Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Andras Bato]

Iztok Saje for President! :D
Well done Iztok!
All problems solved.
Each IARU official is to resign at once!
gl de ha6nn
Andras

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Iztok Saje  wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Summary: Do not over regulate HAM bands!
> Please emphasize in doccumantation:
> "FT8 frequencies are recommendation, not Law".
>
> Few different ideas for "FT8 frequencies" discussion.
>
> 1. Fresh from CQ WPX SSB.
>
> On 80 m, somebody kept telling people calling CQ below 3700:
> "This frequency is not for contest, please QSY, read IARU bla bla ...".
>
> On the other hand: on 160 m, there was no FT8 for 48 hours.
> And some CW was lost in first few kHz (QRMed by non-HAM QRM anyhow).
> Whole first 100 kHz was SSB.
> 5 minutes after contest, FT8 activity is restarted.
>
> It was similar with RTTY contests: FT8 traffic declined and moved to 7 MHz
> (where FT8 is in the "SSB" part) and WARC.
>
> The other day somenone on 40m kept sending beacon (FT8 beacon) saying
> "This is JT65, not FT8"
> AT the same time, no JT65 signals was heard, and FT8 was crowded.
>
> 2. Shared space
> is nice approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space ,
> reinvented by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman .
> (I recall traffic in Kairo: I would not dare to drive, but everything run
> smoothly).
> Concept is simple: by over regulation (Traffic signs, lights, zebras ...)
> drivers rely on signs,
> ignore other drivers and several crashes are due to "It is my right to be
> there").
> By removing signs, drivers start to observe and respect others. Less
> accidents, higher throughput.
>
>
> 3. HAM bands are shared space from day 1
>
> I see HAM bands as shared space. Yes, I did CW QSOs on "SSB" part. Yes, I
> used FT8 outside preferred FT8 2 kHz.
> Yes, I was using RTTY on JT65 subband.
> Yes, I do QSY if there is major contest going on.
>
>
> Any FT8/JT65/JT9/PSK/name_it allocation is just recommendation.
> It is frequency where it is most likely to find some activity.
> No more, no less. And it should be like this.
> All digital modes equal.
>
> 4. HAM spirit
> With respect to others, it is easy to find place for everyone.
> More FT8: FT8 expands. More RTTY: FT8 shrinks.
> Less PSK: sorry, it is not fair to keep 2 kHz empty while FT8 is suffering.
>
> I recall when first 10 kHz on 7 MHz was DX reserved. There is good reason
> why it is no more.
>
> Of course, we have different people on the bands: whatever I do, somebody
> does not like.
> But those people will always find something to dislike and some mission on
> the bands.
>
> 5. current practice
> Yes, we tend to go up. My RX bandwidth is 3.4 kHz. And TX as well.
> If needed, go up. If nobody answers CQ, go down. If JT65 is heard, avoid
> it.
>
> Best point for DX-peditions is just above: they transmit on 3 kHz, thus
> anyone can see
> they are QRV and move to work fox. But hunds are outside normal FT8 QRG.
>
>
> 6. Maybe SPLIT is needed?
>
> I recall 2017 JT65 madness on 6m: EU/JA and EU/W agreed on even/odd
> periods.
> Waiting for FT8 this year.
>
> Also, it is much easier to work JA on 160m compared to 80m (or 40m) from
> Europe.
> reason: JA is transmitting 1908, we are on 1840. So, if I want that HA6
> station from rare UL square, I do simplex,
> if I want JA DX, I listen 908.
>
> Maybe a recommendation to use similar approach can return "weak signal" to
> FT8 DXing?
> EU/NA/AS-OC/rare DX subbands.
>
>
>
> Best 73, gd FT8 DX
> Iztok, S52D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Pravni pogoji / Legal disclaimer
> Telekom Slovenije, d.d., Ljubljana 
>
>
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Iztok Saje]

Hello!

Summary: Do not over regulate HAM bands!
Please emphasize in doccumantation:
"FT8 frequencies are recommendation, not Law".

Few different ideas for "FT8 frequencies" discussion.

1. Fresh from CQ WPX SSB.

On 80 m, somebody kept telling people calling CQ below 3700:
"This frequency is not for contest, please QSY, read IARU bla bla ...".

On the other hand: on 160 m, there was no FT8 for 48 hours.
And some CW was lost in first few kHz (QRMed by non-HAM QRM anyhow).
Whole first 100 kHz was SSB.
5 minutes after contest, FT8 activity is restarted.

It was similar with RTTY contests: FT8 traffic declined and moved to 7 MHz (where FT8 is 
in the "SSB" part) and WARC.

The other day somenone on 40m kept sending beacon (FT8 beacon) saying "This is JT65, 
not FT8"
AT the same time, no JT65 signals was heard, and FT8 was crowded.

