On 6/20/2014 6:39 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
This behavior is NOT what's wanted, and I haven't been able to isolate
what's causing it. Do you have a clue?
A guess -- Firefox has a zoom feature that can be set to zoom only
fonts, not other page content.
73, Jim K9YC
) I've observed that the program crashes if I select CW ID at 10 minute
intervals.
2) I've observed that a strong JT65 signal whose bandwidth straddles the
divider line between JT65 and JT9 will often produce multiple decodes,
one above and one below the actual signal.
This is in the current
I've experienced several (at least four) random crashes for which I
cannot correlate an action on my part. In all cases, WSJT-X has been
running normally for many hours (even days) and for no obvious reason,
crashes. This does not happen often, I would say perhaps 4-5 times in a
month or two.
On 7/8/2014 2:00 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
Which version of WSJT-X are you experiencing this behaviour with?
3673
Jim
--
Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
Turn processes into
A really good idea, Joe. Elecraft has always made a point of involving
their customers, and it has gotten them a lot of useful input.
73, Jim K9YC
On Thu,9/11/2014 10:17 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
1. We plan to make a beta release soon.
2. Here's a short list of new features...
3. Here's a link
Hi Guys,
When I let WSJT-X run overnight (I do that often on 160M), I see Zone
Alarm trapping access on UDP 4739 from 23.253.150.150.
Any ideas what this is? A good thing or a bad thing?
Thanks and 73, Jim K9YC
--
On Wed,5/6/2015 11:55 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
One possible source of audio latency is any re-sampling done by the
operating system, this can be eliminated by ensuring that the default
sample for the sound card is 48 kHz. Older versions of MS Windows like
XP and Vista are particularly
On Mon,5/11/2015 1:34 PM, Eric NO3M wrote:
I did capture WH2XGP (W7IUV) in WA last night.
To put this in context, Eric has a spectacular farm of RX antennas. I'm
70 miles S of San Francisco; he consistently hears me when I'm QRP CW on
160M, and often on the first call.
73, Jim K9YC
On Tue,5/26/2015 2:17 PM, Joe Taylor wrote:
The venerable Python-based WSJT10 is nearing the end of nearly 15 years
of development effort. In general, we are building new features and
capabilities into WSJT-X,*not* WSJT. Back-porting features from the
Qt-based WSJT-X to the Python3-based
On Tue,1/19/2016 1:57 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
> those Xonar numbers don't sound like dB figures, at least that's what I
> assume since 70dB would be unrealistically high.
dB with no reference is simply the 10x the log of the ratio of two power
levels. If the impedance is the same, it is 20x
On Tue,1/19/2016 3:02 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
> all perfectly correct but not normally relevant in the discrete and
> finite digital domain. 0dB is normally taken as the output of the
> digital source i.e. a digital synthesiser or most commonly an ADC.
In the digital world, the common
On Tue,1/19/2016 4:53 PM, Joe Taylor wrote:
> Sure, we could set the level higher. WSJT-X works OK with the noise
> level set anywhere between about 20 dB (rms=10) and 60 dB (rms=1000).
> But the 16-bit A/D converter necessarily clips at ± 32767, about 90
> dB. If you set the background noise
On Sat,1/23/2016 6:11 PM, Joe Taylor wrote:
> Stated by whom? Why would you think backing off on the receiver's RF
> gain is undesirable? It's not.
>
> It's what you should do. I always run the RF gain on my TS-2000 down by
> about half a turn.
I agree. Back in the old days, when we men were
On Mon,2/15/2016 7:30 PM, Chase Turner wrote:
> Joe,
>
> You are a little late to this party, as usual.
Chase,
Please take your negative attitude somewhere else. It is not appreciated
here.
Jim K9YC
--
Site24x7 APM
Forgot to post that I'm using WSJT-X Version 1.7 r7005, feeding the K3
Line Input.
73, Jim K9YC
On Sat,8/13/2016 9:25 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
> I'm running K3 using default settings for audio, VOX, Data Mode. Tried
> MSK144 for the first time this morning, copied AA0N on 5 sec, tried to
>
I'm running K3 using default settings for audio, VOX, Data Mode. Tried
MSK144 for the first time this morning, copied AA0N on 5 sec, tried to
call him. TX audio drops after 1 sec.
Changed to 10 sec, still drops after 1 sec. Switched to JT65, audio
drops after 1 sec. Also drops after 1 sec if I
On Thu,8/4/2016 1:50 PM, Joe Taylor wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> On 8/4/2016 4:19 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> Those of us wanting to use your modes for E-skip would really appreciate
>> the inclusion of short-cycle versions of the relevant protocols like ISCAT.
> Not sure what you mig
On Thu,8/4/2016 1:09 PM, Joe Taylor wrote:
> suggest any additions or improvements that occur to you.
Hi Joe,
Those of us wanting to use your modes for E-skip would really appreciate
the inclusion of short-cycle versions of the relevant protocols like ISCAT.
Thanks and 73, Jim K9YC
On Fri,2/17/2017 11:47 PM, Игорь Ч wrote:
> Due to the current explosive growth of HF activity in JT65a mode we
> are getting close to a date when existing JT65 bandwidth will be fully
> utilized leaving no possibility for weak signal communication but
> local contacts.
There's a much simpler
I'd bet that the coupling was acoustic, via a speaker on the radio or
the WSJT-X computer and a mic on the other one. I've seen this happen
when WSJT-X is accidentally is fed from the laptop's internal mic. As
an RFI expert, I can't think of an RF mechanism.
73, Jim K9YC
On Sun,2/26/2017
ocator. Usually one or both of the
> "callsigns" will have a nonstandard, bogus-looking prefix. There will
> *not* be any correlation between the apparent prefix and the locator.
>
> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>
> On 12/15/2016 3:04 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> Hi Team,
>>
&
Thanks. Do you WANT these files? If so, I'll send them. Otherwise I
won't bother.
73, Jim
On Thu,12/15/2016 10:22 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> On 12/15/2016 12:18 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>
>> If you can tell me where to find the .wav, I can send it, but I'm not
>>
Hi Team,
For several weeks, I've been letting WSJT-X rc3 run overnight on 160M
while I sleep, and tabulating the decodes the next day. I've been quite
pleasantly surprised by the activity -- in less than a month, I've
decoded about 450 different stations running JT65 or JT9. More than a
dozen
On Mon,12/19/2016 9:27 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
> The WSJT Development Group is pleased to announce general availability of
> WSJT-X Version 1.7.0.
I'm just a lurker here, not a part of the team. The traffic here makes
it clear how much work you have all put into WSJT software, and for the
high
On Thu,12/22/2016 8:00 PM, Mark Schoonover wrote:
> Looks like 1838 is the place to be. Have about a dozen unique calls so
> far. I'm going to let it monitor overnight and I'll post the results
> tomorrow.
I posted this a week or so ago but I'll repeat it briefly. I'm trying to
finish QRP WAS
On 8/3/2017 8:35 AM, ANDY DURBIN wrote:
Please disregard my previous message. I had not correctly remembered
the results of my test. Here is what I reported in the DXLAbs group:
"I ran another test this morning using the same call but with a
completely different grid. This seems a
On 7/10/2017 10:14 AM, Ed Wilson via wsjt-devel wrote:
I have been testing FT8 for the past week or so and today decided to
try to make a JT65 contact on six meters. I am using r7836, which I
built this morning. I made a contact with WB5TUF near Houston with -01
at both ends and found an issue
When I was working in BC, and later when looking at stations with an HP
precision frequency measuring instrument, I regularly saw errors less
than one Hz on the MF broadcast band with major US stations.
73, Jim K9YC
On 7/6/2017 12:48 PM, Richard Lamont wrote:
Is it a good idea to use AM
On 7/8/2017 11:11 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
why can't you build a trivial resistive pad to attenuate the audio
from your rig?
Yes. 2.2K series and 220 ohm load yields 20 dB attenuation. And any 10:1
ratio close to that. Values are not critical, except that you don't want
to go too low or
On 7/21/2017 3:09 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
firstly I should say that if everyone worked split on a busy band then
the overall capacity would probably be reduced.
There are good reasons for not calling zero beat. Taking 6M double-hop
E-skip as an example, I often find myself beaten by a W0
There is a tutorial on power and grounding for ham radio in this link.
Details of power distribution are specific to North America, but the
same principles apply inside our homes and shacks are the same worldwide.
http://k9yc.com/GroundingAndAudio.pdf
The same concepts are covered in text
On 8/8/2017 10:09 AM, Ned wrote:
You might be missing the real attraction for this use of FT8 on
DXpeditions. It's about rate and operator ease. JT65 is not fast and
requires a lot of manual operations to make QSOs. The KH1 DXpedition
in April 2018 is also considering to try FT8 in order to
On 8/18/2017 7:59 AM, w...@att.net [wsjtgroup] wrote:
almost daily, vk3xq and I have a go at it near my sunrise..
Last winter, I often let JT65 run overnight, mostly using my TX vertical
as the antenna, and the next morning, put the stations I logged into a
spreadsheet. In about 4 months,
On Mon,6/26/2017 11:07 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
On 26/06/2017 18:36, Jim Brown wrote:
On Mon,6/26/2017 10:27 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
To give an example of what we face, the current IARU region 1 band
plan requires all MGM activity to be between 50300 and 50400 so
expecting to run
On Mon,6/26/2017 10:27 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
To give an example of what we face, the current IARU region 1 band
plan requires all MGM activity to be between 50300 and 50400 so
expecting to run transatlantic QSOs on 6m JT9E/H on 50290 or indeed
JT65/JT9 on 50276 is going to cause the
On 9/21/2017 12:42 PM, Joe Taylor wrote:
What would be *really* helpful is for you to work with someone else
and thoroughly exercise the new capabilities. Both MSK144 and FT8.
The idea is that one of you would be trying to make contest QSOs; the
QSO partnet might or might not be in the
AHA! That's probably it, Rich. Thanks. Cockpit error on my part.
73, Jim K9YC
On 9/1/2017 8:47 AM, ve3...@gmail.com [wsjtgroup] wrote:
Jim,
Were you using DATA mode on the K3? If so, is there any chance the K3
was in AFSK A instead of DATA A? That would account for having to use
reverse.
On 9/2/2017 6:20 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
The WSJT Development Group is pleased to announce a second candidate
release of WSJT-X Version 1.8.0. Once again this is a beta release.
Many thanks to the team for their contribution to the state of the art,
and for their striving for excellence!
73,
Hello Take,
Apparently those who maintain these bandplans are a bit behind the
times. The Region 2 bandplan for 160M assigns digital modes to
1800-1810, frequencies that are not available in many countries. This is
a very old bandplan, and has been universally ignored for many years.
The
On 10/29/2017 1:40 PM, Joe Taylor wrote:
No doubt you're correct that 3XY has been used for over 18 years. The
callsign compression algorithm used in WSJT, MAP65, WSPR, and WSJT-X
has been around almost as long, since 2001. Nobody has complained (or
even sent us a polite note) about a need
On 5/11/2018 3:41 PM, Grant Willis wrote:
Standard Mode Useability Feedback
In standard mode when faced with a major pileup, the following ideas
would be very helpful. These are mostly GUI changes.
These suggestions make a lot of sense to me. I worked you from YJ0AG,
and quickly observed
Hi Joe,
I think it would help a lot if details like these of the process, which
is clearly quite well designed, were to be part of user doc for Hounds.
73, Jim K9YC
On 5/8/2018 10:37 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
In Fox mode WSJT-X maintains several queues.
