> levels on 160m.   If I cant hear on 160m...except for the usual louder
stations,  Im not going to even try TX.
>
> I have tried using a pair of  500 hz filters, and also a pair of 250 hz
filters, and also a 125 + 250 combo, in both my MK-V..and also 1000-D.
> The MK-V also has a 240-120-60hz  dsp filter.  The 1000-D has a tunable
audio cw filter.   The problem with the narrow xtal filters is...
> with noise levels so high, the noise...  rings out the filters.   The
signals coming out of  each filter... get stretched a bit in time duration.
> What Im left with is this mess whereby the desired signals +  noise end up
all mashed together.  Typ noise on 160m, using a 2.4 filter
> is S9 to S9 + 10 db.   Right now, Im trying to evaluate if 160m is even
worth the effort required.   Are the  rest of you on 5 acres out in the
woods ?
>
> Jim   VE7RF
>
>
> _
> 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: FT-8 question

[Rob Atkinson]

> As is, its infuriating listening to high noise
> levels on 160m.   If I cant hear on 160m...except for the usual louder
> stations,  Im not going to even try TX.


Don't let noise stop you from transmitting.

>Right now, Im trying to evaluate if 160m is even worth
>the effort required.   Are the  rest of you on 5 acres out in the woods ?

Nope, I am on a 50 x 100 foot lot in town.  Try getting a pair of
small rx loops, two rotators, and a phasing network.  I have two pesky
noise sources from two directions and I can put one in the nulls of
the loops and phase out the other.   Of course all of this is a lot
more trouble than just putting up a dipole so 160 isn't for everyone,
but the challenge sort of gets into you.

I refuse to submit to the plasma TV authority and let 160 m. be the
province of those with "vast tracts of land."  You don't have to have
a S0 noise level to have a nice QSO with someone.

73

Rob
K5UJ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband