Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Peter Sundberg]

Mark,

What you are saying is, that by using the K1JT shorthand messages, i 
e single carriers representing a report, confirmation "RRR" and "73" 
we are seeing a wonderful advancement in communication technology. JT 
shorthand messages are nothing but a carrier at a certain frequency 
offset. They are used all the time to make these wonderful QSO's, 
taking people up the DXCC ladder at higher speed than ever before.


If only detecting a carrier would have provided me with confirmation 
of a QSO on Top Band I would certainly have more countries in my log 
than I do now..


There is nothing wonderful about lowering the amount of data 
transferred via the airwaves to virtually nothing to complete a QSO, 
it is going backwards rather than forward in advancement in my view.


73
Peter SM2CEW


At 20:29 2017-05-21, Mark K3MSB wrote:


There is nothing wrong with the JT modes;  they are a wonderful advancement
in communications technology in the spirit of the advancement of amateur
radio.




_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Wes Stewart]

In the context of this discussion I think RTTY is an "in between" mode.  
Decoding is done with a computer (or in the radio if you have a K3) but I've 
never seen a decode on a signal that I couldn't hear or see on the spectrum 
display. As a non-contest DX chaser, I find that it often takes considerable 
operator skill to work other than common DX stations, particularly in split 
pileups on RTTY.  IMHO, working RTTY is sometimes more difficult than CW and 
there is certainly less DXpedition activity.


Wes Stewart  www.qrz.com/db/n7ws



On 5/21/2017 2:40 PM, Mark K3MSB wrote:

Because I use my human skill that I developed over years to decode the CW
signal.  You don't do that for RTTY.

Unless of course you're referring to using a CW decoder wherein you just
read the decoded CW.   You REALLY don't want to know what I fell about
people that do that and say they "work CW".

Mark K3MSB

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:16 PM,  wrote:


*  ...What makes an RTTY QSO run off your computer (since u retired the
Model 23) any different than a JT65 QSO...OR...using your memory (computer
?) keyer to work CW ? It is no more difficult to make a computer-controlled
CW or RTTY QSO than a JT65 one..just try it if you don’t believe me. *
*73 Jay NY2NY*



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Renee K6FSB]

I second this as I was learning about some other modes...now whether I 
(to )use them or not is another story and a personal one (for each to 
decide).

Tnx
Renée, K6FSB

On 2017-05-21 03:40 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

There are two separate threads in this thread.

1. One is the effectiveness of the JT modes. Let's keep that going, by all
means!

2. The other is an issue of emotion. How about if we just drop that part?
Please?:-)

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Cecil Acuff  wrote:


This discussion is going nowhere...and will continue to go nowhere with
the exception of the ill will it spreads...on of all places...a group to
discuss things related to "The Gentlemans Band"

None of the modes of operations discussed are violations of anyone's
licenses so there is no real point...it's all an issue of emotion.


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
.



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

Hi Rick,

That's a very good question indeed!

If we would go back through the Topband archives, I think that a major
factor in this is the CW skill of the operator. Some are not so good (and
we should not berate them for their lack of ability!); and those fellows
will benefit more from the digital modes.

Some folks are simply better at pulling out a very weak CW signal buried in
the noise. I think Tom Rauch, W8JI had something to say about that here in
the past. In any case, I can testify that he can hear weaker CW signals
than I can. In the ARRL 160 (1980?) both of us had cans on connected to his
R-4C in Ohio. And Tom heard the JA from NW Ohio several minutes before I
did!

I am 98% certain that Tom --and others-- can hear weak CW signals between
their two ears below what any digital mode could display on a monitor. For
those naysayers, go search back through the Topband archives here, before
you take issue with that.

Bottom line: whether any digital mode is better than CW depends on the
brain of the operator. :-)

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <
rich...@karlquist.com> wrote:

> I've never operated JT65, so maybe some of you experts can answer a
> beginner's question.



> Searching on line, it is difficult to get a definitive answer to how much
> advantage it has over CW, but the number seems to be around 10 dB.  Maybe
> not even that much if the receiving station is using an SDR with very
> narrow CW bandwidth. So a CW station with a legal limit amplifier gets out
> better than a JT65 station without an amplifier.
>


> But I keep hearing about JT65 stations running low power, not even 100W
> barefoot.  It seems like if we could get antenna challenged stations to run
> high power on CW,
> there would be no need for JT65 in the first place.
>


> Do any significant number of 160 meter QSO's occur on JT65 at legal limit
> power levels, like they routinely do on EME?
>
> Rick N6RK
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

There are two separate threads in this thread.

1. One is the effectiveness of the JT modes. Let's keep that going, by all
means!

2. The other is an issue of emotion. How about if we just drop that part?
Please?:-)

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Cecil Acuff  wrote:

> This discussion is going nowhere...and will continue to go nowhere with
> the exception of the ill will it spreads...on of all places...a group to
> discuss things related to "The Gentlemans Band"
>
> None of the modes of operations discussed are violations of anyone's
> licenses so there is no real point...it's all an issue of emotion.
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mark K3MSB]

On the contrary Cecil;  I think that due to the fact that this long-going
thread has not had people ejected from the list nor has had intervention by
the moderator shows that all of us are indeed trying to be Gentlemen by
addressing the issues and not throwing rocks at people for their
positions.

I'm under no delusions that I'm going to change anybody's mind.   I do hope
that I've planted some seeds for other's to consider,  just as I've
appreciated some good points made by others whose overall position I am not
in agreement with.

Live and let live has it's place,  but it can also have the negative effect
of allowing issues to fester when they should otherwise be discussed and
potentially acted upon.  As others have pointed out, this discussion on the
TopBand list is not the only place this discussion has, and is, going on;
nor will it be the last.   I submit that the issues are real and not just
manifestations of emotion.

That being said, I do think we've just about beaten this poor horse to
death and are now working on the bones..

73 Mark K3MSB

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Cecil Acuff  wrote:

> This discussion is going nowhere...and will continue to go nowhere with
> the exception of the ill will it spreads...on of all places...a group to
> discuss things related to "The Gentlemans Band"
>
> None of the modes of operations discussed are violations of anyone's
> licenses so there is no real point...it's all an issue of emotion.
>
> Live and let live...
>
> 73
> Cecil
> K5DL
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

Ok, per your request, here's Joe Taylor's first reply (thank you, Joe! :-).

My second question --and Joe's reply-- follows, below the first reply.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Joe Taylor  wrote:

> On 5/14/2017 11:36 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
>
>> Ok, what is the truth here? Is JT9 better than JT65 on 160m, or is it
>> inferior??
>>
>
As you should expect, the correct answer is "it depends".  Depends on
conditions of propagation, QRM, etc.

On an ideal AWGN (additive white gaussian noise) channel JT9 has a 2 dB
advantage over JT65.  But the JT65 code has more redundancy than that in
JT9, and the 2 dB advantage tends to disappear on a fading channel.

JT65 is more robust than JT9 in the presence of QRM (and possibly QRN?).

Overlapping JT65 signals are readily decoded.  Not so much for JT9. Savvy
operators using JT9 often respond to a CQ or tail-end "up" or "down" by 20
Hz or so, thereby avoiding calling on top of another caller.

I don't subscribe to topband@contesting.com or tbd...@yahoogroups.com, but
you may re-post this message there if you choose.

-- 73, Joe, K1JT


On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Brian D G3VGZ
> wrote:

... I find the better ability for JT65 to decode co-channel signals
with its two pass decoding makes up for any 2dB improvement in decoding
JT9. I also find a single static crash can take out JT9 decodes, more so
than JT65.*
*
That certainly got my attention! Has anyone else experienced this? *And if
so, what filter were you using: the wide SSB filter or a narrower CW
filter?? *I'm inclined to think that JT9 is superior to JT65 on 160m. /But
I have an open mind.
[snip]

=

*Okay, here is another question, and Joe's reply:*
=

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Joe Taylor  wrote:
Hi Mike,

... I would like to know if this is true regardless of what the bandwidth
> and shape factor is in the receiver itself. The state of the art in SDR can
> create an almost perfect filter with zero ringing /no matter what the
> bandwidth is.
>
> I realize that the SSB filter is great for browsing the JT* signals, but
> what about narrowing the signal after establishing a JT9 contact, when
> there are no overlapping signals?
>

An SSB receiver is a linear device: typically a series of amplifiers,
filters, frequency mixers, etc.

As long as things remain linear, it doesn't matter in what order these
things are done.  There is NO advantage to using a narrow filter ahead of
WSJT-X, because the program already uses digital filters tailored exactly
to the needs of the protocol.  Final detection and measurement bandwidths
for the JT65 and JT9 tones are equal to the baud rates, 2.692 and 1.736 Hz
respectively.

-- 73, Joe, K1JT
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Cecil Acuff]

This discussion is going nowhere...and will continue to go nowhere with the 
exception of the ill will it spreads...on of all places...a group to discuss 
things related to "The Gentlemans Band"

None of the modes of operations discussed are violations of anyone's licenses 
so there is no real point...it's all an issue of emotion.

Live and let live...

73 
Cecil
K5DL

Sent using recycled electrons.

> On May 21, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Mark K3MSB  wrote:
> 
> Because I use my human skill that I developed over years to decode the CW
> signal.  You don't do that for RTTY.
> 
> Unless of course you're referring to using a CW decoder wherein you just
> read the decoded CW.   You REALLY don't want to know what I fell about
> people that do that and say they "work CW".
> 
> Mark K3MSB
> 
>> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:16 PM,  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> *  ...What makes an RTTY QSO run off your computer (since u retired the
>> Model 23) any different than a JT65 QSO...OR...using your memory (computer
>> ?) keyer to work CW ? It is no more difficult to make a computer-controlled
>> CW or RTTY QSO than a JT65 one..just try it if you don’t believe me. *
>> *73 Jay NY2NY*
>> 
>> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

Mark,

Very well said, but unless you consider the JT modes in a different 
class still than RTTY and PSK, except for mixed mode awards/contests, 
there is already a level playing field.


Mixed is, well, mixed, but everything else is separate already. One 
cannot apply for an SSB award with JT QSOs. One cannot compete in the 
CQWW SSB using RTTY.


The distinction you make about computer assisted modes is a good one, 
otherwise a 'crazie' could say that CW should not be a separate 
category, but be in the digital one. :^)


As for the use of remotes, they can be an issue in large countries. A 
guy in San Marino, operating his home station remotely from his cottage 
in San Marino, is not the same as a guy in Halifax, operating his home 
station remotely in Vancouver. It's perfectly 'legal' under current DXCC 
rules, but some will say it's unfair to the San Marino ham.


I was only making the point that things can change, not that they need 
to change. For me everything is fine as it's currently in place, live 
and let live, yada yada, but I accept your point that as technology 
advances and/or destroys the status quo, the existing rules need to be 
revised.


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 4:29 PM, Mark K3MSB wrote:

The issue is not one of any mode being more "valid" that the other,  nor is
it one of a QSO being "valid" or "invalid" based upon the mode.If a two
way exchange is completed between two legally licensed amateur stations
using lawfully authorized modes,  the QSO is valid.I think it's that
simple.