A specified Hound callsign stays in
I must say that I'm getting awfully tired of the bashing of a fine
operating mode that requires a lot more operator sophistication than
those who have never used it assume. I'm a pretty good CW op (starting
in 1955), but I also concentrate on station building, understanding
propagation, and
On 5/30/2018 6:30 PM, Ned wrote:
This happened to me at the most inopportune time. I was sending a signal
report to DS4AOW for a ATNO on 6m and it sent a NA Contest TX3 exchange
instead of what was expected. The only way I could clear the problem was
to change the mode to to anything other
On 5/31/2018 9:43 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
Of course this could be done in FT8. But as I emphasized in a previous
email, we did not want to use a different solution for FT8 and MSK144.
As currently implemented, MSK144 has no spare bits.
Two thoughts. First, aren't FT8 and MSK144 designed for
On 6/6/2018 1:48 PM, John C. Westmoreland, P.E. wrote:
Jim,
OK - so the claim I'm reading here is Hamlib is 1000% bug-free regarding
Vista-64? I'm very skeptical about that; the most obvious issue and
nothing mentioned thus
far obviates this.
I know NOTHING about Vista Hamlib or
On 6/6/2018 12:36 PM, John C. Westmoreland, P.E. wrote:
That's an interesting hypothesis. Since USB is differential signaling -
it has some noise immunity; but I will definitely check into this.
Hum/buzz gets into our systems as a result of failure to implement
proper bonding between
On 6/1/2018 6:15 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
As you might expect, we are busy looking at more comprehensive ways of
addressing the problem. The solution is not one for v1.9.1, however.
Thanks
Jim K9YC
--
Check out the
On 6/25/2018 11:50 PM, Saku wrote:
Do you have a web page "My patches", or similar, combining all your
patches together.
One of the great things about the WSJT development team is that useful
stuff eventually ends up in compiled releases. I wait for those and
install them ASAP.
73, Jim
On 6/30/2018 9:16 AM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
I just tested this and Fox tried 3 times to respond to a blind call.
Define a "blind call." I would define it as calling someone you can't
copy.
As others have observed, an expedition op with a screenful of callers is
unlikely to
On 6/30/2018 7:14 AM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
Tons of ops calling KH7Z when they can't see them. I assume this only
causes problems as it's quite possible KH7Z with their honker antennas
and can see them but not the other way round.
It's not "big honker antennas" -- the
On 8/1/2018 6:00 PM, Ed Stallman wrote:
Love both FT8 and N1MM + logger,
So do I, but only for contest logging. My primary log is DXKeeper, which
DOES record start and stop times, and is designed to be a general
purpose logger. N1MM doesn't bother with start and stop times because
contest
On 8/1/2018 9:50 AM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
IMHO better if ops learn how to set up their rigs properly though.
Exactly right. The last page of this link has detailed instructions for
setting audio levels that avoids distortion.
http://k9yc.com/USB_Interfaces.pdf
73, Jim K9YC
I mostly use WSJT-X on 6M, and have several neighbors who, depending on
the directions of our beams at any given time, can be as strong as 40 dB
over S9. I run a K3 with AGC set to Slow, so if I set drive to the
decoder at 30 dB, any station weaker than about 15dB over S9 will be
below the
On 9/1/2018 3:14 AM, Iztok Saje wrote:
Instead of overcomplicating protocols, diversity reception shall be
considered.
Diversity reception has been around for nearly a century, and depends on
the very complex computing engine located between the ears of the
operator. My guess is that any
On 9/1/2018 11:26 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
It's worth mentioning that for more than a decade MAP65, a sister
program of WSJT, WSPR, and WSJT-X, has provided a powerful and uniquely
effective form of diversity reception: polarization diversity. And yes,
the outputs of two receivers ARE simply be
On 7/4/2018 6:53 PM, Bill Barrett wrote:
Hello Jim-
I worked them several times and uploaded the contacts Club Log and LOTW but.
On Club Log I see "W" not green "C". No QSL in LOTW.
Just getting started with C.L. am I doing something wrong?
Go to ClubLog, but before you even sign in, click on
On 7/4/2018 4:40 PM, David Fisher wrote:
Later when I uploaded to ClugLog, I was reminded that I logged the wrong
callsign. Easily fixed in ClubLog, but for LOTW, all I could do was log
the contacts again as KH1/KH7X.
