Re: Topband: FT8 on 160m
To me, the issue comes down to contained or not contained when it comes to signals on the bands. We're already contained by the limits of the band itself so there's effectively a finite space for everyone and if FT8 or RTTY or XYZ wanted to and was allowed to be everywhere, the QRM would be terrible. As I see it, contained is better than un-contained in that the smaller dedicated area for digital/RTTY leaves a much greater area devoid of it. FWIW, during the CW contest I had the filter down to 50Hz, heard DX above me and realized I was also hearing FT8 & I'd crossed into that "sub-band" I didn't respond to their CQ because to me, that would be intentionally QRMing someone not in the contest. O'course in the contests we don't want to QRM another contester either but we want to be heard first, so it can be a pig Pile, but that's part of the game. 73, Gary KA1J > http://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php/downloads/func-startdown/718/ > > IARU Region 1 160m Band plan: > 1810 - 1838 200 CW,1836 kHz - QRP Centre of Activity > 1838 - 1840 500 Narrow band modes > 1840 - 1843 2700 All modes - digimodes, (*) > 1843 - 2000 2700 All modes, (*) > > There's no exclusive frequency for FT8 or any other K1JT mode. > Therefore using CW on any frequency is absolutely legal. > > -- > 73, Victor Goncharsky US5WE/K1WE (UW5W in VHF contests, ex UB5WE), > P.E. UARL Technical and VHF Committies DXCC Honor Roll #1 (Mixed, > Phone), 9BDXCC, 8BWAS DXCC card checker (160 meters). > _ Topband Reflector Archives - > http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT8 on 160m
http://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php/downloads/func-startdown/718/ IARU Region 1 160m Band plan: 1810 - 1838 200 CW,1836 kHz – QRP Centre of Activity 1838 - 1840 500 Narrow band modes 1840 - 1843 2700 All modes – digimodes, (*) 1843 - 2000 2700 All modes, (*) There's no exclusive frequency for FT8 or any other K1JT mode. Therefore using CW on any frequency is absolutely legal. -- 73, Victor Goncharsky US5WE/K1WE (UW5W in VHF contests, ex UB5WE), P.E. UARL Technical and VHF Committies DXCC Honor Roll #1 (Mixed, Phone), 9BDXCC, 8BWAS DXCC card checker (160 meters). _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT8 on 160m
My WSTJ waterfall shows about 50Hz bandwidth for ft8 signals. In "band plan" theory the ft8 segment is 1840 to 1842.5. However, many rigs won't pass audio much below 300Hz and may not above 2.5KHz. I run "wide open" DSP on my Pro3 so see to 3Khz. Above 2.6Khz there are few ft8 signals to 1843KHz but some other very slow even weaker signal modes per the band plan. An ft8 signal only needs that 50Hz but the decoder shows all transmissions better than the limiting S/N within the 0 to 3Khz range. In CQWW I heard several CW ops at the low end of the ft8 plan segment, in 0 to 600 Hz. I could decode ft8 fine thru them which surprised me a bit, the cw speeds ranged from teens to 30+ wpm. Of course "reserved" is not true, but there is a band plan and it seemed to be generally observed by the contest ops. While my dial shows 1840KHz, with AFSK USB the "carrier" really isn't there. At least that is how I think it works !! Grant KZ1W On 11/27/2017 12:43 PM, Roger Parsons via Topband wrote: As we all know, CQWW produces huge activity on all HF bands. This year I was hearing stations up to well above 1850kHz. I have found that trying to run Europe is often more productive in the 1840-1850 segment, presumably because it is less crowded than lower in frequency. Late in the contest I started to CQ on about 1842kHz, and after a while, and several QSOs, was told (on CW): "Please QSY. 1840 is reserved for FT8. Good luck in the contest." Ignoring the fact that nobody has a reserved frequency on any band, I thought OK, don't want to upset anybody, and moved to 1842.9kHz. Shortly, the same message arrived. My (probably incorrect) understanding is that FT8 stations are using USB with a carrier frequency of 1840kHz. So a CW station on 1842.9 should be out of their passband. I did listen carefully and could not hear any FT8 transmissions above 1842.2. (I have multiple receive antennas in a very quiet location.) I believe that FT8 transmissions in principle use a microscopic bandwidth, but it appears they actually need a wide clear channel. Yes? No? 73 Roger VE3ZI _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT8 on 160m
