Hi Russ,
A "legal QSO" requires the exchange, and acknowledgment of your callsigns
and some identifying piece of information, noting more. An example: in VHF
contests it is callsign and grid, no signal report. The order has no
consequence. All of your examples below meet this criterion: bot
Hi Reino,
I completely understand – which is why I wonder why people expect WSJT-X to
work for WFD, when it obviously cannot unless the protocol is, in fact, changed.
Larry / W1DYJ
From: Reino Talarmo
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 15:56
To: 'WSJT software development'
Subject: Re: [wsjt-de
I could be wrong, but I thought Joe’s analysis showed that the Winter FD
exchange would not fit into the 77 bit package that FT8/4 used. Perhaps if WFD
changed its exchange to fit the already available rules, it would work well.
73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ
From: Dave Slotter, W3DJS
Sent: Friday,
Or the wheel on your mouse.
73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ
From: Bill Somerville
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 10:01
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Rc4 Tx levels will cause future QRM problems
Hi David,
you can already do that by selecting the slider and using the u
Hi Adrian,
I use the wheel on my mouse. It's set for three lines, so it moves the
slider by 0.3 dB.
73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ
-Original Message-
From: Adrian
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2020 20:13
To: WSJT software development ; Bill Somerville
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] TX PWR Paramete
Win 7 pro 64. Also using JTAlert and N3FJP FD Log.
Larry / W1DYJ
-Original Message-
From: Claude Frantz
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 11:42
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FD FT4 crashing
On 6/28/20 5:03 PM, Larry B. via wsjt-devel wrote:
I’m seeing
I’m seeing the same thing. Seems to crash just as someone comes back to me.
73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ
From: Black Michael via wsjt-devel
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 10:32
To: WSJT Software Development
Cc: Black Michael
Subject: [wsjt-devel] FD FT4 crashing
Decided to work some FT4 Field Day op
It was probably a robot!
73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ
From: Ron WV4P
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 20:26
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Callsign lockout
There are Many reasons to block a caller, they may be a Lid, they may be
disrupting a QSO, they may just be Very annoy
However, 59 or 599 serves the human brain as a very good synchronizing
sound, so that we can easily copy the "real" exchange that come after it.
At least it does for me, especially on CW.
73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ
-Original Message-
From: Ed Muns
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 16:32
To: '
Hi Jim,
As much as I agree with the vast majority of your comments, I must
respectfully not agree with this one. I find the "prefix" to the exchange
very useful and not archaic. From my earlier post:
Think of the "59" OR "5NN" as a synchronizing bit for the impo
Think of the "59" OR "5NN" as a synchronizing bit for the important part of
the exchange. It synchronizes your brain to hear the exchange properly.
73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ
-Original Message-
From: Claude Frantz
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 8:08
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subj
My guess, after many years of FD, is that MOST operators would have little idea
of what ANY indication of a clock-sync issue means. Many ops are sitting down
operating for the first time, getting their feet wet with (NOT A CONTEST) Field
Day. PLUS, as has been noted, many FD sites DO NOT have
12 matches
Mail list logo
