I don’t think that taking another kc for FT8 would go over well with people
who use other digital modes. The Olivia and PSK31 crowd are already
grumbling.
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:08 AM Erik - <erikcarl...@live.com> wrote:
> I don’t think so. Skeds with distant stations on the low bands that failed
> with JT65 have succeeded immediately after with JT9. In practical use at
> least JT9 has a maybe 2-3dB benefit and seems to hold up better through
> Arctic flutter. These QSOs were west Europe to Pacific over N Pole on
> 80mtrs.
>
>
>
> Erik.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Black Michael via wsjt-devel [mailto:
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net]
> *Sent:* 22 November 2017 13:31
>
>
> *To:* WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> *Cc:* Black Michael <mdblac...@yahoo.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] Feature Request of FT8 TX Frequency
> limitation less than 2kHz
>
>
>
> JT65 is more sensitive than JT9 too.
>
> This is the same as saying we only need one PSK mode or such.
>
> There really is no logical reason to "retire" a mode.
>
>
>
> de Mike W9MDB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 22, 2017, 3:46:24 AM CST, David Alloza <
> da...@alloza.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Mike,
>
> I agree with Gary.
>
> We can consider JT65 as obsolete on HF bands if we have FT8 and JT9.
>
> One solution would be quick out JT65 on WSJT-X configuration, keep JT9,
> and split FT8 into 2k adjacent allocation. One location for CQ from
> southern hemisphere and other for CQ from northern hemisphere.
>
> Regards,
>
> David, F4HTQ.
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :* Black Michael via wsjt-devel [
> mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>]
>
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 22 novembre 2017 05:38
> *À :* WSJT software development; Gary Kohtala - K7EK
> *Cc :* Black Michael
> *Objet :* Re: [wsjt-devel] Feature Request of FT8 TX Frequency limitation
> less than 2kHz
>
>
>
> No way...JT65 is notably more sensitive than FT8. FT8 is a lot of fun
> right now as you can make lots of QSOs pretty quickly.
>
>
>
> Don't need to "phase out". No big harm in taking the first 500Hz of the
> band for JT65 though that I can see. Those bands are only "by
> practice"...not "by law".
>
>
>
> de Mike W9MDB
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 21, 2017, 10:19:34 PM CST, Gary Kohtala - K7EK <
> gary.k...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Perhaps it is time to phase out JT65 on HF, in favor of FT8 and JT9. That
> would most certainly be best use of spectrum, considering the bandwidths
> and efficiency of those modes.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Gary, K7EK
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Black Michael via wsjt-devel <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> *To:* WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> *Cc:* Black Michael <mdblac...@yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 21, 2017 11:41 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] Feature Request of FT8 TX Frequency
> limitation less than 2kHz
>
>
>
> Is anybody on JT65 running out of room at 500-2000 offset?
>
> Why do we need to change anything?
>
> Yes...SOME rigs can do 3000, many cannot. So if you want to transmit above
> 2500 you may be losing a lot of people (including DXpeditions).
>
> Moving the 7.074 to 7.073 means anybody running an older version will miss
> out on the lower offset by default.
>
>
>
> FT8 can also decode overlapping signals fairly well...
>
>
>
> Are you really unable to find a spot to transmit? Note that the
> popularity will decrease as everybody gets everybody else worked.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 21, 2017, 10:07:11 AM CST, Libor Holouš <
> ok...@email.cz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello guys..
>
>
>
> According this theme I'd like to ask about expanding the band possibility.
> FT8 seems to be very popular these days and there are some DXpeditions
> operating there, so 2 kHz is not enough space for all that traffic. The
> extreme is 40 and 20m, but when propagation allows, the other bands too (on
> higher bandsis not possible to see most of EU traffic, from DX side it must
> be crazy :-)
>
>
>
> I'd suggest add another kHz lower. Lots of newer radios got 3kHz filter,
> so it is possible to hear whole band easily. Beginning of band should be
> used by DX stations (expeditons) using fixed freq. while using split
> operation (for transmit are freq. bellow 200Hz and above 2.4kHz practicaly
> unusable). For JT65 users then should be less possibility of intrusion and
> there will be more space for non-dx operations too.
