Thank you, Bill. I agree…reaching 120 Qph will put a serious dent in the armor
of those who argue that the FT8 rate isn’t worth the effort vs SSB or CW. I
know there were some DXpedition vets in the foray last night, and I hope it was
an eye-opener for them.
N0AN’s comment exactly echoes my experience during both the 30M and the 40M
test. “After I had been "moved" to the lower freq tier by the Fox, it put me
in a mess of others. So I watched the rx window for a while and when I saw a
hole develop, I moved my TX there (still in the lower freq tier area where the
Fox had put me, but in a clearer spot). Immediately on my next transmission,
the qso finished out.” Right on, Hasan!
I wonder what the learning curve timeline will be for the ever-expanding FT8
user community who never reads the docs. Some brave, real Fox in the near
future (sooner than Baker?) will have their hands full with non-Hounds braying
after them. :)
Regardless, it was a magnificent test. Ready for the next one, with 4
callsigns (mine, XYL, & 2 clubs) in the local arsenal to enhance the loading!
73 John KE7B
From: Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@classdesign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] DXpedition Mode Test Numbers
On 07/03/2018 17:42, John Zantek wrote:
The OTA tests were a hoot, even with the hound-on-hound nonsense and the
unfortunate DQRM from XE.
Did anyone collect and mention the final numbers for the foxes? I thought N1DG
said ~190 for 30M, but I sense the total 40M QSO’s may have been quite
significant, since my screen was REALLY scrolling during AA7A’s hour.
73 John KE7B
the total Fox QSO counts mentioned on PJR included many dupes, this is because
the Fox mode logs a dupe when a repeated confirmation is received from a Hound.
This would be ok but a defect lead to signoff messages not always being sent
again by the Fox so the dupe counts were very high. I don't have exact figures
but something of the order of 1/5 of the maximum possible unique QSOs for the
number of Tx slots being used by the Fox. With the defect found and fixed so
that Hounds that have to repeat their confirmation are very likely to get a
prompt RR73 response, the throughput should increase significantly.
I would expect that with a suitable sized pileup and reasonably good behaviour,
a slick Fox operator may be able to get quite close to optimal rates i.e.
<slot-count> x 120 QSOs per hour. There are a few tools in the Foxes bag for
pileup management that were not used such as randomized Tx frequencies (helps
with DQRM), directional calls (needs thought as currently the Fox has to stop
and call CQ to ask), working weak callers first, working furthest distances
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