But that's not what I had brought up in my post of several days ago.The
issue I brought up is that of a level playing field for competition / award
purposes.

Modes that require a computer to effect a QSO should be in a different
category than modes that do not.By "require" I do not mean "make
easier",  but rather could not be accomplished without a computer. My
ICOM makes a  QSO easier than my ARC-5s,  but both still need a human's
skill to complete the QSO.   Stated alternately,  modes that requires a
human skill should be categorized differently than those that do not -- and
by human skill I do not mean downloading software and  pushing buttons.  As
someone pointed out,  the DXCC rules are not part of the 10 commandments.
It is my opinion that technology has reached a new level in which the rules
need to be changed to accommodate that level.

The same is true of remote operations.I can whip out my credit card and
use a station on the west coat and get my 5 remaining zones on 80 to
complete my 5BWAZ.   I will not do that as I feel it is unsportsmanlike to
do so.   Are the QSOs legal as per the rules?   Yes (unless CQ has changed
them recently). But, to my way of thinking,  the journey is an important
part of getting to the destination.

This issue is not about validating someone's worth as a "real amateur"  (no
code, know code, extra light etc),  but rather recognizing that human skill
in achieving a goal should be treated differently than letting a computer
alone achieve the same goal that requires no such skill.

There is nothing wrong with the JT modes;  they are a wonderful advancement
in communications technology in the spirit of the advancement of amateur
radio.   But in the light of competition based upon human striving and
skill,  they are in a different category.   They are not good or bad, they
are not valid or invalid;  they are just different.  Technology has moved
on to the point where the existing rules need to be changed.

Mark K3MSB

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mark K3MSB]

Because I use my human skill that I developed over years to decode the CW
signal.  You don't do that for RTTY.

Unless of course you're referring to using a CW decoder wherein you just
read the decoded CW.   You REALLY don't want to know what I fell about
people that do that and say they "work CW".

Mark K3MSB

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:16 PM,  wrote:

>
> *  ...What makes an RTTY QSO run off your computer (since u retired the
> Model 23) any different than a JT65 QSO...OR...using your memory (computer
> ?) keyer to work CW ? It is no more difficult to make a computer-controlled
> CW or RTTY QSO than a JT65 one..just try it if you don’t believe me. *
> *73 Jay NY2NY*
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[k8...@alphacomm.net]

Very well said Mark, thank you.

Brian K8BHZ


On 5/21/2017 4:29 PM, Mark K3MSB wrote:


The issue is not one of any mode being more "valid" that the other,  
nor is it one of a QSO being "valid" or "invalid" based upon the 
mode.If a two way exchange is completed between two legally 
licensed amateur stations using lawfully authorized modes,  the QSO is 
valid.I think it's that simple.


But that's not what I had brought up in my post of several days 
ago.The issue I brought up is that of a level playing field for 
competition / award purposes.


Modes that require a computer to effect a QSO should be in a different 
category than modes that do not.By "require" I do not mean "make 
easier",  but rather could not be accomplished without a computer. 
My ICOM makes a  QSO easier than my ARC-5s,  but both still need a 
human's skill to complete the QSO.   Stated alternately,  modes that 
requires a human skill should be categorized differently than those 
that do not -- and by human skill I do not mean downloading software 
and  pushing buttons.  As someone pointed out,  the DXCC rules are not 
part of the 10 commandments.   It is my opinion that technology has 
reached a new level in which the rules need to be changed to 
accommodate that level.


The same is true of remote operations.I can whip out my credit 
card and use a station on the west coat and get my 5 remaining zones 
on 80 to complete my 5BWAZ.   I will not do that as I feel it is 
unsportsmanlike to do so.   Are the QSOs legal as per the rules?   Yes 
(unless CQ has changed them recently). But, to my way of thinking,  
the journey is an important part of getting to the destination.


This issue is not about validating someone's worth as a "real 
amateur"  (no code, know code, extra light etc),  but rather 
recognizing that human skill in achieving a goal should be treated 
differently than letting a computer alone achieve the same goal that 
requires no such skill.


There is nothing wrong with the JT modes;  they are a wonderful 
advancement in communications technology in the spirit of the 
advancement of amateur radio.   But in the light of competition based 
upon human striving and skill, they are in a different category.   
They are not good or bad, they are not valid or invalid;  they are 
just different.  Technology has moved on to the point where the 
existing rules need to be changed.


Mark K3MSB


On May 21, 2017 6:20 AM, "Mike va3mw" <va...@portcredit.net 
<mailto:va...@portcredit.net>> wrote:


Glenn nailed it.

If you don't like it, don't use it.   No one is forcing anyone to
comply.

It is really that simple.

Mike va3mw

> On May 21, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Glenn Wyant <va...@sympatico.ca
<mailto:va...@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
>
> If an amateur has interest in  psk, jt65 etc or EME, cw or any band
> or mode; it is not for us to judge his particular interests.
>
> VA3DX
>
>
> - Original Message - From: <k8...@alphacomm.net
<mailto:k8...@alphacomm.net>>
> To: <Topband@contesting.com <mailto:Topband@contesting.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65
>
>
>> Promised myself I'd stay out of this, but it's getting
ridiculousComments like "I worked 20 new ones on 160, and I
never heard any of them!". Wow! That's amazing...I personally
can't find any satisfaction in claiming a contact I never heard. I
never have...Yes, the digi modes allow easier qso's that would
never have been made, but let's face it, you never made those
contacts, your computer & it's software did. Any resulting
"Awards" should be made out to your computer. Meteor scatter used
to be very popular, actually getting to hear the excited voices of
those you worked was thrilling. One m/s qso of mine was with a yl
from the Carolinas with a most delightful Southern accent...hard
to duplicate with digi modes. I don't know anyone who works or
talks about rocks anymoreno challenge. Same with eme, which I
pulled the plug on when it was no longer a challenge. How many new
eme operators have heard their own voices coming back from the
moon?  I migrated to TopBand as
 one of the last real challenges left
>> I find the litany of excuses about why one has to go to digital
means on 160 to be feeble at best." My rig can't cut it, I don't
have the antennas, I can't copy code (one of the real elephants in
the room!), my location isn't on the coast where it's easy, etc,
etc". There are MANY dxers operating successfully on small lots,
and there are a myriad of clever, small receiving antennas out
there. How about the 

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mark K3MSB]

The issue is not one of any mode being more "valid" that the other,  nor is
it one of a QSO being "valid" or "invalid" based upon the mode.If a two
way exchange is completed between two legally licensed amateur stations
using lawfully authorized modes,  the QSO is valid.I think it's that
simple.

But that's not what I had brought up in my post of several days ago.The
issue I brought up is that of a level playing field for competition / award
purposes.

Modes that require a computer to effect a QSO should be in a different
category than modes that do not.By "require" I do not mean "make
easier",  but rather could not be accomplished without a computer. My
ICOM makes a  QSO easier than my ARC-5s,  but both still need a human's
skill to complete the QSO.   Stated alternately,  modes that requires a
human skill should be categorized differently than those that do not -- and
by human skill I do not mean downloading software and  pushing buttons.  As
someone pointed out,  the DXCC rules are not part of the 10 commandments.
It is my opinion that technology has reached a new level in which the rules
need to be changed to accommodate that level.

The same is true of remote operations.I can whip out my credit card and
use a station on the west coat and get my 5 remaining zones on 80 to
complete my 5BWAZ.   I will not do that as I feel it is unsportsmanlike to
do so.   Are the QSOs legal as per the rules?   Yes (unless CQ has changed
them recently). But, to my way of thinking,  the journey is an important
part of getting to the destination.

This issue is not about validating someone's worth as a "real amateur"  (no
code, know code, extra light etc),  but rather recognizing that human skill
in achieving a goal should be treated differently than letting a computer
alone achieve the same goal that requires no such skill.

There is nothing wrong with the JT modes;  they are a wonderful advancement
in communications technology in the spirit of the advancement of amateur
radio.   But in the light of competition based upon human striving and
skill,  they are in a different category.   They are not good or bad, they
are not valid or invalid;  they are just different.  Technology has moved
on to the point where the existing rules need to be changed.

Mark K3MSB


On May 21, 2017 6:20 AM, "Mike va3mw" <va...@portcredit.net> wrote:

Glenn nailed it.

If you don't like it, don't use it.   No one is forcing anyone to comply.

It is really that simple.

Mike va3mw

> On May 21, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Glenn Wyant <va...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> If an amateur has interest in  psk, jt65 etc or EME, cw or any band
> or mode; it is not for us to judge his particular interests.
>
> VA3DX
>
>
> - Original Message - From: <k8...@alphacomm.net>
> To: <Topband@contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65
>
>
>> Promised myself I'd stay out of this, but it's getting
ridiculousComments like "I worked 20 new ones on 160, and I never heard
any of them!". Wow! That's amazing...I personally can't find any
satisfaction in claiming a contact I never heard. I never have...Yes, the
digi modes allow easier qso's that would never have been made, but let's
face it, you never made those contacts, your computer & it's software did.
Any resulting "Awards" should be made out to your computer. Meteor scatter
used to be very popular, actually getting to hear the excited voices of
those you worked was thrilling. One m/s qso of mine was with a yl from the
Carolinas with a most delightful Southern accent...hard to duplicate with
digi modes. I don't know anyone who works or talks about rocks
anymoreno challenge. Same with eme, which I pulled the plug on when it
was no longer a challenge. How many new eme operators have heard their own
voices coming back from the moon?  I migrated to TopBand as
 one of the last real challenges left
>> I find the litany of excuses about why one has to go to digital means on
160 to be feeble at best." My rig can't cut it, I don't have the antennas,
I can't copy code (one of the real elephants in the room!), my location
isn't on the coast where it's easy, etc, etc". There are MANY dxers
operating successfully on small lots, and there are a myriad of clever,
small receiving antennas out there. How about the gentleman on the left
coast who worked DXCC on 160 from his mobile!! (without digital modes).
>> My TopBand rig is quite modest, no towers or rotors. The TX antennas are
wires hanging from trees with no more than 50' vertical rise. The 16
radials under each are only 48' long. Desperately needing a new rig, I
bought the very cheapest HF transceiver on the market (no DSP, keyer,
antenna tuner, etc). My location in Upper Michigan is not near either coast
f

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Dave Clouser]

As an electrical engineer you should realize that your rig _also_ turns 
otherwise undetected signals into something you can hear.


Open the window, hearing any DX?