2. Shared space
is nice approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space ,
reinvented by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman .
(I recall traffic in Kairo: I would not dare to drive, but everything run 
smoothly).
Concept is simple: by over regulation (Traffic signs, lights, zebras ...) 
drivers rely on signs,
ignore other drivers and several crashes are due to "It is my right to be 
there").
By removing signs, drivers start to observe and respect others. Less accidents, 
higher throughput.


3. HAM bands are shared space from day 1

I see HAM bands as shared space. Yes, I did CW QSOs on "SSB" part. Yes, I used 
FT8 outside preferred FT8 2 kHz.
Yes, I was using RTTY on JT65 subband.
Yes, I do QSY if there is major contest going on.


Any FT8/JT65/JT9/PSK/name_it allocation is just recommendation.
It is frequency where it is most likely to find some activity.
No more, no less. And it should be like this.
All digital modes equal.

4. HAM spirit
With respect to others, it is easy to find place for everyone.
More FT8: FT8 expands. More RTTY: FT8 shrinks.
Less PSK: sorry, it is not fair to keep 2 kHz empty while FT8 is suffering.

I recall when first 10 kHz on 7 MHz was DX reserved. There is good reason why 
it is no more.

Of course, we have different people on the bands: whatever I do, somebody does 
not like.
But those people will always find something to dislike and some mission on the 
bands.

5. current practice
Yes, we tend to go up. My RX bandwidth is 3.4 kHz. And TX as well.
If needed, go up. If nobody answers CQ, go down. If JT65 is heard, avoid it.

Best point for DX-peditions is just above: they transmit on 3 kHz, thus anyone 
can see
they are QRV and move to work fox. But hunds are outside normal FT8 QRG.


6. Maybe SPLIT is needed?

I recall 2017 JT65 madness on 6m: EU/JA and EU/W agreed on even/odd periods.
Waiting for FT8 this year.

Also, it is much easier to work JA on 160m compared to 80m (or 40m) from Europe.
reason: JA is transmitting 1908, we are on 1840. So, if I want that HA6 station 
from rare UL square, I do simplex,
if I want JA DX, I listen 908.

Maybe a recommendation to use similar approach can return "weak signal" to FT8 
DXing?
EU/NA/AS-OC/rare DX subbands.



Best 73, gd FT8 DX
Iztok, S52D


































Pravni pogoji / Legal disclaimer
Telekom Slovenije, d.d., Ljubljana 

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Tsutsumi Takehiko]

Gary ZL2iFB,

Yes, I agree with your proposal to discuss the required spectrum based on 
scientific approach you described and several FT-8 statistics gathered. I am 
sure a few of wsjt-x technical group members have such talent to support the 
activity.

I hope the group will be set up soon.

Regards,

take

de JA5AEA


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Rich - K1HTV]

OK Gary,

  You've got the job. :-) When will the report be ready. Then what's next? It 
doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where the number of FT8 users is 
goingUP, UP, UP!!!FT8 use will continue to expand and with it, the need 
for additional frequencies. Although it appears that you have doubts, I have no 
doubt that more frequencies will soon, if not already, be needed on some bands.


73,

Rich - K1HTV


= = =

[wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

g...@isect.com https://connect.xfinity.com/appsuite/#

To  WSJT software development https://connect.xfinity.com/appsuite/#

A ‘separate small group’ wasn’t exactly my proposal, Take: I simply suggested 
that rather than simplyassumingorassertingthat there is an issue with 
overcrowding and pushing for something to be done, we should take a more 
scientific approach. 

What would help address the claim(hypothesis)that the HF FT8 allocations are 
“overcrowded”?   

For example, we could systematically collect, collate and analyze our ALL.TXT 
files for things such as:

* How many stations are using FT8 on each of the HF bands
* The proportion of FT8 overs that are repeats of previous overs, suggesting 
communications failures due to factors such as QRM, QRN, QSB etc.
* Trends i.e. how these factors vary over time

73

Gary  ZL2iFB

 --
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Ed Stallman]

Found it

Ed


On 3/24/2018 3:14 PM, Neil Zampella wrote:


Can this " 'power' and what is QRP" thread go to the Yahoo group??

This is for reports of BUGS or other ISSUES with the software, not how 
users OPERATE.


FWIW ... FT8 was NEVER a QRP mode, it is a WEAK SIGNAL mode as is the 
other WSJT-X modes.


From the first page of K1JT's website:

"/WSJT-X, WSJT, MAP65, /and/WSPR /are open-source programs designed 
for weak-signal digital communication by amateur radio.



Neil, KN3ILZ


On 3/24/2018 9:49 AM, Andras Bato wrote:
All in all: It's evident that some stations are using kW and 
directional antennas in FT8!

FT8 is NOT A QRP MODE ANY LONGER!
JT9 was the last one which favoured QRP stations and wire antennas.
Beside this, there is a tendency of using high power in certain 
stations mainly in Southern Europe!

