George,
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the JT65 folks, your suggestion in my mind has some merit. I would go as far to say an alternate strategy is to take the old JT65 frequencies and use them for FT4, and have the JT65 folks move to the JT9 channels – grouping both of the weak signal modes together in one segment. WSJT can decode both simultaneously and neither JT65 or JT9 has a lot of traffic these days so maybe that is the ultimate for everyone – given that in days gone by JT9 and JT65 used to share anyway to an extent). You could apply that across the board – with the exception of Region 3 on 80m. I would agree with the compromise that Bill has suggested with 3568 in R3 and 3575 elsewhere (n fact make it 3576 and follow the above suggested convention). Bill – a different approach – do you think it has merit? Grant From: George J. Molnar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2019 12:16 AM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies A quick two cents… Is there a good reason why FT4 could not use the existing JT65 and JT9 watering holes on all bands? They are quite clear most of the time, and considerate operators could certainly share, especially with JT9. In areas where licenses don’t allow operation on the watering holes, it seems that we have (mostly) figured it out around the world. Looking forward to testing out the new mode. Wonder if speed will trump sensitivity for general use? Many thanks to the dev team for years of effort for the ham community. George J Molnar KF2T, Arlington, Virginia, USA Please note my new email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