I also simply click on their call when they're sending to someone else.
On 7/5/2018 5:26 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
There should be no need to edit the prefix in DXKeeper. When attempting
to work a DXpedition you know their callsign perfectly well, in advance.
Yes, but -- when you click on their call when they have called someone
else, you get KH7W, not KH1/KH7W,
On 7/3/2018 7:16 AM, John Zantek wrote:
You would think it’s that simple, but no. Icom’s required CT-17
level-converter, at $139, only works with an RS-232 connection on the
PC. USB-9pin converters are evidently not supported.
There have been some good designs for replacements for the
On 7/3/2018 6:24 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
I think the Fox operators are learning to manage their pileups
reasonably well. I listened and watched the show on 40m this morning
for ~2.5 hours, with good signals from Fox. The Op was doing a good
job: he was using 2 slots, thereby keeping the queue
Thank you and the team for your efforts. I strongly agree with the needs
you have articulated. Let me add this comment.
Virtually ANY major contest and DXpedition results in very high activity
on bands that are open. It's not unusual for either to attract thousands
of operators, and it's
On 3/26/2018 5:44 PM, Mike Besemer wrote:
Wow… there had been so much good discussion here about avoiding interference to
other modes, and then this happens. If nothing else, it’s extremely
inconsiderate and the discussion on the PSK31 lists is not favorable for FT8.
I wish the developers
On 3/29/2018 7:49 AM, Rich - K1HTV wrote:
*Being a 160M CW DXer, I too agree that 1826.5 is NOT a good spot for
the FT8 DXpedition frequency, as many other Topband DXers would also
agree. The highest end of the band has plenty of room, but many
antennas, cut for the low end of the band,
On 3/21/2018 3:16 PM, Ray Jacobs wrote:
You were right they were on the same frequency as regular ft 8 instead
of another frequency, somehow they will have to announce what
frequency they are on. But how do they get the word out?
The DX Cluster system.
73, Jim K9YC
On 10/24/2018 8:46 PM, Ed Muns wrote:
*/My Tx cycle had already started by the time I could click on their
call from their CQ in the prior cycle. Is there a technique I’m missing
or is this an inherent issue (delay of 30 seconds)?/*
Experience has been that if you have a good signal at the
On 10/3/2018 10:52 AM, Dave Q wrote:
Joe, pointed out the correct Maryland designation for RTTY is MD.
Yes, it is for ARRL RTTY Roundup, and for many other contests. But MDC
is the exchange for others, so WSJT-X should be able to handle it if,
for example, it is to support ARRL Field Day.
On 9/27/2018 1:32 PM, Dave wrote:
The events I've participated in that require such a designation have
used MDC
Yes. MDC is the correct abbreviation for the ARRL section Maryland-DC,
which is the correct exchange for Field Day, Sweepstakes, and the ARRL
160M contest.
73, Jim K9YC
On 11/16/2018 5:13 PM, Bob via wsjt-devel wrote:
Why then are you changing everything to go to a different format and
frequency?
The answers to this are on the WSJT-X website. Changes and upgrades are
being made at the request of users.
73, Jim K9YC
On 12/28/2018 11:29 PM, Simon wrote:
Is there a source of data for natural and man made noise, as pick up
by an isotopic antenna (or dipole which will be about 2dB higher) in
dBm value, either
a) based on 'fixed paper model" as page 5 of ITU-R document,
R-REC-P.372-13-201609
b) actual
On 12/28/2018 10:00 PM, Simon wrote:
Is FT8 and psk31 generally use around 20 to 30 watts maximum, as a
"social rule", so that one station would not be too strong as to mask
out other station, due to agc of rig?
In general, that's true on the HF bands, but it's NOT true on 6M and
160M. On
On 1/2/2019 7:02 PM, Neil Zampella ne...@techie.com [wsjtgroup] wrote:
I see it as a good test of the FT8 decoder's ability to pull out the
data from all the dross.