GL de HA6NN
Andras

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:30 PM, ok2zo <ok...@email.cz 
<mailto:ok...@email.cz>> wrote:


If there are strong signals, those close ALC and weak signals
have no chance then. If there is only one, I can use notch on my
FT950 and it helps a bit. But in many cases there is more than
one over +10dB, so it's difficult to catch some DX sometimes. In
some cases is possible turn the main knob up or down to cut part
of band with roofing filter, but some possible split callers are
lost then..



Odesláno z mého chytrého telefonu Samsung Galaxy.

 Původní zpráva 
Od: Bill Barrett <w2pky...@gmail.com <mailto:w2pky...@gmail.com>>
Datum: 24.03.18 14:13 (GMT+01:00)
Komu: WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>>
Předmět: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

Just say'n-
Strong propagation can make a low power station decode with a
high signal report.
If you retire the strong signals first you will hear the weak
signals under neigh them.
Finally, short of checking Hamspots [hopefully the station is
reporting to H.S.] how is an Op to know what his report is at the
FOX?
*
*
Just say'n

Bill W2PKY


On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Gary McDuffie
<mcduf...@ag0n.net <mailto:mcduf...@ag0n.net>> wrote:



> On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:50 PM, rjai...@gmail.com
<mailto:rjai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How do you know we're running power?

I said nothing about running power.  I said strong signal,
wanting to have a way to only allow display or decode of
weaker signals, the level of which I determine and set.  This
is similar to the function available in DXpedition mode.

Gary - AG0N

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel>




--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel>






--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Neil Zampella]

Can this " 'power' and what is QRP" thread go to the Yahoo group??

This is for reports of BUGS or other ISSUES with the software, not how 
users OPERATE.


FWIW ... FT8 was NEVER a QRP mode, it is a WEAK SIGNAL mode as is the 
other WSJT-X modes.


From the first page of K1JT's website:

"/WSJT-X, WSJT, MAP65, /and/WSPR /are open-source programs designed for 
weak-signal digital communication by amateur radio.



Neil, KN3ILZ


On 3/24/2018 9:49 AM, Andras Bato wrote:
All in all: It's evident that some stations are using kW and 
directional antennas in FT8!

FT8 is NOT A QRP MODE ANY LONGER!
JT9 was the last one which favoured QRP stations and wire antennas.
Beside this, there is a tendency of using high power in certain 
stations mainly in Southern Europe!

GL de HA6NN
Andras

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:30 PM, ok2zo <ok...@email.cz 
<mailto:ok...@email.cz>> wrote:


If there are strong signals, those close ALC and weak signals have
no chance then. If there is only one, I can use notch on my FT950
and it helps a bit. But in many cases there is more than one over
+10dB, so it's difficult to catch some DX sometimes. In some cases
is possible turn the main knob up or down to cut part of band with
roofing filter, but some possible split callers are lost then..



Odesláno z mého chytrého telefonu Samsung Galaxy.

 Původní zpráva 
Od: Bill Barrett <w2pky...@gmail.com <mailto:w2pky...@gmail.com>>
Datum: 24.03.18 14:13 (GMT+01:00)
Komu: WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>>
Předmět: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

Just say'n-
Strong propagation can make a low power station decode with a high
signal report.
If you retire the strong signals first you will hear the weak
signals under neigh them.
Finally, short of checking Hamspots [hopefully the station is
reporting to H.S.] how is an Op to know what his report is at the FOX?
*
*
Just say'n

Bill W2PKY


On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Gary McDuffie <mcduf...@ag0n.net
<mailto:mcduf...@ag0n.net>> wrote:



> On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:50 PM, rjai...@gmail.com
<mailto:rjai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How do you know we're running power?

I said nothing about running power.  I said strong signal,
wanting to have a way to only allow display or decode of
weaker signals, the level of which I determine and set.  This
is similar to the function available in DXpedition mode.

Gary - AG0N

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel>




--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel>




--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[gary]

A 'separate small group' wasn't exactly my proposal, Take: I simply
suggested that rather than simply assuming or asserting that there is an
issue with overcrowding and pushing for something to be done, we should take
a more scientific approach.  

 

What would help address the claim (hypothesis) that the HF FT8 allocations
are "overcrowded"?   

 

For example, we could systematically collect, collate and analyze our
ALL.TXT files for things such as:

*   How many stations are using FT8 on each of the HF bands
*   The proportion of FT8 overs that are repeats of previous overs,
suggesting communications failures due to factors such as QRM, QRN, QSB etc.
*   Trends i.e. how these factors vary over time

 

73

Gary  ZL2iFB

 

From: Tsutsumi Takehiko <ja5...@outlook.com> 
Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2018 12:53 p.m.
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

 

Hi,

 

I support ZL2iFB Gary's proposal to setup a  separate small group to discuss
about default frequencies of wsjt-x from the productiveness.