- Original Message - From: <k8...@alphacomm.net>
To: <Topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65


Promised myself I'd stay out of this, but it's getting 
ridiculousComments like "I worked 20 new ones on 160, and I never 
heard any of them!". Wow! That's amazing...I personally can't find 
any satisfaction in claiming a contact I never heard. I never 
have...Yes, the digi modes allow easier qso's that would never have 
been made, but let's face it, you never made those contacts, your 
computer & it's software did. Any resulting "Awards" should be made 
out to your computer. Meteor scatter used to be very popular, 
actually getting to hear the excited voices of those you worked was 
thrilling. One m/s qso of mine was with a yl from the Carolinas with 
a most delightful Southern accent...hard to duplicate with digi 
modes. I don't know anyone who works or talks about rocks 
anymoreno challenge. Same with eme, which I pulled the plug on 
when it was no longer a challenge. How many new eme operators have 
heard their own voices coming back from the moon?  I migrated to 
TopBand as one of the last real challenges left


I find the litany of excuses about why one has to go to digital means 
on 160 to be feeble at best." My rig can't cut it, I don't have the 
antennas, I can't copy code (one of the real elephants in the room!), 
my location isn't on the coast where it's easy, etc, etc". There are 
MANY dxers operating successfully on small lots, and there are a 
myriad of clever, small receiving antennas out there. How about the 
gentleman on the left coast who worked DXCC on 160 from his mobile!! 
(without digital modes).


My TopBand rig is quite modest, no towers or rotors. The TX antennas 
are wires hanging from trees with no more than 50' vertical rise. The 
16 radials under each are only 48' long. Desperately needing a new 
rig, I bought the very cheapest HF transceiver on the market (no DSP, 
keyer, antenna tuner, etc). My location in Upper Michigan is not near 
either coast for "easy" dx, but is unfortunately close to the auroral 
oval. My amp was a non-working "gift" that doesn't run full power. 
However, I have 233 countries & 37 zones confirmed on 160. I have 
personally HEARD every qso made & have decoded them as necessary, in 
my HEAD. I don't spot myself or arrange skedsI don't have a 
computer in the shack.


If ham radio was to go all digital, I would walk away from itNot 
because I'm a curmudgeon, but simply because the challenge and 
resulting thrills would be gone.


Lest you think I am a ignorant technophobe, I am a degreed electrical 
engineer and have been a ham for over 60 years. I have a fine 
computer & am on it actively every daybut I never pretend that 
it's ham radio.


I realize from the comment below that it's rather boring to work digi 
modes, but I suspect that help is on the wayI am truly surprised 
that no one has produced an "app" that will take the remaining work 
out of it. You would simply download the app, check the appropriate 
boxes (DXCC, WAS, WAZ), select the desired bands, and turn it loose 
24 hours a day. It would make all the contacts for you (with similar 
robo-stations) and send you a text or email when it's through. Heck, 
it could even apply for your desired awards, and then wake up your 
printer to print your award certificate out! It would then send 
another message to pick up your awardHow truly exciting that 
would be.


Brian K8BHZ




_
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: Top Band and JT65

[Mike va3mw]

Glenn nailed it. 

If you don't like it, don't use it.   No one is forcing anyone to comply. 

It is really that simple. 

Mike va3mw

> On May 21, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Glenn Wyant <va...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
> If an amateur has interest in  psk, jt65 etc or EME, cw or any band
> or mode; it is not for us to judge his particular interests.
> 
> VA3DX
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: <k8...@alphacomm.net>
> To: <Topband@contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65
> 
> 
>> Promised myself I'd stay out of this, but it's getting 
>> ridiculousComments like "I worked 20 new ones on 160, and I never heard 
>> any of them!". Wow! That's amazing...I personally can't find any 
>> satisfaction in claiming a contact I never heard. I never have...Yes, the 
>> digi modes allow easier qso's that would never have been made, but let's 
>> face it, you never made those contacts, your computer & it's software did. 
>> Any resulting "Awards" should be made out to your computer. Meteor scatter 
>> used to be very popular, actually getting to hear the excited voices of 
>> those you worked was thrilling. One m/s qso of mine was with a yl from the 
>> Carolinas with a most delightful Southern accent...hard to duplicate with 
>> digi modes. I don't know anyone who works or talks about rocks anymoreno 
>> challenge. Same with eme, which I pulled the plug on when it was no longer a 
>> challenge. How many new eme operators have heard their own voices coming 
>> back from the moon?  I migrated to TopBand as 
 one of the last real challenges left
>> I find the litany of excuses about why one has to go to digital means on 160 
>> to be feeble at best." My rig can't cut it, I don't have the antennas, I 
>> can't copy code (one of the real elephants in the room!), my location isn't 
>> on the coast where it's easy, etc, etc". There are MANY dxers operating 
>> successfully on small lots, and there are a myriad of clever, small 
>> receiving antennas out there. How about the gentleman on the left coast who 
>> worked DXCC on 160 from his mobile!! (without digital modes).
>> My TopBand rig is quite modest, no towers or rotors. The TX antennas are 
>> wires hanging from trees with no more than 50' vertical rise. The 16 radials 
>> under each are only 48' long. Desperately needing a new rig, I bought the 
>> very cheapest HF transceiver on the market (no DSP, keyer, antenna tuner, 
>> etc). My location in Upper Michigan is not near either coast for "easy" dx, 
>> but is unfortunately close to the auroral oval. My amp was a non-working 
>> "gift" that doesn't run full power. However, I have 233 countries & 37 zones 
>> confirmed on 160. I have personally HEARD every qso made & have decoded them 
>> as necessary, in my HEAD. I don't spot myself or arrange skedsI don't 
>> have a computer in the shack.
>> If ham radio was to go all digital, I would walk away from itNot because 
>> I'm a curmudgeon, but simply because the challenge and resulting thrills 
>> would be gone.
>> Lest you think I am a ignorant technophobe, I am a degreed electrical 
>> engineer and have been a ham for over 60 years. I have a fine computer & am 
>> on it actively every daybut I never pretend that it's ham radio.
>> I realize from the comment below that it's rather boring to work digi modes, 
>> but I suspect that help is on the wayI am truly surprised that no one 
>> has produced an "app" that will take the remaining work out of it. You would 
>> simply download the app, check the appropriate boxes (DXCC, WAS, WAZ), 
>> select the desired bands, and turn it loose 24 hours a day. It would make 
>> all the contacts for you (with similar robo-stations) and send you a text or 
>> email when it's through. Heck, it could even apply for your desired awards, 
>> and then wake up your printer to print your award certificate out! It would 
>> then send another message to pick up your awardHow truly exciting that 
>> would be.
>> Brian K8BHZ
>> 2017 12:39 AM, DXer wrote:
>>> >>>To me, just not the challenge of dxing mostly cw and ssb.
>>> 
>>> Fair enough. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
>>> 
>>> Another angle. I find JT65 to be a very relaxing mode. Which other mode 
>>> allows one to read and write emails, go get a coffee, answer 'nature's 
>>> call', etc. while making contacts? Timing is important, but doable. :^)
>>> 
>>> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
>>> _
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>> 
>> _
>> 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: Top Band and JT65

[Glenn Wyant]

If an amateur has interest in  psk, jt65 etc or EME, cw or any band
or mode; it is not for us to judge his particular interests.

VA3DX


- Original Message - 
From: <k8...@alphacomm.net>

To: <Topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65


Promised myself I'd stay out of this, but it's getting 
ridiculousComments like "I worked 20 new ones on 160, and I never 
heard any of them!". Wow! That's amazing...I personally can't find any 
satisfaction in claiming a contact I never heard. I never have...Yes, 
the digi modes allow easier qso's that would never have been made, but 
let's face it, you never made those contacts, your computer & it's 
software did. Any resulting "Awards" should be made out to your 
computer. Meteor scatter used to be very popular, actually getting to 
hear the excited voices of those you worked was thrilling. One m/s qso 
of mine was with a yl from the Carolinas with a most delightful Southern 
accent...hard to duplicate with digi modes. I don't know anyone who 
works or talks about rocks anymoreno challenge. Same with eme, which 
I pulled the plug on when it was no longer a challenge. How many new eme 
operators have heard their own voices coming back from the moon?  I 
migrated to TopBand as one of the last real challenges left


I find the litany of excuses about why one has to go to digital means on 
160 to be feeble at best." My rig can't cut it, I don't have the 
antennas, I can't copy code (one of the real elephants in the room!), my 
location isn't on the coast where it's easy, etc, etc". There are MANY 
dxers operating successfully on small lots, and there are a myriad of 
clever, small receiving antennas out there. How about the gentleman on 
the left coast who worked DXCC on 160 from his mobile!! (without digital 
modes).


My TopBand rig is quite modest, no towers or rotors. The TX antennas are 
wires hanging from trees with no more than 50' vertical rise. The 16 
radials under each are only 48' long. Desperately needing a new rig, I 
bought the very cheapest HF transceiver on the market (no DSP, keyer, 
antenna tuner, etc). My location in Upper Michigan is not near either 
coast for "easy" dx, but is unfortunately close to the auroral oval. My 
amp was a non-working "gift" that doesn't run full power. However, I 
have 233 countries & 37 zones confirmed on 160. I have personally HEARD 
every qso made & have decoded them as necessary, in my HEAD. I don't 
spot myself or arrange skedsI don't have a computer in the shack.


If ham radio was to go all digital, I would walk away from itNot 
because I'm a curmudgeon, but simply because the challenge and resulting 
thrills would be gone.


Lest you think I am a ignorant technophobe, I am a degreed electrical 
engineer and have been a ham for over 60 years. I have a fine computer & 
am on it actively every daybut I never pretend that it's ham radio.


I realize from the comment below that it's rather boring to work digi 
modes, but I suspect that help is on the wayI am truly surprised 
that no one has produced an "app" that will take the remaining work out 
of it. You would simply download the app, check the appropriate boxes 
(DXCC, WAS, WAZ), select the desired bands, and turn it loose 24 hours a 
day. It would make all the contacts for you (with similar robo-stations) 
and send you a text or email when it's through. Heck, it could even 
apply for your desired awards, and then wake up your printer to print 
your award certificate out! It would then send another message to pick 
up your awardHow truly exciting that would be.


Brian K8BHZ


2017 12:39 AM, DXer wrote:

>>>To me, just not the challenge of dxing mostly cw and ssb.

Fair enough. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Another angle. I find JT65 to be a very relaxing mode. Which other 
mode allows one to read and write emails, go get a coffee, answer 
'nature's call', etc. while making contacts? Timing is important, but 
doable. :^)


73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
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: Top Band and JT65

[k8...@alphacomm.net]

Promised myself I'd stay out of this, but it's getting 
ridiculousComments like "I worked 20 new ones on 160, and I never 
heard any of them!". Wow! That's amazing...I personally can't find any 
satisfaction in claiming a contact I never heard. I never have...Yes, 
the digi modes allow easier qso's that would never have been made, but 
let's face it, you never made those contacts, your computer & it's 
software did. Any resulting "Awards" should be made out to your 
computer. Meteor scatter used to be very popular, actually getting to 
hear the excited voices of those you worked was thrilling. One m/s qso 
of mine was with a yl from the Carolinas with a most delightful Southern 
accent...hard to duplicate with digi modes. I don't know anyone who 
works or talks about rocks anymoreno challenge. Same with eme, which 
I pulled the plug on when it was no longer a challenge. How many new eme 
operators have heard their own voices coming back from the moon?  I 
migrated to TopBand as one of the last real challenges left


I find the litany of excuses about why one has to go to digital means on 
160 to be feeble at best." My rig can't cut it, I don't have the 
antennas, I can't copy code (one of the real elephants in the room!), my 
location isn't on the coast where it's easy, etc, etc". There are MANY 
dxers operating successfully on small lots, and there are a myriad of 
clever, small receiving antennas out there. How about the gentleman on 
the left coast who worked DXCC on 160 from his mobile!! (without digital 
modes).


