On 06/07/2017 09:14, Takehiko Tsutsumi wrote:
Finally, it is a great idea to allocate "JT9 on same frequency as
JT65" on 2200m and 630m. I really wish you to expand this idea up to
6m band as it is a first step to obsolete JT65 and replace to JT9
today and FT8 later. It is the time to deploy this transition to
encourage newly developed frequency spectrum efficient code usage by
the recent rapid increase of the traffic. I do not think we will see
the side effects sharing the spectrum between JT65 and JT9. Am I right?
HI Take san,
thanks for your other comments, that is helpful as we have little
experience or data modes usage in region 3.
There is a down side to sharing JT9 and JT65 allocations, the JT9
decoder gets confused by JT65 signals and has to spend a lot of time
trying to synchronize them as one or more JT9 signals. This detracts
from the JT9 decoding turnaround. This is why the dual mode JT9+JT65
decoder expects to decode JT9 signals above the blue separator line. If
you move that separator down to zero on a band full of JT65 signals you
will probably see the problem.
73
Bill
G4WJS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