 

Regards,

 

take

 

de JA5AEA

 

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

 

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Andras Bato]

All in all: It's evident that some stations are using kW and directional
antennas in FT8!
FT8 is NOT A QRP MODE ANY LONGER!
JT9 was the last one which favoured QRP stations and wire antennas.
Beside this, there is a tendency of using high power in certain stations
mainly in Southern Europe!
GL de HA6NN
Andras

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:30 PM, ok2zo <ok...@email.cz> wrote:

> If there are strong signals, those close ALC and weak signals have no
> chance then. If there is only one, I can use notch on my FT950 and it helps
> a bit. But in many cases there is more than one over +10dB, so it's
> difficult to catch some DX sometimes. In some cases is possible turn the
> main knob up or down to cut part of band with roofing filter, but some
> possible split callers are lost then..
>
>
>
> Odesláno z mého chytrého telefonu Samsung Galaxy.
>
>  Původní zpráva 
> Od: Bill Barrett <w2pky...@gmail.com>
> Datum: 24.03.18 14:13 (GMT+01:00)
> Komu: WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> Předmět: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>
> Just say'n-
>
> Strong propagation can make a low power station decode with a high signal
> report.
> If you retire the strong signals first you will hear the weak signals
> under neigh them.
> Finally, short of checking Hamspots [hopefully the station is reporting to
> H.S.] how is an Op to know what his report is at the FOX?
>
> Just say'n
>
> Bill W2PKY
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Gary McDuffie <mcduf...@ag0n.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:50 PM, rjai...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > How do you know we're running power?
>>
>> I said nothing about running power.  I said strong signal, wanting to
>> have a way to only allow display or decode of weaker signals, the level of
>> which I determine and set.  This is similar to the function available in
>> DXpedition mode.
>>
>> Gary - AG0N
>> 
>> --
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> ___
>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>>
>
>
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[ok2zo]

If there are strong signals, those close ALC and weak signals have no chance 
then. If there is only one, I can use notch on my FT950 and it helps a bit. But 
in many cases there is more than one over +10dB, so it's difficult to catch 
some DX sometimes. In some cases is possible turn the main knob up or down to 
cut part of band with roofing filter, but some possible split callers are lost 
then..


Odesláno z mého chytrého telefonu Samsung Galaxy.
 Původní zpráva Od: Bill Barrett <w2pky...@gmail.com> Datum: 
24.03.18  14:13  (GMT+01:00) Komu: WSJT software development 
<wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Předmět: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 
Frequencies? 
Just say'n- Strong propagation can make a low power station decode with a high 
signal report.If you retire the strong signals first you will hear the weak 
signals under neigh them.Finally, short of checking Hamspots [hopefully the 
station is reporting to H.S.] how is an Op to know what his report is at the 
FOX?
Just say'n
Bill W2PKY

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Gary McDuffie <mcduf...@ag0n.net> wrote:




> On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:50 PM, rjai...@gmail.com wrote:

>

> How do you know we're running power?



I said nothing about running power.  I said strong signal, wanting to have a 
way to only allow display or decode of weaker signals, the level of which I 
determine and set.  This is similar to the function available in DXpedition 
mode.



Gary - AG0N

--

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most

engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

___

wsjt-devel mailing list

wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Gary McDuffie]

> On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:50 PM, rjai...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> How do you know we're running power?

I said nothing about running power.  I said strong signal, wanting to have a 
way to only allow display or decode of weaker signals, the level of which I 
determine and set.  This is similar to the function available in DXpedition 
mode.

Gary - AG0N
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Tsutsumi Takehiko]

Hi,

I support ZL2iFB Gary’s proposal to setup a  separate small group to discuss 
about default frequencies of wsjt-x from the productiveness.

Regards,

take

de JA5AEA

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[gary]

OK guys, at the risk of sounding like a cracked record or a corrupted MP3, I’ll 
give this one more shot.

 

Anecdotal reports tell us very little except in your opinions “The FT8 segment 
looks crowded”.  I agree, that is how it LOOKS.  It LOOKS crowded here too … 
and yet we are still making loads of FT8 QSOs with little hard evidence of 
problems due to overcrowding.  Repeatedly re-stating “It looks crowded”, 
sharing busy waterfall snapshots, counting decode rates and telling us it is 
“imperative” to expand the allocation, is getting us nowhere.  

 

In fact, Bill, your comment that you are seeing “nearly 50 decodes every 15 
seconds” when the band is busy tells us it is working just fine as it is.  Your 
own waterfall pic shows all those FT8 signals sharing roughly 2,000 Hz of band. 
 In theory there is room for 40 optimally-spaced 50 Hz wide FT8 signals with no 
overlaps in 2,000 Hz.  The ‘extra’ ~10 decodes you see probably include a few 
outside the 2,000 Hz segment, and others where signals are overlapping. 

