On 08/08/2017 17:19, John Zantek wrote:
Rate is the number #1 concern as well as a few other issues.  A WSJT
exchange from an expedition perspective is a fast exchange which hams are
typically familiar with, such as CW and or RTTY modes.


Hi John,

just a quick initial reply, I will think more about this requirement and reply more fully later.

My first comment is that perhaps rate expectations should be moderate and the real benefit of weak signal modes like JT65/JT9/FT8 is their potential to exploit band conditions unable to support CW/RTTY/Phone QSOs. Given that then dedicating a position to weak signal modes when QSOs may be logged far faster with CW/RTTY/Phone will not be popular. OTOH if a position is idle due to no open band to run then that should be the cue to open up on the weak signal modes on the least marginal available band.

It may be worth considering operating on a non-conventional frequency (assuming one can be found) to try and avoid hoards of stations calling on frequency, although stations calling on frequency can be easily ignored (unlike on CW/RTTY/Phone) so maybe it's not a huge issue.

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

Reply via email to