My TopBand rig is quite modest, no towers or rotors. The TX antennas are 
wires hanging from trees with no more than 50' vertical rise. The 16 
radials under each are only 48' long. Desperately needing a new rig, I 
bought the very cheapest HF transceiver on the market (no DSP, keyer, 
antenna tuner, etc). My location in Upper Michigan is not near either 
coast for "easy" dx, but is unfortunately close to the auroral oval. My 
amp was a non-working "gift" that doesn't run full power. However, I 
have 233 countries & 37 zones confirmed on 160. I have personally HEARD 
every qso made & have decoded them as necessary, in my HEAD. I don't 
spot myself or arrange skedsI don't have a computer in the shack.


If ham radio was to go all digital, I would walk away from itNot 
because I'm a curmudgeon, but simply because the challenge and resulting 
thrills would be gone.


Lest you think I am a ignorant technophobe, I am a degreed electrical 
engineer and have been a ham for over 60 years. I have a fine computer & 
am on it actively every daybut I never pretend that it's ham radio.


I realize from the comment below that it's rather boring to work digi 
modes, but I suspect that help is on the wayI am truly surprised 
that no one has produced an "app" that will take the remaining work out 
of it. You would simply download the app, check the appropriate boxes 
(DXCC, WAS, WAZ), select the desired bands, and turn it loose 24 hours a 
day. It would make all the contacts for you (with similar robo-stations) 
and send you a text or email when it's through. Heck, it could even 
apply for your desired awards, and then wake up your printer to print 
your award certificate out! It would then send another message to pick 
up your awardHow truly exciting that would be.


Brian K8BHZ


2017 12:39 AM, DXer wrote:

>>>To me, just not the challenge of dxing mostly cw and ssb.

Fair enough. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Another angle. I find JT65 to be a very relaxing mode. Which other 
mode allows one to read and write emails, go get a coffee, answer 
'nature's call', etc. while making contacts? Timing is important, but 
doable. :^)


73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband




_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

Rick,

The technical explanation takes into account a number of conditions. The 
details are all available on K1JT's website. If memory serves, it uses 
2.5kHz BW in the calculations. CW will have different readings depending 
on the BW used.


All I can say, as a user of the mode, is that in many instances there is 
absolutely no recoverable audio, or waterfall inprint, and you get a decode.


As for power, as I mentioned earlier, the JT modes are weak signal 
modes, not necessarily low power modes. In my case, I'm limited to 
whatever the IC-718 can safely output, which is around 30/35 watts.


With that power, and a Hustler 6BTV at ground level and no radials, I 
was being received, and worked, a number of VK stations on 40M 
yesterday. Something that is trivial for some, but a big deal for me.


73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-20 2:58 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

I've never operated JT65, so maybe some of you experts
can answer a beginner's question.  Searching on line,
it is difficult to get a definitive answer to how much
advantage it has over CW, but the number seems to be
around 10 dB.  Maybe not even that much if the receiving
station is using an SDR with very narrow CW bandwidth.
So a CW station with a legal limit amplifier
gets out better than a JT65 station without an amplifier.
But I keep hearing about JT65 stations running low power,
not even 100W barefoot.  It seems like if we could get
antenna challenged stations to run high power on CW,
there would be no need for JT65 in the first place.
Do any significant number of 160 meter QSO's occur on JT65 at
legal limit power levels, like they routinely do on EME?

Rick N6RK


On 5/20/2017 3:48 AM, Dale Putnam wrote:

It seems the the something worth working for would be worth striving
for. Having WAS on 160 Qrp posted on the wall always reminds me of the
effort of operating and the time spent learning about antennas that
actually work over the long haul distances required.
  Instead of taking many minutes many of the qsos were quick and snuck
in between static crashes as opposed to slow and determined.
  To each his own. Work whatever mode works for you.  Does using ssb
rather than cw change the value of the Q? Only in the eye of the
beholder. Not so much to the been there done that kinda guy.


Make this a great day
Dale


On May 19, 2017, at 10:03 PM, DXer  wrote:


WSJT-X 1.7.0


There is JTDX, based on WSJT-X, but with some additional tweaks for
the HF user.

73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
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: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

Mike,

I'm most interested in hearing more about your conversation with K1JT 
about JT9. I've been away from the WSJTGroup for some time, and may have 
missed any new info about the mode.


In theory, JT9 should be the chosen LF mode. A couple of dBs more 
sensitve, and about 10% the BW of JT65. But the real performance, in 
real conditions, may not have followed.


JTDX is new, it's not incorporated into WSJT-X, it's a WSJT-X fork (I 
think this is the programming term) based on version 1.7 release 6462.


It does give some headaches to the WSJT-X developers, when people ask 
about JTDX in the WSJT group. There is a Yahoo group for JTDX only, and 
it should be used for support. There are enough differences between 
WSJT-X and JTDX now, that one cannot automatically transfer the 
experience of one to the other.


JTDX is also now introducing/testing a new mode called JT10.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-20 2:48 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

I haven't even listened for anything digital in several years. But I need
to share some things soon --that K1JT himself told me via email--
concerning JT65 vs JT9 on 160. To make a long story short, I'm no longer
'preaching' against using JT65 in favor of JT9, as I have been in the past.
More later; I need to ask and reply to Joe Taylor's last email first.

My main interest in JT* is *occasionally* trying to work DX when the QRN is
bad here; perhaps calling CQ using several hundred watts when there's no JT
activity in North America. I tried that once or twice 2-3 years ago when I
saw JT activity in Australia, and no reply. (Maybe a sked would be better.)

I've never heard of JTDX until today. A Google search seems to imply it's
fairly new. One person talked about having JTDX incorporated into WSJT-X,
but I didn't read it.

Personally, I am not at all interested in using digital modes for
contesting, WAS, DXCC, or anything like that.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

I've never operated JT65, so maybe some of you experts
can answer a beginner's question.  Searching on line,
it is difficult to get a definitive answer to how much
advantage it has over CW, but the number seems to be
around 10 dB.  Maybe not even that much if the receiving
station is using an SDR with very narrow CW bandwidth.
So a CW station with a legal limit amplifier
gets out better than a JT65 station without an amplifier.
But I keep hearing about JT65 stations running low power,
not even 100W barefoot.  It seems like if we could get
antenna challenged stations to run high power on CW,
there would be no need for JT65 in the first place.
Do any significant number of 160 meter QSO's occur on JT65 at
legal limit power levels, like they routinely do on EME?

Rick N6RK


On 5/20/2017 3:48 AM, Dale Putnam wrote:

It seems the the something worth working for would be worth striving for. 
Having WAS on 160 Qrp posted on the wall always reminds me of the effort of 
operating and the time spent learning about antennas that actually work over 
the long haul distances required.
  Instead of taking many minutes many of the qsos were quick and snuck in 
between static crashes as opposed to slow and determined.
  To each his own. Work whatever mode works for you.  Does using ssb rather 
than cw change the value of the Q? Only in the eye of the beholder. Not so much 
to the been there done that kinda guy.


Make this a great day
Dale


On May 19, 2017, at 10:03 PM, DXer  wrote:


WSJT-X 1.7.0


There is JTDX, based on WSJT-X, but with some additional tweaks for the HF user.

73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
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: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

I haven't even listened for anything digital in several years. But I need
to share some things soon --that K1JT himself told me via email--
concerning JT65 vs JT9 on 160. To make a long story short, I'm no longer
'preaching' against using JT65 in favor of JT9, as I have been in the past.
More later; I need to ask and reply to Joe Taylor's last email first.

My main interest in JT* is *occasionally* trying to work DX when the QRN is
bad here; perhaps calling CQ using several hundred watts when there's no JT
activity in North America. I tried that once or twice 2-3 years ago when I
saw JT activity in Australia, and no reply. (Maybe a sked would be better.)

I've never heard of JTDX until today. A Google search seems to imply it's
fairly new. One person talked about having JTDX incorporated into WSJT-X,
but I didn't read it.

Personally, I am not at all interested in using digital modes for
contesting, WAS, DXCC, or anything like that.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Dale Putnam]

It seems the the something worth working for would be worth striving for. 
Having WAS on 160 Qrp posted on the wall always reminds me of the effort of 
operating and the time spent learning about antennas that actually work over 
the long haul distances required.
  Instead of taking many minutes many of the qsos were quick and snuck in 
between static crashes as opposed to slow and determined. 
  To each his own. Work whatever mode works for you.  Does using ssb rather 
than cw change the value of the Q? Only in the eye of the beholder. Not so much 
to the been there done that kinda guy. 


Make this a great day
Dale

> On May 19, 2017, at 10:03 PM, DXer  wrote:
> 
> >>> WSJT-X 1.7.0
> 
> There is JTDX, based on WSJT-X, but with some additional tweaks for the HF 
> user.
> 
> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>>To me, just not the challenge of dxing mostly cw and ssb.

Fair enough. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Another angle. I find JT65 to be a very relaxing mode. Which other mode 
allows one to read and write emails, go get a coffee, answer 'nature's 
call', etc. while making contacts? Timing is important, but doable. :^)


73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>10 Watts is considered high power on the digital modes. Is using 1000 
>>Watts on 160m (+20dB) and 250Hz receive filters (+10dB) on both ends 
>>of a CW QSO more challenging than 10W on JT65 on the same link? 
>>Perhaps not.


JT modes are weak signal modes, not necessarily low power/QRP modes. The 
power needed on 160 will likely be higher than on 20, for example.

The benefit is that, mode by mode, JT can do more with less power.

The old FCC rule/reccomendation about using only the power required to 
complete de QSO still applies. :^)


73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

JC,

>>I just don't like JT modes.

I'm way behind reading messages. Please disregard my last one. As we say 
in our mother tongue 'gosto nao se discute'. :^))


73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

JC,

>>The digital mode is a choice, only a choice to avoid the hard work to 
>>enjoy a DX on 160m.


Amateur radio is basically about RF, not modes. Modes, beginning with 
code, were and are being added as technology permits.


73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>>And MY 2 cents...the ONLY criteria for ANY ARRL (or other) awards is 
>>>very simple: If both stations AGREE they have made a QSO, then they 
>>>DID have a valid QSO...regardless how/when/mode/assist/etc is 
>>>used.There is no third-party judge required or invited...


You didn't really mean this, did you?

73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>> WSJT-X 1.7.0

There is JTDX, based on WSJT-X, but with some additional tweaks for the 
HF user.


73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>My question was about the feeling of doing a CW and a JT65 QSo on 
>>topband. I worked a new one on JT65 and really didn´t feel the 
>>excitement working it as I did with any new one on CW


And my question is about the feeling of doing a JT65 QSO, or nothing, on 
topband. :^)


73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

>>>Maybe JT65 is too young to have good statistics, but how many DXCC 
>>>entities have ever been activated on JT65 on 160M?