 

I often see overlapping signals decoded successfully, sometimes separated by 
just a few Hz and occasionally fully overlapped on exactly the same frequency.  
FT8 does a much better job at separating overlapping signals than we do simply 
by looking at our “overcrowded” waterfalls.  But of course there are limits to 
the magic of FT8.

 

Based on the above, and actual experience every day on the air, I could 
conclude that there is plenty of capacity remaining and no desperate need to 
expand the HF allocations … but what it doesn’t tell us is how many additional 
signals might be present that are not being decoded due to overcrowding, nor 
how the FT8 band occupancy is changing.  If we are not currently experiencing 
severe overcrowding, are we days, weeks, months or years away from that crisis 
point – or will band occupancy automatically level itself out as people shift 
to other less occupied bands and modes?

 

73,

Gary  ZL2iFB 

 

From: Bill Barrett <w2pky...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2018 5:38 a.m.
To: WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

 

This is 20M about noon in Tampa Fl area on a ground mounted vertical. This 
picture is with about 35 decodes every 15 seconds.

During the most active times on 20 & 40M  I can see nearly 50 decodes in 15 
seconds. Imagine Ops with better antennas see even more decodes.

This picture only shows the strongest of signals as well. There could be weaker 
signals under the strong ones.

For those who would like to track stats on the various modes see: 
https://www.pskreporter.info/cgi-bin/pskstats.pl middle of the page.

Activity on FT8 is amazingly higher than any other mode and will only increase 
over time.

Lets see what ultimately happens.

 

Bill W2PKY

 

 

 

 

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:07 AM, rjai...@gmail.com <mailto:rjai...@gmail.com>  
<rjai...@gmail.com <mailto:rjai...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I would concede that in Europe it is a problem. My antennas are beamed
to Europe most of the time but there aren't many strong band openings
these days.

I have also heard grumbling among the PSK31 and Olivia crowd that FT8
is interfering with them. They can move but when we move it may cause
conflict. WinLink and Pactor may expand, especially if the new
Technician privilege proposal is approved by the FCC.

So any change has to be considered carefully and with the
understanding that we may just not get what we want.

73
Ria
N2RJ


On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Andras Bato <ha6nn.a...@gmail.com 
<mailto:ha6nn.a...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> It's only you Ria!
> All FT8 subbands are much too crowded, even in the WARC bands.
> We badly need the higher bands like 21, 24 and 28 MHz but it takes several
> years when
> there will be regular openings on those bands.
> I am terribly surprised when you are living in the USA where there are ARRL,
> IARU HQ,
> and Administrative Council members like K1ZZ and the president is a
> Canadian.
> Is it a problem to ask them for their opinion and propose new band plans
> which would precisely devide e.g. the digital band portions
> to RTTY, PSK, FT8, JT65, JT9 subbands?
> gl de ha6nn
> Andras
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM, rjai...@gmail.com <mailto:rjai...@gmail.com> 
>  <rjai...@gmail.com <mailto:rjai...@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think there needs to really be more room. There are several
>> bands that we can use. I prefer to use WARC bands because I have my
>> fill of DX on 20 meters but WARC bands offer additional opportunities.
>> Especially 30 meters where I have gain antennas.
>>
>> 73
>> Ria, N2RJ
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Andras Bato <ha6nn.a...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:ha6nn.a...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[rjai...@gmail.com]

How do you know we're running power? I run gain antennas including a 3
element beam at height on 30 meters. I get complaints from some that I
am running excessive power. (I run 50 watts except on 80/160 and 6m
where I will run up to 1500W)

Should I just run a G5RV so as not to bend the needle now?

Ria
N2RJ

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Gary McDuffie  wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 23, 2018, at 2:48 AM, David Alloza  wrote:
>>
>> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at excessive 
>> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore reduces 
>> the performance of this mode.
>> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of 
>> these digital mode.
>
> This brings up a topic I would like to see discussed.  Similar to the 
> DXpedition mode, I would like to see a setting available to either ignore or 
> not even display signals over a certain SNR.  For instance, allow me to say I 
> don’t care about this guy that is bending the needle.  Show me only the ones 
> that are -15 or weaker.  If not a problem, allow ME to set that level for 
> flexibility and band condx.
>
> Gary - AG0N
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Gary McDuffie]

> On Mar 23, 2018, at 2:48 AM, David Alloza  wrote:
> 
> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at excessive 
> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore reduces 
> the performance of this mode.
> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of these 
> digital mode.

This brings up a topic I would like to see discussed.  Similar to the 
DXpedition mode, I would like to see a setting available to either ignore or 
not even display signals over a certain SNR.  For instance, allow me to say I 
don’t care about this guy that is bending the needle.  Show me only the ones 
that are -15 or weaker.  If not a problem, allow ME to set that level for 
flexibility and band condx.
 