I see it as an opportunity for FT8 ops to piss off RTTY ops, and it's
not our fault. Thanks to a massive screw-up by the FCC the
Yes. The likely cause is failure to implement proper chassis-to-chassis
bonding between all station equipment, including the computer and
computer audio interface. It is also important that all station
equipment get power from the same outlet or outlet box, or, if from
different outlets, the
On 1/18/2019 5:22 AM, Jari A wrote:
Did I experience another hash error?
Looking at the screen grab shows that the station is signing /QRP. I
work a lot of QRP, but I never sign /QRP, and I won't work a station
signing /QRP. I see it as the station asking for special treatment.
Far more
On 12/21/2018 8:44 AM, DX Jami via wsjt-devel wrote:
nonstandard call signs such as mine - W4/AH6FX ... or AH6FX/W4
Hi Danny,
US callsigns, with no / identifiers, are valid anywhere in the US. While
using one is legal, it is completely un-necessary. Your call is AH6FX
anywhere in the US,
On 12/5/2018 7:00 PM, Al Pawlowski wrote:
Only a few have posted what range of DT’s they mostly see
My most recent experience is with 1.9, and on 6M from the summer. My
memory is routinely seeing DTs in the range of +/_ 200msec, with
occasional outliers up to 2 sec or so. My sound card is a
On 12/4/2018 4:58 PM, Richard Solomon wrote:
If you really want a PDF file, then still use the browser print function
and direct it to a PDF create application. There are a number of
freeware ones that work fine.
I regularly use Libre Office to create pdf files from Libre Office, Word
or
On 11/20/2018 10:54 AM, Dave Hachadorian wrote:
It worked OK sometimes, but several callers kept coming back for more
info, apparently looking for that final (TX5) “73” from me.
That's partly because some FT8 operators don't have contesting
experience. The sequence you outline is perfectly
On 1/3/2019 9:56 AM, Neil Zampella wrote:
FWIW .. some RTTY contesters show up in the normal JT65/JT9/FT8 locations. I
Yes, there are always those who don't have a clue. And there are those
whose only exposure to digital modes is RTTY -- they have no idea what
other modes sound like or the
On 12/29/2018 1:36 PM, Simon wrote:
How good is magnetic loop antenna, may be with amplifier for receive
only, in REJECTING man made noise, especially at or near city area,
with huge number of SMPS, florescent lamp etc. at people's home?
Loops like this have a very broad "figure of eight"
On 12/28/2018 4:54 PM, Simon wrote:
Hi K9YC,
Many thanks for the detailed analysis.
1. Sorry, I do not understand why u said, quoted, "Gauging by the FT8
signals centered around 7075 kHz, I'd call this QTH pretty noisy". This
is the FT8 band at 7074kHz, usb and wsjt-x decoded good copy of
Hello Simon,
The straight vertical lines in the waterfall are harmonics of a stable
clock, perhaps your computer. The "wavy" vertical trace around 7054
looks like the noise from a mains-powered noise source like a
switch-mode power supply or variable-speed motor controller -- the clue
is
On 3/22/2019 12:58 PM, Wolfgang wrote:
In SSB the 'bad guys' are the ones yelling endless, even if they
don't hear the DX. And now in FT8 we try to blame the DX beeing
'the 'bad guys' ??? Chasing DX is like a race, we have some
winners and some... who do not make it;-)
Btw., there is a lot of
On 3/31/2019 9:53 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
most Amateur Radio operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to
be worthwhile and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be
very annoying.
That depends on what you might be trying to accomplish. I certainly
would automate my
On 2/20/2019 3:48 PM, Ken Miller wrote:
I like to utilize the lower portion of the FT8 bands down to 0 hz.
When transmitting that low, your signal is outside the RX bandwidth of
many transceivers that are tuned to the standard frequency. If you want
to do that anyway, simply tune your RX to
On 3/16/2019 8:40 AM, Claude Frantz wrote:
I have noticed that the display of laptops and standalone ones, the
power supply of PC's and laptops are often the source of very bad noise.