It'll never reach the levels of SSB/CW/RTTY, if that's what you are 
getting to, for the simple reason that DXpeditions to rare places would 
be crazy to spend precious time on a 6 minutes per QSO mode, assuming 
there is no repeat.


73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

I did JT65 on 160, but really what´s the challenge?

Is amazing when you did a CW qso, switching between RX antennas, filters
and radio adjustments to pull out a callsign

I don´t know what people than been on topband for decades feel about that

73.
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W

=
Jorge,

Is not a question of 'challenge', it's a question of being able to 
operate on 160, with a station that won't cut even on CW. The same 
applies to VHF/UHF when it comes to JT modes.


Let's not forget also that many aspiring topbanders do not operate on CW 
-not trying to create a CW yes/no thread - and CW, before the JT modes, 
was the best mode for topband.


And finally, people with hearing problems.

73 de Vince, VA3VF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Dale Putnam]

10 watts??? really?

That is QRO power..

Try ONE watt on 160.. cw.!!


Have a great day,
--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy

"Actions speak louder than words"
1856 - Abraham Lincoln



From: Topband <topband-boun...@contesting.com> on behalf of Brian Pease 
<bpea...@myfairpoint.net>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:41 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

10 Watts is considered high power on the digital modes.  Is using 1000
Watts on 160m (+20dB) and 250Hz receive filters (+10dB) on both ends of
a CW QSO more challenging than 10W on JT65 on the same link?  Perhaps not.

On 5/15/2017 7:44 PM, Jim Murray via Topband wrote:
>  I hate to weigh in on this since it's been beaten to death already but 
> just another opinion.  Over the years I've tried several digital modes 
> starting with psk31.  There weren't many  signals on the band at that time 
> but now I see there are many.  Not to long ago I ventured into JT65 and JT9.  
> Quite a learning curve for an Ol'timer.  I considered all the digital 
> operation as something new to learn for a change and enjoyed the learning 
> part.  Once I got everything running properly I would begin to loose 
> interest.  To me, just not the challenge of dxing mostly cw and ssb.  Seems 
> the biggest skill comes from the people who write the software like Joe 
> Taylor or Peter Martinez.  From that point you just click the mouse or type 
> on the keyboard.  Very impersonal at times using F key exchanges etc..  But, 
> that's just ones opinion.  Whatever floats your boat.
>
> Jimk2hn
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband Archives - Contesting Online Home<http://www.contesting.com/_topband>
www.contesting.com
Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: ...


>

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband Archives - Contesting Online Home<http://www.contesting.com/_topband>
www.contesting.com
Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: ...


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Brian Pease]

10 Watts is considered high power on the digital modes.  Is using 1000 
Watts on 160m (+20dB) and 250Hz receive filters (+10dB) on both ends of 
a CW QSO more challenging than 10W on JT65 on the same link?  Perhaps not.


On 5/15/2017 7:44 PM, Jim Murray via Topband wrote:

 I hate to weigh in on this since it's been beaten to death already but 
just another opinion.  Over the years I've tried several digital modes starting 
with psk31.  There weren't many  signals on the band at that time but now I see 
there are many.  Not to long ago I ventured into JT65 and JT9.  Quite a 
learning curve for an Ol'timer.  I considered all the digital operation as 
something new to learn for a change and enjoyed the learning part.  Once I got 
everything running properly I would begin to loose interest.  To me, just not 
the challenge of dxing mostly cw and ssb.  Seems the biggest skill comes from 
the people who write the software like Joe Taylor or Peter Martinez.  From that 
point you just click the mouse or type on the keyboard.  Very impersonal at 
times using F key exchanges etc..  But, that's just ones opinion.  Whatever 
floats your boat.

Jimk2hn
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Jim Murray via Topband]

    I hate to weigh in on this since it's been beaten to death already but just 
another opinion.  Over the years I've tried several digital modes starting with 
psk31.  There weren't many  signals on the band at that time but now I see 
there are many.  Not to long ago I ventured into JT65 and JT9.  Quite a 
learning curve for an Ol'timer.  I considered all the digital operation as 
something new to learn for a change and enjoyed the learning part.  Once I got 
everything running properly I would begin to loose interest.  To me, just not 
the challenge of dxing mostly cw and ssb.  Seems the biggest skill comes from 
the people who write the software like Joe Taylor or Peter Martinez.  From that 
point you just click the mouse or type on the keyboard.  Very impersonal at 
times using F key exchanges etc..  But, that's just ones opinion.  Whatever 
floats your boat.

Jimk2hn 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Richard Beerman]

Gentlemen, The topic of WSJT came up at the Central States VHF Society 
gathering about 12 to 15 years ago in Milwaukee. There were some very angry old 
timers who, like some here, had earned awards on CW and phone and felt that the 
awards were being “cheapened” by the use of WSJT on meteor scatter and 
particularly on EME. WSJT continued to attract a lot of new operators to VHF. 
Today, folks are running the new version of WSJT-X on 6 meters meteor scatter 
all day long. 

Over the years, there has been a small but vocal group of mainly European EME 
operators who insist on working CW ONLY. Almost all the meteor scatter and EME 
work in North America and Europe is  being done on WSJT today. All DXpeditions 
are running WSJT on EME (mainly 2 meters, but occasionally 6 meters as well). 
WSJT is popular on 432 MHz EME and some folks are using it on 23 cm, where CW 
is still popular.

Point that I am trying to make is that time marches on and new modes are always 
going to be developed. It’s a hobby not a vocation. If you want to operate CW 
and collect CW awards on 160 or any other band, then have fun. In the end, I 
bet that there will be more and more digital operating on TB, just as occurred 
on VHF. By the way, even though WSJT “reduces” by about 6 db in EME station 
performance requirements (ie power output, antenna gain, etc), the operator is 
not just a "computer accessory" One must have to decide when a trace is a valid 
EME signal (not a birdie) and react to it. 

I do not think that WSJT would lend itself well to 160 contesting or even in 
working DXpeditions. The contacts take too long.It works well for VHF 
contesting where the number of active stations is much smaller.So, I really do 
not think that there is much about WSJT to cause major heartburn among the 160 
meter old timers.  73’s Dick  W5AK
> On May 15, 2017, at 6:17 AM, CT1EKD  wrote:
> 
> I already saw this discussion on EME foruns, then at HF foruns and now at Top 
> Band...
> The Facts are that JT65 (or JT9) is MORE sensitive, USE IT it if you want 
> to... just like the QRP versus QRO , use it if you want to.
> You can find me on 1838.
> 
> Pedro - CT1EKD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[CT1EKD]

I already saw this discussion on EME foruns, then at HF foruns and now  
at Top Band...
The Facts are that JT65 (or JT9) is MORE sensitive, USE IT it if you  
want to... just like the QRP versus QRO , use it if you want to.

You can find me on 1838.

Pedro - CT1EKD






_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[JC]

Mike

I understand that, I know several friends that enjoy JT modes, I used it a
lot on Meteor Scatter and few QSO's on EME, Actually I gave up on EME
because I like CW and really few JT modes boring, it is personal.

My point is, and what I stand for,  do not give up on noise!

I proved you can reduce the noise flor with horizontal phased loops. Not
only here but on 30+ places, and  in different countries as well.

You and my friends enjoy JT modes, I respect that and wish all the best . My
old brother by choice, PY1RO is very active today on HF just because JT
modes. 

It is a personal decision.

My choice was to fight noise, stay put here in my city lot, help others to
do the same, I am not special at all, a very poor CW operator. I don't
contest too. 

JT modes is not a solution for noise, it is just easy.

I have JT installed in my machine, I can tell you if the guy is -22db on the
vertical TX antenna,  the same signal is +1db on my HWF. I can hear hundreds
of station on any given night on 160m using my HWF on digital modes. Zone
23, 24, 26 and 28 are active on 160m, WSJT, hundreds of YB stations are
active on 80m, digital mode.

I just don't like JT modes. 

Regards
JC
N4IS




-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Walker
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 10:42 PM
To: JC <n...@comcast.net>
Cc: Victor Goncharsky <us...@bk.ru>; topBand List <topband@contesting.com>;
Mark K3MSB <mark.k3...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

JC

Amateur radio is about communicating, regardless of the mode.

Chokes don't solve an RF noise floor issue if the RF noise is generated by
devices you don't own or control.

For my station, and I have space for it, everything is choked, and I mean
everything.  I bought cases of chokes.  Yes, they helped all I could
control.

The other thing is that the bulk of the 160M dx on a given night might just
be on a digital mode.  There have been nights I could only hear 1 or 2 CW
signals, and they were in North America.  Yet, on JT65 there might be 10 new
countries show up over the period of an hour or so.  It is actually pretty
impressive.

Regardless of the mode, they are still valid contacts.   No one said that
everyone had to do it.  It is about options, and there are many.

I am also suck at CW.  Yes, I have done it for 45 years or so.  I can do
it, but I don't enjoy it.I have have some CQ WPX CW contest paper to
prove it.  LOL

Amateur radio is many things to many people.  No one said you have to comply
or like or even do all or any.

I think that putting down phases of the hobby that others take enjoyment
from is really not productive.

many 73, Mike va3mw

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 10:54 AM, JC <n...@comcast.net> wrote:

> ..>>>
> I've worked 20 new countries on 160m this winter alone on bands that 
> are closed are so polluted with RF noise, that it would not be 
> possible with the human ear.
> <<<
>
> I kindly can't agree with that. Yes , noise is going up, but there are 
> so many things you can do to reduce the noise floor, chokes, small RX 
> antennas and filters.
>
> All of this requires some dedication and it is not easy. However far 
> from "not possible"
>
> My city lot is noisy as everybody else, I works 135 (CW) countries for 
> the CQ Marathon since Jan 1st 2017 on 160m. My total on the last 10 
> years is #
> 291 confirmed on 160m, 39 zones.
>
> My back yard is 100x150ft. not so small for a high performance station 
> on 160m.
>
> The digital mode is a choice, only a choice to avoid the hard work to 
> enjoy a DX on 160m.
>
> Digital mode  is boring as watch grass growing. But it is an option 
> where the PC try to do a connection with other PC using the antenna 
> you have, nothing wrong with that if you enjoy it.
>
> It is not a solution for noise. It is a computer calculation that 
> narrow the BW to few Hertz or less than one Hz.
>
> The decoding is another thing. I personally don't consider a QSO, just 
> a machine to machine connection.
>
> The human operator is an option, all communication could  and can be 
> done by software as well.
>
>
>  Again it is just a personal thing.
>
>
> Regards
>
> JC
> N4IS
>
>
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

Ok, what is the truth here? Is JT9 better than JT65 on 160m, or is it
inferior?

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Brian D G3VGZ  wrote:

> ... I find the better ability for JT65 to decode co-channel signals with
> its two pass decoding makes up for any 2dB improvement in decoding JT9. I
> also find a single static crash can take out JT9 decodes, more so than JT65.
>

That certainly got my attention! Has anyone else experienced this? *And if
so, what filter were you using: the wide SSB filter or a narrower CW
filter?? *I'm inclined to think that JT9 is superior to JT65 on 160m.