Gary - AG0N
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[rjai...@gmail.com]

I would concede that in Europe it is a problem. My antennas are beamed
to Europe most of the time but there aren't many strong band openings
these days.

I have also heard grumbling among the PSK31 and Olivia crowd that FT8
is interfering with them. They can move but when we move it may cause
conflict. WinLink and Pactor may expand, especially if the new
Technician privilege proposal is approved by the FCC.

So any change has to be considered carefully and with the
understanding that we may just not get what we want.

73
Ria
N2RJ

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Andras Bato <ha6nn.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's only you Ria!
> All FT8 subbands are much too crowded, even in the WARC bands.
> We badly need the higher bands like 21, 24 and 28 MHz but it takes several
> years when
> there will be regular openings on those bands.
> I am terribly surprised when you are living in the USA where there are ARRL,
> IARU HQ,
> and Administrative Council members like K1ZZ and the president is a
> Canadian.
> Is it a problem to ask them for their opinion and propose new band plans
> which would precisely devide e.g. the digital band portions
> to RTTY, PSK, FT8, JT65, JT9 subbands?
> gl de ha6nn
> Andras
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM, rjai...@gmail.com <rjai...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think there needs to really be more room. There are several
>> bands that we can use. I prefer to use WARC bands because I have my
>> fill of DX on 20 meters but WARC bands offer additional opportunities.
>> Especially 30 meters where I have gain antennas.
>>
>> 73
>> Ria, N2RJ
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Andras Bato <ha6nn.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the
>> > attention
>> > of members of IARU Administrative Council.
>> > http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html
>> > I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap!
>> > gl de ha6nn
>> > Andras
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@alloza.eu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I would like to add something to the discussion.
>> >>
>> >> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8
>> >> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M
>> >> band.
>> >>
>> >> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at
>> >> excessive
>> >> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore
>> >> reduces
>> >> the performance of this mode.
>> >>
>> >> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of
>> >> these digital mode.
>> >>
>> >> My 73,
>> >>
>> >> David, F4HTQ.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> De : g...@isect.com [mailto:g...@isect.com]
>> >> Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
>> >> À : 'WSJT software development'
>> >> Objet : Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> “There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
>> >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>> >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly
>> >> for
>> >> normal day to day FT8 operations.”
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can
>> >> successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly
>> >> narrow
>> >> slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea
>> >> of
>> >> monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see
>> >> very
>> >> little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there are
>> >> few
>> >> obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment
>> >> is
>> >> “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating
>> >> overlapping
>> >> signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that
>> >> additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt, hence
>> >> I
>> >> disagree that expansion is “imperative”.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A more scientific way to address issue this would b

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[George Molnar]

The digital mode watering holes are not (as far as I know in most cases) part 
of any international agreement or national regulation. If a group of operators 
want to agree amongst themselves to operate on a particular spot, it is 
incumbent on them to avoid interference with existing operations and be “good 
neighbors.” Don’t think it is the dev team’s job to dictate slots (and they 
have been extremely thoughtful in this regard).

It seems JT9 and FT8 would be the best fit for side-by-side operation. If the 
FT8 watering hole is crowded where you are, may I suggest that sliding up a 
couple of kHz would be an acceptable practice? In most situations, this will 
leave the JT65 slot open for very weak signal users.

Users can add frequencies to their configurations very easily (see the manual). 
Wide receive passbands are possible on some radios, and who knows, this may be 
a spur to future I/Q stream development, allowing even more bandwidth to be 
guarded at once.


George J Molnar
Washington, DC, USA
KF2T   -   @GJMolnar







--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Andras Bato]

It's only you Ria!
All FT8 subbands are much too crowded, even in the WARC bands.
We badly need the higher bands like 21, 24 and 28 MHz but it takes several
years when
there will be regular openings on those bands.
I am terribly surprised when you are living in the USA where there are
ARRL, IARU HQ,
and Administrative Council members like K1ZZ and the president is a
Canadian.
Is it a problem to ask them for their opinion and propose new band plans
which would precisely devide e.g. the digital band portions
to RTTY, PSK, FT8, JT65, JT9 subbands?
gl de ha6nn
Andras