>
>
>
> *Example:*
>
> *Expedition tunes in VFO B 14072kHz, audio sets between approx. 1100-1300.
> VFO-A for RX tunes 1kHz higher 14073 and sets 3kHz filter. Sets Hold TX
> freq.*
>
> *CQ message "CQ UP DX1DX square".*
>
> *RR73 should be a standard in this case.*
>
>
>
> *User, normaly set on 14073 should see expedion calling betwen 100-300Hz,
> what is readable, but difficult to transmit there directly, but can use
> 300-2400Hz for call easily, if sets split on the radio, can easily use up
> to approx. 2930Hz, still readible by expedition. And voila:
> 14073000+2930+60Hz = 14075990Hz. So intrusion to JT65 band is solved. *
>
>
>
> The only expedition was using radio split was 5T5OK - used UP2 - but it
> was unfortunately in JT65 band. Extending band by 1000Hz lower could help a
> bit.
>
>
>
> I don't know the details of earlier mentioned developed DX mode in this
> discussion, so for today's conditions it is possible solution without some
> SW development (except overwrite freq. list in future)
>
>
>
> It's theme for discussion. FT8 started revolution in digital modes, and is
> much more popular now, than PSK31 was.
>
> The JT65 was not popular for me, due looong time procedure of the QSO, if
> it was DX there, it was for several coffies, until got QSO. It's still not
> as fast as RTTY or PSK, but there is no space for macros, most users use on
> PSK (Everybody seen the QSO, while complete PC and SW setup, WX, age and
> lots of rubbish was send on PSK), so waiting for the qso was also sometimes
> boring.
>
>
>
> So, lets discuss.. :-)
>
>
>
> 73 Libor OK2ZO
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Black Michael via wsjt-devel <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
>
> *To:* WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
>
> *Cc:* Black Michael <mdblac...@yahoo.com>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 21, 2017 3:05 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] Feature Request of FT8 TX Frequency
> limitation less than 2kHz
>
>
>
> Although FT8 has "intruded" on the lower part of the normal JT65 spot I
> don't see it as a problem.
>
> There aren't that many JT65's out there...and, in the past, I've seen
> plenty of JT65's "intruding" on the JT9 area.
>
> It's quite natural to bump up the 2kHz limit when the band is crowded.
> ALl has to do with the average bandwidth of a receiver typically being 2400
> and higher. So far don't think I've seen any FT8's above 2500.
>
>
>
> The only reason WSPR is excluded is because the same people that wrote
> WSPR also wrote WSJT-X...otherwise it probably would not be excluded (e.g.
> there are other JT65 programs that don't excluded the WSPR area ).
>
>
>
> de Mike W9MDB
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 20, 2017, 11:10:15 PM CST, Tsutsumi Takehiko <
> ja5...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> It is great to observe the popularity of FT8 format among non-wsjt-x
> experience in the past and I have a proposal to add the following feature
> for these.
>
>
>
> If I miss any consideration to my proposal, I welcome your comments.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> take
>
>
>
> de JA5AEA
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Please add the feature to limit FT8 TX frequency less than 2kHz.
>
>
>
> Reasons are stated as follow.
>
>
>
> 1. The working frequency table was and is designed and planned that the
> width of FT8 is 2kHz. However, the limitation feature of 2kHz to the
> operator has not implemented to wsjt-x software.
>
>
>
> 2. Recently we observe above 2kHz communication practice by operators who
> does not know above design concept and the interference to adjacent wsjt-x
> channel such as JT65 is created.
>
>
>
> 3. Such TX frequency limitation practice is implemented to JT65 operation
> at 30m to protect WSPR channel in wsjt-x software.
>
>
>
> Some may object the implementation by the recent FT8 traffic expansion.
> But my position is that these traffic un-balanced problem should be
> separately solved by the optimization work of the working frequency table
> in near future.
>
>
>
> 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
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
