Köszi! Nekem is jönnek ezek a levelek! On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:19 AM Grant VK5GR <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joe et al, > > A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4 > probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to consider: > > 80m 3.595 - PROPOSE 3562kHz - 3595 is completely out of band for JA > completely and into the phone part of the band outside of Region 2. My > suggestion based on occupancy and proximity to existing digital sub-bands > is > something around 3562kHz (at least keeping away from 3560 which is > sometimes > a CW QRP frequency). While the IARU band plans currently have digital as > 3570-3590kHz a case can be made for expanding that - and given other > restrictions in some countries on 80m, expanding digital down at least 8kHz > to 3562kHz makes some sense. A case to be made for the IARU - but you can > "help" their decision by starting to use it anyway. BTW 3600kHz is the > centre frequency for IARU R3 80m disaster comms - LSB - so FT4 on 3595 USB > will badly clash with that - another reason not to use 3595. > > 40m 7.090 - PROPOSE 7052kHz (inside the digital sub-band) or 7062kHz (just > above the digital sub-band noting it is heavily used for SSB at least in > region 3) - 7090 only makes sense in the USA! Many other countries have > this > as SSB voice use. The IARU digital segment is (depending on region) > 7040-7060 or 7040-7060. With 7056 already being used for FT8 F/H mode on a > fairly regular basis it would make sense to use say 7050 or 7052kHz > instead. > Note that 7090 is the designated SSB QRP frequency. I would promote 7050 > for > FT4. The only reason not to is that the RTTY guys if FT4 and RTTY are in > the > same contest might object - but during the contests the RTTY guys spread > out > and use anything from 7030 to 7120 anyway in complete disregard of the band > plans. If they are going to be that unruly then putting FT4 down there > doesn't seem all that bad. > > ********* 30m / 17m / 12m - should NOT have FT4 allocations at all. FT4 is > a > CONTESTING mode and CONTESTING is by global agreement excluded from those > WRC79 bands!!! ********* > > 20m 14.140 - PROPOSE 14062kHz - the original proposed use of 14140KHz again > is well outside the digital segments where FT4 belongs. If anything, > creeping down into 14060-14070 might be considered acceptable despite not > being in the band plan if the aim was to separate RTTY and FT4 users in the > same contest. Going high above 14.112 (the acknowledged edge of the global > 20m digital band plan segment) will be frowned upon. Take a leaf from 80m > and use 14062kHz - again at least that keeps it away from the CW QRP Centre > of activity and meets the objective of separating it from RTTY. > > 15m 21.140 - PROPOSE 21062kHz - follow 20m and choose 21062kHz - although > 21140kHz is the first proposed FT4 frequency that fell inside a digital > subband... > > 10m 28.180 - POROPOSE 28062kHz - again follow 20m > > 6m 50.318 - PROPOSE somewhere below 50.313 not above. Moving above is just > moving further into several countries beacon segments. Not likely to get a > lot of airplay as a international contesting band for FT8 so not as > critical > - but my suggestion would be look below 50.313 not above. > > For discussion folks..... > > Regards, > Grant VK5GR > WIA Appointee to the IARU Region 3 Band Plan committee > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Taylor [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2019 1:04 AM > To: WSJT software development > Subject: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting > > To: WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4 > From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS > > Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started > serious work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can > compete with RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the > benefits of FT8. The result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically > designed for radio contesting. > > Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting > on-the-air tests of FT4. The early tests were very successful and > helped us to make a number of important design decisions. We believe > FT4 has considerable promise for its intended purpose. > > We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group. If you might be > interested in participating and offering your considered feedback, > please read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital > Contesting", posted here: > http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf > > We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 > on April 29, one week from today. The document linked above includes > > - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration > > - Operating instructions for FT4 > > - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform > > - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of > simulated propagation conditions > > - Schedule for upcoming test sessions > > Please consider helping us to make FT4 a successful mode for digital > contesting > > With best wishes and 73, > > -- Joe (K1JT), Steve (K9AN), and Bill (G4WJS) > > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