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM, rjai...@gmail.com <rjai...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't think there needs to really be more room. There are several
> bands that we can use. I prefer to use WARC bands because I have my
> fill of DX on 20 meters but WARC bands offer additional opportunities.
> Especially 30 meters where I have gain antennas.
>
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Andras Bato <ha6nn.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the
> attention
> > of members of IARU Administrative Council.
> > http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html
> > I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap!
> > gl de ha6nn
> > Andras
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@alloza.eu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I would like to add something to the discussion.
> >>
> >> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8
> >> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M
> >> band.
> >>
> >> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at
> excessive
> >> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore
> reduces
> >> the performance of this mode.
> >>
> >> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of
> >> these digital mode.
> >>
> >> My 73,
> >>
> >> David, F4HTQ.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> De : g...@isect.com [mailto:g...@isect.com]
> >> Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
> >> À : 'WSJT software development'
> >> Objet : Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> “There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
> >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
> >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly
> for
> >> normal day to day FT8 operations.”
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can
> >> successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly
> narrow
> >> slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea of
> >> monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see
> very
> >> little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there are few
> >> obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment is
> >> “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating
> overlapping
> >> signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that
> >> additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt, hence
> I
> >> disagree that expansion is “imperative”.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and
> analyze
> >> data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff,
> >> subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered
> and
> >> analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about
> the
> >> options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems
> >> making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8,
> being
> >> able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major
> >> advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across
> >> additional band segments will make things harder.  It could prove
> >> counterproductive.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities
> and
> >> conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition
> >> fox-n-hounds mode, so I would

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[rjai...@gmail.com]

I don't think there needs to really be more room. There are several
bands that we can use. I prefer to use WARC bands because I have my
fill of DX on 20 meters but WARC bands offer additional opportunities.
Especially 30 meters where I have gain antennas.

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Andras Bato <ha6nn.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the attention
> of members of IARU Administrative Council.
> http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html
> I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap!
> gl de ha6nn
> Andras
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@alloza.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to add something to the discussion.
>>
>> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8
>> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M
>> band.
>>
>> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at excessive
>> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore reduces
>> the performance of this mode.
>>
>> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of
>> these digital mode.
>>
>> My 73,
>>
>> David, F4HTQ.
>>
>>
>>
>> De : g...@isect.com [mailto:g...@isect.com]
>> Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
>> À : 'WSJT software development'
>> Objet : Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>>
>>
>>
>> “There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
>> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for
>> normal day to day FT8 operations.”
>>
>>
>>
>> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can
>> successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly narrow
>> slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea of
>> monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see very
>> little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there are few
>> obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment is
>> “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating overlapping
>> signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that
>> additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt, hence I
>> disagree that expansion is “imperative”.
>>
>>
>>
>> A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and analyze
>> data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff,
>> subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered and
>> analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about the
>> options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems
>> making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8, being
>> able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major
>> advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across
>> additional band segments will make things harder.  It could prove
>> counterproductive.
>>
>>
>>
>> Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities and
>> conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition
>> fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more space
>> for DXpedition use, specifically.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a
>> digimode DXpedition zone on each of the HF bands without specifying the
>> digimode?  That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK, FT8,
>> JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being a
>> multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a good
>> place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance.
>>
>>
>>
>> There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions attempt
>> to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to slice
>> the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter pileups,
>> or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check that the
>> area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite DXers.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Gary  ZL2iFB
>>
>>
>>
>> PS  This thread is

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Andras Bato]

Hi all,
let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the
attention of members of IARU Administrative Council.
http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html
I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap!
gl de ha6nn
Andras

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@alloza.eu> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to add something to the discussion.
>
> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8
> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M
> band.
>
> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at excessive
> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore reduces
> the performance of this mode.
>
> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of
> these digital mode.
>
> My 73,
>
> David, F4HTQ.
>
>
>
> *De :* g...@isect.com [mailto:g...@isect.com]
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
> *À :* 'WSJT software development'
> *Objet :* Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>
>
>
>- *“There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it
>is imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for
>normal day to day FT8 operations.”*
>
>
>
> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can
> successfully pack in *loads* of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly
> narrow slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the
> idea of monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I
> see very little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there
> are few obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band
> segment is “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating
> overlapping signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt”
> that additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt,
> hence I disagree that expansion is “imperative”.
>
>
>
> A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and analyze
> data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff,
> subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered and
> analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.
>
>
>
> If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about the
> options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems
> making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8, being
> able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major
> advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across
> additional band segments will make things harder.  It could prove
> counterproductive.
>
>
>
> Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities and
> conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition
> fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more space
> for DXpedition use, specifically.
>
>
>
> I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a *digimode
> DXpedition zone* on each of the HF bands *without* specifying the
> digimode?  That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK, FT8,
> JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being a
> multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a good
> place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance.
>
>
>
> There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions attempt
> to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to slice
> the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter
> pileups, or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check
> that the area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite
> DXers.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Gary  ZL2iFB
>
>
>
> PS  This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence we
> should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.
>
>
>
> *From:* Rich - K1HTV <k1...@comcast.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
> *To:* WSJT <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> *Subject:* [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>
>
>
> *As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the
> standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The waterfall is
> full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others.
> There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
> id

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[David Alloza]

Hi,

I would like to add something to the discussion.

At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8 band's 
noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M band.

The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at excessive 
power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore reduces the 
performance of this mode.

I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of these 
digital mode.

My 73,

David, F4HTQ.