The normal bandwidth for FT8 is 2.5 to 2.8 kc. at 1.842.9 you should have been outside the FT8 band. Hardly anyone operates above 2.5 it seems anyway. I think you were essentially being trolled. I suppose you could have been pretty wide for a local or close in station wiping out a fair portion of the upper end of the band. I am usually on 160 FT8 every night but I took the weekend off for the contest from FT8. Too bad the guy did not identify. I noticed a few freq cops on the cluster announcements where some FT8 users think they deserve clear space which we know does not exist is a shared band that we have. W0MU On 11/27/2017 2:17 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote: As a practical matter there are several 2 kHZ segments of each band that are now devoted to 24x7 JT65, FT8, and other digital modes. Weak signal CW work - eg working rare mults or even just weak guys from common mults - in those segments just isn’t gonna happen. Substantial parts of 80M and 40M have been pretty bad for several years now with SAILNET and other automatic modes. Tim N3QE On Nov 27, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Roger Parsons via Topband wrote: As we all know, CQWW produces huge activity on all HF bands. This year I was hearing stations up to well above 1850kHz. I have found that trying to run Europe is often more productive in the 1840-1850 segment, presumably because it is less crowded than lower in frequency. Late in the contest I started to CQ on about 1842kHz, and after a while, and several QSOs, was told (on CW): "Please QSY. 1840 is reserved for FT8. Good luck in the contest." Ignoring the fact that nobody has a reserved frequency on any band, I thought OK, don't want to upset anybody, and moved to 1842.9kHz. Shortly, the same message arrived. My (probably incorrect) understanding is that FT8 stations are using USB with a carrier frequency of 1840kHz. So a CW station on 1842.9 should be out of their passband. I did listen carefully and could not hear any FT8 transmissions above 1842.2. (I have multiple receive antennas in a very quiet location.) I believe that FT8 transmissions in principle use a microscopic bandwidth, but it appears they actually need a wide clear channel. Yes? No? 73 Roger VE3ZI _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT8 on 160m
As a practical matter there are several 2 kHZ segments of each band that are now devoted to 24x7 JT65, FT8, and other digital modes. Weak signal CW work - eg working rare mults or even just weak guys from common mults - in those segments just isn’t gonna happen. Substantial parts of 80M and 40M have been pretty bad for several years now with SAILNET and other automatic modes. Tim N3QE > On Nov 27, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Roger Parsons via Topband > wrote: > > As we all know, CQWW produces huge activity on all HF bands. This year I was > hearing stations up to well above 1850kHz. I have found that trying to run > Europe is often more productive in the 1840-1850 segment, presumably because > it is less crowded than lower in frequency. > > > Late in the contest I started to CQ on about 1842kHz, and after a while, and > several QSOs, was told (on CW): "Please QSY. 1840 is reserved for FT8. Good > luck in the contest." Ignoring the fact that nobody has a reserved frequency > on any band, I thought OK, don't want to upset anybody, and moved to > 1842.9kHz. Shortly, the same message arrived. > > My (probably incorrect) understanding is that FT8 stations are using USB with > a carrier frequency of 1840kHz. So a CW station on 1842.9 should be out of > their passband. I did listen carefully and could not hear any FT8 > transmissions above 1842.2. (I have multiple receive antennas in a very quiet > location.) > > I believe that FT8 transmissions in principle use a microscopic bandwidth, > but it appears they actually need a wide clear channel. > > Yes? No? > > 73 Roger > VE3ZI > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