Where can we find good recommendations about which product to use or to
avoid ? There is many information
On 3/16/2019 11:33 PM, Claude Frantz wrote:
Just the one: Which power supply is low noise, in the RFI sense ?
As several of my old EE and math profs often stated, "the proof is left
to the student." There are multiple applications notes and tutorials on
my website describing the ways in
On 3/16/2019 12:23 PM, Gary Hinson wrote:
You could check laptops and their power supplies in a friendly laptop shop
(when they are not too busy!), using a portable AM radio.
Naw -- virtually place that sells or repairs stuff, or where humans
live, is almost certain to be so full of noise
On 3/16/2019 3:58 PM, Martin wrote:
I have a Thinkpad W540 and tried using one of the mobile 19V supplies -
the same voltage as the Lenovo factory power supply. When I booted I
got a new screen I'd never seen before. Lenovo was telling me to go out
and buy a genuine Lenovo power supply. I
Of course. You're not in DXpedition Mode. READ THE WSJT-X MANUAL ABOUT
DXPEDITION MODE.
73, Jim K9YC
On 3/14/2019 1:11 PM, jtul...@roadrunner.com wrote:
PINO:
This same thing has happened to me with three 5X3E QSOs in F/H mode.
Very frustrating!
Does anyone have a solution?
On 3/17/2019 10:10 PM, lstosk...@cox.net wrote:
So all I need is a PTT line and audio in/out for the Windows machine.
If the radio can do VOX from the input where you feed it WSJT-X audio,
you don't need PTT from the computer.
73, Jim K9YC
___
On 3/13/2019 7:11 AM, Bastien F4EYQ wrote:
I've develop a "Radio Cloud" for ham people, This cloud purpose a
logbook "online"
LOTW and eQSL work quite well. Why do we need another one?
73, Jim K9YC
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
On 3/15/2019 12:41 PM, Carey Fisher wrote:
RF getting into my stereo cause it to produce a 60Hz hum. Why is that?
Probably intermodulation distortion within the victim device.
73, Jim K9YC
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
As others have noted, EVERY conductor is an antenna, and most computers
and rigs are built with manufacturing/design defects that couple RF from
attached cables inside the the box to cause problems.
Here is a tutorial on the topic, and an applications note for finding
and killing RF noise.
On 4/9/2019 11:29 AM, Timothy Hickman wrote:
I have noticed lately that when I send CQ on FT8 A few stations respond
with the signal report not their grid square.
Is there something here I do not understand?
Yes. Their goal is to reduce the time required to complete a QSO.
73, Jim K9YC
On 4/8/2019 10:55 AM, Richard Solomon wrote:
Theory and practice are sometimes at odds with each other.
NO, they never are. When we think there's a difference, we don't know
enough about one or the other.
A single point ground is an excellent idea, in theory. But when
the shack is located
My near universal operating mode with FT8 is to Hold TX frequency.
When I switch modes from FT8 to MSK144 and back to FT8, I come back to
find it turned off and my TX frequency set to 1500 Hz. Is it possible
for WSJT-X to remember my last settings for a given mode?
Thanks and 73, Jim K9YC
On 4/26/2019 1:30 PM, Deisher, Michael wrote:
BTW, in my experience wsjtx does not work half-bad with acoustic
coupling.
YES! By that I mean, and I think you mean, the computer mic picking up
the sound from the speaker in the radio and, by Windoze accident,
feeding that to WSJT-X.
So I
On 4/18/2019 9:32 AM, Scotty W7PSK wrote:
He was +1 here, I doubt he didn't hear me. I had been on that offset
working DX for almost an hour. I finally had to move to another offset.
Never overlook the possibility that the other guy is doing something
dumb, rather than intentional. Traffic
On 4/26/2019 11:14 AM, Deisher, Michael wrote:
I realized that just after pressing send. The 90Hz bandwidth (I call it
acoustic bandwidth since it is encoded as a PCM audio signal)
You're confusing the vibration of air with an electrical signal at audio
frequencies. The word "acoustic" and
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