 

De : g...@isect.com [mailto:g...@isect.com] 
Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
À : 'WSJT software development'
Objet : Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

 

*   “There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is 
imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be 
identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for 
normal day to day FT8 operations.”

 

On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can 
successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly narrow 
slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea of 
monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see very 
little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there are few 
obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment is 
“full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating overlapping 
signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that additional 
frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt, hence I disagree that 
expansion is “imperative”.  

 

A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and analyze 
data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff, 
subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered and 
analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.

 

If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about the 
options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems 
making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8, being able 
to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major advantage of 
the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across additional band 
segments will make things harder.  It could prove counterproductive.

 

Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities and 
conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition 
fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more space for 
DXpedition use, specifically.

 

I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a digimode 
DXpedition zone on each of the HF bands without specifying the digimode?  That 
way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK, FT8, JT9, JT65, CW or 
whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being a multimode segment when 
no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a good place to experiment with new 
modes and variants, for instance.

 

There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions attempt to use 
the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to slice the zone 
more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter pileups, or agree 
amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check that the area is 
clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite DXers.

 

73

Gary  ZL2iFB

 

PS  This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence we 
should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.

 

From: Rich - K1HTV <k1...@comcast.net> 
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
To: WSJT <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

 

As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the standard FT8 
frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The waterfall is full of dozens 
of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others. There is no doubt that 
with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is imperative that additional 
frequency “Channels” within each HF band be identified for not only the new 
DXpedition mode, but more importantly for normal day to day FT8 operations. 
Although the number of JT65 users has greatly dwindled, there are still many of 
them using the mode on HF, so these frequencies and their JT65 users should be 
left alone.

 

The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew 
capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is, on a 
normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band. When you 
tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear more than 
a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz, many dozens of 
FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times that the RTTY band 
comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during DXpeditions to countries 
that RTTY users 

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[gary]

*   “There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is 
imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be 
identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for 
normal day to day FT8 operations.”

 

On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can 
successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly narrow 
slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea of 
monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see very 
little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there are few 
obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment is 
“full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating overlapping 
signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that additional 
frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt, hence I disagree that 
expansion is “imperative”.  

 

A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and analyze 
data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff, 
subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered and 
analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.

 

If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about the 
options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems 
making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8, being able 
to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major advantage of 
the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across additional band 
segments will make things harder.  It could prove counterproductive.

 

Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities and 
conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition 
fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more space for 
DXpedition use, specifically.

 

I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a digimode 
DXpedition zone on each of the HF bands without specifying the digimode?  That 
way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK, FT8, JT9, JT65, CW or 
whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being a multimode segment when 
no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a good place to experiment with new 
modes and variants, for instance.

 

There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions attempt to use 
the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to slice the zone 
more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter pileups, or agree 
amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check that the area is 
clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite DXers.

 

73

Gary  ZL2iFB

 

PS  This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence we 
should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.

 

From: Rich - K1HTV  
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
To: WSJT 
Subject: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

 

As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the standard FT8 
frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The waterfall is full of dozens 
of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others. There is no doubt that 
with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is imperative that additional 
frequency “Channels” within each HF band be identified for not only the new 
DXpedition mode, but more importantly for normal day to day FT8 operations. 
Although the number of JT65 users has greatly dwindled, there are still many of 
them using the mode on HF, so these frequencies and their JT65 users should be 
left alone.

 

The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew 
capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is, on a 
normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band. When you 
tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear more than 
a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz, many dozens of 
FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times that the RTTY band 
comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during DXpeditions to countries 
that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC. DXpeditions usually operate 
around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY frequencies. There are around a dozen major 
RTTY contests spaced throughout the year, all scheduled over weekend days.

 

A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of whom 
probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious problem if some of 
the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These might consist of 
the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF RTTY bands. Floating 
the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com’website would be a good place to start.

 

The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital 

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Randall Hansen]

How about using the JT 9 space since there is almost no one using it



Thanks so

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 14:19 Rich - K1HTV  wrote:

> *As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the
> standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The waterfall is
> full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others.
> There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for
> normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has
> greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so
> these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.*
>
>
> *The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew
> capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is, on a
> normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band. When
> you tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear
> more than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz,
> many dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times
> that the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during
> DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC.
> DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY
> frequencies. There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout
> the year, all scheduled over weekend days.*
>
>
> *A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of
> whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious problem
> if some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These
> might consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF
> RTTY bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com
> ’website would be a good place to start.*
>
>
> *The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but
> as ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those
> frequencies probably should be left alone.*
>
>
> *Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to
> Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.*
>
>
> *So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users are
> quickly growing.*
>
>
> *Comments?*
>
> *73,*
>
> *Rich – K1HTV*
>
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel