I am thinking from the Fox perspective.
When the users are retransmitting they're using one slot -- limit 3 times isn't
it? So that's 2 times too many where somebody else could be worked if the
power hadn't dropped.
Wonderful idea for the expanded message though...sounds like a sure winner to
me. Let the Fox use 300-1000 and they could really do some QSOs. Would be a
lot easier to tell if somebody is in Fox mode too as the waterfall would look
completely different so solves that confusion. Would also discourage/educate
all those tranmistting below 1000 and not in Hound mode.
Mike
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019, 10:32:53 AM CDT, Bill Somerville
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/06/2019 16:06, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
S9A has been hard to work...seems what is happening is they will call "CQ"
and then answer two slots and the power drops and won't see them again. Or
I'll see two decodes from them and they disappear again...all very likely due
to the power drop from multiple slots.
I've seen them a few times when they transmitted one slot in their QSOs...but
never saw them do two slots....which I'm sure they're doing. Perhaps somebody
else has some logs to show their activity to be sure.
There has to be some logic we can put in there. For example.
#1 After callling CQ restrict > 1 slot for a while or use incoming signal
reports to determine if # of slots can be increased at that point -- so
somehting like -12 or better before slots can be increased during that QSO. #2
Maybe do the same for each slot level.
What's happening is a lot of ops aren't seeing the RR73's. So they keep
calling over and over again...even though they've been logged.
Just throwing some idea out there to start a discussion of a better way to
manage the power level from the Fox's.
de Mike W9MDB
Mike,
look at it from the Fox operators point of view, they know how many QSOs they
are logging and if increasing the number of slots increases the rate then that
is the best thing to do. Weaker stations will have trouble but when the
propagation improves for them or the rate drops and they reduce slots then they
should get a chance. It is up to the Fox operator to manage the pile up and
other things in their control like the aerial direction etc..
The optimum solution would probably be an asymmetric mode where multiple QSOs
can be held using a single MFSK message. Perhaps 3 times as much information
for the Fox with messages like:
K1ABC -10; W9MDB -05; G4WJS RR73; K1JT -06; K9AN RR73; DE P5RAREDX
Just sending the Fox call once per period would give a considerable information
density advantage over the current multi-channel Fox transmissions. So one MFSK
signal for the Fox utilizing 3/4 of the time and many standard FT8 signals for
the Hounds. Another approach could be to use a wider bandwidth and symbol rate
for the Fox staying with symmetric 15s FT8 T/R periods. The latter could be
particularly attractive when using GFSK modulation to reduce the sidebands and
optimize the Fox waveform inside a typical SSB bandwidth, although narrow band
digital mode band planning would probably limit to 200Hz or less and the
commensurable signalling rate. Even a 200 Hz width FT8 Fox mode variant could
allow several QSOs simultaneously with Fox messages in the style above.
73
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
