Re: Topband: FT8

[Rod Mackintosh]

Well done Ross. A real credit to you and I look forward to hearing when you
two more countries on 160m.
73 Rod ZL3NW


Virus-free.www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 at 10:49, Ross Johnson  wrote:

> Please think about this , I live on a 600 square metre section.  My
> inverted L with K2AV radial is only 10 metres high.
> Land is expensive here. In 6 years I have worked 98 countries on top
> band and we are very isolated.
>
> Two mornings ago  4W8X  was copyable for 2 hours , best at -08  but my 1
> KW did not make it.
> To my surprise I have copied there cw on several occasions  , but to
> weak to work.
>
> Please consider us with poor situations .
>
> I passed the cw in 1978.
>
> 73ZL3RJ
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: FT8

[Ross Johnson]

Please think about this , I live on a 600 square metre section.  My 
inverted L with K2AV radial is only 10 metres high.
Land is expensive here. In 6 years I have worked 98 countries on top 
band and we are very isolated.


Two mornings ago  4W8X  was copyable for 2 hours , best at -08  but my 1 
KW did not make it.
To my surprise I have copied there cw on several occasions  , but to 
weak to work.


Please consider us with poor situations .

I passed the cw in 1978.

73ZL3RJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: FT8, etc VS the world

[ROBERT ESHLEMAN]

I would like to add my word to this long running discourse.  I am 85 years old 
and have lost most of my hearing as a result of my profession (dentistry), my 
hobby, (low band DX'ing) and a surgical procedure for my trigeminal neuroglia.  
On 160 I have worked and confirmed 336 DXCC entities of which 335 were mostly 
on cw with several on SSB.  My last new one was T6AA using FT8 and required 
using all of the skills I need to work the other 335...hours of stalking, 
knowledge of propagation, frequency selection and path headings as well as 
timing of my calls during a 5 minute opening.  FT8 has given me a new interest 
in DX'ing which I had just about lost. I started DX'ing in 1950 and have lived 
through most of the huge changes in our hobby and the resistance to every one 
of them.  This is only a tempest in a teapot.  FT8 and its cousins are valid DX 
modes.  Bob W4DR, ex-W4QCW
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 etc.

[Phil Lefever via Topband]

 "Advancement of the radio art" The primary raison d'etra of amateur radio for 
over 100 years.
Started with spark, CW followed, soon AM, SSB and zillions of forms of digital 
came to be. The day we stop innovating and striving for better is the day that 
amateur radio no longer has a reason to be. FT modes are simply the one of the 
newest incarnations. And every step of the journey there were the old guard 
hams saying how so and so is the end of the hobby.
I'm not especially a fan of digital modes, but I can't disparage anyone that 
is. Ham radio is a big tent there is room for all of us in the fraternity. 
73, Phil KB0NES


On Wednesday, March 10, 2021, 11:01:34 PM CST, Cecil  
wrote:  
 
 Nice post!

Cecil
K5DL

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 10, 2021, at 5:58 PM, Steve HA0DU  wrote:
> 
> Gentlemen,
> 
> Amateur radio is supposed to be a hobby. FUN.
> 
> What we see is TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT! It certainly changes the hobby, but it 
> should not change the fun. I read my license, but I can't find that FTx modes 
> MUST BE USED EXCLUSIVELY.
> 
> 45 years ago we did RTTY contests with an old RFT pagewriter, not even 
> punched tape, all transmissions by hand. Was it fun? YES. Do I want to do it 
> again? Of course not.
> 
> 45 years ago I did not have a transceiver. I did have an old military surplus 
> receiver and a homemade transmitter. CW only, 80/40. Was it fun? YES. Do I 
> want to use it again? Of course not.
> 
> 45 years ago (even 5 years ago) I wrote my contacts in a paper log. Do I 
> still have them? YES. Did I type up all QSOs in a computer file (when 
> computers became available)? YES.
> 
> 38 years ago VK0CW used a split of 25 kHz on 20 CW, so I had to turn the VFO 
> of the FT250 (aka Tempo One) five times right to TX, then five times left to 
> RX. Luckily I made the contact. Was it fun? YES. Do I want it back? Of course 
> not.
> 
> Just like in every other aspect of life, technology developed a LOT. Take 
> advantage of it!
> 
> Denying development is not what ham radio operators are (or should be) famous 
> about! Computers are everywhere. We are driving computers on four wheels. 
> Modern SDR radios are more or less computers. These are facts, even is some 
> of us do not like them.
> 
> Take my example. I work as a technical translator at home. Two screens are 
> connected to my computer (yes, computer aided translation is easier). On the 
> main screen I do the work. On the second screen there are some ham programs 
> running. When I see something interesting on the cluster or HamSpots. or 
> wherever, I take a look. If it is digital, it is convenient because I find a 
> TX frequency, I click on the call, and the computer will control my radio to 
> try to work the other station. If it is CW or SSB, I grab the key or the mic, 
> and try to work the other station. No question lost time from work is 
> significantly more if I have to use my hand to TX CW or hold the microphone 
> :).
> 
> Digital modes also opened EME for a lot more people. Yes, information 
> exchange is rather limited, but we still have many other chances to chat - 
> use them!
> 
> 73/DX
> Steve HA0DU
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ezt az e-mailt az Avast víruskereső szoftver átvizsgálta.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT8 etc.

[Cecil]

Nice post!

Cecil
K5DL

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 10, 2021, at 5:58 PM, Steve HA0DU  wrote:
> 
> Gentlemen,
> 
> Amateur radio is supposed to be a hobby. FUN.
> 
> What we see is TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT! It certainly changes the hobby, but it 
> should not change the fun. I read my license, but I can't find that FTx modes 
> MUST BE USED EXCLUSIVELY.
> 
> 45 years ago we did RTTY contests with an old RFT pagewriter, not even 
> punched tape, all transmissions by hand. Was it fun? YES. Do I want to do it 
> again? Of course not.
> 
> 45 years ago I did not have a transceiver. I did have an old military surplus 
> receiver and a homemade transmitter. CW only, 80/40. Was it fun? YES. Do I 
> want to use it again? Of course not.
> 
> 45 years ago (even 5 years ago) I wrote my contacts in a paper log. Do I 
> still have them? YES. Did I type up all QSOs in a computer file (when 
> computers became available)? YES.
> 
> 38 years ago VK0CW used a split of 25 kHz on 20 CW, so I had to turn the VFO 
> of the FT250 (aka Tempo One) five times right to TX, then five times left to 
> RX. Luckily I made the contact. Was it fun? YES. Do I want it back? Of course 
> not.
> 
> Just like in every other aspect of life, technology developed a LOT. Take 
> advantage of it!
> 
> Denying development is not what ham radio operators are (or should be) famous 
> about! Computers are everywhere. We are driving computers on four wheels. 
> Modern SDR radios are more or less computers. These are facts, even is some 
> of us do not like them.
> 
> Take my example. I work as a technical translator at home. Two screens are 
> connected to my computer (yes, computer aided translation is easier). On the 
> main screen I do the work. On the second screen there are some ham programs 
> running. When I see something interesting on the cluster or HamSpots. or 
> wherever, I take a look. If it is digital, it is convenient because I find a 
> TX frequency, I click on the call, and the computer will control my radio to 
> try to work the other station. If it is CW or SSB, I grab the key or the mic, 
> and try to work the other station. No question lost time from work is 
> significantly more if I have to use my hand to TX CW or hold the microphone 
> :).
> 
> Digital modes also opened EME for a lot more people. Yes, information 
> exchange is rather limited, but we still have many other chances to chat - 
> use them!
> 
> 73/DX
> Steve HA0DU
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ezt az e-mailt az Avast víruskereső szoftver átvizsgálta.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT8 etc.

[Hugh Valentine]

Interesting how people answer their own questions as if a survey had been sent 
and the “Answers” were from the census”.

I really don’t care…just giving my take on these comments.

Ham radio, like Politics, has taken a different turn.
Life is too short to make a big deal of these things.
“Don’t worry…..Be Happy….”

Val

N4RJ

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Steve HA0DU<mailto:ha...@dx.hu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 6:58 PM
To: topband@contesting.com<mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Topband: FT8 etc.

Gentlemen,

Amateur radio is supposed to be a hobby. FUN.

What we see is TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT! It certainly changes the hobby,
but it should not change the fun. I read my license, but I can't find
that FTx modes MUST BE USED EXCLUSIVELY.

45 years ago we did RTTY contests with an old RFT pagewriter, not even
punched tape, all transmissions by hand. Was it fun? YES. Do I want to
do it again? Of course not.

45 years ago I did not have a transceiver. I did have an old military
surplus receiver and a homemade transmitter. CW only, 80/40. Was it fun?
YES. Do I want to use it again? Of course not.

45 years ago (even 5 years ago) I wrote my contacts in a paper log. Do I
still have them? YES. Did I type up all QSOs in a computer file (when
computers became available)? YES.

38 years ago VK0CW used a split of 25 kHz on 20 CW, so I had to turn the
VFO of the FT250 (aka Tempo One) five times right to TX, then five times
left to RX. Luckily I made the contact. Was it fun? YES. Do I want it
back? Of course not.

Just like in every other aspect of life, technology developed a LOT.
Take advantage of it!

Denying development is not what ham radio operators are (or should be)
famous about! Computers are everywhere. We are driving computers on four
wheels. Modern SDR radios are more or less computers. These are facts,
even is some of us do not like them.

Take my example. I work as a technical translator at home. Two screens
are connected to my computer (yes, computer aided translation is
easier). On the main screen I do the work. On the second screen there
are some ham programs running. When I see something interesting on the
cluster or HamSpots. or wherever, I take a look. If it is digital, it is
convenient because I find a TX frequency, I click on the call, and the
computer will control my radio to try to work the other station. If it
is CW or SSB, I grab the key or the mic, and try to work the other
station. No question lost time from work is significantly more if I have
to use my hand to TX CW or hold the microphone :).

Digital modes also opened EME for a lot more people. Yes, information
exchange is rather limited, but we still have many other chances to chat
- use them!

73/DX
Steve HA0DU


--
Ezt az e-mailt az Avast víruskereső szoftver átvizsgálta.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

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

Topband: FT8 etc.

[Steve HA0DU]

Gentlemen,

Amateur radio is supposed to be a hobby. FUN.

What we see is TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT! It certainly changes the hobby, 
but it should not change the fun. I read my license, but I can't find 
that FTx modes MUST BE USED EXCLUSIVELY.


45 years ago we did RTTY contests with an old RFT pagewriter, not even 
punched tape, all transmissions by hand. Was it fun? YES. Do I want to 
do it again? Of course not.


45 years ago I did not have a transceiver. I did have an old military 
surplus receiver and a homemade transmitter. CW only, 80/40. Was it fun? 
YES. Do I want to use it again? Of course not.


45 years ago (even 5 years ago) I wrote my contacts in a paper log. Do I 
still have them? YES. Did I type up all QSOs in a computer file (when 
computers became available)? YES.


38 years ago VK0CW used a split of 25 kHz on 20 CW, so I had to turn the 
VFO of the FT250 (aka Tempo One) five times right to TX, then five times 
left to RX. Luckily I made the contact. Was it fun? YES. Do I want it 
back? Of course not.


Just like in every other aspect of life, technology developed a LOT. 
Take advantage of it!


Denying development is not what ham radio operators are (or should be) 
famous about! Computers are everywhere. We are driving computers on four 
wheels. Modern SDR radios are more or less computers. These are facts, 
even is some of us do not like them.


Take my example. I work as a technical translator at home. Two screens 
are connected to my computer (yes, computer aided translation is 
easier). On the main screen I do the work. On the second screen there 
are some ham programs running. When I see something interesting on the 
cluster or HamSpots. or wherever, I take a look. If it is digital, it is 
convenient because I find a TX frequency, I click on the call, and the 
computer will control my radio to try to work the other station. If it 
is CW or SSB, I grab the key or the mic, and try to work the other 
station. No question lost time from work is significantly more if I have 
to use my hand to TX CW or hold the microphone :).


Digital modes also opened EME for a lot more people. Yes, information 
exchange is rather limited, but we still have many other chances to chat 
- use them!


73/DX
Steve HA0DU


--
Ezt az e-mailt az Avast víruskereső szoftver átvizsgálta.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

Re: Topband: FT8

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

It is just another FT8 bashing post.  It is why we had to create another 
list.  I just set up a new filter so I won't be bothered by trolls.


W0MU

On 5/13/2020 1:03 PM, Ross Johnson wrote:

Roger your lack understanding surprises me , and others here.

Like your station mine only hears what it hears. Ft8 users are not all 
connected via the net.


So its interesting to see on cluster wot other ZLs are hearing or 
working.


I seldom post but some have an ego issue I suspect.

And there is no auto posting to clusters , however my station sends 
info to PSK reporter .



Ross   ZL3RJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


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

Topband: FT8

[Ross Johnson]

Roger your lack understanding surprises me , and others here.

Like your station mine only hears what it hears. Ft8 users are not all 
connected via the net.


So its interesting to see on cluster wot other ZLs are hearing or 
working.


I seldom post but some have an ego issue I suspect.

And there is no auto posting to clusters , however my station sends info 
to PSK reporter .



Ross   ZL3RJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

[Jim Brown]

On 5/13/2020 7:51 AM, Henk PA5KT via Topband wrote:
That is because for some people it can be useful information if they 
want to make contacts.


Yes. Cluster and RBN spots can be quite useful for showing propagation. 
WSJT-X can be set to automatically post every decode to PSKReporter. 
Anyone can view propagation on a map for various time periods from 15 
min to a day or two, looking for ANY signal, for a given mode, and for 
any callsign, including his own or a DX station. I can call CQ on 160 
FT8 and see where I am being decoded.


In the first 3-4 years after moving to W6 in 2006, I worked a dozen or 
so EU countries, all CW. I've heard only 6 EU stations on CW, all during 
contests, and worked only two of them, even though I have the same RX 
antennas and better TX antennas. The difference is noise, on both ends 
of the QSO. Since FT8 can work 10 dB deeper into the noise than CW, this 
has allowed me to add about 15 new countries in EU that I can't even 
hear on CW.


73, Jim K9YC

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

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

[kolson]

It should be mentioned that when rarer DX shows up they often use FT8 Fox/Hound 
on non standard FT8 frequencies so the cluster can be helpful to find these 
operations. 

And really, the equivalent of the CW/SSB op who doesn't constantly tune the 
bands is the FT8 op who doesn't constantly stare at the screen. The cluster can 
serve both.

73, Kevin K3OX 

- Original Message -
From: Roger Kennedy 
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Tue, 12 May 2020 19:58:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster


Why oh why do some people post on the DX Cluster every FT8 station they have
heard?

One GM station this evening posted 21 stations . . . none of them were even
DX !

I don't even see why you would post ANY on the DX Cluster . . . I thought
the whole point of FT8 is that you leave your computer listening on the same
frequency, so surely any stations will just come up on the screen?

Whereas posting the frequency of a CW or SSB DX station on the Cluster is
really useful to help people find those stations, and attempt a QSO.

Also . . . as others have said, DX propagation is still pretty good on 160m
most nights . . . but despite lots of CQ calls by myself and other EU
stations, we're often getting no replies! (despite RBN reports being good)

73 Roger G3YRO

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

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

[John Kaufmann via Topband]

I use the VE7CC node for spots.  You can filter out FT8 spots on VE7CC via the 
'set/noft8' command.

73, John W1FV

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

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

The solution is to switch to DXLab Suite (DXKeeper for logging,
and SpotCollector for cluster/spotting).  SpotCollector allows
the operator to block spots based on digital mode - e.g., one
can block JT9/JT65/FT4/FT4 spots and still display RTTY spots.

The mode of a given spot is identified by the notes field and/or
frequency.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2020-05-13 10:44 AM, Wes wrote:
I think it is probably automatic.  Some are even posting every spot 
twice.  I emailed one guy and asked him why and he was clueless.


Mind you, I only occasionally look at spots on the web (DXScape) so 
mental filtering is just fine for this Luddite.


Wes N7WS


On 5/13/2020 7:24 AM, pwhel...@earthlink.net wrote:

Yea, not sure why they have to post ever contact.  Maybe it's done
automatically by their software but again I would think it should be
configurable.

Regards,

Pat - KZ5J



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

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

[Henk PA5KT via Topband]

That is because for some people it can be useful information if they 
want to make contacts.


What is DX or not is up for the listener.

There is nothing different then with CW spots.

73 Henk PA5KT

Op 13-5-2020 om 01:58 schreef Roger Kennedy:

Why oh why do some people post on the DX Cluster every FT8 station they have
heard?

One GM station this evening posted 21 stations . . . none of them were even
DX !

I don't even see why you would post ANY on the DX Cluster . . . I thought
the whole point of FT8 is that you leave your computer listening on the same
frequency, so surely any stations will just come up on the screen?

Whereas posting the frequency of a CW or SSB DX station on the Cluster is
really useful to help people find those stations, and attempt a QSO.

Also . . . as others have said, DX propagation is still pretty good on 160m
most nights . . . but despite lots of CQ calls by myself and other EU
stations, we're often getting no replies!  (despite RBN reports being good)

73 Roger G3YRO

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

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

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

[Wes]

I think it is probably automatic.  Some are even posting every spot twice.  I 
emailed one guy and asked him why and he was clueless.


Mind you, I only occasionally look at spots on the web (DXScape) so mental 
filtering is just fine for this Luddite.


Wes N7WS


On 5/13/2020 7:24 AM, pwhel...@earthlink.net wrote:

Yea, not sure why they have to post ever contact.  Maybe it's done
automatically by their software but again I would think it should be
configurable.

Regards,

Pat - KZ5J



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

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

[pwhelton]

Roger.  I appreciate your problem.  I had the same issue here looking for DX
on the low end of 20.  It seemed the only low end spots were for FT4 and
FT8.  I use ACLog for a logger and ACLog has a feature in it called "Block
Digital".  Since I checked Block Digital the DX spots I receive now are more
meaningful.  I've had it in place for about a year now.

Only problem I see is I use to work RTTY and if I ever get back into RTTY
I'll have to figure out another way to block FT4 & FT8.  

Yea, not sure why they have to post ever contact.  Maybe it's done
automatically by their software but again I would think it should be
configurable.

Regards,

Pat - KZ5J

-Original Message-
From: Topband  On
Behalf Of Roger Kennedy
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 6:58 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster


Why oh why do some people post on the DX Cluster every FT8 station they have
heard?

One GM station this evening posted 21 stations . . . none of them were even
DX !

I don't even see why you would post ANY on the DX Cluster . . . I thought
the whole point of FT8 is that you leave your computer listening on the same
frequency, so surely any stations will just come up on the screen?

Whereas posting the frequency of a CW or SSB DX station on the Cluster is
really useful to help people find those stations, and attempt a QSO.

Also . . . as others have said, DX propagation is still pretty good on 160m
most nights . . . but despite lots of CQ calls by myself and other EU
stations, we're often getting no replies!  (despite RBN reports being good)

73 Roger G3YRO

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

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

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

[Joshua Arritt]

The Twitter analogy inspires a thought: suppose it were possible to build
algorithmic server-side or client-side filtering for DX cluster data to
could parse out spots for which you may not be interested.  And vice
versa...  we can do this kind of selective handling at the display level
and the digipeater/i-gate level with APRSIS.

example:
Key on the comment line -- if the filter catches any 3-digit RST (say, if
we are only interested in CW DX), then grab that spot and display it...
ignore others.  Or hunt common FT8 signal reports and ignore (or display if
that interests you).

 Key the DX callsign -- if it is from countries in array "DXIWANT",
display... or build other relationships that include or exclude.


I don't think it is terribly difficult to do this at the private LAN or
client level with some basic code skill, minimal hardware, and time.
Funding and maintaining a public http host for such a filter may be a
challenge.


VY 73 DE KF4YLM DIT DIT

On Tue, May 12, 2020, 20:36 Roger Kennedy 
wrote:

> Mike the DX Cluster I use only shows 160m spots anyway !
>
> Roger G3YRO
>
>
>   _
>
> From: Michael Walker [mailto:va...@portcredit.net]
>
> Because they can.  The DX cluster is like bragging on Twitter.   :)
>
> May I suggest that you run some filters that are related to your cluster
> login that only allow spots for those bands you are interested in.
>
> Mike va3mw
> __
>
>  On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:58 PM Roger Kennedy
>  wrote:
>
> Why oh why do some people post on the DX Cluster every FT8 station they
> have
> heard?
>
> One GM station this evening posted 21 stations . . . none of them were even
> DX !
>
> I don't even see why you would post ANY on the DX Cluster . . . I thought
> the whole point of FT8 is that you leave your computer listening on the
> same
> frequency, so surely any stations will just come up on the screen?
>
> Whereas posting the frequency of a CW or SSB DX station on the Cluster is
> really useful to help people find those stations, and attempt a QSO.
>
> Also . . . as others have said, DX propagation is still pretty good on 160m
> most nights . . . but despite lots of CQ calls by myself and other EU
> stations, we're often getting no replies!  (despite RBN reports being good)
>
> 73 Roger G3YRO
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

[Roger Kennedy]

Mike the DX Cluster I use only shows 160m spots anyway !
 
Roger G3YRO


  _  

From: Michael Walker [mailto:va...@portcredit.net] 

Because they can.  The DX cluster is like bragging on Twitter.   :)

May I suggest that you run some filters that are related to your cluster
login that only allow spots for those bands you are interested in.

Mike va3mw
__ 
 
 On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:58 PM Roger Kennedy
 wrote:

Why oh why do some people post on the DX Cluster every FT8 station they have
heard?

One GM station this evening posted 21 stations . . . none of them were even
DX !

I don't even see why you would post ANY on the DX Cluster . . . I thought
the whole point of FT8 is that you leave your computer listening on the same
frequency, so surely any stations will just come up on the screen?

Whereas posting the frequency of a CW or SSB DX station on the Cluster is
really useful to help people find those stations, and attempt a QSO.

Also . . . as others have said, DX propagation is still pretty good on 160m
most nights . . . but despite lots of CQ calls by myself and other EU
stations, we're often getting no replies!  (despite RBN reports being good)

73 Roger G3YRO

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

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

[Michael Walker]

Because they can.  The DX cluster is like bragging on Twitter.   :)

May I suggest that you run some filters that are related to your cluster
login that only allow spots for those bands you are interested in.

Mike va3mw




On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:58 PM Roger Kennedy 
wrote:

>
> Why oh why do some people post on the DX Cluster every FT8 station they
> have
> heard?
>
> One GM station this evening posted 21 stations . . . none of them were even
> DX !
>
> I don't even see why you would post ANY on the DX Cluster . . . I thought
> the whole point of FT8 is that you leave your computer listening on the
> same
> frequency, so surely any stations will just come up on the screen?
>
> Whereas posting the frequency of a CW or SSB DX station on the Cluster is
> really useful to help people find those stations, and attempt a QSO.
>
> Also . . . as others have said, DX propagation is still pretty good on 160m
> most nights . . . but despite lots of CQ calls by myself and other EU
> stations, we're often getting no replies!  (despite RBN reports being good)
>
> 73 Roger G3YRO
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

[Roger Kennedy]

Why oh why do some people post on the DX Cluster every FT8 station they have
heard?

One GM station this evening posted 21 stations . . . none of them were even
DX !

I don't even see why you would post ANY on the DX Cluster . . . I thought
the whole point of FT8 is that you leave your computer listening on the same
frequency, so surely any stations will just come up on the screen?

Whereas posting the frequency of a CW or SSB DX station on the Cluster is
really useful to help people find those stations, and attempt a QSO.

Also . . . as others have said, DX propagation is still pretty good on 160m
most nights . . . but despite lots of CQ calls by myself and other EU
stations, we're often getting no replies!  (despite RBN reports being good)

73 Roger G3YRO

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

Topband: FT8 and comments.

[John]

Hi guys not posted for many years , I worked as a ships  Radio Officer for 28 
years finally ended career with a Norwegian company working North of 65 degrees 
on a semi sub offshore drilling rig Dyvi Stena.

In the early days had to send reports mostly cw, then later creed teleprinter 
horrible 
Radio room full of figure 8 paper copy tapes hung on nails hihi . 

Cw always was the mode my rig / gear old fashioned the best filter in my 
opinion is between your ears , no money for expensive transceivers but antennas 
not bad 
And 40 zones on 160 cw . I'm not a digi fan but hey ho each to own . All best 73

John G4EIM 

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

Topband: FT8!!

[Salvatore Ted K2QMF]

Meghan Markle Confirms Unfortunate News
track.volutrk.com
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5d4749f89dc0649f87116st04duc
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[George Taft via Topband]

 Mark etal

Using CW, I've worked DXCC on Topband for at least the past ten "seasons" 
including 2018/2019. But last year was the most skimpy with just 105 in the 
log. Peak was several years ago at 155. I use July 1 - June 30 as a "season".

Mebbe when the new mode fad settles, CW on 160 may agn be worthy.

73 George 
W8UVZ On Sunday, August 4, 2019, 12:02:58 AM EDT, Mark K3MSB 
 wrote:  
 
 Jerry

You said " Yes DX last year on 160 CW was pretty scarce" and other have
made a similar comment.

Are you referring to new ones, or just DX in general?    I worked 16 new
ones on CW last season and understand that "scarce" can be different
depending upon how many DXCC one already has worked.

73 Mark K3MSB




On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 8:51 PM K4SAV  wrote:

> NR2DX asked: "If read your post correctly you are saying that you are
> working against an ambient noise level of 20-30 db over S9 is that
> correct.? "
>
> No.  The S9+20 to 30 dB is the S meter reading when all the FT8 stations
> are transmitting after the band opens a little.  Receiver bandwidth was
> 1.5 kHz.  Tuning to a clear frequency my noise level was about S1 with
> 200 Hz bandwidth when I made these tests.  I usually used 100 Hz
> bandwidth when measuring the signal level of the FT8 signal for
> determining his actual strength. Sometimes less if there were multiple
> signals in the passband.
>
>
> W0MU asked:  "Have you attempted to open a conversation with the
> creators of the mode and discuss what you are seeing?"
>
> No I have not.  I have also not seen any published data from anyone
> showing actual performance.  All I see are claims based on calculations.
> Theory is good but it has to agree reasonably well with actual
> measurements.  If not, one of the two is in error.
>
> Yes DX last year on 160 CW was pretty scarce.  Even when I was hearing
> S6 FT8 signals from Europe I would tune down to the CW portion of the
> band and usually there were no CW signals there.
>
> When I was doing these tests I was using WSJT-X in FT8 mode on 160
> meters.  I was using version 2.0.0, which was the latest version at the
> time.
>
> Jerry, K4SAV
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
  
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[Mark K3MSB]

Jerry

You said " Yes DX last year on 160 CW was pretty scarce" and other have
made a similar comment.

Are you referring to new ones, or just DX in general?I worked 16 new
ones on CW last season and understand that "scarce" can be different
depending upon how many DXCC one already has worked.

73 Mark K3MSB




On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 8:51 PM K4SAV  wrote:

> NR2DX asked: "If read your post correctly you are saying that you are
> working against an ambient noise level of 20-30 db over S9 is that
> correct.? "
>
> No.  The S9+20 to 30 dB is the S meter reading when all the FT8 stations
> are transmitting after the band opens a little.  Receiver bandwidth was
> 1.5 kHz.  Tuning to a clear frequency my noise level was about S1 with
> 200 Hz bandwidth when I made these tests.  I usually used 100 Hz
> bandwidth when measuring the signal level of the FT8 signal for
> determining his actual strength. Sometimes less if there were multiple
> signals in the passband.
>
>
> W0MU asked:  "Have you attempted to open a conversation with the
> creators of the mode and discuss what you are seeing?"
>
> No I have not.  I have also not seen any published data from anyone
> showing actual performance.  All I see are claims based on calculations.
> Theory is good but it has to agree reasonably well with actual
> measurements.  If not, one of the two is in error.
>
> Yes DX last year on 160 CW was pretty scarce.  Even when I was hearing
> S6 FT8 signals from Europe I would tune down to the CW portion of the
> band and usually there were no CW signals there.
>
> When I was doing these tests I was using WSJT-X in FT8 mode on 160
> meters.  I was using version 2.0.0, which was the latest version at the
> time.
>
> Jerry, K4SAV
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[K4SAV]

NR2DX asked: "If read your post correctly you are saying that you are 
working against an ambient noise level of 20-30 db over S9 is that 
correct.? "


No.  The S9+20 to 30 dB is the S meter reading when all the FT8 stations 
are transmitting after the band opens a little.  Receiver bandwidth was 
1.5 kHz.  Tuning to a clear frequency my noise level was about S1 with 
200 Hz bandwidth when I made these tests.  I usually used 100 Hz 
bandwidth when measuring the signal level of the FT8 signal for 
determining his actual strength. Sometimes less if there were multiple 
signals in the passband.



W0MU asked:  "Have you attempted to open a conversation with the 
creators of the mode and discuss what you are seeing?"


No I have not.  I have also not seen any published data from anyone 
showing actual performance.  All I see are claims based on calculations. 
Theory is good but it has to agree reasonably well with actual 
measurements.  If not, one of the two is in error.


Yes DX last year on 160 CW was pretty scarce.  Even when I was hearing 
S6 FT8 signals from Europe I would tune down to the CW portion of the 
band and usually there were no CW signals there.


When I was doing these tests I was using WSJT-X in FT8 mode on 160 
meters.  I was using version 2.0.0, which was the latest version at the 
time.


Jerry, K4SAV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[Paul Mclaren]

For me it is quite simple CW and SSB when I am in the shack and FT8 when I
am not.  It’s the same for all bands and has actually increased my
enjoyment and access to the radio.

I don’t have the luxury to spend hours in the shack so finding out what is
being received when I am busy is a definite bonus.  I can also connect over
the WiFi from the iPad to remote control the shack PC and make a few
contacts at hours of the day I would not usually have chance to be on the
radio.

As has been said it is pretty interesting to see what is going on when you
can be on the band 24/7.

Regards

Paul MM0ZBH


On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 23:00, Phil Duff  wrote:

>
> > On Aug 3, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Cecil  wrote:
> >
> > I worked very little DX on 6M until FT8 so there is still something more
> going on than you have discovered in your testing.
> >
> > Cecil
> > K5DL
> >
>
> From my experience - it's simply that there is much more DX using FT8 on
> all bands than other modes.
>
> Not long after FT8 was released firing it up on 80m at fall morning
> sunrises was very revealing. The amount and variety of DX available from
> the Far East on FT8 was eye-opening whereas CW/SSB were very slim pickings
> if existent at all on any given morning.
>
> No signs of that changing - except maybe continuing to increase.
>
> 73 Phil NA4M
>
> -. .- ….- --
> Phil Duff  na4m[at]suddenlink[dot]net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[Phil Duff]

> On Aug 3, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Cecil  wrote:
> 
> I worked very little DX on 6M until FT8 so there is still something more 
> going on than you have discovered in your testing.
> 
> Cecil
> K5DL
> 

From my experience - it's simply that there is much more DX using FT8 on all 
bands than other modes.

Not long after FT8 was released firing it up on 80m at fall morning sunrises 
was very revealing. The amount and variety of DX available from the Far East on 
FT8 was eye-opening whereas CW/SSB were very slim pickings if existent at all 
on any given morning. 

No signs of that changing - except maybe continuing to increase.  

73 Phil NA4M

-. .- ….- --
Phil Duff  na4m[at]suddenlink[dot]net
















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

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[Artek Manuals]

Dave

If read your post correctly you are saying that you are working against 
an ambient noise level of 20-30 db over S9 is that correct.?


And for starters your measurements are made against that background did 
I understand that correctly?


Trying to keep this simple

Dave
NR1DX


On 8/3/2019 3:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
There is growing trend on 160 that I find disturbing and that is for 
major DXpedition to use FT8 for all or mostly all 160 operations. They 
do that because they "know" that FT8 is ideally suited for weak signal 
operation.  They have read that and are continually told that by 
everyone.  Rare countries on 160 is synonymous with weak signals and 
poor signal to noise ratios.


I know of no one that has done the same tests that I posted to 
Topband.  I have had people agree with me but that was because they 
liked my answers, not because it agreed with their measurements.  I 
have had many people tell me I am wrong and they sited the official 
documentation as proof that my measurement were wrong.


So if you would like to join the ranks of myth busters, start doing 
some measuring.  WARNING, Myth busting of all types in ham radio is a 
never ending effort.  As soon as you bust one, two posts later someone 
will repeat it again. Sorry, I don't have any caps, pins, or t-shirts 
to sell.


If enough people start characterizing this mode maybe the more 
experienced people in radio will sit up and take notice.  One or two 
posts by a single person isn't going to do it.


You are not going to kill FT8 no matter what you do or how feel about 
it.  It will always be a home for those they can't copy CW, and for 
those that don't like CW, and for a few others for a variety of 
reasons.  I can't see a problem with that.  The problem I see is with 
FT8 and major DXpeditions.  I also see some FT8 only DXpeditions but 
those are usually vacation part time to non-rare countries.  Can't 
worry about those.


For people that can't copy CW, FT8 is very attractive.  It will allow 
them to work some DX on 160.  In the winter I see Europe appearing on 
FT8, so that can be worked from the eastern US. Invariably when I 
measure the strength of those stations, they are close to S6.  That 
would be arm chair copy on CW with a receiver that sits on S1 on noise.


So contribute to the ham radio knowledge data base by making some 
measurements.  I described my measurements in a previous post. 
Figuring out what the reported S/N number means is interesting but the 
more important question is what is the minimum signal to noise ratio 
this mode will decode.  Sitting up a test for minimum signal is a 
little tricky because there are so many FT8 stations on at any one 
time, there is almost never a nearly dead band.  I simulated that on 
160 by waiting until the first stations from the NE showed up on the 
band (just after their sunset) and turning my antenna away from them 
so as to decrease their strength and bring up the noise from other 
directions.  When I wait until sunset occurs in more locations, my S 
meter hangs at about S9 +20 to 30 dB no matter which direction I point 
my antenna.  I tried doing this on 6 meters but often there was 
nothing there. I suggest doing measurement first in normal decoding 
mode, then test what it does in deep search mode.  Be careful how you 
switch modes.  FT8 likes to memorize the band and make guesses in deep 
search mode.


You can try doing the minimum S/N test in a crowded band instead of a 
nearly dead band but I don't think you will ever find it decoding a 
weak signal.  You have to measure the noise levels and signal levels.  
You can't use the reported S/N number.


If you make some measurements, post them.  I would really like to hear 
what others find, especially if they happen to disagree with what I 
measured.


I don't have a pony in the dog and pony DXCC race so I don't have an 
opinion there.  I love working DX on 160 but collecting cards was no 
fun.  So years ago I decided to only do the fun part.  I compete with 
myself, no one else, and I don't get bragging rights, but I don't do 
this for bragging rights.


Jerry, K4SAV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector




--
Dave
manu...@artekmanuals.com
www.ArtekManuals.com


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[Cecil]

I worked very little DX on 6M until FT8 so there is still something more going 
on than you have discovered in your testing.

Cecil
K5DL

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 3, 2019, at 4:23 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:
> 
> Have you attempted to open a conversation with the creators of the mode and 
> discuss what you are seeing?  They seem like they are quite knowledgeable.  
> How can you disprove their claims of weak signal mode when you are not sure 
> how they are coming up with their numbers?
> 
> I never heard EU or JA on 160 until I tried FT8 last year.  I never once 
> heard any dx on CW last season although many tried as the devout 6M ops have 
> a chat room where there were countless tries on other modes but only contacts 
> made on FT8.  Why is that?  No longer do you have to have stacks or H frames 
> to work Gud DX on 6m.
> 
> W0MU
> 
> 
>> On 8/3/2019 1:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
>> There is growing trend on 160 that I find disturbing and that is for major 
>> DXpedition to use FT8 for all or mostly all 160 operations. They do that 
>> because they "know" that FT8 is ideally suited for weak signal operation.  
>> They have read that and are continually told that by everyone.  Rare 
>> countries on 160 is synonymous with weak signals and poor signal to noise 
>> ratios.
>> 
>> I know of no one that has done the same tests that I posted to Topband.  I 
>> have had people agree with me but that was because they liked my answers, 
>> not because it agreed with their measurements.  I have had many people tell 
>> me I am wrong and they sited the official documentation as proof that my 
>> measurement were wrong.
>> 
>> So if you would like to join the ranks of myth busters, start doing some 
>> measuring.  WARNING, Myth busting of all types in ham radio is a never 
>> ending effort.  As soon as you bust one, two posts later someone will repeat 
>> it again. Sorry, I don't have any caps, pins, or t-shirts to sell.
>> 
>> If enough people start characterizing this mode maybe the more experienced 
>> people in radio will sit up and take notice.  One or two posts by a single 
>> person isn't going to do it.
>> 
>> You are not going to kill FT8 no matter what you do or how feel about it.  
>> It will always be a home for those they can't copy CW, and for those that 
>> don't like CW, and for a few others for a variety of reasons.  I can't see a 
>> problem with that.  The problem I see is with FT8 and major DXpeditions.  I 
>> also see some FT8 only DXpeditions but those are usually vacation part time 
>> to non-rare countries.  Can't worry about those.
>> 
>> For people that can't copy CW, FT8 is very attractive.  It will allow them 
>> to work some DX on 160.  In the winter I see Europe appearing on FT8, so 
>> that can be worked from the eastern US. Invariably when I measure the 
>> strength of those stations, they are close to S6.  That would be arm chair 
>> copy on CW with a receiver that sits on S1 on noise.
>> 
>> So contribute to the ham radio knowledge data base by making some 
>> measurements.  I described my measurements in a previous post. Figuring out 
>> what the reported S/N number means is interesting but the more important 
>> question is what is the minimum signal to noise ratio this mode will decode. 
>>  Sitting up a test for minimum signal is a little tricky because there are 
>> so many FT8 stations on at any one time, there is almost never a nearly dead 
>> band.  I simulated that on 160 by waiting until the first stations from the 
>> NE showed up on the band (just after their sunset) and turning my antenna 
>> away from them so as to decrease their strength and bring up the noise from 
>> other directions.  When I wait until sunset occurs in more locations, my S 
>> meter hangs at about S9 +20 to 30 dB no matter which direction I point my 
>> antenna.  I tried doing this on 6 meters but often there was nothing there. 
>> I suggest doing measurement first in normal decoding mode, then test what it 
>> does in deep search mod
 e.  Be careful how you switch modes.  FT8 likes to memorize the band and make 
guesses in deep search mode.
>> 
>> You can try doing the minimum S/N test in a crowded band instead of a nearly 
>> dead band but I don't think you will ever find it decoding a weak signal.  
>> You have to measure the noise levels and signal levels.  You can't use the 
>> reported S/N number.
>> 
>> If you make some measurements, post them.  I would really like to hear what 
>> others find, especially if they happen to disagree with what I measured.
>> 
>> I don't have a pony in the dog and pony DXCC race so I don't have an opinion 
>> there.  I love working DX on 160 but collecting cards was no fun.  So years 
>> ago I decided to only do the fun part.  I compete with myself, no one else, 
>> and I don't get bragging rights, but I don't do this for bragging rights.
>> 
>> Jerry, K4SAV
>> _
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 

Re: Topband: FT8 on 160 - how you can make a difference

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Have you attempted to open a conversation with the creators of the mode 
and discuss what you are seeing?  They seem like they are quite 
knowledgeable.  How can you disprove their claims of weak signal mode 
when you are not sure how they are coming up with their numbers?


I never heard EU or JA on 160 until I tried FT8 last year.  I never once 
heard any dx on CW last season although many tried as the devout 6M ops 
have a chat room where there were countless tries on other modes but 
only contacts made on FT8.  Why is that?  No longer do you have to have 
stacks or H frames to work Gud DX on 6m.


W0MU


On 8/3/2019 1:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
There is growing trend on 160 that I find disturbing and that is for 
major DXpedition to use FT8 for all or mostly all 160 operations. They 
do that because they "know" that FT8 is ideally suited for weak signal 
operation.  They have read that and are continually told that by 
everyone.  Rare countries on 160 is synonymous with weak signals and 
poor signal to noise ratios.


I know of no one that has done the same tests that I posted to 
Topband.  I have had people agree with me but that was because they 
liked my answers, not because it agreed with their measurements.  I 
have had many people tell me I am wrong and they sited the official 
documentation as proof that my measurement were wrong.


So if you would like to join the ranks of myth busters, start doing 
some measuring.  WARNING, Myth busting of all types in ham radio is a 
never ending effort.  As soon as you bust one, two posts later someone 
will repeat it again. Sorry, I don't have any caps, pins, or t-shirts 
to sell.


If enough people start characterizing this mode maybe the more 
experienced people in radio will sit up and take notice.  One or two 
posts by a single person isn't going to do it.


You are not going to kill FT8 no matter what you do or how feel about 
it.  It will always be a home for those they can't copy CW, and for 
those that don't like CW, and for a few others for a variety of 
reasons.  I can't see a problem with that.  The problem I see is with 
FT8 and major DXpeditions.  I also see some FT8 only DXpeditions but 
those are usually vacation part time to non-rare countries.  Can't 
worry about those.


For people that can't copy CW, FT8 is very attractive.  It will allow 
them to work some DX on 160.  In the winter I see Europe appearing on 
FT8, so that can be worked from the eastern US. Invariably when I 
measure the strength of those stations, they are close to S6.  That 
would be arm chair copy on CW with a receiver that sits on S1 on noise.


So contribute to the ham radio knowledge data base by making some 
measurements.  I described my measurements in a previous post. 
Figuring out what the reported S/N number means is interesting but the 
more important question is what is the minimum signal to noise ratio 
this mode will decode.  Sitting up a test for minimum signal is a 
little tricky because there are so many FT8 stations on at any one 
time, there is almost never a nearly dead band.  I simulated that on 
160 by waiting until the first stations from the NE showed up on the 
band (just after their sunset) and turning my antenna away from them 
so as to decrease their strength and bring up the noise from other 
directions.  When I wait until sunset occurs in more locations, my S 
meter hangs at about S9 +20 to 30 dB no matter which direction I point 
my antenna.  I tried doing this on 6 meters but often there was 
nothing there. I suggest doing measurement first in normal decoding 
mode, then test what it does in deep search mode.  Be careful how you 
switch modes.  FT8 likes to memorize the band and make guesses in deep 
search mode.


You can try doing the minimum S/N test in a crowded band instead of a 
nearly dead band but I don't think you will ever find it decoding a 
weak signal.  You have to measure the noise levels and signal levels.  
You can't use the reported S/N number.


If you make some measurements, post them.  I would really like to hear 
what others find, especially if they happen to disagree with what I 
measured.


I don't have a pony in the dog and pony DXCC race so I don't have an 
opinion there.  I love working DX on 160 but collecting cards was no 
fun.  So years ago I decided to only do the fun part.  I compete with 
myself, no one else, and I don't get bragging rights, but I don't do 
this for bragging rights.


Jerry, K4SAV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


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

Topband: FT8

[Ross Johnson]

Interesting reading, this proves to me beyond dough  at least some cw 
operators feel

they are superior and any other means of communication is below them.

I passed the cw test here in 1976 but rarely us it , might try to work 
the odd
Dxpedition . It doesn’t help when they wont slow down for someone who is 
not up to their standard.


I have been on 6 metres for 40 years and worked a large number of 
countries but will never make 100 without moon bounce as we are so 
isolated . FT8 in general has been good for 6. Last summer 100 watt 
stations with simple antennas were working about 4800km to VK6. Not easy 
on SSB. VK3s  have worked or heard EU last month. Worked North America 
as well. A local ham here also worked NA and decoded S50.
JA and HL also worked. I have only managed 4 winter openings to Vk. 
During ssb winter  years, some years nothing worked. Clearly FT8 and 
being on same frequency helps.


Am new to 160m, been on 1 year. and amazed I have worked 60 countries 
FT8 from a town sized section. My L antenna vertical section is only up 
30 feet and rest drops to 15 feet with a bend in it. Many EU worked. So 
like it or not digital DXCCs will be issued even if they are seen as 
second class to some of you .


73  RossZL3RJ   ZL3ADT
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: FT8

[Craig Clark]

2. Re: FT8 vs other modes 

This discussion has been fascinating for the breadth and depth of opinions.

The fundamental fact however is that this is a hobby with a wide range of
options.

FT8 will not be the end of CW operation. It is just another mode.

Life is change. We cannot "live" in the past. 

Quoting Sgt Highway from "Heartbreak Ridge," "Improvise, Adapt, Overcome."

Quoting my SGM from college, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Will I get on FT8? Maybe. I have not done RTTY since being in the Army.


Craig

Craig Clark K1QX
PO Box 209
107 Fitzgerald Rd
Rindge NH 03461
(603) 899-6103 office
(603) 520 6577 cell


 

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

Re: Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers.

[Arthur Delibert]

Well said.  Thank you.


From: Topband  on behalf of Cecil Acuff 

Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 7:06 PM
To: DXer
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers.

Yeah the elitist attitude of CW being the only thing that’s real that seems to 
permeate this list at times is quite stale.

I work CW, SSB, RTTY, FT8whatever gets the contact in the log...it’s all 
radiotake the radio away or have Mother Nature take the path down and 
nothing gets through.

It’s not the internet

Funnynot too many years ago the bane was the SSB op2nd class 
citizensnow relative to the FT8 op that’s now acceptableto some degree.

Looks like the bickering over FT8’s legitimacy has taken the focus off the 
remote station/remote receiver fight of a couple years back. (Probably a good 
thing)

It always has to be something it seems.

Not much can be done to change it so...if it’s not your mode of choice just 
don’t use it.

Not much reason to continue whining about it or the lack of CW activity when 
the band is hopping with FT8 stations...actually many of your buddies are 
probably up there having some fun on FT8, why else would the CW portion of the 
band be dead with all the CW only OPs there are hanging out here?

Maybe some closet FT8 ops... But it’s not the end of Ham Radio

Sorry Treejust boiled over I guess...

I’m done...and if I’m banned I’m bannedit needed to be said!

K5DL

Sent using recycled electrons.

> On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:07 PM, DXer  wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> You wrote in your reply to Mike, W0MU:
>
> >...you are buying into a myth that both supporters and detractors of FT8 
> >perpetuate. The myth that FT8 is superior for DX'ing, to other modes.
>
> With all due respect, I think you are 'buying' into the 'red herring' that 
> some are using to 'bad mouth' the mode.
>
> Skilled operators like you, operators with above average stations, will not 
> benefit from FT8 as much, at least on HF.
>
> I think Jeff, AC0C summarized it best when he wrote:
>
> >Add in the poor prop conditions and lousy antenna situations and you have a 
> >handy way to up the odds of a DX contact for the average Joe Ham.  And the 
> >average Joe Ham on FT8 (my guess) is more likely a SSB op where the compare 
> >is more impressive than the CW-VS FT8 meaning that coming from SSB, FT8 
> >gives a pretty big relative improvement in working the weak ones.
>
> I am the Joe Ham! I don't claim to be as skilled as you and others, and I 
> don't have a very good station. The limitation is mostly 'logistical', but 
> also financial. In addition to those, my radio time is limited. I, Joe Ham, 
> am the main beneficiary of the mode.
>
> The hatred you see around is not because skilled operators, with well 
> equipped stations, are/are not benefiting from FT8. It's because Joe Ham has 
> a chance to work a few of the difficult entities they had to sweat blood and 
> tears to work just a couple of years ago.
>
> I'll not get into the 'instant gratification-no hard work' thing, another 
> silliness being 'advanced' by detractors.
>
> For you, and others in a similar situation, FT8 will be useful only when the 
> DX will not work, or not work enough, SSB/CW/RTTY, but you figured that one 
> out already.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vince, VA3VF
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers.

[Cecil Acuff]

Yeah the elitist attitude of CW being the only thing that’s real that seems to 
permeate this list at times is quite stale.

I work CW, SSB, RTTY, FT8whatever gets the contact in the log...it’s all 
radiotake the radio away or have Mother Nature take the path down and 
nothing gets through. 

It’s not the internet

Funnynot too many years ago the bane was the SSB op2nd class 
citizensnow relative to the FT8 op that’s now acceptableto some degree.

Looks like the bickering over FT8’s legitimacy has taken the focus off the 
remote station/remote receiver fight of a couple years back. (Probably a good 
thing) 

It always has to be something it seems.

Not much can be done to change it so...if it’s not your mode of choice just 
don’t use it. 

Not much reason to continue whining about it or the lack of CW activity when 
the band is hopping with FT8 stations...actually many of your buddies are 
probably up there having some fun on FT8, why else would the CW portion of the 
band be dead with all the CW only OPs there are hanging out here? 

Maybe some closet FT8 ops... But it’s not the end of Ham Radio

Sorry Treejust boiled over I guess...

I’m done...and if I’m banned I’m bannedit needed to be said!

K5DL

Sent using recycled electrons.

> On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:07 PM, DXer  wrote:
> 
> Tim,
> 
> You wrote in your reply to Mike, W0MU:
> 
> >...you are buying into a myth that both supporters and detractors of FT8 
> >perpetuate. The myth that FT8 is superior for DX'ing, to other modes.
> 
> With all due respect, I think you are 'buying' into the 'red herring' that 
> some are using to 'bad mouth' the mode.
> 
> Skilled operators like you, operators with above average stations, will not 
> benefit from FT8 as much, at least on HF.
> 
> I think Jeff, AC0C summarized it best when he wrote:
> 
> >Add in the poor prop conditions and lousy antenna situations and you have a 
> >handy way to up the odds of a DX contact for the average Joe Ham.  And the 
> >average Joe Ham on FT8 (my guess) is more likely a SSB op where the compare 
> >is more impressive than the CW-VS FT8 meaning that coming from SSB, FT8 
> >gives a pretty big relative improvement in working the weak ones.
> 
> I am the Joe Ham! I don't claim to be as skilled as you and others, and I 
> don't have a very good station. The limitation is mostly 'logistical', but 
> also financial. In addition to those, my radio time is limited. I, Joe Ham, 
> am the main beneficiary of the mode.
> 
> The hatred you see around is not because skilled operators, with well 
> equipped stations, are/are not benefiting from FT8. It's because Joe Ham has 
> a chance to work a few of the difficult entities they had to sweat blood and 
> tears to work just a couple of years ago.
> 
> I'll not get into the 'instant gratification-no hard work' thing, another 
> silliness being 'advanced' by detractors.
> 
> For you, and others in a similar situation, FT8 will be useful only when the 
> DX will not work, or not work enough, SSB/CW/RTTY, but you figured that one 
> out already.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vince, VA3VF
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers.

[DXer]

Tim,

You wrote in your reply to Mike, W0MU:

>...you are buying into a myth that both supporters and detractors of 
FT8 perpetuate. The myth that FT8 is superior for DX'ing, to other modes.


With all due respect, I think you are 'buying' into the 'red herring' 
that some are using to 'bad mouth' the mode.


Skilled operators like you, operators with above average stations, will 
not benefit from FT8 as much, at least on HF.


I think Jeff, AC0C summarized it best when he wrote:

>Add in the poor prop conditions and lousy antenna situations and you 
have a handy way to up the odds of a DX contact for the average Joe Ham. 
 And the average Joe Ham on FT8 (my guess) is more likely a SSB op 
where the compare is more impressive than the CW-VS FT8 meaning that 
coming from SSB, FT8 gives a pretty big relative improvement in working 
the weak ones.


I am the Joe Ham! I don't claim to be as skilled as you and others, and 
I don't have a very good station. The limitation is mostly 'logistical', 
but also financial. In addition to those, my radio time is limited. I, 
Joe Ham, am the main beneficiary of the mode.


The hatred you see around is not because skilled operators, with well 
equipped stations, are/are not benefiting from FT8. It's because Joe Ham 
has a chance to work a few of the difficult entities they had to sweat 
blood and tears to work just a couple of years ago.


I'll not get into the 'instant gratification-no hard work' thing, 
another silliness being 'advanced' by detractors.


For you, and others in a similar situation, FT8 will be useful only when 
the DX will not work, or not work enough, SSB/CW/RTTY, but you figured 
that one out already.


Regards,

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

Re: Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers

[Jeff Blaine]

Tim, My take on the popularity is explained this way.  FT8 has an SNR 
advantage over CW of around 5 dB, PSK31 - about 10 dB and SSB of more 
than 15 dB.  So for a given set of link conditions, FT8 result in a Q in 
the log more often than the other modes.


Add in the poor prop conditions and lousy antenna situations and you 
have a handy way to up the odds of a DX contact for the average Joe 
Ham.  And the average Joe Ham on FT8 (my guess) is more likely a SSB op 
where the compare is more impressive than the CW-VS FT8 meaning that 
coming from SSB, FT8 gives a pretty big relative improvement in working 
the weak ones.


I think FT8 is like any other mode - it's got it's areas of merit and 
it's areas of difficulty.  FT8 brings a nice low SNR capability, the 
occupied BW is tiny and the software minimizes required operator skill.  
On the other hand, the conversation contents and pace is 100% scripted.  
Like classic modes RTTY, AM, SSB & CW, FT8 has it's place.  FT8 is a 
great knife to bring to a knife fight.  But it's not the be all, end all 
of modes. [Pactor 4 is, of course.  ha ha.]


See you in the RTTY WPX next weekend.

73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com

On 03-Feb-19 9:05 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:

Mike, you are buying into a myth that both supporters and detractors of FT8
perpetuate. The myth that FT8 is superior for DX'ing, to other modes.

2018 was my "year of FT8". I participated in several on-air WSJT new
feature tests including DXpedition mode testing. I spent the vast majority
of my on-air hours, outside of contests, on FT8. I CQ'd a lot on FT8 and
also chased DX on FT8.

You ask: " Productive in what way?  To work new ones? ". I specifically
checked by 2018 log statistics for new band slots. I worked 4 new band
slots on 160M in 2018 - zero on FT8. I worked 13 new ones on 80M in 2018 -
none on FT8. I worked 5 new ones on 40M in 2018 - none on FT8. And so on.

You also ask: "How many countries did you work on FT8 that you did not or
could not work on any other mode." My answer: I worked 4 ATNO's in 2018.
None did I need FT8 to confirm.

Now, I did work 13 of DXpeditions in 2018 for new digital mode DXCC credit
in 2018. If I look at these stats, 8 of them I worked on RTTY, and 5 I
worked on FT8. But the ones I worked on FT8 completely neglected RTTY -
they never did any RTTY at all or made only a handful of RTTY Q's. I'm sure
I could've completed a RTTY QSO with any of those 5 if they had made an
effort on RTTY.

No matter how I slice it or dice it, FT8 is not a superior mode. Both the
detractors and supporters of FT8 are suffering from the myth that FT8 makes
DX'ing easier. It does not. I tried hard to max out FT8 using any
quantitative measure in 2018 - just look at the number of hours I invested
- and FT8 came up short in every single measure, including the
hard-DX-oriented measures you propose.

Tim N3QE


On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 2:28 PM W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:


FT8 was not created to be a rate mode.  It is a weak signal mode.  For
those of us a long way from the East Coast and salt it allows us to work
stations that we probably had very little shot of working without FT8.

Productive in what way?  To work new ones?  Check!DXing is not
necessarily about rate, I thought that is what contests were for.

How many countries did you work on FT8 that you did not  or could not
work on any other mode.  That would be my definition of productive.

Productive to me is working new ones with the least amount of time
expended.

W0MU

On 2/1/2019 9:12 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:

There are some untrue things being assumed here, as if they are

advantages

to FT8 that make FT8 be a more productive mode for DX'ing.

In fact FT8 is the least productive of all modes I used in 2018. And I

was

on FT8 a lot in 2018. I tried hard to be productive in FT8 - measured in
Q's per hour, or DXCC , or any other quantitative measure. And FT8 was

far

and away the least productive mode for me.

You will note I am no stranger to digital modes - I am often in top 3 of

CQ

WW RTTY in USA SO HP(A). So please take for granted that I am competent

at

digital modes and my poor FT8 results are not because I'm a poor digital
mode operator.

In below calculations I use "half hour off time" calculations, in
calculating on time for each mode. "Half hour off time" calculations are
super commonly done in contests.

In 2018 I was on CW for 481 hours. I made 32610 QSO's for a rate of 68

per

hour and worked 185 DXCC.

In 2018 I was on SSB for 107 hours. I made 7344 QSO's for a rate of 69

per

hour and worked 104 DXCC.

In 2018 I was on RTTY for 250 hours. I made 13319 QSO's for a rate of 53
per hour and worked 117 DXCC's.

In 2018 I was on FT8 for 376 hours. I made 6460 QSO's for a rate of 17

per

hour and worked 110 DXCC's.

BY ANY QUANTITATIVE MEASURE, FT8 was my least productive mode by far.

I DO NOT HAVE A SUPERSTATION. In fact I just have a single wire antenna.
But I have worked hard on developing my 

Re: Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers

[Tim Shoppa]

Mike, you are buying into a myth that both supporters and detractors of FT8
perpetuate. The myth that FT8 is superior for DX'ing, to other modes.

2018 was my "year of FT8". I participated in several on-air WSJT new
feature tests including DXpedition mode testing. I spent the vast majority
of my on-air hours, outside of contests, on FT8. I CQ'd a lot on FT8 and
also chased DX on FT8.

You ask: " Productive in what way?  To work new ones? ". I specifically
checked by 2018 log statistics for new band slots. I worked 4 new band
slots on 160M in 2018 - zero on FT8. I worked 13 new ones on 80M in 2018 -
none on FT8. I worked 5 new ones on 40M in 2018 - none on FT8. And so on.

You also ask: "How many countries did you work on FT8 that you did not or
could not work on any other mode." My answer: I worked 4 ATNO's in 2018.
None did I need FT8 to confirm.

Now, I did work 13 of DXpeditions in 2018 for new digital mode DXCC credit
in 2018. If I look at these stats, 8 of them I worked on RTTY, and 5 I
worked on FT8. But the ones I worked on FT8 completely neglected RTTY -
they never did any RTTY at all or made only a handful of RTTY Q's. I'm sure
I could've completed a RTTY QSO with any of those 5 if they had made an
effort on RTTY.

No matter how I slice it or dice it, FT8 is not a superior mode. Both the
detractors and supporters of FT8 are suffering from the myth that FT8 makes
DX'ing easier. It does not. I tried hard to max out FT8 using any
quantitative measure in 2018 - just look at the number of hours I invested
- and FT8 came up short in every single measure, including the
hard-DX-oriented measures you propose.

Tim N3QE


On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 2:28 PM W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:

> FT8 was not created to be a rate mode.  It is a weak signal mode.  For
> those of us a long way from the East Coast and salt it allows us to work
> stations that we probably had very little shot of working without FT8.
>
> Productive in what way?  To work new ones?  Check!DXing is not
> necessarily about rate, I thought that is what contests were for.
>
> How many countries did you work on FT8 that you did not  or could not
> work on any other mode.  That would be my definition of productive.
>
> Productive to me is working new ones with the least amount of time
> expended.
>
> W0MU
>
> On 2/1/2019 9:12 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:
> > There are some untrue things being assumed here, as if they are
> advantages
> > to FT8 that make FT8 be a more productive mode for DX'ing.
> >
> > In fact FT8 is the least productive of all modes I used in 2018. And I
> was
> > on FT8 a lot in 2018. I tried hard to be productive in FT8 - measured in
> > Q's per hour, or DXCC , or any other quantitative measure. And FT8 was
> far
> > and away the least productive mode for me.
> >
> > You will note I am no stranger to digital modes - I am often in top 3 of
> CQ
> > WW RTTY in USA SO HP(A). So please take for granted that I am competent
> at
> > digital modes and my poor FT8 results are not because I'm a poor digital
> > mode operator.
> >
> > In below calculations I use "half hour off time" calculations, in
> > calculating on time for each mode. "Half hour off time" calculations are
> > super commonly done in contests.
> >
> > In 2018 I was on CW for 481 hours. I made 32610 QSO's for a rate of 68
> per
> > hour and worked 185 DXCC.
> >
> > In 2018 I was on SSB for 107 hours. I made 7344 QSO's for a rate of 69
> per
> > hour and worked 104 DXCC.
> >
> > In 2018 I was on RTTY for 250 hours. I made 13319 QSO's for a rate of 53
> > per hour and worked 117 DXCC's.
> >
> > In 2018 I was on FT8 for 376 hours. I made 6460 QSO's for a rate of 17
> per
> > hour and worked 110 DXCC's.
> >
> > BY ANY QUANTITATIVE MEASURE, FT8 was my least productive mode by far.
> >
> > I DO NOT HAVE A SUPERSTATION. In fact I just have a single wire antenna.
> > But I have worked hard on developing my operating skills in all modes in
> my
> > 40 years of being a ham.
> >
> > If I had to choose one mode in 2019 to exercise and improve my skills, it
> > would be phone. I can get on for a half hour in Tuesday night phone fray
> > with 100W and make Q's at a rate of 40-60Q's an hour (rates completely
> > unachievable with FT8). While I have greatly improved my phone skills in
> > the past couple years, I still think there's lots of room for
> improvement!
> >
> > Tim N3QE
> > _
> > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

FT8 was not created to be a rate mode.  It is a weak signal mode.  For 
those of us a long way from the East Coast and salt it allows us to work 
stations that we probably had very little shot of working without FT8.


Productive in what way?  To work new ones?  Check!    DXing is not 
necessarily about rate, I thought that is what contests were for.


How many countries did you work on FT8 that you did not  or could not 
work on any other mode.  That would be my definition of productive.


Productive to me is working new ones with the least amount of time expended.

W0MU

On 2/1/2019 9:12 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:

There are some untrue things being assumed here, as if they are advantages
to FT8 that make FT8 be a more productive mode for DX'ing.

In fact FT8 is the least productive of all modes I used in 2018. And I was
on FT8 a lot in 2018. I tried hard to be productive in FT8 - measured in
Q's per hour, or DXCC , or any other quantitative measure. And FT8 was far
and away the least productive mode for me.

You will note I am no stranger to digital modes - I am often in top 3 of CQ
WW RTTY in USA SO HP(A). So please take for granted that I am competent at
digital modes and my poor FT8 results are not because I'm a poor digital
mode operator.

In below calculations I use "half hour off time" calculations, in
calculating on time for each mode. "Half hour off time" calculations are
super commonly done in contests.

In 2018 I was on CW for 481 hours. I made 32610 QSO's for a rate of 68 per
hour and worked 185 DXCC.

In 2018 I was on SSB for 107 hours. I made 7344 QSO's for a rate of 69 per
hour and worked 104 DXCC.

In 2018 I was on RTTY for 250 hours. I made 13319 QSO's for a rate of 53
per hour and worked 117 DXCC's.

In 2018 I was on FT8 for 376 hours. I made 6460 QSO's for a rate of 17 per
hour and worked 110 DXCC's.

BY ANY QUANTITATIVE MEASURE, FT8 was my least productive mode by far.

I DO NOT HAVE A SUPERSTATION. In fact I just have a single wire antenna.
But I have worked hard on developing my operating skills in all modes in my
40 years of being a ham.

If I had to choose one mode in 2019 to exercise and improve my skills, it
would be phone. I can get on for a half hour in Tuesday night phone fray
with 100W and make Q's at a rate of 40-60Q's an hour (rates completely
unachievable with FT8). While I have greatly improved my phone skills in
the past couple years, I still think there's lots of room for improvement!

Tim N3QE
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers

[Tim Shoppa]

There are some untrue things being assumed here, as if they are advantages
to FT8 that make FT8 be a more productive mode for DX'ing.

In fact FT8 is the least productive of all modes I used in 2018. And I was
on FT8 a lot in 2018. I tried hard to be productive in FT8 - measured in
Q's per hour, or DXCC , or any other quantitative measure. And FT8 was far
and away the least productive mode for me.

You will note I am no stranger to digital modes - I am often in top 3 of CQ
WW RTTY in USA SO HP(A). So please take for granted that I am competent at
digital modes and my poor FT8 results are not because I'm a poor digital
mode operator.

In below calculations I use "half hour off time" calculations, in
calculating on time for each mode. "Half hour off time" calculations are
super commonly done in contests.

In 2018 I was on CW for 481 hours. I made 32610 QSO's for a rate of 68 per
hour and worked 185 DXCC.

In 2018 I was on SSB for 107 hours. I made 7344 QSO's for a rate of 69 per
hour and worked 104 DXCC.

In 2018 I was on RTTY for 250 hours. I made 13319 QSO's for a rate of 53
per hour and worked 117 DXCC's.

In 2018 I was on FT8 for 376 hours. I made 6460 QSO's for a rate of 17 per
hour and worked 110 DXCC's.

BY ANY QUANTITATIVE MEASURE, FT8 was my least productive mode by far.

I DO NOT HAVE A SUPERSTATION. In fact I just have a single wire antenna.
But I have worked hard on developing my operating skills in all modes in my
40 years of being a ham.

If I had to choose one mode in 2019 to exercise and improve my skills, it
would be phone. I can get on for a half hour in Tuesday night phone fray
with 100W and make Q's at a rate of 40-60Q's an hour (rates completely
unachievable with FT8). While I have greatly improved my phone skills in
the past couple years, I still think there's lots of room for improvement!

Tim N3QE
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: FT8 (again)

[Tree]

I think the time has come to wind down the discussion on FT8 here.  I think
it has been discussed enough for everyone to have their views and I don't
think more discussion is going to change anyone's mind about how they feel
about it.  This is not something well aligned to the focus of this list.
We can discuss propagation and activity without going into the
philosophical discussion.

Thanks.

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

Re: Topband: EK8ZT on Topband FT8

[Gary Smith]

LOL, oh comeon, enough carping, I've made 
hundreds of QSOs, many of them CW, while 
driving.

73,

Gary
KA1J

> [sigh]
> 
> On 12/28/2018 10:33 AM, Tim Duffy wrote:
> > even cooking dinner at the same time!
> >
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
> 



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

Re: Topband: EK8ZT on Topband FT8

[Wes Stewart]

[sigh]

On 12/28/2018 10:33 AM, Tim Duffy wrote:

even cooking dinner at the same time!



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

Topband: EK8ZT on Topband FT8

[Tim Duffy]

Being that K8ZT is a friend of mine, I asked him if he was on FT8 160 meters
yesterday around sunset. 

Anthony responded that he was on and made several 160 meter FT8 QSOs, and
even cooking dinner at the same time!

 

Probably WD4ELG heard Anthony, K8ZT in Ohio grid EN91

 

73

Tim K3LR

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

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[Chuck Dietz]

Ok, ok. I said it wrong. When I think of 160, I say “night,” It was about
4:00 pm local time.

Chuck W5PR

On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 5:46 PM JC  wrote:

> Jerry
>
> The new mode FT8 is not all that new, actually, there are several aspects
> to
> consider, like detect  the signal,  decode the signal detected, make a
> decision to accept the decoded signal. The improvement on signal to noise
> ratio concept is very old, just the internet made  it possible with time
> synchronization. The decode uses new algorithms and some very intelligent
> way to guest the decoded signal.
>
> Check this out. 1975 Sept QST; Coherent cw test!  Experiments show 20 db
> Signal Boost over QRM,
>
>   http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/7509026.pdf
>
> The improvement on signal to noise ratio is just because a narrow
> bandwidth.
> The gates opens at the right millisecond window. On FSK the secret salvage
> is time synchronization.  You can record the audio and play it back, the
> decode will happen only if you synchronize the time of the recording with
> the time in ms of the PC clock.
>
> I did that, and it worked, I have a SDR QS1R and using HDSDR software to
> record the I/Q file, RF file. I used to record rare DX expedition signal
> and
> the bandwidth is 50 KHz, I can see the FT8 guys on 1840, My question was ,
> can I decode them from the digital file recorded several month ago?
>
> I started plaining the file at the top of the second count, and voalah!!!,
> The WSJT-X decoded several station, weak as -21 db. The weak signals are
> there, buried in the noise on my old digital recorded file.
>
> Then I decided to test my HWF, the practical result measuring cw signal is
> that the signal to noise increase around 20 db, 10 db due the directivity
> RDF 11.5 and another 10 db from the polarization filter. The Horizontal WF
> attenuation on vertical signals is over -90 db. The manmade noise vertical
> polarized is reduced below the MDS of the receiver and cannot be amplified
> by the receiver.
>
> The IC-7800 has two identical receivers. I connected my HWF on receiver
> MAIN
> and the TX antenna on the receiver SUB, I installed two instances of the
> WSJTX program, one for each receiver. After 15 minutes the number of
> decodes
> on the HWF was 20 or times more than the vertical full size vertical, my TX
> antenna 120 Ft high.
>
> Signals decoded around -21 db on the vertical was decoded on the HWF 0 to
> +1
> db. Signals  less the -5db decoded on the HWF was not decoded using the
> vertical, The HWF was decoding hundreds of signals that would be -40 db on
> the decode using the vertical.
>
> I think the s/n reported by the program as ball part is actually very good
> and close to the real s/n improvement of 2 Hz BW, depending on the mode.
>
> The only real way to increase signal to noise ratio is increasing the
> directivity of the RX antenna, more real RDF means real signal to noise
> ratio improvement. I used real because it is very easy to destroy the
> directivity with integration, leaking, intermodulation, low noise figure
> etc.
>
> One bad concept, bidirectional unterminated beverage with two lobes one in
> the back and one front, it just does not work because the RDF is 6 db down
> a
> terminated beverage. Same for BOG's the RDF is bad, a K9AY works better
> because has more RDF. A simple Flag can deliver 9 db RDF is tis easy to
> hide
> too. Two Flags in phase 11.5 db and four Flags 14 db RDF, and a very clean
> pattern besides real broadband from 1 MHz to 10 MHz
>
> As you can see on the ARRL 1975 article, there is nothing new about
> improvement of signal to noise ratio reducing the bandwidth. On the
> article,
> the test was CW at 12 wpm and 9 Hz filter BW , no ring using WWV as time
> source for the synchronization.
>
> That was state of the art back in the early 70's, almost 50 years ago.
>
> 73's
> JC
> N4IS
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of K4SAV
> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 3:10 PM
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works
>
> Although I have finished my FT8 testing, there is one final thought I would
> like to leave with you, and also to correct one statement I made earlier.
> Someone thought FT8 measured the noise in the interval when the FT8 signals
> were off, and I replied that would result in a real S/N number.  That is
> not
> true as you will see in the info below.  You would get a real S/N number if
> the RF was sampled, but not if the audio is sampled.
>
> I spent many years designing electronic circuits professionally, so I still
> think that way.  So for a few minutes

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[JC]

Jerry

The new mode FT8 is not all that new, actually, there are several aspects to
consider, like detect  the signal,  decode the signal detected, make a
decision to accept the decoded signal. The improvement on signal to noise
ratio concept is very old, just the internet made  it possible with time
synchronization. The decode uses new algorithms and some very intelligent
way to guest the decoded signal.

Check this out. 1975 Sept QST; Coherent cw test!  Experiments show 20 db
Signal Boost over QRM,

  http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/7509026.pdf

The improvement on signal to noise ratio is just because a narrow bandwidth.
The gates opens at the right millisecond window. On FSK the secret salvage
is time synchronization.  You can record the audio and play it back, the
decode will happen only if you synchronize the time of the recording with
the time in ms of the PC clock.

I did that, and it worked, I have a SDR QS1R and using HDSDR software to
record the I/Q file, RF file. I used to record rare DX expedition signal and
the bandwidth is 50 KHz, I can see the FT8 guys on 1840, My question was ,
can I decode them from the digital file recorded several month ago?

I started plaining the file at the top of the second count, and voalah!!!,
The WSJT-X decoded several station, weak as -21 db. The weak signals are
there, buried in the noise on my old digital recorded file.

Then I decided to test my HWF, the practical result measuring cw signal is
that the signal to noise increase around 20 db, 10 db due the directivity
RDF 11.5 and another 10 db from the polarization filter. The Horizontal WF
attenuation on vertical signals is over -90 db. The manmade noise vertical
polarized is reduced below the MDS of the receiver and cannot be amplified
by the receiver.

The IC-7800 has two identical receivers. I connected my HWF on receiver MAIN
and the TX antenna on the receiver SUB, I installed two instances of the
WSJTX program, one for each receiver. After 15 minutes the number of decodes
on the HWF was 20 or times more than the vertical full size vertical, my TX
antenna 120 Ft high.

Signals decoded around -21 db on the vertical was decoded on the HWF 0 to +1
db. Signals  less the -5db decoded on the HWF was not decoded using the
vertical, The HWF was decoding hundreds of signals that would be -40 db on
the decode using the vertical.

I think the s/n reported by the program as ball part is actually very good
and close to the real s/n improvement of 2 Hz BW, depending on the mode.

The only real way to increase signal to noise ratio is increasing the
directivity of the RX antenna, more real RDF means real signal to noise
ratio improvement. I used real because it is very easy to destroy the
directivity with integration, leaking, intermodulation, low noise figure
etc.

One bad concept, bidirectional unterminated beverage with two lobes one in
the back and one front, it just does not work because the RDF is 6 db down a
terminated beverage. Same for BOG's the RDF is bad, a K9AY works better
because has more RDF. A simple Flag can deliver 9 db RDF is tis easy to hide
too. Two Flags in phase 11.5 db and four Flags 14 db RDF, and a very clean
pattern besides real broadband from 1 MHz to 10 MHz

As you can see on the ARRL 1975 article, there is nothing new about
improvement of signal to noise ratio reducing the bandwidth. On the article,
the test was CW at 12 wpm and 9 Hz filter BW , no ring using WWV as time
source for the synchronization. 

That was state of the art back in the early 70's, almost 50 years ago.

73's
JC
N4IS


-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of K4SAV
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 3:10 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

Although I have finished my FT8 testing, there is one final thought I would
like to leave with you, and also to correct one statement I made earlier.
Someone thought FT8 measured the noise in the interval when the FT8 signals
were off, and I replied that would result in a real S/N number.  That is not
true as you will see in the info below.  You would get a real S/N number if
the RF was sampled, but not if the audio is sampled.

I spent many years designing electronic circuits professionally, so I still
think that way.  So for a few minutes lets think about a circuit that can
decode something below the noise floor .If you think about FT8 or anything
similar, from a designers point of view, you suddenly realize that making a
statement of "the circuit can decode down to X dBs below the noise floor" is
almost an impossible task, that is, if you are talking RF noise floor as
most people will be assuming.

Since you will be dealing with audio, not RF, the receiver will convert the
RF into audio and compress it into something that has a lot less dynamic
range.  How much less? Say the volume is set to a level such that the
strongest signals do not clip, then ho

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[Tim Shoppa]

Chuck, I suspect something wasn’t quite right with your setup? At my QTH in W3 
I can hear multiple FT8 signals on 1840kc USB (2.4khz bandwidth) from before my 
sunset until after sunrise. They are whining/droning carriers for 13 seconds 
every 15 seconds. Only for that less than 2 seconds every 15 seconds do I hear 
just band noise, at all other times I hear multiple FT8 signals just fine. And 
the computer can decode more signals than I can hear.

Tim N3QE

> On Dec 24, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Chuck Dietz  wrote:
> 
> I think I understand much of what you are saying, but I know that I was on 
> 160 meter FT=8 two nights ago with the speaker up fairly loud. I only heard 
> noise. I set the AGC off and adjusted the RF gain so that it did not 
> overload. Still no hint of any signals, but I decoded two stations!
> 
> Just sayin’.
> 
> Chuck W5PR
> 
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> 
> From: K4SAV
> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 2:10 PM
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works
> 
> Although I have finished my FT8 testing, there is one final thought I 
> would like to leave with you, and also to correct one statement I made 
> earlier.  Someone thought FT8 measured the noise in the interval when 
> the FT8 signals were off, and I replied that would result in a real S/N 
> number.  That is not true as you will see in the info below.  You would 
> get a real S/N number if the RF was sampled, but not if the audio is 
> sampled.
> 
> I spent many years designing electronic circuits professionally, so I 
> still think that way.  So for a few minutes lets think about a circuit 
> that can decode something below the noise floor .If you think about FT8 
> or anything similar, from a designers point of view, you suddenly 
> realize that making a statement of "the circuit can decode down to X dBs 
> below the noise floor" is almost an impossible task, that is, if you are 
> talking RF noise floor as most people will be assuming.
> 
> Since you will be dealing with audio, not RF, the receiver will convert 
> the RF into audio and compress it into something that has a lot less 
> dynamic range.  How much less? Say the volume is set to a level such 
> that the strongest signals do not clip, then how far down is the noise? 
> You can expect that to vary on each band too.
> 
> Now comes a real complication.  If you were taking samples in the RF 
> world, you could see the noise level on your S meter and estimate it 
> relative to the strongest signals.  However your circuit will be dealing 
> with audio.  Surprisingly, when the signals disappear, the receiver AGC 
> voltage drops and the receiver gain increases.  That produces a lot more 
> audio signal.  The audio noise in the case of no signals becomes higher 
> than the audio level for strong signals if you are using USB bandwidth 
> and receiving something similar to FT8. That condition is not nearly as 
> pronounced when using a narrow CW bandwidth.  Even if you put the 
> receiver into AGC slow mode it won't hold for the 3 seconds when FT8 is 
> off, so you still get the increased audio in the off period.  Then there 
> will be a sudden increase in audio when the first signal reappears, 
> until the ACG kicks in and lowers it.  This happens even with fast AGC 
> selected. It's fast enough that you don't notice it when listening, but 
> if you put a scope on it you can see it.  Yeah, all that surprised me 
> too when first thinking about it.  Take a close listen and see if you 
> agree. If you can't hear it, put it on a scope or anything that displays 
> an audio waveform and it will become very obvious.
> 
> If you made a statement that this circuit can decode X dBs below the 
> noise floor, most people will be thinking RF noise floor.  So what is it 
> in the audio world that represents the noise floor in the RF world, and 
> what would your statement mean?
> 
> Of course you could turn off the AGC and decrease the receiver RF gain 
> and that would make the audio very low when the signals disappear.  That 
> would also severely limit the dynamic range for your circuit since you 
> would no longer have the compression supplied by the receiver.. Your 
> circuit would have to cover a much wider dynamic range, similar to what 
> a receiver does.  So your circuit would need what? maybe 100 dB dynamic 
> range to cover the strongest signals to the weakest noise floor, 
> forgetting about decoding below the noise floor.  Actually that wouldn't 
> really happen because receivers can't produce a dynamic range of 100 dB 
> in the audio. They may do it in the RF world, but not in audio.  
> Receivers have no need to do that.
> 
> Jerry
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[Eugene Popov /RA0FF/ via Topband]

Hi,
we use 4ports-RX-splitter

https://www.ebay.com/itm/4-WAY-HF-ANTENNA-SPLITTER-COMBINER-RX-0-1-50-MHz-SO-239-connectors/322564884873?hash=item4b1a5d8989:g:JJ4AAOxyM89Sbujo:rk:1:pf:0
  



73! de Eugene RA0FF
http://www.qsl.net/ra0ff/

>Вторник, 25 декабря 2018, 8:17 +11:00 от Chuck Dietz :
>
>I think I understand much of what you are saying, but I know that I was on 160 
>meter FT=8 two nights ago with the speaker up fairly loud. I only heard noise. 
>I set the AGC off and adjusted the RF gain so that it did not overload. Still 
>no hint of any signals, but I decoded two stations!
>
>Just sayin’.
>
>Chuck W5PR
>
>Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
>From: K4SAV
>Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 2:10 PM
>To:  topband@contesting.com
>Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works
>
>Although I have finished my FT8 testing, there is one final thought I 
>would like to leave with you, and also to correct one statement I made 
>earlier.  Someone thought FT8 measured the noise in the interval when 
>the FT8 signals were off, and I replied that would result in a real S/N 
>number.  That is not true as you will see in the info below.  You would 
>get a real S/N number if the RF was sampled, but not if the audio is 
>sampled.
>
>I spent many years designing electronic circuits professionally, so I 
>still think that way.  So for a few minutes lets think about a circuit 
>that can decode something below the noise floor .If you think about FT8 
>or anything similar, from a designers point of view, you suddenly 
>realize that making a statement of "the circuit can decode down to X dBs 
>below the noise floor" is almost an impossible task, that is, if you are 
>talking RF noise floor as most people will be assuming.
>
>Since you will be dealing with audio, not RF, the receiver will convert 
>the RF into audio and compress it into something that has a lot less 
>dynamic range.  How much less? Say the volume is set to a level such 
>that the strongest signals do not clip, then how far down is the noise? 
>You can expect that to vary on each band too.
>
>Now comes a real complication.  If you were taking samples in the RF 
>world, you could see the noise level on your S meter and estimate it 
>relative to the strongest signals.  However your circuit will be dealing 
>with audio.  Surprisingly, when the signals disappear, the receiver AGC 
>voltage drops and the receiver gain increases.  That produces a lot more 
>audio signal.  The audio noise in the case of no signals becomes higher 
>than the audio level for strong signals if you are using USB bandwidth 
>and receiving something similar to FT8. That condition is not nearly as 
>pronounced when using a narrow CW bandwidth.  Even if you put the 
>receiver into AGC slow mode it won't hold for the 3 seconds when FT8 is 
>off, so you still get the increased audio in the off period.  Then there 
>will be a sudden increase in audio when the first signal reappears, 
>until the ACG kicks in and lowers it.  This happens even with fast AGC 
>selected. It's fast enough that you don't notice it when listening, but 
>if you put a scope on it you can see it.  Yeah, all that surprised me 
>too when first thinking about it.  Take a close listen and see if you 
>agree. If you can't hear it, put it on a scope or anything that displays 
>an audio waveform and it will become very obvious.
>
>If you made a statement that this circuit can decode X dBs below the 
>noise floor, most people will be thinking RF noise floor.  So what is it 
>in the audio world that represents the noise floor in the RF world, and 
>what would your statement mean?
>
>Of course you could turn off the AGC and decrease the receiver RF gain 
>and that would make the audio very low when the signals disappear.  That 
>would also severely limit the dynamic range for your circuit since you 
>would no longer have the compression supplied by the receiver.. Your 
>circuit would have to cover a much wider dynamic range, similar to what 
>a receiver does.  So your circuit would need what? maybe 100 dB dynamic 
>range to cover the strongest signals to the weakest noise floor, 
>forgetting about decoding below the noise floor.  Actually that wouldn't 
>really happen because receivers can't produce a dynamic range of 100 dB 
>in the audio. They may do it in the RF world, but not in audio. 
>Receivers have no need to do that.
>
>Jerry
>_
>Searchable Archives:  http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>
>_
>Searchable Archives:  http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[Chuck Dietz]

I think I understand much of what you are saying, but I know that I was on 160 
meter FT=8 two nights ago with the speaker up fairly loud. I only heard noise. 
I set the AGC off and adjusted the RF gain so that it did not overload. Still 
no hint of any signals, but I decoded two stations!

Just sayin’.

Chuck W5PR

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: K4SAV
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 2:10 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

Although I have finished my FT8 testing, there is one final thought I 
would like to leave with you, and also to correct one statement I made 
earlier.  Someone thought FT8 measured the noise in the interval when 
the FT8 signals were off, and I replied that would result in a real S/N 
number.  That is not true as you will see in the info below.  You would 
get a real S/N number if the RF was sampled, but not if the audio is 
sampled.

I spent many years designing electronic circuits professionally, so I 
still think that way.  So for a few minutes lets think about a circuit 
that can decode something below the noise floor .If you think about FT8 
or anything similar, from a designers point of view, you suddenly 
realize that making a statement of "the circuit can decode down to X dBs 
below the noise floor" is almost an impossible task, that is, if you are 
talking RF noise floor as most people will be assuming.

Since you will be dealing with audio, not RF, the receiver will convert 
the RF into audio and compress it into something that has a lot less 
dynamic range.  How much less? Say the volume is set to a level such 
that the strongest signals do not clip, then how far down is the noise? 
You can expect that to vary on each band too.

Now comes a real complication.  If you were taking samples in the RF 
world, you could see the noise level on your S meter and estimate it 
relative to the strongest signals.  However your circuit will be dealing 
with audio.  Surprisingly, when the signals disappear, the receiver AGC 
voltage drops and the receiver gain increases.  That produces a lot more 
audio signal.  The audio noise in the case of no signals becomes higher 
than the audio level for strong signals if you are using USB bandwidth 
and receiving something similar to FT8. That condition is not nearly as 
pronounced when using a narrow CW bandwidth.  Even if you put the 
receiver into AGC slow mode it won't hold for the 3 seconds when FT8 is 
off, so you still get the increased audio in the off period.  Then there 
will be a sudden increase in audio when the first signal reappears, 
until the ACG kicks in and lowers it.  This happens even with fast AGC 
selected. It's fast enough that you don't notice it when listening, but 
if you put a scope on it you can see it.  Yeah, all that surprised me 
too when first thinking about it.  Take a close listen and see if you 
agree. If you can't hear it, put it on a scope or anything that displays 
an audio waveform and it will become very obvious.

If you made a statement that this circuit can decode X dBs below the 
noise floor, most people will be thinking RF noise floor.  So what is it 
in the audio world that represents the noise floor in the RF world, and 
what would your statement mean?

Of course you could turn off the AGC and decrease the receiver RF gain 
and that would make the audio very low when the signals disappear.  That 
would also severely limit the dynamic range for your circuit since you 
would no longer have the compression supplied by the receiver.. Your 
circuit would have to cover a much wider dynamic range, similar to what 
a receiver does.  So your circuit would need what? maybe 100 dB dynamic 
range to cover the strongest signals to the weakest noise floor, 
forgetting about decoding below the noise floor.  Actually that wouldn't 
really happen because receivers can't produce a dynamic range of 100 dB 
in the audio. They may do it in the RF world, but not in audio.  
Receivers have no need to do that.

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

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

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[K4SAV]

Although I have finished my FT8 testing, there is one final thought I 
would like to leave with you, and also to correct one statement I made 
earlier.  Someone thought FT8 measured the noise in the interval when 
the FT8 signals were off, and I replied that would result in a real S/N 
number.  That is not true as you will see in the info below.  You would 
get a real S/N number if the RF was sampled, but not if the audio is 
sampled.


I spent many years designing electronic circuits professionally, so I 
still think that way.  So for a few minutes lets think about a circuit 
that can decode something below the noise floor .If you think about FT8 
or anything similar, from a designers point of view, you suddenly 
realize that making a statement of "the circuit can decode down to X dBs 
below the noise floor" is almost an impossible task, that is, if you are 
talking RF noise floor as most people will be assuming.


Since you will be dealing with audio, not RF, the receiver will convert 
the RF into audio and compress it into something that has a lot less 
dynamic range.  How much less? Say the volume is set to a level such 
that the strongest signals do not clip, then how far down is the noise? 
You can expect that to vary on each band too.


Now comes a real complication.  If you were taking samples in the RF 
world, you could see the noise level on your S meter and estimate it 
relative to the strongest signals.  However your circuit will be dealing 
with audio.  Surprisingly, when the signals disappear, the receiver AGC 
voltage drops and the receiver gain increases.  That produces a lot more 
audio signal.  The audio noise in the case of no signals becomes higher 
than the audio level for strong signals if you are using USB bandwidth 
and receiving something similar to FT8. That condition is not nearly as 
pronounced when using a narrow CW bandwidth.  Even if you put the 
receiver into AGC slow mode it won't hold for the 3 seconds when FT8 is 
off, so you still get the increased audio in the off period.  Then there 
will be a sudden increase in audio when the first signal reappears, 
until the ACG kicks in and lowers it.  This happens even with fast AGC 
selected. It's fast enough that you don't notice it when listening, but 
if you put a scope on it you can see it.  Yeah, all that surprised me 
too when first thinking about it.  Take a close listen and see if you 
agree. If you can't hear it, put it on a scope or anything that displays 
an audio waveform and it will become very obvious.


If you made a statement that this circuit can decode X dBs below the 
noise floor, most people will be thinking RF noise floor.  So what is it 
in the audio world that represents the noise floor in the RF world, and 
what would your statement mean?


Of course you could turn off the AGC and decrease the receiver RF gain 
and that would make the audio very low when the signals disappear.  That 
would also severely limit the dynamic range for your circuit since you 
would no longer have the compression supplied by the receiver.. Your 
circuit would have to cover a much wider dynamic range, similar to what 
a receiver does.  So your circuit would need what? maybe 100 dB dynamic 
range to cover the strongest signals to the weakest noise floor, 
forgetting about decoding below the noise floor.  Actually that wouldn't 
really happen because receivers can't produce a dynamic range of 100 dB 
in the audio. They may do it in the RF world, but not in audio.  
Receivers have no need to do that.


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

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[James M. Roop]

Jerry,
If you would like to do some mid-day comparison testing between FT8 and CW,
let me know.  Looks like the path length is about 400 miles.

Jim,
K9SE


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

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[K4SAV]

Still doing FT8 testing this morning 3 hours after sunrise I looked for 
something resembling dead band conditions with only a few weak stations. 
There was nothing on 160 but the west coast guys were still on 80.  They 
were weak but there.  They would have been good copy on CW but FT8 was 
having much difficulty.  It was getting only about one decode every 5 
minutes or so. Never got a decode of someone sending CQ so that I could 
see what FT8 was calculating for a report.  This was on my receiving 
antenna.  I couldn't hear them on the transmit antenna and FT8 never 
decoded anything on that antenna.


Based on my tests of mixing noise into the audio and seeing FT8 decode 
below the noise floor, I really expected to see better performance from 
FT8, but it didn't happen.  The dead band test yesterday didn't bode 
well for FT8 either.


I think for the test yesterday when mixing in audio noise to cover up 
the signals, I had FT8 in deep decode mode.  I wonder if those decodes 
were just guesses because it knew which stations were on which 
frequencies before I added that noise.  This deserves a retest.


So I did a retest.  This time I set up the noise such that I could just 
barely hear the FT8 signals.  I did that before I let WSJTX hear the 
band, and I set it to decode normally.  It didn't do nearly as well.  
There weren't many decodes and the signals were being reported in the 
range -12 to -17 dB.  There were no -24 dB reports like the last test. 
where they were all -24 dB  I changed the mode to deep decode and let 
WSJTX look at the band for a while.  Then I added the noise back.  Now 
there are many more decodes and the reported numbers were much lower.  
Hmm.  Guesses?


I think I have concluded my FT8 testing.  My curiosity of how this works 
is sufficiently satisfied.  Others can form their opinions from this 
data, their own tests, or from whatever source they desire.


Thanks to others that showed some interest in this experiment.

Now that I am feeling better, hope to be up early enough to work some of 
that early morning DX that I have been missing and all you other guys 
have been getting.  (CW of course)


Jerry, K4SAV


On 12/21/2018 5:11 PM, K4SAV wrote:


Yesterday I said  " I don't have a measurement with the results of 
that showdown of CW versus FT8 in dead band conditions but the answer 
would be interesting to know."


This afternoon I tried to get an answer to that.  I wanted to see if 
FT8 would decode a station I couldn't hear.  I wanted to find that 
happen and then switch to narrow band CW and see if I could hear him. 
I first went to 6 meters but there was nothing there. Then I went to 
160 and nothing there. I waited until it was sunset in the northeast.  
As soon as that happens the band fills up with stations from that 
area.  It's not dark here but the S meter immediately goes to S9 plus.


NEWS FLASH for those guys.  You can work stations at any time on 160.  
You don't have to wait until dark.  High power, CW, and a good 
receiving antenna is good for about 600-800 miles on 160 at noon. Low 
power should also be good but at a little less distance.  Don't know 
what FT8 will do to the distance.


All those stations were defeating my test to find a condition close to 
that of a dead band and a weak signal or two.  So I switched to my 
receiving antenna and pointed it west to reduce signal amplitudes and 
still have some noise.


I can still hear a bunch of signals in there but FT8 isn't decoding 
anything with the antenna pointed west.  There seems to be some high 
level static when pointed west.  It's not noticeable on CW but it 
sounds bad on USB.  Maybe that is causing FT8 to not decode anything.


So I consider this test pretty much unsuccessful.  If anyone else runs 
a similar test please post the results.  I will try again.  I know 
this isn't a top priority question for most people, but curiosity gets 
to me sometimes.


Jerry, K4SAV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


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

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[K4SAV]

Yesterday I said  " I don't have a measurement with the results of that 
showdown of CW versus FT8 in dead band conditions but the answer would 
be interesting to know."


This afternoon I tried to get an answer to that.  I wanted to see if FT8 
would decode a station I couldn't hear.  I wanted to find that happen 
and then switch to narrow band CW and see if I could hear him. I first 
went to 6 meters but there was nothing there.  Then I went to 160 and 
nothing there. I waited until it was sunset in the northeast.  As soon 
as that happens the band fills up with stations from that area.  It's 
not dark here but the S meter immediately goes to S9 plus.


NEWS FLASH for those guys.  You can work stations at any time on 160.  
You don't have to wait until dark.  High power, CW, and a good receiving 
antenna is good for about 600-800 miles on 160 at noon. Low power should 
also be good but at a little less distance.  Don't know what FT8 will do 
to the distance.


All those stations were defeating my test to find a condition close to 
that of a dead band and a weak signal or two.  So I switched to my 
receiving antenna and pointed it west to reduce signal amplitudes and 
still have some noise.


I can still hear a bunch of signals in there but FT8 isn't decoding 
anything with the antenna pointed west.  There seems to be some high 
level static when pointed west.  It's not noticeable on CW but it sounds 
bad on USB.  Maybe that is causing FT8 to not decode anything.


So I consider this test pretty much unsuccessful.  If anyone else runs a 
similar test please post the results.  I will try again.  I know this 
isn't a top priority question for most people, but curiosity gets to me 
sometimes.


Jerry, K4SAV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[jon jones]

Jerry:

Clever way to evaluate FT8 SNR reports with your VFO 1 and 2 comparisons.

I often see positive numbers on FT8 160 meter signal reports for strong 
stations on FT8. For example -- if a station is S9 + 10 dB audible, then it 
reads a positive number
for the FT8 signal report.

At the risk of giving away a tip to improve FT8 SNR performance -- I use my 500 
Hz CW filter for FT8 at times. It can definitely improve decoding on DX signals,
particularly if many strong signals are in the 2,500 Hz passband on 160 meters.

I encourage everyone to upgrade your software to WSJT-X v 2.0

Best wishes to all for the Holidays -- Jon N0JK






While sitting around being bored and recovering from a gall bladder
operation, I decided to do some experiments with FT8.  First thing I did
was upgrade the software to WSJT-X v2.0.

I hope this post doesn't turn into another FT8 bashing session. My only
goal was to understand how this mode works and what it can do and what
it cannot do.

-- Jerry, K4SAV


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

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[Martin]

Correct me if im wrong:
A K3 owner could easily check this.
You need 2 computers, running WSJT on both. Don't know if you can run 2 
instances of WSJT on a single computer. Feed the left channel from LINE 
OUT (=mainRX) to one instance of FT-8 and the right channel (=sub-RX) to 
the other instance. Crank down the bandwith to 1khz or less on main RX 
and leave the bandwith on sub RX 2.7khz or wider.
While your computers do the decoding, you can hear the 2 RXes in your 
headphone (or not).


> In a condition of only one weak signal on the band, I haven't run a
> test
> that says whether FT8 decodes better than CW or not.  NN4T said that
> using FT8 on 6 meter sporadic E that he observes signals being decoded
> with no audio in the receiver.  That is probably with a wide
> bandwidth,
> and it would be interesting to know if the signals would be audible
> with
> a narrow bandwidth.

--

Ohne CW ist es nur CB..

73, Martin DM4iM
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[Patrik Hrvatin]

Hi,Narroving filter in WSJT-X digi modes will degrade decodes! Best performance 
you'll get using wide open filters on you radio.I sugest you to look at the 
WSJT-X archives and find the answer to your question by the author it self - 
K1JT.As we are radio Amateurs i beleive its worth to experiment with the 
filters and it would be nice to see those results posted here.
So far i didnt try yet FT8 on 160m, i did it on on 6m during the summer season 
and 40 to 10m daily from home with simple wires. I prefer to work CW on 160m 
;)On 6m i have almost no noise, worked about 106 DXCC's in 3 months or less, 
200 NA stations and about 60 JAs in the log. Many of those are Topbanders.With 
modest setup, old IC706MK2 + 3cx800, 6el.YU7EF  and of course JTDX software 
(worth to try it).
160m and 6m are very different, starting from noise level, QSB and  propagation 
modes. Multiple receivers are needed with multiple JT program's running, each 
his own dedicated QTF direction. Otherwise you will loose a needed DX for sure. 
One thing we agreed b4 the season, that EU will transmit always on the 1st 
period. That was good decision to minimise local QRM. 

Best regards, MX and 73 9A5CW 



Poslano s pametnog telefona Samsung Galaxy.
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2018-12-20 11:45 AM, K4SAV wrote:
> In the case of a crowded band it becomes obvious that CW is much
> superior to decoding a weak signal because all those strong signals
> limit the ability of FT8 to decode a weak signal.

That is only true if you leave AGC enabled and the strong signals
result in the AGC decreasing the overall sensitivity.  The WSJT-X
Users Guide (instructions) recommend turning off AGC.  It is
possible (depending on the transceiver design) to reduce the IF
bandwidth to remove some or all of the strong signals to reduce
overload and minimize the gain reduction by using the RF Gain
control to introduce the least gain reduction necessary to prevent
distortion.

On 160 meters, typical nighttime noise levels are as high as -90 to
-100 dBm.  Using the RF attenuator and/or RF gain to set the recovered
audio from that noise approximately 15 dB above the sound card noise
floor should provide sufficient dynamic range to decode the weakest
signal (~ 10 dB below the 200 Hz noise floor) while not distorting on
the strong (S9+40 dB) signals if one has a *quality* sound card.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-20 11:45 AM, K4SAV wrote:

Thanks to the folks commenting on how FT8 works.

VE3KI said:
"The noise floor the wsjt-x signal is referenced to is the noise within 
the bandpass during the two-second period when no-one is transmitting, 
not the signal level when people are transmitting."


That was what I originally thought might be a possibility because that 
would result in a real S/N number.  However that doesn't seem to be the 
case.  That S9+40 dB signal I referenced would result in a huge S/N 
number, probably greater than 50 dB.  FT8 gives a report of -1 dB. Doing 
it that way would also have some problems produced by people 
transmitting at the wrong time and other out of band stations, however 
it seems that FT8 doesn't make that measurement.


Thanks to Arunas, LY2IJ .  Your comments agree 100% with what I 
measured.  As to your question of can FT8 decode signals below the noise 
floor and below the level that can be decoded by CW.  My experiment of 
adding audio noise which covered up the signals and the software still 
being able to decode signals says that under some conditions FT8 can 
decode signals below the noise floor.  Of course that experiment was 
done at audio levels, not at RF.  If you use CW you get the benefit of a 
much narrowed passband,  I can't run that test using audio mixing.


In a condition of only one weak signal on the band, I haven't run a test 
that says whether FT8 decodes better than CW or not.  NN4T said that 
using FT8 on 6 meter sporadic E that he observes signals being decoded 
with no audio in the receiver.  That is probably with a wide bandwidth, 
and it would be interesting to know if the signals would be audible with 
a narrow bandwidth.


In the case of a crowded band it becomes obvious that CW is much 
superior to decoding a weak signal because all those strong signals 
limit the ability of FT8 to decode a weak signal.  That was the basis 
for my conclusion that FT8 didn't seem to be useful for working weak 
signal DX because most of the bands are very crowded. However there may 
be a case where FT8 can beat CW, that is if you are tying to decode a 
signal on an essentially dead band.  Since FT8 seems to be able to 
decode below the noise floor, the noise floor in that case would just be 
real noise, not signals.  You could improve FT8's ability to decode by 
narrowing the bandwidth, although that's not normally done.  That would 
cut into CW's advantage obtained by using a narrow passband. I don't 
have a measurement with the results of that showdown of CW versus FT8 in 
dead band conditions but the answer would be interesting to know.


Jerry, K4SAV


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

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[K4SAV]

Thanks to the folks commenting on how FT8 works.

VE3KI said:
"The noise floor the wsjt-x signal is referenced to is the noise within 
the bandpass during the two-second period when no-one is transmitting, 
not the signal level when people are transmitting."


That was what I originally thought might be a possibility because that 
would result in a real S/N number.  However that doesn't seem to be the 
case.  That S9+40 dB signal I referenced would result in a huge S/N 
number, probably greater than 50 dB.  FT8 gives a report of -1 dB.  
Doing it that way would also have some problems produced by people 
transmitting at the wrong time and other out of band stations, however 
it seems that FT8 doesn't make that measurement.


Thanks to Arunas, LY2IJ .  Your comments agree 100% with what I 
measured.  As to your question of can FT8 decode signals below the noise 
floor and below the level that can be decoded by CW.  My experiment of 
adding audio noise which covered up the signals and the software still 
being able to decode signals says that under some conditions FT8 can 
decode signals below the noise floor.  Of course that experiment was 
done at audio levels, not at RF.  If you use CW you get the benefit of a 
much narrowed passband,  I can't run that test using audio mixing.


In a condition of only one weak signal on the band, I haven't run a test 
that says whether FT8 decodes better than CW or not.  NN4T said that 
using FT8 on 6 meter sporadic E that he observes signals being decoded 
with no audio in the receiver.  That is probably with a wide bandwidth, 
and it would be interesting to know if the signals would be audible with 
a narrow bandwidth.


In the case of a crowded band it becomes obvious that CW is much 
superior to decoding a weak signal because all those strong signals 
limit the ability of FT8 to decode a weak signal.  That was the basis 
for my conclusion that FT8 didn't seem to be useful for working weak 
signal DX because most of the bands are very crowded. However there may 
be a case where FT8 can beat CW, that is if you are tying to decode a 
signal on an essentially dead band.  Since FT8 seems to be able to 
decode below the noise floor, the noise floor in that case would just be 
real noise, not signals.  You could improve FT8's ability to decode by 
narrowing the bandwidth, although that's not normally done.  That would 
cut into CW's advantage obtained by using a narrow passband. I don't 
have a measurement with the results of that showdown of CW versus FT8 in 
dead band conditions but the answer would be interesting to know.


Jerry, K4SAV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[ly2ij]

HI, 

Thanks for sharing experience! 

Question to FT8 and "noise" relations - In usual case everything in
passband is noise except signal of interest. 

So with only one FT8 signal and white noise in passband S/N can be
increased narrowing passband till it matches signal width. EME guys know
that JT65 -16 dB signals are audible.  

But if there are many other FT8 signals (which are "noise" since are out
of interest for me) then energy from all these 59++ signals are
integrated as noise and my 57 signal became "very deep in the noise". 

If to narrow bandwidth in this case we get rid of QRMing 59++ signals 
(and proportional part of band white noise) - they are not integrated
and our signal gets "above noise". 

Is this right or there is some magic excluding other FT8 signals from
S/N calculations? Still very doubt in FT8 ability to be decoded 10dB
below CW. -3 dB at best. 

73 

Arunas LY2IJ 

2018-12-20 05:57, Joe Subich, W4TV rašė:

>> Is the definition of "noise floor" being changed for FT8?
> WSJT-X (and WSJT before that) defines noise as the integrated value
> of noise (noise power) across the 2500 Hz (approximately based on
> the receiver filter) receive bandwidth.
> 
> 73,
> 
> ... Joe, W4TV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[K4SAV]

That would be my definition of noise power also.  That would not help 
explain the numbers produced by FT8.


It's curious that my VFO1 - VFO2 measurement produces numbers very close 
to what FT8 reports.  I have no information as to why that should be, 
only measurements that produce those results.


Jerry, K4SAV


On 12/19/2018 9:57 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:



Is the definition of "noise floor" being changed for FT8?

WSJT-X (and WSJT before that) defines noise as the integrated value
of noise (noise power) across the 2500 Hz (approximately based on
the receiver filter) receive bandwidth.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-19 9:57 PM, K4SAV wrote:
Joe, thanks for the information.  I am not exactly sure what all that 
means. My conclusions were based on observed data.  It seems pretty 
obvious to me that a signal that is more than 50 dB above the noise 
floor should not receive a S/N number of -1 dB, which is what FT8 
gives.  I don't know how the information you provided can make a 
calculation like that.


I judge that a signal reading S9+40 dB on the S meter should be more 
than 50 dB above the noise floor when I can tune of to a spot where 
there are no signals and the S meter reads about S2 or S3 in SSB mode 
or less than S1 in a narrow bandwidth.  Is the definition of "noise 
floor" being changed for FT8?


Jerry, K4SAV

On 12/19/2018 7:27 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
> The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB
> below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of the
> time.

No, that is a correct statement.  Signal reports in WSJT-X for FT8, 
JT65

and JT9 are *all* measured *with regard to the noise in 2500 Hz*. Note
that the tone filters in WSJT-X are on the order of less than 12 Hz 
or so wide so the SNR *for an individual tone in the DSP filter 
bandwidth*

at 0 dB is -23 dB relative to the *total noise in 2500 Hz bandwidth*.
The actual filter bandwidth will change from mode to mode due to the
differences in keying rated and tone spacing ... the actual SNR limit
is shown in section 17.2.7 of the WSJT_X 2.0 User Guide.

CW operators understand this from experience ... a quality 200 Hz 
filter

will have ~12 dB less noise than a 2800 Hz filter.  Thus a CW signal
with a 200 Hz filter will have 12 dB better SNR than the same CW signal
with a 2800 Hz filter (excluding any "processing gain" from the ear-
brain filter).

With FT8, JT65, JT9, etc. coding (forward error correction) provides
some additional SNR (called "coding gain") but the *measurement* is
based on strength of the individual tone to total noise. Thus, the
lowest accurate report is -24 dB although some signals will be decoded
at levels below that.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
While sitting around being bored and recovering from a gall bladder 
operation, I decided to do some experiments with FT8.  First thing 
I did was upgrade the software to WSJT-X v2.0.


I hope this post doesn't turn into another FT8 bashing session. My 
only goal was to understand how this mode works and what it can do 
and what it cannot do.


The official description of FT8's signal reporting cannot be 
correct. It is obviously not a signal to noise number and it is not 
an S meter reading.  What is it? That was the first question to 
answer.  It's obviously not an S/N number because how do you give a 
report of -1 dB for a signal that is S9+40 dB on a quiet band.  I 
was unable to find any info on how the signal report was calculated 
so I tried to correlate those reports to observations.


I think I have figured out a method that results in very close to 
the same number that FT8 reports.  Here is the experiment.  I set 
up my main VFO to USB 2500 Hz bandwidth and set the second VFO to 
CW at about 150 Hz bandwidth.  I look for a station calling CQ and 
tune the second VFO to him and measure his signal strength.  I also 
look at the S meter for the signal level on the main VFO.  I also 
look at the signal report calculated by the software.  For stations 
calling CQ that report is calculated by the software in my computer.


The FT8 report is usually very close to the difference in signal 
levels (VFO1 - VFO2).   For example if the main VFO reads S9+10 and 
the second VFO reads S9, the FT8 number will be -10 dB. Note that 
the FT8 says that -24 dB is the lowest it can decode. With VFO1 = 
S9+10, that's about S7 for the smallest signal it can decode.  
Observations agree. Those numbers will vary a little depending on 
how your S meter is calibrated.  In order to decode a weak signal, 
all those close USA stations will have to go silent.


The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 
dB below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of 
the time.  That statement should be that FT8 will decode signals 24 
dB below the sum total of everything in a 2500 Hz bandwidth. If the 
total of all signals on the band are below the 

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Is the definition of "noise floor" being changed for FT8?

WSJT-X (and WSJT before that) defines noise as the integrated value
of noise (noise power) across the 2500 Hz (approximately based on
the receiver filter) receive bandwidth.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-19 9:57 PM, K4SAV wrote:
Joe, thanks for the information.  I am not exactly sure what all that 
means. My conclusions were based on observed data.  It seems pretty 
obvious to me that a signal that is more than 50 dB above the noise 
floor should not receive a S/N number of -1 dB, which is what FT8 
gives.  I don't know how the information you provided can make a 
calculation like that.


I judge that a signal reading S9+40 dB on the S meter should be more 
than 50 dB above the noise floor when I can tune of to a spot where 
there are no signals and the S meter reads about S2 or S3 in SSB mode or 
less than S1 in a narrow bandwidth.  Is the definition of "noise floor" 
being changed for FT8?


Jerry, K4SAV

On 12/19/2018 7:27 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
> The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB
> below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of the
> time.

No, that is a correct statement.  Signal reports in WSJT-X for FT8, JT65
and JT9 are *all* measured *with regard to the noise in 2500 Hz*. Note
that the tone filters in WSJT-X are on the order of less than 12 Hz or 
so wide so the SNR *for an individual tone in the DSP filter bandwidth*

at 0 dB is -23 dB relative to the *total noise in 2500 Hz bandwidth*.
The actual filter bandwidth will change from mode to mode due to the
differences in keying rated and tone spacing ... the actual SNR limit
is shown in section 17.2.7 of the WSJT_X 2.0 User Guide.

CW operators understand this from experience ... a quality 200 Hz filter
will have ~12 dB less noise than a 2800 Hz filter.  Thus a CW signal
with a 200 Hz filter will have 12 dB better SNR than the same CW signal
with a 2800 Hz filter (excluding any "processing gain" from the ear-
brain filter).

With FT8, JT65, JT9, etc. coding (forward error correction) provides
some additional SNR (called "coding gain") but the *measurement* is
based on strength of the individual tone to total noise.  Thus, the
lowest accurate report is -24 dB although some signals will be decoded
at levels below that.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
While sitting around being bored and recovering from a gall bladder 
operation, I decided to do some experiments with FT8.  First thing I 
did was upgrade the software to WSJT-X v2.0.


I hope this post doesn't turn into another FT8 bashing session. My 
only goal was to understand how this mode works and what it can do 
and what it cannot do.


The official description of FT8's signal reporting cannot be correct. 
It is obviously not a signal to noise number and it is not an S meter 
reading.  What is it? That was the first question to answer.  It's 
obviously not an S/N number because how do you give a report of -1 dB 
for a signal that is S9+40 dB on a quiet band.  I was unable to find 
any info on how the signal report was calculated so I tried to 
correlate those reports to observations.


I think I have figured out a method that results in very close to the 
same number that FT8 reports.  Here is the experiment.  I set up my 
main VFO to USB 2500 Hz bandwidth and set the second VFO to CW at 
about 150 Hz bandwidth.  I look for a station calling CQ and tune the 
second VFO to him and measure his signal strength.  I also look at 
the S meter for the signal level on the main VFO.  I also look at the 
signal report calculated by the software.  For stations calling CQ 
that report is calculated by the software in my computer.


The FT8 report is usually very close to the difference in signal 
levels (VFO1 - VFO2).   For example if the main VFO reads S9+10 and 
the second VFO reads S9, the FT8 number will be -10 dB. Note that the 
FT8 says that -24 dB is the lowest it can decode. With VFO1 = S9+10, 
that's about S7 for the smallest signal it can decode.  Observations 
agree. Those numbers will vary a little depending on how your S meter 
is calibrated.  In order to decode a weak signal, all those close USA 
stations will have to go silent.


The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB 
below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of the 
time.  That statement should be that FT8 will decode signals 24 dB 
below the sum total of everything in a 2500 Hz bandwidth. If the 
total of all signals on the band are below the noise floor, it would 
be interesting to know if FT8 will decode any of them.  I haven't 
observed that yet in a real situation. I did however try to simulate 
that condition by adding enough noise to the signals such that all 
the signals were below the noise.  The software did continue to 
decode signals.  All the reports were -24 dB.  This was a very crude 
test 

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[K4SAV]

Joe, thanks for the information.  I am not exactly sure what all that 
means. My conclusions were based on observed data.  It seems pretty 
obvious to me that a signal that is more than 50 dB above the noise 
floor should not receive a S/N number of -1 dB, which is what FT8 
gives.  I don't know how the information you provided can make a 
calculation like that.


I judge that a signal reading S9+40 dB on the S meter should be more 
than 50 dB above the noise floor when I can tune of to a spot where 
there are no signals and the S meter reads about S2 or S3 in SSB mode or 
less than S1 in a narrow bandwidth.  Is the definition of "noise floor" 
being changed for FT8?


Jerry, K4SAV

On 12/19/2018 7:27 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
> The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB
> below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of the
> time.

No, that is a correct statement.  Signal reports in WSJT-X for FT8, JT65
and JT9 are *all* measured *with regard to the noise in 2500 Hz*. Note
that the tone filters in WSJT-X are on the order of less than 12 Hz or 
so wide so the SNR *for an individual tone in the DSP filter bandwidth*

at 0 dB is -23 dB relative to the *total noise in 2500 Hz bandwidth*.
The actual filter bandwidth will change from mode to mode due to the
differences in keying rated and tone spacing ... the actual SNR limit
is shown in section 17.2.7 of the WSJT_X 2.0 User Guide.

CW operators understand this from experience ... a quality 200 Hz filter
will have ~12 dB less noise than a 2800 Hz filter.  Thus a CW signal
with a 200 Hz filter will have 12 dB better SNR than the same CW signal
with a 2800 Hz filter (excluding any "processing gain" from the ear-
brain filter).

With FT8, JT65, JT9, etc. coding (forward error correction) provides
some additional SNR (called "coding gain") but the *measurement* is
based on strength of the individual tone to total noise.  Thus, the
lowest accurate report is -24 dB although some signals will be decoded
at levels below that.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
While sitting around being bored and recovering from a gall bladder 
operation, I decided to do some experiments with FT8.  First thing I 
did was upgrade the software to WSJT-X v2.0.


I hope this post doesn't turn into another FT8 bashing session. My 
only goal was to understand how this mode works and what it can do 
and what it cannot do.


The official description of FT8's signal reporting cannot be correct. 
It is obviously not a signal to noise number and it is not an S meter 
reading.  What is it? That was the first question to answer.  It's 
obviously not an S/N number because how do you give a report of -1 dB 
for a signal that is S9+40 dB on a quiet band.  I was unable to find 
any info on how the signal report was calculated so I tried to 
correlate those reports to observations.


I think I have figured out a method that results in very close to the 
same number that FT8 reports.  Here is the experiment.  I set up my 
main VFO to USB 2500 Hz bandwidth and set the second VFO to CW at 
about 150 Hz bandwidth.  I look for a station calling CQ and tune the 
second VFO to him and measure his signal strength.  I also look at 
the S meter for the signal level on the main VFO.  I also look at the 
signal report calculated by the software.  For stations calling CQ 
that report is calculated by the software in my computer.


The FT8 report is usually very close to the difference in signal 
levels (VFO1 - VFO2).   For example if the main VFO reads S9+10 and 
the second VFO reads S9, the FT8 number will be -10 dB. Note that the 
FT8 says that -24 dB is the lowest it can decode. With VFO1 = S9+10, 
that's about S7 for the smallest signal it can decode.  Observations 
agree. Those numbers will vary a little depending on how your S meter 
is calibrated.  In order to decode a weak signal, all those close USA 
stations will have to go silent.


The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB 
below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of the 
time.  That statement should be that FT8 will decode signals 24 dB 
below the sum total of everything in a 2500 Hz bandwidth. If the 
total of all signals on the band are below the noise floor, it would 
be interesting to know if FT8 will decode any of them.  I haven't 
observed that yet in a real situation. I did however try to simulate 
that condition by adding enough noise to the signals such that all 
the signals were below the noise.  The software did continue to 
decode signals.  All the reports were -24 dB.  This was a very crude 
test because I don't know how exactly much the signals were below the 
noise.  This should be of benefit to those people that have S9+ noise 
on the bands they operate. They should be able to decode the 
strongest signals on the band.


The (VFO1 - VFO2) test just described should always result in a 

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
> The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB
> below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of the
> time.

No, that is a correct statement.  Signal reports in WSJT-X for FT8, JT65
and JT9 are *all* measured *with regard to the noise in 2500 Hz*.  Note
that the tone filters in WSJT-X are on the order of less than 12 Hz or 
so wide so the SNR *for an individual tone in the DSP filter bandwidth*

at 0 dB is -23 dB relative to the *total noise in 2500 Hz bandwidth*.
The actual filter bandwidth will change from mode to mode due to the
differences in keying rated and tone spacing ... the actual SNR limit
is shown in section 17.2.7 of the WSJT_X 2.0 User Guide.

CW operators understand this from experience ... a quality 200 Hz filter
will have ~12 dB less noise than a 2800 Hz filter.  Thus a CW signal
with a 200 Hz filter will have 12 dB better SNR than the same CW signal
with a 2800 Hz filter (excluding any "processing gain" from the ear-
brain filter).

With FT8, JT65, JT9, etc. coding (forward error correction) provides
some additional SNR (called "coding gain") but the *measurement* is
based on strength of the individual tone to total noise.  Thus, the
lowest accurate report is -24 dB although some signals will be decoded
at levels below that.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
While sitting around being bored and recovering from a gall bladder 
operation, I decided to do some experiments with FT8.  First thing I did 
was upgrade the software to WSJT-X v2.0.


I hope this post doesn't turn into another FT8 bashing session. My only 
goal was to understand how this mode works and what it can do and what 
it cannot do.


The official description of FT8's signal reporting cannot be correct. It 
is obviously not a signal to noise number and it is not an S meter 
reading.  What is it? That was the first question to answer.  It's 
obviously not an S/N number because how do you give a report of -1 dB 
for a signal that is S9+40 dB on a quiet band.  I was unable to find any 
info on how the signal report was calculated so I tried to correlate 
those reports to observations.


I think I have figured out a method that results in very close to the 
same number that FT8 reports.  Here is the experiment.  I set up my main 
VFO to USB 2500 Hz bandwidth and set the second VFO to CW at about 150 
Hz bandwidth.  I look for a station calling CQ and tune the second VFO 
to him and measure his signal strength.  I also look at the S meter for 
the signal level on the main VFO.  I also look at the signal report 
calculated by the software.  For stations calling CQ that report is 
calculated by the software in my computer.


The FT8 report is usually very close to the difference in signal levels 
(VFO1 - VFO2).   For example if the main VFO reads S9+10 and the second 
VFO reads S9, the FT8 number will be -10 dB.  Note that the FT8 says 
that -24 dB is the lowest it can decode.  With VFO1 = S9+10, that's 
about S7 for the smallest signal it can decode.  Observations agree. 
Those numbers will vary a little depending on how your S meter is 
calibrated.  In order to decode a weak signal, all those close USA 
stations will have to go silent.


The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB 
below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of the 
time.  That statement should be that FT8 will decode signals 24 dB below 
the sum total of everything in a 2500 Hz bandwidth. If the total of all 
signals on the band are below the noise floor, it would be interesting 
to know if FT8 will decode any of them.  I haven't observed that yet in 
a real situation.  I did however try to simulate that condition by 
adding enough noise to the signals such that all the signals were below 
the noise.  The software did continue to decode signals.  All the 
reports were -24 dB.  This was a very crude test because I don't know 
how exactly much the signals were below the noise.  This should be of 
benefit to those people that have S9+ noise on the bands they operate. 
They should be able to decode the strongest signals on the band.


The (VFO1 - VFO2) test just described should always result in a number 
equal to or less than zero.  I notice sometimes the software will report 
a small positive number.  That seems to happen more often when the 
bandwidth is set to something less than 2500 Hz and there are very few 
signals on the band.  I think this may be related to the fact that FT8 
does all its calculations using audio signals and the receiver S meter 
is operating on RF. Audio shaping in the receiver will affect the FT8 
calculations. Audio processing in your computer sound card may be a 
factor too. This becomes really apparent when the radio is set to CW and 
the audio peaking filter is turned on.  With SSB bandwidth and flat 
audio response, S meter readings are a good indication of what will be 
decoded.  It 

Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[K4SAV]

While sitting around being bored and recovering from a gall bladder 
operation, I decided to do some experiments with FT8.  First thing I did 
was upgrade the software to WSJT-X v2.0.


I hope this post doesn't turn into another FT8 bashing session. My only 
goal was to understand how this mode works and what it can do and what 
it cannot do.


The official description of FT8's signal reporting cannot be correct.  
It is obviously not a signal to noise number and it is not an S meter 
reading.  What is it? That was the first question to answer.  It's 
obviously not an S/N number because how do you give a report of -1 dB 
for a signal that is S9+40 dB on a quiet band.  I was unable to find any 
info on how the signal report was calculated so I tried to correlate 
those reports to observations.


I think I have figured out a method that results in very close to the 
same number that FT8 reports.  Here is the experiment.  I set up my main 
VFO to USB 2500 Hz bandwidth and set the second VFO to CW at about 150 
Hz bandwidth.  I look for a station calling CQ and tune the second VFO 
to him and measure his signal strength.  I also look at the S meter for 
the signal level on the main VFO.  I also look at the signal report 
calculated by the software.  For stations calling CQ that report is 
calculated by the software in my computer.


The FT8 report is usually very close to the difference in signal levels 
(VFO1 - VFO2).   For example if the main VFO reads S9+10 and the second 
VFO reads S9, the FT8 number will be -10 dB.  Note that the FT8 says 
that -24 dB is the lowest it can decode.  With VFO1 = S9+10, that's 
about S7 for the smallest signal it can decode.  Observations agree.  
Those numbers will vary a little depending on how your S meter is 
calibrated.  In order to decode a weak signal, all those close USA 
stations will have to go silent.


The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB 
below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of the 
time.  That statement should be that FT8 will decode signals 24 dB below 
the sum total of everything in a 2500 Hz bandwidth. If the total of all 
signals on the band are below the noise floor, it would be interesting 
to know if FT8 will decode any of them.  I haven't observed that yet in 
a real situation.  I did however try to simulate that condition by 
adding enough noise to the signals such that all the signals were below 
the noise.  The software did continue to decode signals.  All the 
reports were -24 dB.  This was a very crude test because I don't know 
how exactly much the signals were below the noise.  This should be of 
benefit to those people that have S9+ noise on the bands they operate.  
They should be able to decode the strongest signals on the band.


The (VFO1 - VFO2) test just described should always result in a number 
equal to or less than zero.  I notice sometimes the software will report 
a small positive number.  That seems to happen more often when the 
bandwidth is set to something less than 2500 Hz and there are very few 
signals on the band.  I think this may be related to the fact that FT8 
does all its calculations using audio signals and the receiver S meter 
is operating on RF. Audio shaping in the receiver will affect the FT8 
calculations. Audio processing in your computer sound card may be a 
factor too. This becomes really apparent when the radio is set to CW and 
the audio peaking filter is turned on.  With SSB bandwidth and flat 
audio response, S meter readings are a good indication of what will be 
decoded.  It should decode signals down to 24 dB below whatever your S 
meter reads.


I also narrowed the bandwidth of VFO1 and chopped out a bunch of 
signals.  I got S7 on VFO1.  Then a station calling CQ also measured S7 
on VFO2.  The FT8 report was 0 dB.  Agrees.`


That test brings up a possibility.  If you can narrow VFO1 to a very 
narrow bandwidth hopefully containing only a very weak signal, then you 
may be able to decode it.  A strong signal in the passband of VFO1 will 
kill the decode.


It works.  I decreased the bandwidth of VFO1 to 200 Hz and it decoded an 
S2 signal.  I had VFO1 in USB mode with that bandwidth. My receiver will 
go to zero bandwidth in USB mode.  I put VFO1 into CW mode at 100 Hz 
bandwidth and it decoded a signal that was moving the meter between S0 
and S1.  That signal would have also been easy copy if it was CW instead 
of FT8.  I was using a good receiving antenna on 160 meters immediately 
after sunset.


While this seems to work for weak signals it is a non-starter for normal 
operation.  How do you tune around with a very narrow bandwidth looking 
for a station calling CQ or any other station that might be DX?  It's 
not like CW, unless you learn to copy FT8 by ear.  You can't find him 
with a wide bandwidth because the software won't decode him.  He is only 
there when the bandwidth is very narrow.  Given the number of USA 
stations on FT8 that 

Re: Topband: FT8 Tonight

[WW3S]

If you are decoding them they are not "just listening".

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 19, 2018, at 6:02 PM, CT1EKD  wrote:
> 
> MIKE 
> You can find  DH5CW/ DP0GVN Matthias  at the ON4KST chat, he as a modest 
> antenna for TX.
> Check with him, and ask him to reply to you. 
> 
> Pedro - CT1EKD
>  
> 
> Citando W0MU Mike Fatchett :
> 
>> Once again being decoded at DP0GVN  -15db.  No contact is it appear they are 
>> just listening.
>> 
>> _Topband Reflector Archives - 
>> http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 
>  
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: FT8 Tonight

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Thanks...I never thought to look there.  I am usually hanging out on the 
50mhz  chat.



On 7/19/2018 4:02 PM, CT1EKD wrote:

MIKE
You can find  DH5CW/ DP0GVN Matthias  at the ON4KST chat, he as a 
modest antenna for TX.

Check with him, and ask him to reply to you.

Pedro - CT1EKD


Citando W0MU Mike Fatchett :

Once again being decoded at DP0GVN -15db.  No contact is it appear 
they are just listening.


_Topband Reflector Archives - 
http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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


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

Re: Topband: FT8 Tonight

[Grant Saviers]

Interesting.  Must be a fun place in the middle of Antarctic winter and 
keeping a 160m antenna up.  OTOH, they can lay wire on the ice for a 660 
ft elevated dipole.


I had 3 SSB QSO's with them on 20m when I was MM in the Southern Ocean 
Jan 2017.  From the newbies on the radio I think getting a ham license 
is a popular recreation.


Grant KZ1W

On 7/15/2018 21:15 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
Once again being decoded at DP0GVN  -15db.  No contact is it appear 
they are just listening.


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


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

Topband: FT8 Tonight

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Once again being decoded at DP0GVN  -15db.  No contact is it appear they 
are just listening.


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

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

[VK3HJ]

Having no interest in FT8 or JT modes (for now), I don't have much to 
comment on that, but do have a few comments on the subsequent discussion.


My feeling is that, as mentioned already, many stations haven't made a 
decent job of improving their receiving capability, or are unable to do so. 
These stations may be 20 - 30 dB or more behind those who have, and 
therefore much of the receiving gain of FT8 is lost. In many cases, it's 
much easier to put out a decent signal, than to reciprocate by being able to 
receive decently.


I have three two-wire Beverages out of 280 m each in a quiet rural location. 
The nearest neighbour is several hundred metres away, and the nearest town 
is around 10 km away. I have used the design on Mike W0BTU's website, and am 
switching directions with 12 Vdc down each of the three feedlines giving me 
six switchable directions in the shack. I am pleased with the results, but 
haven't used the reverse directions much yet.


In the control box, I am just using a rotary switch, with mini coax carrying 
the RF. It would be interesting to devise a switching arrangement to allow 
diversity reception between any two Beverages. I currently can use diversity 
with by transmitting vertical in one receiver and one Beverage in the other.


We are well into Autumn here, but are still getting many evenings with 
thunderstorms in the region. Some call this an "Indian Summer". I was still 
able to work Dave K1WHS last evening despite a thunderstorm off our east 
coast.


See you on Top Band, on CW.

73,

Luke VK3HJ 


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

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

[K4SAV]

I'm not sure how many people have actually compared the new digital 
modes with CW as far as low signal level decoding.  I did that for a 
long time when JT-65 first became available.  Back then it was much 
easier to separate one station and compare the reported S/N to what I 
see on my receiver when using a very narrow passband.  There was always 
a huge disparity, usually 30 to 40 dB.  Most of those numbers were taken 
right off the main screen of a TS-990s, so the accuracy may not be a lot 
but it's a pretty good indication of how close the signal is to the 
noise floor.


Then I found this:
http://www.arrl.org/forum/categories/view/31/page:2
You have to sign in to the ARRL site and look for the article titled 
"JT65, JT9, FT8, SNR explained".


That article says that the S/N reported by JT-65 is actually 29.7 dB 
more than it should be and JT-9 is 31.6 dB more than it should be. That 
agrees pretty closely with what I have been observing although my 
measurement show a slightly larger difference than that, but that could 
be because my measurements didn't have enough accuracy.


I used to try to identify a signal at that was close to the noise floor 
and see if JT-9 would decode it.  It never did.  At a level where JT-9 
does decode the signal, it would have been easy copy on CW.  So for me, 
I see no low level signal advantage to these digital modes.  I continue 
to wonder why other people say there is.  I wonder if others are using a 
wide passband when making comparisons (if they really do make 
comparisons).  For low level CW I usually use 150 Hz, sometimes a little 
less if there is QRM.


Jerry, K4SAV
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2018-04-23 12:08 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote:
On being able to hear signals at -12 to -17 dB on FT8, I do broadly 

> agree. A CW signal at those levels would be easily heard and copied
> by any decent CW operator.

-12 to -17 dB on FT8 (or any of the other "JT modes") is signal to noise
+ QRM in a 2500 Hz bandwidth.  "0 dB" in 'JT speak' is +22 dB S/N for
CW assuming a 100 Hz bandwidth (using the convention of total voltage
from the receiver vs. noise and QRM voltage).

That makes the -17 dB FT8 signal about +5 dB S/N on CW and the mythical
-24 dB (threshold) FT8 signal about - 2dB or -3 dB *below* the copyable
level for a CW signal.  JT9 has a threshold of -27 dB ... another 3 dB
more sensitive with its one minute cycle instead of the 15 second cycle
of FT8.

Since the 'JT mode' "threshold" represents a decoding probably of 0.50
(50%) and CW operators, particularly on 160 meters, often operate with
decoding probabilities as little as 10%, one can assume the ultimate
sensitivity for FT8 is 5 to 6 dB better than CW and JT closer to 10 dB
better than CW but it will take some time for experience to prove (or
disprove) those assumptions.  The nature of noise, fading and QRM will
also impact the relative sensitivities.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-04-23 12:08 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote:

On being able to hear signals at -12 to -17 dB on FT8, I do broadly agree. A CW 
signal at those levels would be easily heard and copied by any decent CW 
operator.

I think a lot of the FT8 “processing gain” claims, assumes a really poor CW 
operator. A 0dB FT8 signal is not at noise level, it is way way above noise 
level.

That said, this morning at my sunrise (noon in Europe) I was printing Italian 
stations on 40M FT8 and I was being decoded in Europe too, often at the -22 to 
-24 dB level. (I was barefoot and I’m assuming the italiAns too). Those are 
levels below what I can hear or copy on CW. I can work Europe midday on 40CW in 
winter but not so easy in spring or summer.

Tim N3QE

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

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

[Mike Waters]

I have no idea how FT8 compares with other weak-signal digital modes (such
as the ones that JT himself wrote), Dave. If no one knows here, then Google
is your friend. :-)

As for waiting until next fall and winter, keep in mind that we are
approaching the southern hemisphere's fall and winter. Since Topbanders
there have reduced or no lightning QRN, on occasion it's an opportunity for
us to work them!

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 1:19 PM David Olean  wrote:

>  I guess I was just underwhelmed at what I could accomplish on FT8 vs
> CW on 160.  ...
>
> ... In the first evening I saw a huge improvement using diversity and it
> was nice having all the wires available too!  Too bad it won't get much use
> until next fall and winter!
>
> On 4/23/2018 3:50 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I think it's safe to say that you're running Beverages in a very quiet
> location, and the hams that can't hear you are not. What is more, they
> might have a 20 over 9 noise level and are running non-directional antennas
> (such as verticals with no radials or low dipoles).
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 10:36 AM David Olean  wrote:
>
>> I have been playing around with FT8 on 160M and am a bit puzzled. I have
>> made plenty of contacts, but with many stations, it seems to require an
>> inordinate amount of power to get their attention, or they do not respond
>> at all. I also have noted that I can hear in a 2.8 kHz passband, signals
>> that register from -12 to -17 dB. About the weakest that I see is a bit
>> more than -20 dB. Does this mean that FT8 is only a few dB better than CW?
>> I have ...
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

[David Olean]

  Hi Mike and all who responded.

    I guess I was just underwhelmed at what I could accomplish on FT8 
vs CW on 160.  I figured it would open up a whole new level of rare 
countries and places that were now workable to me. Working Kazakhstan on 
160 CW from my location is difficult, but doable on some nights in the 
winter. On FT8 I hear UN1L often, but I can never work him after many 
days of trying. I started out with 90 watts and ended up with 900 watts 
output, but never a response from him. I guess 160 is a special case 
where achieving a good receive noise level is very difficult.  FT8 must 
be a huge improvement for those, as you said, with few radials and 
smallish vertical radiators as their sole antenna. The extra 5 or 6 dB 
must be the difference of night and day for limited space or limited 
antennas in general.  It sure has fostered much activity on 160 with 
calls that are mostly unfamiliar to me.  I have worked a few regulars on 
FT8, like YO3APJ, and they seem to hear just fine. Unfortunately I am 
not QRV on other HF bands to try out FT8 there! I suspect the ALLIGATOR 
SYNDROME is not as evident on the higher HF bands.


On another subject, I ran out of room on my six position receive 
beverage coaxial switch. I had seven beverages, and one was not hooked 
up as a result.  I also have not been using diversity reception even 
though I am using a K3. So I finally worked out a plan to make a new 
switching box. It consists of two Grayhill 12 position rotary switches.  
The two switches have a set of the 12 positions wired in parallel 
between the two switches and each position connects to a rx input jack 
on the back, while the common terminal for each switch goes to the main 
rx jack or the diversity rx jack on the K3.  The 12 inputs are "F" 
fittings on the back of the switch box. I worried that the isolation 
would be poor, but it checks out at 55 to 65 dB on 160 and 80 meters. 
VSWR is pretty good too even with all the insulated wire used. I did not 
even try wiring it with coax! One switch selects any of 12 beverage 
antennas for the main receiver, while the second switch selects any of 
the beverages for the diversity receiver. It works very well and I 
wonder why I did not do this a long time ago. In the first evening I saw 
a huge improvement using diversity and it was nice having all the wires 
available too!  Too bad it won't get much use until next fall and winter!


73

Dave K1WHS


On 4/23/2018 3:50 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

Hi Dave,

I think it's safe to say that you're running Beverages in a very quiet 
location, and the hams that can't hear you are not. What is more, they 
might have a 20 over 9 noise level and are running non-directional 
antennas (such as verticals with no radials or low dipoles).


73, Mike
www.w0btu.com 


On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 10:36 AM David Olean > wrote:


I have been playing around with FT8 on 160M and am a bit puzzled.
I have
made plenty of contacts, but with many stations, it seems to
require an
inordinate amount of power to get their attention, or they do not
respond at all. I also have noted that I can hear in a 2.8 kHz
passband,
signals that register from -12 to -17 dB. About the weakest that I
see
is a bit more than -20 dB. Does this mean that FT8 is only a few dB
better than CW?  I have my time set accurately and I try to place
my TX
signal away from whomever I am calling on a clear spot on my
waterfall.

Some stations are easy to work, and I have worked across the country
(FN43 to a CM grid) running just 1 watt. It just seems that there are
many stations that are not hearing much, but are making plenty of
noise.  Am I wrong?

I am working on cleaning up my 160 setup and have 8 beverages running
and they are all pretty quiet now that I installed plenty of ferrite
chokes around on the RG-6 feed lines.  I am looking forward to
next fall
and winter.

73

Dave K1WHS

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



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

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

[Grant Saviers]

Dave,

Remember that the reported S/N is relative to the receive station noise 
+ QRM level.   Since many TB stations don't have your antennas and have 
high noise, they can't decode you or report a poor S/N.  I get +9 and 
-18 reports from YB stations a hundred KM apart.  It's not spotlight 
prop.  So more power helps. Often I find I need to move TX freq, 
especially way into the FT8 band edges when well heard stations don't 
decode me, but that is more my experience on 80m long path.   The EU QRM 
level is clearly a limiting factor.   I think the latest release decodes 
to -24, I see that sometimes but rarely does the other station respond.  
It is always worth calling since their noise level might be a lot lower 
than mine.  That is clearly the case for some of the skimmer posted 
signal reports by great hearing stations that are not on the air.  I 
will get a -17 report but no other station in that country decodes me 
(or decides to answer my CQ DX).


Grant KZ1W

On 4/22/2018 7:17 AM, David Olean wrote:
I have been playing around with FT8 on 160M and am a bit puzzled. I 
have made plenty of contacts, but with many stations, it seems to 
require an inordinate amount of power to get their attention, or they 
do not respond at all. I also have noted that I can hear in a 2.8 kHz 
passband, signals that register from -12 to -17 dB. About the weakest 
that I see is a bit more than -20 dB. Does this mean that FT8 is only 
a few dB better than CW?  I have my time set accurately and I try to 
place my TX signal away from whomever I am calling on a clear spot on 
my waterfall.


Some stations are easy to work, and I have worked across the country 
(FN43 to a CM grid) running just 1 watt. It just seems that there are 
many stations that are not hearing much, but are making plenty of 
noise.  Am I wrong?


I am working on cleaning up my 160 setup and have 8 beverages running 
and they are all pretty quiet now that I installed plenty of ferrite 
chokes around on the RG-6 feed lines.  I am looking forward to next 
fall and winter.


73

Dave K1WHS

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


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

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

[Mike DeChristopher]

Hi Dave,

In my [very, very, extremely] limited experiences with any of the JT
modes, it has always seemed to me that many are alligators. I think
the FT8 craze has inspired a lot of people to get on 160 with
compromise tx antennas -- this is a good thing -- but I'm not sure
they realize how much they're missing on RX. I'm currently writing an
article for a local club on simple RX antennas for this very reason
(big ft8 crowd). If you try it on other bands, even 80 for example,
you'll find your mileage *magically* improves. The program hears so
well that even a stoopid rx antenna that only slightly pares down the
noise would be fb for most.

As for your tribulations, I don't know enough about the mode to say
too much, but it should be regularly better than CW, even factoring in
the alligators. A local fellow here in WMA probably has 60+ cty on FT8
with only a compromise inverted-L and no RX. I know he's running >10
or 20W -- not sure if that's considered inordinate or not.

Glad to hear your beverage noise is straightened out.

73
Mike N1TA



On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:17 AM, David Olean  wrote:
> I have been playing around with FT8 on 160M and am a bit puzzled. I have
> made plenty of contacts, but with many stations, it seems to require an
> inordinate amount of power to get their attention, or they do not respond at
> all. I also have noted that I can hear in a 2.8 kHz passband, signals that
> register from -12 to -17 dB. About the weakest that I see is a bit more than
> -20 dB. Does this mean that FT8 is only a few dB better than CW?  I have my
> time set accurately and I try to place my TX signal away from whomever I am
> calling on a clear spot on my waterfall.
>
> Some stations are easy to work, and I have worked across the country (FN43
> to a CM grid) running just 1 watt. It just seems that there are many
> stations that are not hearing much, but are making plenty of noise.  Am I
> wrong?
>
> I am working on cleaning up my 160 setup and have 8 beverages running and
> they are all pretty quiet now that I installed plenty of ferrite chokes
> around on the RG-6 feed lines.  I am looking forward to next fall and
> winter.
>
> 73
>
> Dave K1WHS
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

[Tim Shoppa]

On being able to hear signals at -12 to -17 dB on FT8, I do broadly agree. A CW 
signal at those levels would be easily heard and copied by any decent CW 
operator.

I think a lot of the FT8 “processing gain” claims, assumes a really poor CW 
operator. A 0dB FT8 signal is not at noise level, it is way way above noise 
level.

That said, this morning at my sunrise (noon in Europe) I was printing Italian 
stations on 40M FT8 and I was being decoded in Europe too, often at the -22 to 
-24 dB level. (I was barefoot and I’m assuming the italiAns too). Those are 
levels below what I can hear or copy on CW. I can work Europe midday on 40CW in 
winter but not so easy in spring or summer.

Tim N3QE

> On Apr 22, 2018, at 10:17 AM, David Olean  wrote:
> 
> I have been playing around with FT8 on 160M and am a bit puzzled. I have made 
> plenty of contacts, but with many stations, it seems to require an inordinate 
> amount of power to get their attention, or they do not respond at all. I also 
> have noted that I can hear in a 2.8 kHz passband, signals that register from 
> -12 to -17 dB. About the weakest that I see is a bit more than -20 dB. Does 
> this mean that FT8 is only a few dB better than CW?  I have my time set 
> accurately and I try to place my TX signal away from whomever I am calling on 
> a clear spot on my waterfall.
> 
> Some stations are easy to work, and I have worked across the country (FN43 to 
> a CM grid) running just 1 watt. It just seems that there are many stations 
> that are not hearing much, but are making plenty of noise.  Am I wrong?
> 
> I am working on cleaning up my 160 setup and have 8 beverages running and 
> they are all pretty quiet now that I installed plenty of ferrite chokes 
> around on the RG-6 feed lines.  I am looking forward to next fall and winter.
> 
> 73
> 
> Dave K1WHS
> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: FT8 Observations

[David Olean]

I have been playing around with FT8 on 160M and am a bit puzzled. I have 
made plenty of contacts, but with many stations, it seems to require an 
inordinate amount of power to get their attention, or they do not 
respond at all. I also have noted that I can hear in a 2.8 kHz passband, 
signals that register from -12 to -17 dB. About the weakest that I see 
is a bit more than -20 dB. Does this mean that FT8 is only a few dB 
better than CW?  I have my time set accurately and I try to place my TX 
signal away from whomever I am calling on a clear spot on my waterfall.


Some stations are easy to work, and I have worked across the country 
(FN43 to a CM grid) running just 1 watt. It just seems that there are 
many stations that are not hearing much, but are making plenty of 
noise.  Am I wrong?


I am working on cleaning up my 160 setup and have 8 beverages running 
and they are all pretty quiet now that I installed plenty of ferrite 
chokes around on the RG-6 feed lines.  I am looking forward to next fall 
and winter.


73

Dave K1WHS

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

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

[VK3HJ]

Many people on Top Band want to work DX. Some use digital modes.

Remember there are countries outside the USA (that have different band 
plans). Not everyone has the full 1800 - 2000 kHz to use. For example, inn 
VK we have 1800 - 1875 kHz only.


73,

Luke VK3HJ

-Original Message- 
From: Chuck Dietz

Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 12:09 PM
To: Mike Waters ; Tree
Cc: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

I know this has been “Discussed Out,” but I just want to ask why the window 
is in the 1840 area instead of the 1990 area? 


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

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

[VK3HJ]

The 160 m Band Plan was only fairly recently formalised in Australia, a 
decade or so ago.


We have 1800 - 1875 kHz, with the CW sub-band 1810 - 1840 kHz.

The digital narrow band modes seem to have established themselves on 1838 
here with no great problems, but there are few users of the band here.


At their recent meeting, IARU Region III directors agreed to consider how to 
bring the Region III band plans into closer alignment with the Region I and 
II band plans. It will be revisited at the next Region III Conference next 
year. (From TAC Notes by John VK3KM, in December AR).


So this is being looked at in IARU. It would be worthwhile contacting your 
IARU rep with constructive direction regarding Band Plans for 160 m.


From time to time I am irritated by someone testing their AM transmitter in 
the evening on 1825 kHz. There is an AM net in Melbourne at 11 am local on 
that frequency. Had there been any DX of interest around that frequency, I 
may have cause for complaint, but there generally isn't!


I turned off the radio and disconnected antennas here last weekend, due to 
thunderstorms. I will be doing the same this weekend for the same reason. We 
have a major weather event forecast for the east coast over the next three 
days. I have asked my local sawmill about Gopher Wood.


73,

Luke VK3HJ 


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

Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 11/30/2017 6:05 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote:

There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem. Just "update the
app" to default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up
there.


The FT8 operator has every right to operate in an area that will allow
him international QSOs - just as CW and SSB operators.

The issue here is no different that CW operators' treatment of "phone"
and AM operator's treatment of "silly slop bucket."  It is time for
everyone - including FT8 operators - to back off and remember that
*nobody 'owns' any frequency*.  If the FT8 operators can't handle
adjacent CW signals within their receiver passband, they need to get
rid of their "broad as a barn" SDR crap and get receivers that can
handle 90+ dB dynamic range at 500 Hz.  CW and SSB operators are going
to need to recognize legitimate amateur digital signals - either by
ear or using a panadapter - and stop transmitting over them as if they
were so much "noise".

Neither side in this food fight has clean hands.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 11/30/2017 6:05 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote:

The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode
sounds.

  


There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem.  Just "update the app" to
default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there.  Amazingly,
most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 160M
antenna "isn't working the way it used to".  But then hit the tuner button
and call it a day.

  


This is essentially the same dialog the automotive industry is having on
autonomous vehicles.  When "normal life" interferes with efficient driving
algorithm, the answer is to eliminate normal life (ie - special lanes on
highways).  Sounds like FT8 just needs its own spectrum spice to be
sanctioned legally be the Region Bandplans.  And because IT is the one
needing the special treatment, it can adopt to whatever spot is decided for
it.  For 160M - clearly 2000 - 1980 would provide the necessary 10
"channels" it requires for future growth.

  


73

  


Ed N1UR

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


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

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

 
supportive comments.  What we asked the FCC to do was create a TRUE CW sub-band 
on 160M from 1800 to 1835 or so here in the USA as I recall - but in the end 
Bill Cross at the FCC ridiculed the petition and the FCC denied it out of hand 
- which meant that what we have in place today is the VOLUNTARY 160M ARRL 
BANDPLAN that we now follow - and we all need to understand that NO BAND 
SEGMENT on 160M is reserved for anyone or any mode.  Here in the US, CW is 
authorized from 1800-2000 inclusive as is SSB - what we all usually do is try 
to respect what we have as a bandplan MOST OF THE TIME and not complain when a 
contest comes along.
BY THE WAY - here's one for you.  I recently witnessed an HL5IVL digital qso 
where the HL5 was on FT8 around 1820 (because his 160M band was limited to 1825 
and below) and the counterparty on this same qso was on 1840 or so on FT8.I 
do nope we do not see too much of this kind of event - this one was 
understandable given the band restrictions in Korea.- but it would concern me 
to find FT8 all over the band all the time - because that would (most likely) 
create a lot of food fights going forward.
At the end of the day - we must respect that 160M is a most UNUSUAL band and 
there are no really HARD ans FAST inviolate sub-bands in the traditional sense 
that we find on the higher bands.
Personally - I am not an FT8 user - but I respect the rights of others to use 
this new mode.  We cannot hold back technology here - that never works very 
well - but we do need to understand the need to be FLEXIBLE - especially during 
competitive operating events (eg: contests).
73 JEFF   K1ZM/VY2ZM
-Original Message-
From: Ed Sawyer <sawye...@earthlink.net>
To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:44 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is
to accept everyone else's interests above your own.  A "gentleman" is
respectful of others and treats others as he/she wants to be treated.
  No one owns a frequency channel at least in the US - read your license.
  If I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted
mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency.  By the
way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M.
  If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in my
opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
that should be hilarious.
  I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble they
read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
since June.
  Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.
  73
  Ed  N1UR
_
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: FT8 discussion

[DXer]

With a 1 minute cycle, where only 46 seconds of it is payload, like in JT65
and JT9, a CW id is possible, and indeed available, to those that want to
activate it.

Not feasible with a 15 seconds cycle where 13 seconds is payload. If CW id
becomes mandatory, it may be the end of FT8, to the delight of some of you.
:^)

But then something worse may show up.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Rob Atkinson  wrote:

> Ironically, an
> automatic fast CW ID at the end of each transmission would be easy to
> encode in a computer and implement, and it would not be disruptive
> since the transmission is ending anyway.  It's time for FCC to
> reinstate the CW ID requirement.  Until then, my default is to assume
> any emission I cannot identify, to be either an intruder, or noise
> from an appliance and carry on accordingly.
>
> 73
>
> Rob
> K5UJ
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: FT8 discussion

[Roger Kennedy]

I agree totally that a good place for an FT8 segment on Top Band would be up
around 1.990 Mhz . . .

However, many parts of the world (including a lot of Europe) aren't licensed
to use that part of the band !

(I suspect that's why 1.840 was chosen - sadly)

I also agree that anyone transmitting any of these digital modes SHOULD have
to identify themselves on cw.

Roger G3YRO


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

Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM

[DXer]

I respect your right to enjoy not enjoying FT8, or any other mode for that
matter. I'll side with you every time this right is challenged.

Bottom line is, nature hates vacuum. If a section of a band is not used
most of the time, it may be 'adopted' by another SIG. There is strength in
numbers, and the numbers right now seem to be with FT8. Is it another fad?
Time will tell.

As for where the FT8 segment should be, that has changed a few times on
certain bands, but you must make your views known where the FT8 crowd is
likely to be discussing this. Leave the bad attitude behind, join the WSJT
Yahoogroups list, and be part of the solution. The FT8 'crowd' is not
likely to be following the Topband reflector.

K1JT did not dictate the frequencies, he may have made suggestions, like
many others, that was all. The mode is less than 6 months old. Things can,
and will continue to evolve/change. Let's make sure it always
evolves/changes for the better.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Ed Sawyer  wrote:

> The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode
> sounds.
>
> There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem.  Just "update the app" to
> default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there.  Amazingly,
> most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 160M
> antenna "isn't working the way it used to".  But then hit the tuner button
> and call it a day.
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM

[Michael Walker]

The beauty of any mode, not just FT8, is that no makes you use it.

If you don't like it, that is fine.  Don't.

However, this is many a night, even recently, where there are a bunch of
guys on FT8 including good DX and only 1 guy on CW if that.

For all you complaining about not liking it, that is fine.  However, ask
yourself how often to you get on on a Tuesday night and just call CQ for a
few hours.  I know some of you do, but if I did a poll on this list, I bet
80% don't.  And, that is ok.

The hobby has many many options.  Don't knock those that like what they get
out of it.

Carry on... :)

Mike va3mw




On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Bill Cromwell  wrote:

> Hi Ed,
>
> On 160 meters (as well as other bands) there are the gentlemen's
> agreements that do depend on gentlemen. As long as the FT* folks are
> behaving in a civilized manner I say they should just get on the air and
> take their chances like everybody else.
>
> Personally I am completely unimpressed by FT*anything*.*! Callsign, QTH,
> signal report are *NOT* a QSO at my radio shack. I have also been known to
> handle some formal message traffic. The FT type modes won't accommodate me.
> My decision to shun those modes is based on known reasons that I cannot
> ignore. But those ops don't have to be shunned or denigrated. If they have
> a window I can avoid them. But when contests or DX pileups occur then all
> bets are off. That's when I usually turn the radio off and pickup musical
> instruments or take the dog for a walk or perhaps (not least) visit the XYL
> and help her with some of her interests. Contesters and FTers can duke it
> out without me. It's just a hobby that once in a great while turns a little
> more serious (emergency communications).
>
> 73,
>
> Bill  KU8H
>
>
> On 11/30/2017 06:05 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
>
>> The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode
>> sounds.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem.  Just "update the app" to
>> default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there.  Amazingly,
>> most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 160M
>> antenna "isn't working the way it used to".  But then hit the tuner button
>> and call it a day.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is essentially the same dialog the automotive industry is having on
>> autonomous vehicles.  When "normal life" interferes with efficient driving
>> algorithm, the answer is to eliminate normal life (ie - special lanes on
>> highways).  Sounds like FT8 just needs its own spectrum spice to be
>> sanctioned legally be the Region Bandplans.  And because IT is the one
>> needing the special treatment, it can adopt to whatever spot is decided
>> for
>> it.  For 160M - clearly 2000 - 1980 would provide the necessary 10
>> "channels" it requires for future growth.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed N1UR
>>
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>>
> --
> bark less - wag more
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

[Rob Atkinson]

Actually the problem with the alleged QRM and FT8 is more about simply
identifying ham computerized modes of digital transmission and
reception and separating them out from the rest of the noise generated
by poorly filtered appliances, leaky cable TV, power line data
communications etc.  I am evidently a troglodyte who does not have a
computer in the shack and I refuse to run one for no reason other than
to be able to demodulate and identify ham digital signals.  I believe
the onus is on the digital mode operator to make his emissions
identifiable as ham radio to others, who like me, may be operating
analog equipment capable of demodulating common basic transmission
modes such as analog phone, and CW keyed with radiotelegraph code.

What I'm getting at is that a big mistake was made in the 1980s with
the CW ID requirement for RTTY and SSTV was dropped to convenience
those operators.  It was burdensome then, but SSTV and Baudot RTTY was
pretty easy to ID (although you couldn't tell a ham station from an
intruder).  Now, with seemingly zillion digital computer modes, it's
impossible for someone like me to tell a licensed ham from an
intruder, or a variable speed furnace motor.Ironically, an
automatic fast CW ID at the end of each transmission would be easy to
encode in a computer and implement, and it would not be disruptive
since the transmission is ending anyway.  It's time for FCC to
reinstate the CW ID requirement.  Until then, my default is to assume
any emission I cannot identify, to be either an intruder, or noise
from an appliance and carry on accordingly.

73

Rob
K5UJ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM

[Bill Cromwell]

Hi Ed,

On 160 meters (as well as other bands) there are the gentlemen's 
agreements that do depend on gentlemen. As long as the FT* folks are 
behaving in a civilized manner I say they should just get on the air and 
take their chances like everybody else.


Personally I am completely unimpressed by FT*anything*.*! Callsign, QTH, 
signal report are *NOT* a QSO at my radio shack. I have also been known 
to handle some formal message traffic. The FT type modes won't 
accommodate me. My decision to shun those modes is based on known 
reasons that I cannot ignore. But those ops don't have to be shunned or 
denigrated. If they have a window I can avoid them. But when contests or 
DX pileups occur then all bets are off. That's when I usually turn the 
radio off and pickup musical instruments or take the dog for a walk or 
perhaps (not least) visit the XYL and help her with some of her 
interests. Contesters and FTers can duke it out without me. It's just a 
hobby that once in a great while turns a little more serious (emergency 
communications).


73,

Bill  KU8H

On 11/30/2017 06:05 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote:

The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode
sounds.



There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem.  Just "update the app" to
default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there.  Amazingly,
most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 160M
antenna "isn't working the way it used to".  But then hit the tuner button
and call it a day.



This is essentially the same dialog the automotive industry is having on
autonomous vehicles.  When "normal life" interferes with efficient driving
algorithm, the answer is to eliminate normal life (ie - special lanes on
highways).  Sounds like FT8 just needs its own spectrum spice to be
sanctioned legally be the Region Bandplans.  And because IT is the one
needing the special treatment, it can adopt to whatever spot is decided for
it.  For 160M - clearly 2000 - 1980 would provide the necessary 10
"channels" it requires for future growth.



73



Ed N1UR

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



--
bark less - wag more
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM

[Ed Sawyer]

The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode
sounds.

 

There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem.  Just "update the app" to
default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there.  Amazingly,
most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 160M
antenna "isn't working the way it used to".  But then hit the tuner button
and call it a day.

 

This is essentially the same dialog the automotive industry is having on
autonomous vehicles.  When "normal life" interferes with efficient driving
algorithm, the answer is to eliminate normal life (ie - special lanes on
highways).  Sounds like FT8 just needs its own spectrum spice to be
sanctioned legally be the Region Bandplans.  And because IT is the one
needing the special treatment, it can adopt to whatever spot is decided for
it.  For 160M - clearly 2000 - 1980 would provide the necessary 10
"channels" it requires for future growth.

 

73

 

Ed N1UR

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

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

[k8gg]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Isn't it time to just stop the discussion??

73,  George,  K8GG

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

Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM? :^)

[DXer]

>>No one 'owns" a band segment on 160M under what is a VOLUNTARY 
>>BANDPLAN - and the band segments do "flex" in contests when there is 
>>so much activity to warrant the overlap that naturally occurs.


The concept described above may have worked from time immemorial, up to, 
and excluding, the creation of FT8/JT65/FT9.


FT8, and other yet to be developed modes, require a different approach 
to band planning.


For lack of a better term, FT8 is a contained mode, meaning, the 
software establishes a 2-2.5 kHz container. All activity occurs within 
this container. Outside of it there is no activity, no 'D/QRM', to use 
the malicious lingo adopted so far in this discussion.


It's easy for an SSB or CW operator to move a few kHz away, and still 
make contacts, not so with FT8.


If each individual FT8 user was to QSY in the same manner as a CW user, 
he/she may in reality be moving 2-2.5 kHz at the time. Multiply this by 
many users, and the CW frequencies that you 'own' will be gone.


Gentlemen, are you sure you want this to happen? Instead of a single 
2-2.5 kHz FT8 segment, you may end up with multiples segments.


The 20M FT8 segment is already over populated. People are already 
talking about expanding below and above the establised segment. If the 
popularity of the mode is sustained, or grows further, you may have a 
much bigger issue in your hands. Better start introducing lots of new CW 
users to protect 'your' frequencies.


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

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

[Tim Shoppa]

d from 1800-2000 inclusive as is SSB - what 
>> we all usually do is try to respect what we have as a bandplan MOST OF THE 
>> TIME and not complain when a contest comes along.
>> BY THE WAY - here's one for you.  I recently witnessed an HL5IVL digital qso 
>> where the HL5 was on FT8 around 1820 (because his 160M band was limited to 
>> 1825 and below) and the counterparty on this same qso was on 1840 or so on 
>> FT8.I do nope we do not see too much of this kind of event - this one 
>> was understandable given the band restrictions in Korea.- but it would 
>> concern me to find FT8 all over the band all the time - because that would 
>> (most likely) create a lot of food fights going forward.
>> At the end of the day - we must respect that 160M is a most UNUSUAL band and 
>> there are no really HARD ans FAST inviolate sub-bands in the traditional 
>> sense that we find on the higher bands.
>> Personally - I am not an FT8 user - but I respect the rights of others to 
>> use this new mode.  We cannot hold back technology here - that never works 
>> very well - but we do need to understand the need to be FLEXIBLE - 
>> especially during competitive operating events (eg: contests).
>> 73 JEFF   K1ZM/VY2ZM
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ed Sawyer <sawye...@earthlink.net>
>> To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:44 pm
>> Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
>> I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is
>> to accept everyone else's interests above your own.  A "gentleman" is
>> respectful of others and treats others as he/she wants to be treated.
>>  No one owns a frequency channel at least in the US - read your license.
>>  If I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted
>> mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency.  By the
>> way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M.
>>  If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
>> window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in my
>> opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
>> complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
>> that should be hilarious.
>>  I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble they
>> read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
>> exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
>> since June.
>>  Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
>> QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.
>>  73
>>  Ed  N1UR
>> _
>> 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: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

t we do need to understand the need to be FLEXIBLE - especially during 
competitive operating events (eg: contests).


73 JEFF   K1ZM/VY2ZM











-Original Message-
From: Ed Sawyer <sawye...@earthlink.net>
To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:44 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is
to accept everyone else's interests above your own.  A "gentleman" is
respectful of others and treats others as he/she wants to be treated.

  


No one owns a frequency channel at least in the US - read your license.

  


If I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted
mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency.  By the
way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M.

  


If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in my
opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
that should be hilarious.

  


I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble they
read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
since June.

  


Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.

  


73

  


Ed  N1UR

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

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


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

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

[Chuck Dietz]

I know this has been “Discussed Out,” but I just want to ask why the window is 
in the 1840 area instead of the 1990 area? They are asking for QRM at 1840. It 
will be a losing battle during contests. 
Just sayin’

Chuck W5PR 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10


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

Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

[Roger Kennedy]

Hi Jeff

Agree with most of your comments . . . 

However - if there was a 160m CW sub-band, it might be a RULE in the USA . .
. but it wouldn't apply elsewhere . . .

So what would be the point?!  I think 160m works pretty well as it is.  (and
compared to all the other bands, it's still the most gentleman-ly in my
opinion!)

However - I wish more NA stations would actually transmit between 1800 and
1810 kHz (and listen for EU above 1810, like the old days), as this is
lovely clear chunk of the band.

And please note that between about 1811 and 1815 are some horrible wide
beacons over here, so not a good place to hear DX.

73 Roger G3YRO

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

Re: Topband: FT8 and digital QRM

[Michael Clarson]

160 is the only HF band where all HF modes (except CW) have no
restrictions. The FT8 guys will really enjoy the CQ WW 160 SSB
contest! At least 160 isn't all that useful to the 2.8 kHz wide
Sailmail guys -- they really use the full 2.8 kHz. The band segmants
are pretty consistent on all the bands. The JT modes (including FT8)
start around .040, and RTTY above until one hits the phone band, where
"data" is not allowed, except on 160.  When there is no contest, there
seems to be room for everyone.--Mike, WV2ZOW

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Ralph Parker  wrote:
>>I noticed a few freq cops on the cluster announcements where some FT8 users
>> think they deserve clear
>>space which we know does not exist is a shared band that we have.
>
> What I have failed to understand over the years is why the digital stations
> were 'assigned' a spot in the middle of the 'CW bands'. How much less
> opportunity there would be for QRM between modes if the digital folks were
> up at the top of the CW area. This pretty much applies to all the HF bands.
> A real head-scratcher, IMHO.
>
> Disclaimer: I am mostly a CW op.
>
> VE7XF
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

[Rich C]

thers to
> use this new mode.  We cannot hold back technology here - that never
> works very well - but we do need to understand the need to be FLEXIBLE -
> especially during competitive operating events (eg: contests).
>
>
> 73 JEFF   K1ZM/VY2ZM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Sawyer <sawye...@earthlink.net>
> To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:44 pm
> Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
>
>
> I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman"
> is to accept everyone else's interests above your own.  A "gentleman" is
> respectful of others and treats others as he/she wants to be treated.
>
>
>
> No one owns a frequency channel at least in the US - read your license.
>
>
>
>
> If I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and
> accepted mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the
> frequency.  By the way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX
> Window" on 160M.
>
>
>
>
> If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
> window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in
> my opinion.  I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
> complete waste of time and abandoning it.  I hear 3Y is going to try it -
>  that should be hilarious.
>
>
>
> I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble
> they read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
> exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
>  since June.
>
>
>
> Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
> QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.
>
>
>
>
> 73
>
>
>
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>


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

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m

[k1zm--- via Topband]

Hi All


This FT8 discussion is fascinating really.  It harkens me to remember the 
origins of the current ARRL 160M bandplan that we try to follow today on 
Topband.


A number of us (myself included) were on the 160M ARRL BANDPLANNING COMMITTEE 
some years ago and there were several schools of thought that took place at the 
time:


1) A few of us (myself, W4ZV and K1KI (I think) favored a true CW sub-band on 
160M as we have always had in place on the upper bands like 80/40/20/15/10.  


2) However, the CHARTER of the ARRL committee was determined NOT to be 
inclusive of a formal petition to the FCC to establish true, formal sub-bands 
on 160M.


3) INSTEAD - the current bandplan was what was adopted which placed digital 
where it presently resides - as I recall it was on 1838 and not on 1840 by the 
way.


4) When those of us favoring FCC action on the matter inquired about CONTESTS - 
(especially those on SINGLE SIDEBAND) - we were told that 160M spectrum would 
"FLEX" to accommodate what would be SSB activity down to 1803 here in the USA 
and above 1813 over in EU since the lower band edge is 1810 over in Region 1


In other words, if this is not cyrstal clear - it was EXPECTED that SSB would 
penetrate below 1842 during an SSB contest - and that CW would "FLEX" over the 
band segments that were usually considered for DIGITAL and SSB modes.during a 
competitive operating event.


In actual practice this has worked reasonably well - until the rise of the 
interest in FT8 - where some folks seem to think now that 1838-1840 is somehow 
INVIOLATE.  This is an INCORRECT assumption in my opinion.


No one 'owns" a band segment on 160M under what is a VOLUNTARY BANDPLAN - and 
the band segments do "flex" in contests when there is so much activity to 
warrant the overlap that naturally occurs.


It is also an illusory assumption to believe that since the 160m band goes all 
the way to 2000khz that all space on Topband is of equivalent VALUE during a 
contest event. Europe, for example, cannot operate below 1810 and most European 
countries cannot run FULL POWER above 1850Khz.  Also some countries in EU today 
still are limited to narrow band slots from 1810 to 1830 or from 1810 to only 
1850..  So it is quite LIKELY that during a contest event there is going to be 
a lot of operation around 1838-1842 and it is not likely to be FT8 either.if 
the contest is a CW event or an SSB event.


What needs to happen (and usually does)is that after these contests are 
completed, the band FLEXES again back to our more normal, accepted conventions 
- meaning that CW is usually occurring from 1810 - 1835 or so (not by a rule - 
but just by gentleman's bandplanning convention) and that SSB usually occurs 
above 1843 or so.


On a final note - W4ZV and I authored a FORMAL FCC petition after our 160M 
Bandplan service was completed and over 1000 amateurs worldwide filed 
supportive comments.  What we asked the FCC to do was create a TRUE CW sub-band 
on 160M from 1800 to 1835 or so here in the USA as I recall - but in the end 
Bill Cross at the FCC ridiculed the petition and the FCC denied it out of hand 
- which meant that what we have in place today is the VOLUNTARY 160M ARRL 
BANDPLAN that we now follow - and we all need to understand that NO BAND 
SEGMENT on 160M is reserved for anyone or any mode.  Here in the US, CW is 
authorized from 1800-2000 inclusive as is SSB - what we all usually do is try 
to respect what we have as a bandplan MOST OF THE TIME and not complain when a 
contest comes along.


BY THE WAY - here's one for you.  I recently witnessed an HL5IVL digital qso 
where the HL5 was on FT8 around 1820 (because his 160M band was limited to 1825 
and below) and the counterparty on this same qso was on 1840 or so on FT8.I 
do nope we do not see too much of this kind of event - this one was 
understandable given the band restrictions in Korea.- but it would concern me 
to find FT8 all over the band all the time - because that would (most likely) 
create a lot of food fights going forward.


At the end of the day - we must respect that 160M is a most UNUSUAL band and 
there are no really HARD ans FAST inviolate sub-bands in the traditional sense 
that we find on the higher bands.


Personally - I am not an FT8 user - but I respect the rights of others to use 
this new mode.  We cannot hold back technology here - that never works very 
well - but we do need to understand the need to be FLEXIBLE - especially during 
competitive operating events (eg: contests).


73 JEFF   K1ZM/VY2ZM











-Original Message-
From: Ed Sawyer <sawye...@earthlink.net>
To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:44 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is
to accept everyone else's interests above your own.  A "gentleman" is
respectful of others and treats others

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm - 3khz wideband digital

[HP]

My two cents is - at least with FT8 so far 99.99 percent of the folks stay in 
the 2 - 3 khz segment . 

I am amazed I see virtually nothing about the proliferation of 3 khz wideband 
digital two way hash on all HF bands . For instance last night on the ZA1WW on 
3536 , it covered both the ZA and most of the pile calling 

And then there is my problem with Century link ADSL carriers every 4 khz across 
160-80-40 at 5 to 10 db out of noise. On 80 happens to be 3535.934 - the ZA was 
about 3535.970 pretty rough . 

Also amazes me I seem to be the only one in the country with the 4 khz combs 
(which sometimes are just limited to the ham bands bottom edge up 70- 100 khz 
almost as if intentional ) 



Hank K7HP 

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

Topband: FT8 and digital QRM

[Ralph Parker]

>I noticed a few freq cops on the cluster announcements where some FT8 
users think they deserve clear

>space which we know does not exist is a shared band that we have.

What I have failed to understand over the years is why the digital 
stations were 'assigned' a spot in the middle of the 'CW bands'. How 
much less opportunity there would be for QRM between modes if the 
digital folks were up at the top of the CW area. This pretty much 
applies to all the HF bands.

A real head-scratcher, IMHO.

Disclaimer: I am mostly a CW op.

VE7XF
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[cqtestk4xs--- via Topband]

Although this might not be a gigantic issue on 160 it is a big issue on 20.  
During peak time in CQWW I was copying CW contest signals up to around 14125.  
Parking spots are hard to come by on 20 and 40.  Nobody owns a freq, except the 
"pig farmers" on 75.
 
73  Bill KH7XS/K4XS
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Greg <n...@windstream.net>
To: 'topband' <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:26 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Jeez -- enough already...how difficult is it to avoid 2.5 khz of bandwidth
that is not even in the DX portion of the band!  Leave FT8 alone and fight
the QRM below 1835.  73, Greg-N4CC

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

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

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

[Mike Waters]

Well said.  Just a few weeks ago, someone made the point that we should be
thankful that there is activity up there. The gist of it was that during
the year, much of the time the only activity on 160m is digital. "Use it or
lose it" was his point.

I do not wish to discuss this.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Nov 29, 2017 11:54 AM, "Tree"  wrote:

All -

I think most of the issues around the FT8 spectrum use - and CW QRM have
been aired.

I think most of use have gotten used to seeing carriers on our spectrum
displays up around 1838-1840 - and generally that doesn't present a problem
for most other uses of the band.

A little understanding of the new mode is useful - so people can understand
how to avoid causing QRM.

Thanks.

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