*But I have an open mind.*
I'm cc'ing this to K1JT himself, the Top Band Digital 160m Yahoo Group, and
the Topband reflector.



* Please share your experiences.*

*TIA.*

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com


> On 5/13/2017 3:27 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
> Why not JT9? It has a 2 dB improvement in S/N ratio on 160, while using
> only 1/10 of the bandwidth.
> I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 is a
> VHF mode.
> physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html
> [snip]
>
> --
> Brian D
> G3VGZ
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Michael Walker]

JC

Amateur radio is about communicating, regardless of the mode.

Chokes don't solve an RF noise floor issue if the RF noise is generated by
devices you don't own or control.

For my station, and I have space for it, everything is choked, and I mean
everything.  I bought cases of chokes.  Yes, they helped all I could
control.

The other thing is that the bulk of the 160M dx on a given night might just
be on a digital mode.  There have been nights I could only hear 1 or 2 CW
signals, and they were in North America.  Yet, on JT65 there might be 10
new countries show up over the period of an hour or so.  It is actually
pretty impressive.

Regardless of the mode, they are still valid contacts.   No one said that
everyone had to do it.  It is about options, and there are many.

I am also suck at CW.  Yes, I have done it for 45 years or so.  I can do
it, but I don't enjoy it.I have have some CQ WPX CW contest paper to
prove it.  LOL

Amateur radio is many things to many people.  No one said you have to
comply or like or even do all or any.

I think that putting down phases of the hobby that others take enjoyment
from is really not productive.

many 73, Mike va3mw

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 10:54 AM, JC  wrote:

> ..>>>
> I've worked 20 new countries on 160m this winter alone on bands that are
> closed are so polluted with RF noise, that it would not be possible with
> the human ear.
> <<<
>
> I kindly can't agree with that. Yes , noise is going up, but there are so
> many things you can do to reduce the noise floor, chokes, small RX antennas
> and filters.
>
> All of this requires some dedication and it is not easy. However far from
> "not possible"
>
> My city lot is noisy as everybody else, I works 135 (CW) countries for the
> CQ Marathon since Jan 1st 2017 on 160m. My total on the last 10 years is #
> 291 confirmed on 160m, 39 zones.
>
> My back yard is 100x150ft. not so small for a high performance station on
> 160m.
>
> The digital mode is a choice, only a choice to avoid the hard work to
> enjoy a DX on 160m.
>
> Digital mode  is boring as watch grass growing. But it is an option where
> the PC try to do a connection with other PC using the antenna you have,
> nothing wrong with that if you enjoy it.
>
> It is not a solution for noise. It is a computer calculation that narrow
> the BW to few Hertz or less than one Hz.
>
> The decoding is another thing. I personally don't consider a QSO, just a
> machine to machine connection.
>
> The human operator is an option, all communication could  and can be done
> by software as well.
>
>
>  Again it is just a personal thing.
>
>
> Regards
>
> JC
> N4IS
>
>
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[JAYB1943]

Well, let’s face it – if two dishonest hams decide to agree that they had a 
QSO that never was and verify it on either LOTW or by QSL, it’s nobody’s 
business but their own, IMHO.  If getting some credit for something you 
never actually did makes u happy, who am I to spoil your happiness ? It’s a 
hobby, guys..have fun anyway you want to !!
73 jay NY2NY 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Jorge Diez (CX6VM-CW5W)]

Wes

If you convince him to upload to LOTW, you will have the qso confirmed 

Some weeks ago, a JA station requested me to check the qsl I sent him, instead 
of 08:30 utc I filled the qsl with 20:30 utc

The JA card checker rejected the QSL. That's very good! 

I apologize for the mistake and send a new qsl card to him

But is nice to know that someone there have the sense to check that mistakes

73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W 

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 14 may. 2017, a las 20:53, Wes Stewart  escribió:
> 
> I think that's nonsense.
> 
> That said, there a lot of ways to skin this cat:
> 
> Perhaps I can brib...sorry...convince SV2ASP/A to QSL me for an ATNO on 
> top-band at my local noon that will be a good one that ARRL will accept?
> 
> Either that or I can rent time on a super station on the east coast and work 
> him; or, as I know some "Honor" Roll members do, I can just have someone else 
> on the east coast work him using my call.
> 
> Or I can have an imaginary digital QSO 
> (http://www.sm2cew.com/Digital%20communications%20using%20minimal%20transfer.pdf)
>  and take credit for that.
> 
> Lastly, I can do it as I do, the old-fashioned way, as explained on my QRZ 
> page.
> 
> It all depends on what you can live with.
> 
> Wes  N7WS
> 
>> On 5/14/2017 3:15 PM, jayb1...@optonline.net wrote:
>> And MY 2 cents...the ONLY criteria for ANY ARRL (or other) awards is very
>> simple: If both stations AGREE they have made a QSO, then they DID have a
>> valid QSO...regardless how/when/mode/assist/etc is used.There is no
>> third-party judge required or invited...KIS..jay ny2ny
>> _
>> 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: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

I thought the OP was talking about casual non-contest JT65 exchanges in one
narrow section of 160.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Wes Stewart]

I think that's nonsense.

That said, there a lot of ways to skin this cat:

Perhaps I can brib...sorry...convince SV2ASP/A to QSL me for an ATNO on top-band 
at my local noon that will be a good one that ARRL will accept?


Either that or I can rent time on a super station on the east coast and work 
him; or, as I know some "Honor" Roll members do, I can just have someone else on 
the east coast work him using my call.


Or I can have an imaginary digital QSO 
(http://www.sm2cew.com/Digital%20communications%20using%20minimal%20transfer.pdf) 
and take credit for that.


Lastly, I can do it as I do, the old-fashioned way, as explained on my QRZ page.

It all depends on what you can live with.

Wes  N7WS

On 5/14/2017 3:15 PM, jayb1...@optonline.net wrote:

And MY 2 cents...the ONLY criteria for ANY ARRL (or other) awards is very
simple: If both stations AGREE they have made a QSO, then they DID have a
valid QSO...regardless how/when/mode/assist/etc is used.There is no
third-party judge required or invited...KIS..jay ny2ny
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[JAYB1943]

And MY 2 cents...the ONLY criteria for ANY ARRL (or other) awards is very 
simple: If both stations AGREE they have made a QSO, then they DID have a 
valid QSO...regardless how/when/mode/assist/etc is used.There is no 
third-party judge required or invited...KIS..jay ny2ny 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Nick Maslon - K1NZ]

Hi Len,

So, you would rather me set up stations in W1 and work EU, W4 and work the
Caribbean, W5 and work SA, and W6 and work Asia on SSB or CW instead of
letting me work digimodes from my QTH in W1? All those stations are in the
same DXCC entity and they all count for the same award.

73,
Nick K1NZ


On the Droid.

On May 14, 2017 13:07, "Lennart m" <lennart.michaels...@telia.com> wrote:

Yes - almost but:
You have to complete your QSO  on yourself
You are not obliged to use any PC or any other supports. If you do, then it
would not be a valid 100% QSO between two OPS.

That is my 10 USD worth

Len¨
SM7BIC

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] För Nick Maslon - K1NZ
Skickat: den 14 maj 2017 17:17
Till: topband@contesting.com
Ämne: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

Hi everyone,

Here's my stance on awards such as DXCC and achieving them with digimodes
such as JT65. Honestly, they're only worth the amount of importance you put
into them. They're essentially made up radio points anyway. If DXCC means
SSB and CW only, good for you. If you're having fun working working DXCC
with the JTmodes, good for you. If you only count entities worked from
stations you've built, good for you. If you operate from large stations that
aren't your own under your call, good for you. Honestly, that piece of paper
means something different to everyone. Isn't the whole point of this hobby
just to enjoy getting on the air, make new friends, and pray that the sun
doesn't obliterate the ionosphere?

Just my $.02.

73,
Nick K1NZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Brian D G3VGZ]

Tim Shoppa  wrote:

> Maybe JT65 is too young to have good statistics, but how many DXCC
> entities have ever been activated on JT65 on 160M?

57 out of my total of 84 entities on 160 have been worked using JT modes.
I've heard quite a few more.


> 
> Phone as an amateur mode had been around for what, half a century, before
> they introduced the CW-specific DXCC Certificate in the late 1970's.
> Before then it was just assumed that phone was so much harder.
> 


-- 
Brian D 
G3VGZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Brian D G3VGZ]

WSJT-X 1.7.0

Mike Waters  wrote:

> That's interesting. Thank you for sharing that with us.
> 
> What software are you using, Brian? Joe Taylor's, or some other?

> 
> I'm guessing you're only using the wide SSB filter. In any case, I'll have
> to try that and see, using CW and SSB filters.
> 
> 73, Mike www.w0btu.com
> 
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Brian D G3VGZ
>  > wrote:
> 
> >
> > I find the better ability for JT65 to decode co-channel signals with its
> > two pass decoding makes up for any 2dB improvement in decoding JT9. I
> > also find a single static crash can take out JT9 decodes, more so than
> > JT65.
> >
> > > > Why not JT9? It has a 2 dB improvement in S/N ratio on 160, while
> > > > using only 1/10 of the bandwidth.
> > > >
> > > > I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65
> > > > is a VHF mode.
> > > >
> > > > physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html
> >
> _ Topband Reflector Archives -
> http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 
> 


-- 
Brian D 
G3VGZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Lennart m]

Yes - almost but:
You have to complete your QSO  on yourself
You are not obliged to use any PC or any other supports. If you do, then it
would not be a valid 100% QSO between two OPS.

That is my 10 USD worth

Len¨
SM7BIC

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] För Nick Maslon - K1NZ
Skickat: den 14 maj 2017 17:17
Till: topband@contesting.com
Ämne: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

Hi everyone,

Here's my stance on awards such as DXCC and achieving them with digimodes
such as JT65. Honestly, they're only worth the amount of importance you put
into them. They're essentially made up radio points anyway. If DXCC means
SSB and CW only, good for you. If you're having fun working working DXCC
with the JTmodes, good for you. If you only count entities worked from
stations you've built, good for you. If you operate from large stations that
aren't your own under your call, good for you. Honestly, that piece of paper
means something different to everyone. Isn't the whole point of this hobby
just to enjoy getting on the air, make new friends, and pray that the sun
doesn't obliterate the ionosphere?

Just my $.02.

73,
Nick K1NZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Nick Maslon - K1NZ]

Hi everyone,

Here's my stance on awards such as DXCC and achieving them with digimodes
such as JT65. Honestly, they're only worth the amount of importance you put
into them. They're essentially made up radio points anyway. If DXCC means
SSB and CW only, good for you. If you're having fun working working DXCC
with the JTmodes, good for you. If you only count entities worked from
stations you've built, good for you. If you operate from large stations
that aren't your own under your call, good for you. Honestly, that piece of
paper means something different to everyone. Isn't the whole point of this
hobby just to enjoy getting on the air, make new friends, and pray that the
sun doesn't obliterate the ionosphere?

Just my $.02.

73,
Nick K1NZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Lennart m]

Well stated JC!!
I fully agree.
The local QRM is getting worse each year with all those LED:s and other ,
mostly tiny things radiating several hundreds meters. Only two ways to go:1
Identify the QRM source and get rid of it, 2: Try to improve your RX
antennas.
To me, a 160 QSO is between 2 OPS sitting in front of their radios.
Period

Len
SM7BIC

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] För JC
Skickat: den 14 maj 2017 16:54
Till: 'Mike va3mw' <va...@portcredit.net>; 'Mark K3MSB'
<mark.k3...@gmail.com>
Kopia: 'Victor Goncharsky' <us...@bk.ru>; 'topBand List'
<topband@contesting.com>
Ämne: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

..>>>
I've worked 20 new countries on 160m this winter alone on bands that are
closed are so polluted with RF noise, that it would not be possible with the
human ear. 
<<<

I kindly can't agree with that. Yes , noise is going up, but there are so
many things you can do to reduce the noise floor, chokes, small RX antennas
and filters.

All of this requires some dedication and it is not easy. However far from
"not possible"

My city lot is noisy as everybody else, I works 135 (CW) countries for the
CQ Marathon since Jan 1st 2017 on 160m. My total on the last 10 years is #
291 confirmed on 160m, 39 zones.

My back yard is 100x150ft. not so small for a high performance station on
160m.

The digital mode is a choice, only a choice to avoid the hard work to enjoy
a DX on 160m. 

Digital mode  is boring as watch grass growing. But it is an option where
the PC try to do a connection with other PC using the antenna you have,
nothing wrong with that if you enjoy it.

It is not a solution for noise. It is a computer calculation that narrow the
BW to few Hertz or less than one Hz. 

The decoding is another thing. I personally don't consider a QSO, just a
machine to machine connection. 

The human operator is an option, all communication could  and can be done by
software as well. 


 Again it is just a personal thing.


Regards

JC
N4IS



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[JC]

..>>>
I've worked 20 new countries on 160m this winter alone on bands that are closed 
are so polluted with RF noise, that it would not be possible with the human 
ear. 
<<<

I kindly can't agree with that. Yes , noise is going up, but there are so many 
things you can do to reduce the noise floor, chokes, small RX antennas and 
filters.

All of this requires some dedication and it is not easy. However far from "not 
possible"

My city lot is noisy as everybody else, I works 135 (CW) countries for the CQ 
Marathon since Jan 1st 2017 on 160m. My total on the last 10 years is # 291 
confirmed on 160m, 39 zones.

My back yard is 100x150ft. not so small for a high performance station on 160m.

The digital mode is a choice, only a choice to avoid the hard work to enjoy a 
DX on 160m. 

Digital mode  is boring as watch grass growing. But it is an option where the 
PC try to do a connection with other PC using the antenna you have, nothing 
wrong with that if you enjoy it.

It is not a solution for noise. It is a computer calculation that narrow the BW 
to few Hertz or less than one Hz. 

The decoding is another thing. I personally don't consider a QSO, just a 
machine to machine connection. 

The human operator is an option, all communication could  and can be done by 
software as well. 


 Again it is just a personal thing.


Regards

JC
N4IS



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Jorge Diez - CX6VM]

Hello

of course we have choices and we can all do it any which way we choose.

My question was about the feeling of doing a CW and a JT65 QSo on topband.
I worked a new one on JT65 and really didn´t feel the excitement working it
as I did with any new one on CW

Maybe for digital lovers is great. They feel the same working RTTY or JT65?

73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W

2017-05-14 11:03 GMT-03:00 Tim Shoppa :

> Maybe JT65 is too young to have good statistics, but how many DXCC entities
> have ever been activated on JT65 on 160M?
>
> Phone as an amateur mode had been around for what, half a century, before
> they introduced the CW-specific DXCC Certificate in the late 1970's. Before
> then it was just assumed that phone was so much harder.
>
> Tim N3QE
>
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 3:03 PM, James Denneny <57jndenn...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I am hoping more DX stations will take advantage of the JT65 mode on 1838
> > next season.  I have been using it on 20M recently and am amazed at its
> > weak
> > signal performance.
> >
> >
> >
> > This mode should enhance the capture of DX entities on TB particularly
> with
> > propagation decline. It's main drawback is the time involved with
> exchanges
> > due to decoding but, the enhanced performance makes up for that.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > K7EG
> >
> > _
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> >
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>



-- 
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Tim Shoppa]

Maybe JT65 is too young to have good statistics, but how many DXCC entities
have ever been activated on JT65 on 160M?

Phone as an amateur mode had been around for what, half a century, before
they introduced the CW-specific DXCC Certificate in the late 1970's. Before
then it was just assumed that phone was so much harder.

Tim N3QE

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 3:03 PM, James Denneny <57jndenn...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> I am hoping more DX stations will take advantage of the JT65 mode on 1838
> next season.  I have been using it on 20M recently and am amazed at its
> weak
> signal performance.
>
>
>
> This mode should enhance the capture of DX entities on TB particularly with
> propagation decline. It's main drawback is the time involved with exchanges
> due to decoding but, the enhanced performance makes up for that.
>
>
>
> Jim
>
> K7EG
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Joel Harrison]

Currently available DXCC awards are:
CW only DXCC
SSB only DXCC
Digital only DXCC

Then there is the "Mixed" DXCC award you can acquire that includes all modes.

So the segregation already exists if someone wants to take advantage of them.

A polite request to the reflector folks (unrelated to this specific post
from Mark) PLEASE identify yourself AND your CALLSIGN at the end of your
thread. Some folks just type their message and who they are in amateur
radio circles is not identified in their email address. Its a personal
thing. I just like to know who folks are. Thanks.

73 Joel W5ZN



> Well said Victor.
>
> I'm going to offend with this email no matter how nice I try to make it,
> but I am trying to not be inflammatory. Here goes
>
> A human ear can not compete with a computer that extracts signals below
> the
> noise level.
>
> Being a software engineer my friends are somewhat amazed I have no
> interest
> in RTTY or the JT modes. A few years ago they got me to do some RTTY
> contests. Talk about boring. You set the computer up, spin the VFO to
> align
> vertical cursor and push the correct buttons. Ditto with PSK31 only using
> a
> waterfall display. Download the software, spin the VFO, and push the
> buttons. As I told my friend “Even a caveman can do this”.
>
> The JT modes certainly have their place as an advancement in
> communications
> technology and capability. But from a competition perspective, machine and
> human detected modes need to be strictly segregated.
>
> My hat's off to those that get DXCC on 160 via CW and SSB. Sorry, but the
> hat stays on for using digital to get “the last few”. Not crying over
> spilt
> milk here; I have my TB DXCC and none of it is the JT modes.
>
> The ARRL needs to address this, but I doubt they're going to. We've gotten
> to the point where single band awards need to be split between human and
> machine detected modes.
>
> As posters in other threads have noted, the JT modes on TB will enable
> those with limited real estate to work 160M DX easily. This is both a
> blessing and a curse (as the saying goes). Yes, they may be able to use
> the
> JT modes to “easily” work DX on 160, but compare them to the guys in the
> same situation that work TB DX on CW / SSB and take years to do it.
>
> 73 Mark K3MSB
>
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Victor Goncharsky via Topband <
> topband@contesting.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Wrong.
>> Both in SSB and AM cases the operator's skills and abilities are
>> involved.
>> Even more of those are needed on CW.
>> On those JT modes an operator is just a computer accessory.
>>
>>
>> >Воскресенье, 14 мая 2017, 5:41 +03:00 от Mike va3mw <
>> va...@portcredit.net >:
>> >
>> >JT9 vs JT65 over CW
>> >
>> >The same conversation happened when SSB started to gain strength over
>> AM.
>> >
>> >73
>> >
>> >Mike va3mw
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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


www.w5zn.org

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Brian Pease]

True enough, but time marches on.  This is similar to the discussion 
about whether Columbus or Captain Cook would have used GPS if it had 
been available, or instead navigated without it just for the challenge.  
I have, in fact "navigated" once across the Atlantic using a sextant, 
but I made use of time signals and a programmable pocket calculator.  I 
compared results to Satnav, the 1-satellite doppler predecessor to GPS.  
I guess this was the equivalent of using CW vs JT.


On 5/14/2017 8:25 AM, Mark K3MSB wrote:

Well said Victor.

I'm going to offend with this email no matter how nice I try to make it,
but I am trying to not be inflammatory. Here goes

A human ear can not compete with a computer that extracts signals below the
noise level.

Being a software engineer my friends are somewhat amazed I have no interest
in RTTY or the JT modes. A few years ago they got me to do some RTTY
contests. Talk about boring. You set the computer up, spin the VFO to align
vertical cursor and push the correct buttons. Ditto with PSK31 only using a
waterfall display. Download the software, spin the VFO, and push the
buttons. As I told my friend “Even a caveman can do this”.

The JT modes certainly have their place as an advancement in communications
technology and capability. But from a competition perspective, machine and
human detected modes need to be strictly segregated.

My hat's off to those that get DXCC on 160 via CW and SSB. Sorry, but the
hat stays on for using digital to get “the last few”. Not crying over spilt
milk here; I have my TB DXCC and none of it is the JT modes.

The ARRL needs to address this, but I doubt they're going to. We've gotten
to the point where single band awards need to be split between human and
machine detected modes.

As posters in other threads have noted, the JT modes on TB will enable
those with limited real estate to work 160M DX easily. This is both a
blessing and a curse (as the saying goes). Yes, they may be able to use the
JT modes to “easily” work DX on 160, but compare them to the guys in the
same situation that work TB DX on CW / SSB and take years to do it.

73 Mark K3MSB

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Victor Goncharsky via Topband <
topband@contesting.com> wrote:


Wrong.
Both in SSB and AM cases the operator's skills and abilities are involved.
Even more of those are needed on CW.
On those JT modes an operator is just a computer accessory.



Воскресенье, 14 мая 2017, 5:41 +03:00 от Mike va3mw <

va...@portcredit.net >:

JT9 vs JT65 over CW

The same conversation happened when SSB started to gain strength over AM.

73

Mike va3mw


--
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



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike va3mw]

Yes, and while that works for you, not everyone sees it that way. 

I've worked 20 new countries on 160m this winter alone on bands that are closed 
are so polluted with RF noise, that it would not be possible with the human 
ear. 

It also allows those that are space limited to get on and be rewarded with 
making a contact with a limited station. 

Regardless, we have choices and we can all do it any which way we choose. If 
you don't like it, there is no requirement to participate. That is the beauty 
of the hobby!

Many 73, Mike va3mw

> On May 14, 2017, at 8:25 AM, Mark K3MSB  wrote:
> 
> Well said Victor.
> 
> I'm going to offend with this email no matter how nice I try to make it,
> but I am trying to not be inflammatory. Here goes
> 
> A human ear can not compete with a computer that extracts signals below the
> noise level.
> 
> Being a software engineer my friends are somewhat amazed I have no interest
> in RTTY or the JT modes. A few years ago they got me to do some RTTY
> contests. Talk about boring. You set the computer up, spin the VFO to align
> vertical cursor and push the correct buttons. Ditto with PSK31 only using a
> waterfall display. Download the software, spin the VFO, and push the
> buttons. As I told my friend “Even a caveman can do this”.
> 
> The JT modes certainly have their place as an advancement in communications
> technology and capability. But from a competition perspective, machine and
> human detected modes need to be strictly segregated.
> 
> My hat's off to those that get DXCC on 160 via CW and SSB. Sorry, but the
> hat stays on for using digital to get “the last few”. Not crying over spilt
> milk here; I have my TB DXCC and none of it is the JT modes.
> 
> The ARRL needs to address this, but I doubt they're going to. We've gotten
> to the point where single band awards need to be split between human and
> machine detected modes.
> 
> As posters in other threads have noted, the JT modes on TB will enable
> those with limited real estate to work 160M DX easily. This is both a
> blessing and a curse (as the saying goes). Yes, they may be able to use the
> JT modes to “easily” work DX on 160, but compare them to the guys in the
> same situation that work TB DX on CW / SSB and take years to do it.
> 
> 73 Mark K3MSB
> 
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Victor Goncharsky via Topband <
> topband@contesting.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Wrong.
>> Both in SSB and AM cases the operator's skills and abilities are involved.
>> Even more of those are needed on CW.
>> On those JT modes an operator is just a computer accessory.
>> 
>> 
>>> Воскресенье, 14 мая 2017, 5:41 +03:00 от Mike va3mw <
>> va...@portcredit.net >:
>>> 
>>> JT9 vs JT65 over CW
>>> 
>>> The same conversation happened when SSB started to gain strength over AM.
>>> 
>>> 73
>>> 
>>> Mike va3mw
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 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
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mark K3MSB]

Well said Victor.

I'm going to offend with this email no matter how nice I try to make it,
but I am trying to not be inflammatory. Here goes

A human ear can not compete with a computer that extracts signals below the
noise level.

Being a software engineer my friends are somewhat amazed I have no interest
in RTTY or the JT modes. A few years ago they got me to do some RTTY
contests. Talk about boring. You set the computer up, spin the VFO to align
vertical cursor and push the correct buttons. Ditto with PSK31 only using a
waterfall display. Download the software, spin the VFO, and push the
buttons. As I told my friend “Even a caveman can do this”.

The JT modes certainly have their place as an advancement in communications
technology and capability. But from a competition perspective, machine and
human detected modes need to be strictly segregated.

My hat's off to those that get DXCC on 160 via CW and SSB. Sorry, but the
hat stays on for using digital to get “the last few”. Not crying over spilt
milk here; I have my TB DXCC and none of it is the JT modes.

The ARRL needs to address this, but I doubt they're going to. We've gotten
to the point where single band awards need to be split between human and
machine detected modes.

As posters in other threads have noted, the JT modes on TB will enable
those with limited real estate to work 160M DX easily. This is both a
blessing and a curse (as the saying goes). Yes, they may be able to use the
JT modes to “easily” work DX on 160, but compare them to the guys in the
same situation that work TB DX on CW / SSB and take years to do it.

73 Mark K3MSB

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Victor Goncharsky via Topband <
topband@contesting.com> wrote:

>
> Wrong.
> Both in SSB and AM cases the operator's skills and abilities are involved.
> Even more of those are needed on CW.
> On those JT modes an operator is just a computer accessory.
>
>
> >Воскресенье, 14 мая 2017, 5:41 +03:00 от Mike va3mw <
> va...@portcredit.net >:
> >
> >JT9 vs JT65 over CW
> >
> >The same conversation happened when SSB started to gain strength over AM.
> >
> >73
> >
> >Mike va3mw
> >
>
> --
> 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: Top Band and JT65

[Victor Goncharsky via Topband]

Wrong.
Both in SSB and AM cases the operator's skills and abilities are involved.
Even more of those are needed on CW.
On those JT modes an operator is just a computer accessory.


>Воскресенье, 14 мая 2017, 5:41 +03:00 от Mike va3mw < va...@portcredit.net >:
>
>JT9 vs JT65 over CW
>
>The same conversation happened when SSB started to gain strength over AM. 
>
>73
>
>Mike va3mw
>

-- 
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: Top Band and JT65

[Mike va3mw]

JT9 vs JT65 over CW

The same conversation happened when SSB started to gain strength over AM. 

73

Mike va3mw

> On May 13, 2017, at 7:39 PM, Mike Waters  wrote:
> 
> That's interesting. Thank you for sharing that with us.
> 
> What software are you using, Brian? Joe Taylor's, or some other?
> 
> I'm guessing you're only using the wide SSB filter. In any case, I'll have
> to try that and see, using CW and SSB filters.
> 
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
> 
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Brian D G3VGZ > wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I find the better ability for JT65 to decode co-channel signals with its
>> two
>> pass decoding makes up for any 2dB improvement in decoding JT9. I also find
>> a single static crash can take out JT9 decodes, more so than JT65.
>> 
 Why not JT9? It has a 2 dB improvement in S/N ratio on 160, while using
 only 1/10 of the bandwidth.
 
 I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 is a
 VHF mode.
 
 physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html
>> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

That's interesting. Thank you for sharing that with us.

What software are you using, Brian? Joe Taylor's, or some other?

I'm guessing you're only using the wide SSB filter. In any case, I'll have
to try that and see, using CW and SSB filters.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Brian D G3VGZ  wrote:

>
> I find the better ability for JT65 to decode co-channel signals with its
> two
> pass decoding makes up for any 2dB improvement in decoding JT9. I also find
> a single static crash can take out JT9 decodes, more so than JT65.
>
> > > Why not JT9? It has a 2 dB improvement in S/N ratio on 160, while using
> > > only 1/10 of the bandwidth.
> > >
> > > I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 is a
> > > VHF mode.
> > >
> > > physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Brian D G3VGZ]

Mike Waters  wrote:

> Maybe some do. But I usually turn the speakers off when operating digital
> modes.
> 
> That extra 2 dB over JT65 --as well as freeing up large portions of the
> band-- ought to matter to more hams.

I find the better ability for JT65 to decode co-channel signals with its two
pass decoding makes up for any 2dB improvement in decoding JT9. I also find
a single static crash can take out JT9 decodes, more so than JT65.


> 
> 73, Mike www.w0btu.com
> 
> On May 13, 2017 3:32 PM, "Brian Pease"  wrote:
> 
> This may sound strange, but my opinion is that hams like the musical tones
> of JT65.
> 
> 
> On 5/13/2017 3:27 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
> 
> > Why not JT9? It has a 2 dB improvement in S/N ratio on 160, while using
> > only 1/10 of the bandwidth.
> >
> > I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 is a
> > VHF mode.
> >
> > physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html
[snip]


-- 
Brian D 
G3VGZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

Well said! That's more interesting to me, too. :-)

But I find WSJT-X interesting to play with once in while. I mostly used
WSPR to check propagation.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On May 13, 2017 3:57 PM, "Jorge Diez - CX6VM"  wrote:

I did JT65 on 160, but really what´s the challenge?

Is amazing when you did a CW qso, switching between RX antennas, filters
and radio adjustments to pull out a callsign

I don´t know what people than been on topband for decades feel about that
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Jorge Diez - CX6VM]

I did JT65 on 160, but really what´s the challenge?

Is amazing when you did a CW qso, switching between RX antennas, filters
and radio adjustments to pull out a callsign

I don´t know what people than been on topband for decades feel about that

73.
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W

2017-05-13 17:42 GMT-03:00 Mike Waters :

> Maybe some do. But I usually turn the speakers off when operating digital
> modes.
>
> That extra 2 dB over JT65 --as well as freeing up large portions of the
> band-- ought to matter to more hams.
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
> On May 13, 2017 3:32 PM, "Brian Pease"  wrote:
>
> This may sound strange, but my opinion is that hams like the musical tones
> of JT65.
>
>
> On 5/13/2017 3:27 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
>
> > Why not JT9? It has a 2 dB improvement in S/N ratio on 160, while using
> > only 1/10 of the bandwidth.
> >
> > I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 is a
> VHF
> > mode.
> >
> > physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html
> >
> >
> > 73, Mike
> > www.w0btu.com
> >
> > On May 13, 2017 2:03 PM, "James Denneny" <57jndenn...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am hoping more DX stations will take advantage of the JT65 mode on 1838
> > next season.  I have been using it on 20M recently and am amazed at its
> > weak
> > signal performance.
> >
> > This mode should enhance the capture of DX entities on TB particularly
> with
> > propagation decline. It's main drawback is the time involved with
> exchanges
> > due to decoding but, the enhanced performance makes up for that.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > K7EG
> > _
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> >
> >
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>



-- 
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

Maybe some do. But I usually turn the speakers off when operating digital
modes.

That extra 2 dB over JT65 --as well as freeing up large portions of the
band-- ought to matter to more hams.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On May 13, 2017 3:32 PM, "Brian Pease"  wrote:

This may sound strange, but my opinion is that hams like the musical tones
of JT65.


On 5/13/2017 3:27 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

> Why not JT9? It has a 2 dB improvement in S/N ratio on 160, while using
> only 1/10 of the bandwidth.
>
> I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 is a VHF
> mode.
>
> physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html
>
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
> On May 13, 2017 2:03 PM, "James Denneny" <57jndenn...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I am hoping more DX stations will take advantage of the JT65 mode on 1838
> next season.  I have been using it on 20M recently and am amazed at its
> weak
> signal performance.
>
> This mode should enhance the capture of DX entities on TB particularly with
> propagation decline. It's main drawback is the time involved with exchanges
> due to decoding but, the enhanced performance makes up for that.
>
> Jim
>
> K7EG
> _
> 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: Top Band and JT65

[Brian Pease]

This may sound strange, but my opinion is that hams like the musical 
tones of JT65.


On 5/13/2017 3:27 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

Why not JT9? It has a 2 dB improvement in S/N ratio on 160, while using
only 1/10 of the bandwidth.

I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 is a VHF
mode.

physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html


73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On May 13, 2017 2:03 PM, "James Denneny" <57jndenn...@comcast.net> wrote:

I am hoping more DX stations will take advantage of the JT65 mode on 1838
next season.  I have been using it on 20M recently and am amazed at its weak
signal performance.

This mode should enhance the capture of DX entities on TB particularly with
propagation decline. It's main drawback is the time involved with exchanges
due to decoding but, the enhanced performance makes up for that.

Jim

K7EG
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Mike Waters]

Why not JT9? It has a 2 dB improvement in S/N ratio on 160, while using
only 1/10 of the bandwidth.

I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 is a VHF
mode.

physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html


73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On May 13, 2017 2:03 PM, "James Denneny" <57jndenn...@comcast.net> wrote:

I am hoping more DX stations will take advantage of the JT65 mode on 1838
next season.  I have been using it on 20M recently and am amazed at its weak
signal performance.

This mode should enhance the capture of DX entities on TB particularly with
propagation decline. It's main drawback is the time involved with exchanges
due to decoding but, the enhanced performance makes up for that.

Jim

K7EG
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband