Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[James Shaver]

I am headed to 17 myself - maybe I’ll see you there :)

> On Apr 30, 2019, at 11:02 AM, Hasan al-Basri  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim, and tnx 20m FT4 qso.
> 
> I have been spotted on 40m, 20m, 30m in the last 10 min or so. I have not 
> seen any spots from my 17m signal, nor have I seen any sigs. 
> 
> I'll try a few CQs on 15 and 10 to see if any spots show up.
> 
> 73, N0AN
> Hasan
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:50 AM James Shaver  wrote:
>> I watched one CW signal on 40 intentionally move until it was zero beat with 
>> it signal.  Not a single QSO was disrupted by them. Hilariously, their 
>> attempt to QRM gave me great data about how easily the protocol will reject 
>> DQRM of that nature. The irony is delicious. 
>> 
>> Jim S. 
>> N2ADV
>> 
>>> On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Gary Kohtala - K7EK via wsjt-devel 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's already happening. Just a few minutes ago on the current 40m FT4 
>>> frequency I am hearing multiple
>>> attempts at jamming and harassment. People tuning up and swishing their 
>>> VFO's, sending unidentified
>>> CW messages such as "Go away", etc. They have to be very optimistic 
>>> thinking that (m)any of the folks on
>>> JT modes are able to hear them and/or be expected to respond to CW 
>>> messages. Absolutely hilarious. 
>>> The jammers don't know that the software will just see their attempts at 
>>> disruption as very insignificant
>>> bumps in the road. FT4 will just keep on sending until the message is 
>>> received, just like the other JT
>>> modes. Very entertaining. I seem to remember something similar when FT8 
>>> exploded onto the scene in a similar manner. Let's revisit this in six 
>>> months and see where we stand.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Gary, K7EK
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 7:32:44 AM EDT, James Shaver  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 60 is never included because people don’t read before they transmit (I know 
>>> that’s a shocker) and were transmitting out of band or illegally because of 
>>> the vast differences between 60 meter rules. 
>>> 
>>> > On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:25 AM, Christoph Berg  wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > Re: Bill Somerville 2019-04-29 
>>> > <6c16f722-5577-e692-e1a3-78a3c38b9...@classdesign.com>
>>> >> In summary WSJT-X v2.1.0 RC5 will have the following FT4 suggested
>>> >> frequencies (the Iter1 column):
>>> >> 
>>> >> Band Iter0  Iter1  Notes
>>> >> -
>>> >> 8035953575  (plus 3568 Region 3)
>>> >> 4070907047
>>> > 
>>> > Shouldn't 60m be included here as well? (Also FT8)
>>> > 
>>> > (My assumption is that FT4 will take much of the existing FT8 traffic,
>>> > because people hate waiting. Judging by the amount of FT4 on the first
>>> > day, that might happen very soon.)
>>> > 
>>> > Christoph
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > ___
>>> > wsjt-devel mailing list
>>> > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>>> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>>> ___
>>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>>> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>> ___
>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[Hasan al-Basri]

Hi Jim, and tnx 20m FT4 qso.

I have been spotted on 40m, 20m, 30m in the last 10 min or so. I have not
seen any spots from my 17m signal, nor have I seen any sigs.

I'll try a few CQs on 15 and 10 to see if any spots show up.

73, N0AN
Hasan


On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:50 AM James Shaver  wrote:

> I watched one CW signal on 40 intentionally move until it was zero beat
> with it signal.  Not a single QSO was disrupted by them. Hilariously, their
> attempt to QRM gave me great data about how easily the protocol will reject
> DQRM of that nature. The irony is delicious.
>
> Jim S.
> N2ADV
>
> On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Gary Kohtala - K7EK via wsjt-devel <
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> It's already happening. Just a few minutes ago on the current 40m FT4
> frequency I am hearing multiple
> attempts at jamming and harassment. People tuning up and swishing their
> VFO's, sending unidentified
> CW messages such as "Go away", etc. They have to be very optimistic
> thinking that (m)any of the folks on
> JT modes are able to hear them and/or be expected to respond to CW
> messages. Absolutely hilarious.
> The jammers don't know that the software will just see their attempts at
> disruption as very insignificant
> bumps in the road. FT4 will just keep on sending until the message is
> received, just like the other JT
> modes. Very entertaining. I seem to remember something similar when FT8
> exploded onto the scene in a similar manner. Let's revisit this in six
> months and see where we stand.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gary, K7EK
>
> ---
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 7:32:44 AM EDT, James Shaver 
> wrote:
>
>
> 60 is never included because people don’t read before they transmit (I
> know that’s a shocker) and were transmitting out of band or illegally
> because of the vast differences between 60 meter rules.
>
> > On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:25 AM, Christoph Berg  wrote:
> >
> > Re: Bill Somerville 2019-04-29 <
> 6c16f722-5577-e692-e1a3-78a3c38b9...@classdesign.com>
> >> In summary WSJT-X v2.1.0 RC5 will have the following FT4 suggested
> >> frequencies (the Iter1 column):
> >>
> >> Band Iter0  Iter1  Notes
> >> -
> >> 8035953575  (plus 3568 Region 3)
> >> 4070907047
> >
> > Shouldn't 60m be included here as well? (Also FT8)
> >
> > (My assumption is that FT4 will take much of the existing FT8 traffic,
> > because people hate waiting. Judging by the amount of FT4 on the first
> > day, that might happen very soon.)
> >
> > Christoph
> >
> >
> > ___
> > wsjt-devel mailing list
> > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[James Shaver]

*my. Not “it”

Auto correct on iOS hates me. 

> On Apr 30, 2019, at 10:47 AM, James Shaver  wrote:
> 
> I watched one CW signal on 40 intentionally move until it was zero beat with 
> MY signal.  Not a single QSO was disrupted by them. Hilariously, their 
> attempt to QRM gave me great data about how easily the protocol will reject 
> DQRM of that nature. The irony is delicious. 
> 
> Jim S. 
> N2ADV
> 
>> On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Gary Kohtala - K7EK via wsjt-devel 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> It's already happening. Just a few minutes ago on the current 40m FT4 
>> frequency I am hearing multiple
>> attempts at jamming and harassment. People tuning up and swishing their 
>> VFO's, sending unidentified
>> CW messages such as "Go away", etc. They have to be very optimistic thinking 
>> that (m)any of the folks on
>> JT modes are able to hear them and/or be expected to respond to CW messages. 
>> Absolutely hilarious. 
>> The jammers don't know that the software will just see their attempts at 
>> disruption as very insignificant
>> bumps in the road. FT4 will just keep on sending until the message is 
>> received, just like the other JT
>> modes. Very entertaining. I seem to remember something similar when FT8 
>> exploded onto the scene in a similar manner. Let's revisit this in six 
>> months and see where we stand.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Gary, K7EK
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 7:32:44 AM EDT, James Shaver  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 60 is never included because people don’t read before they transmit (I know 
>> that’s a shocker) and were transmitting out of band or illegally because of 
>> the vast differences between 60 meter rules. 
>> 
>> > On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:25 AM, Christoph Berg  wrote:
>> > 
>> > Re: Bill Somerville 2019-04-29 
>> > <6c16f722-5577-e692-e1a3-78a3c38b9...@classdesign.com>
>> >> In summary WSJT-X v2.1.0 RC5 will have the following FT4 suggested
>> >> frequencies (the Iter1 column):
>> >> 
>> >> Band Iter0  Iter1  Notes
>> >> -
>> >> 8035953575  (plus 3568 Region 3)
>> >> 4070907047
>> > 
>> > Shouldn't 60m be included here as well? (Also FT8)
>> > 
>> > (My assumption is that FT4 will take much of the existing FT8 traffic,
>> > because people hate waiting. Judging by the amount of FT4 on the first
>> > day, that might happen very soon.)
>> > 
>> > Christoph
>> > 
>> > 
>> > ___
>> > wsjt-devel mailing list
>> > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>> ___
>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[James Shaver]

I watched one CW signal on 40 intentionally move until it was zero beat with it 
signal.  Not a single QSO was disrupted by them. Hilariously, their attempt to 
QRM gave me great data about how easily the protocol will reject DQRM of that 
nature. The irony is delicious. 

Jim S. 
N2ADV

> On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Gary Kohtala - K7EK via wsjt-devel 
>  wrote:
> 
> It's already happening. Just a few minutes ago on the current 40m FT4 
> frequency I am hearing multiple
> attempts at jamming and harassment. People tuning up and swishing their 
> VFO's, sending unidentified
> CW messages such as "Go away", etc. They have to be very optimistic thinking 
> that (m)any of the folks on
> JT modes are able to hear them and/or be expected to respond to CW messages. 
> Absolutely hilarious. 
> The jammers don't know that the software will just see their attempts at 
> disruption as very insignificant
> bumps in the road. FT4 will just keep on sending until the message is 
> received, just like the other JT
> modes. Very entertaining. I seem to remember something similar when FT8 
> exploded onto the scene in a similar manner. Let's revisit this in six months 
> and see where we stand.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Gary, K7EK
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 7:32:44 AM EDT, James Shaver  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 60 is never included because people don’t read before they transmit (I know 
> that’s a shocker) and were transmitting out of band or illegally because of 
> the vast differences between 60 meter rules. 
> 
> > On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:25 AM, Christoph Berg  wrote:
> > 
> > Re: Bill Somerville 2019-04-29 
> > <6c16f722-5577-e692-e1a3-78a3c38b9...@classdesign.com>
> >> In summary WSJT-X v2.1.0 RC5 will have the following FT4 suggested
> >> frequencies (the Iter1 column):
> >> 
> >> Band Iter0  Iter1  Notes
> >> -
> >> 8035953575  (plus 3568 Region 3)
> >> 4070907047
> > 
> > Shouldn't 60m be included here as well? (Also FT8)
> > 
> > (My assumption is that FT4 will take much of the existing FT8 traffic,
> > because people hate waiting. Judging by the amount of FT4 on the first
> > day, that might happen very soon.)
> > 
> > Christoph
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > wsjt-devel mailing list
> > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[Joe]

are you talking about the 7047 frequency?

Is so, then possibly the issue is because of the W1AW CW Practice 
frequency is


7.0475

Could be a problem?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/30/2019 6:43 AM, Gary Kohtala - K7EK via wsjt-devel wrote:
It's already happening. Just a few minutes ago on the current 40m FT4 
frequency I am hearing multiple
attempts at jamming and harassment. People tuning up and swishing 
their VFO's, sending unidentified
CW messages such as "Go away", etc. They have to be very optimistic 
thinking that (m)any of the folks on
JT modes are able to hear them and/or be expected to respond to CW 
messages. Absolutely hilarious.
The jammers don't know that the software will just see their attempts 
at disruption as very insignificant
bumps in the road. FT4 will just keep on sending until the message is 
received, just like the other JT
modes. Very entertaining. I seem to remember something similar when 
FT8 exploded onto the scene in a similar manner. Let's revisit this in 
six months and see where we stand.


Best regards,

Gary, K7EK

---


On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 7:32:44 AM EDT, James Shaver 
 wrote:



60 is never included because people don’t read before they transmit (I 
know that’s a shocker) and were transmitting out of band or illegally 
because of the vast differences between 60 meter rules.


> On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:25 AM, Christoph Berg > wrote:

>
> Re: Bill Somerville 2019-04-29 
<6c16f722-5577-e692-e1a3-78a3c38b9...@classdesign.com 
>

>> In summary WSJT-X v2.1.0 RC5 will have the following FT4 suggested
>> frequencies (the Iter1 column):
>>
>> Band Iter0  Iter1  Notes
>> -
>> 80    3595    3575  (plus 3568 Region 3)
>> 40    7090    7047
>
> Shouldn't 60m be included here as well? (Also FT8)
>
> (My assumption is that FT4 will take much of the existing FT8 traffic,
> because people hate waiting. Judging by the amount of FT4 on the first
> day, that might happen very soon.)
>
> Christoph
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 


> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[Gary Kohtala - K7EK via wsjt-devel]

 It's already happening. Just a few minutes ago on the current 40m FT4 
frequency I am hearing multipleattempts at jamming and harassment. People 
tuning up and swishing their VFO's, sending unidentifiedCW messages such as "Go 
away", etc. They have to be very optimistic thinking that (m)any of the folks 
onJT modes are able to hear them and/or be expected to respond to CW messages. 
Absolutely hilarious. The jammers don't know that the software will just see 
their attempts at disruption as very insignificantbumps in the road. FT4 will 
just keep on sending until the message is received, just like the other 
JTmodes. Very entertaining. I seem to remember something similar when FT8 
exploded onto the scene in a similar manner. Let's revisit this in six months 
and see where we stand.
Best regards,
Gary, K7EK
---

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 7:32:44 AM EDT, James Shaver  
wrote:  
 
 60 is never included because people don’t read before they transmit (I know 
that’s a shocker) and were transmitting out of band or illegally because of the 
vast differences between 60 meter rules. 

> On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:25 AM, Christoph Berg  wrote:
> 
> Re: Bill Somerville 2019-04-29 
> <6c16f722-5577-e692-e1a3-78a3c38b9...@classdesign.com>
>> In summary WSJT-X v2.1.0 RC5 will have the following FT4 suggested
>> frequencies (the Iter1 column):
>> 
>> Band Iter0  Iter1  Notes
>> -
>> 80    3595    3575  (plus 3568 Region 3)
>> 40    7090    7047
> 
> Shouldn't 60m be included here as well? (Also FT8)
> 
> (My assumption is that FT4 will take much of the existing FT8 traffic,
> because people hate waiting. Judging by the amount of FT4 on the first
> day, that might happen very soon.)
> 
> Christoph
> 
> 
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
  ___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[Bill Somerville]

On 30/04/2019 12:25, Christoph Berg wrote:

Band Iter0   Iter1   Notes
-
80    3595    3575   (plus 3568 Region 3)
40    7090    7047

Shouldn't 60m be included here as well? (Also FT8)

(My assumption is that FT4 will take much of the existing FT8 traffic,
because people hate waiting. Judging by the amount of FT4 on the first
day, that might happen very soon.)

Christoph


Hi Christoph,

we do not include working frequency suggestions for 60m because we 
strive to only suggest frequencies that are both globally coordinated 
and compliant with band plans (something that is not always possible). 
For 60m, local regulations and band plans are largely uncoordinated and 
as such we insist that individual users determine exactly what dial 
frequency and and audio offset(s) are suitable for use.


73
Bill
G4WJS.

___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[James Shaver]

60 is never included because people don’t read before they transmit (I know 
that’s a shocker) and were transmitting out of band or illegally because of the 
vast differences between 60 meter rules. 

> On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:25 AM, Christoph Berg  wrote:
> 
> Re: Bill Somerville 2019-04-29 
> <6c16f722-5577-e692-e1a3-78a3c38b9...@classdesign.com>
>> In summary WSJT-X v2.1.0 RC5 will have the following FT4 suggested
>> frequencies (the Iter1 column):
>> 
>> Band Iter0   Iter1   Notes
>> -
>> 8035953575   (plus 3568 Region 3)
>> 4070907047
> 
> Shouldn't 60m be included here as well? (Also FT8)
> 
> (My assumption is that FT4 will take much of the existing FT8 traffic,
> because people hate waiting. Judging by the amount of FT4 on the first
> day, that might happen very soon.)
> 
> Christoph
> 
> 
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[Christoph Berg]

Re: Bill Somerville 2019-04-29 
<6c16f722-5577-e692-e1a3-78a3c38b9...@classdesign.com>
> In summary WSJT-X v2.1.0 RC5 will have the following FT4 suggested
> frequencies (the Iter1 column):
> 
> Band Iter0   Iter1   Notes
> -
> 80    3595    3575   (plus 3568 Region 3)
> 40    7090    7047

Shouldn't 60m be included here as well? (Also FT8)

(My assumption is that FT4 will take much of the existing FT8 traffic,
because people hate waiting. Judging by the amount of FT4 on the first
day, that might happen very soon.)

Christoph


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[Bill Somerville]

On 29/04/2019 16:05, Grant VK5GR wrote:


At the risk of incurring the wrath of the JT65 folks, your suggestion 
in my mind has some merit. I would go as far to say an alternate 
strategy is to take the old JT65 frequencies and use them for FT4, and 
have the JT65 folks move to the JT9 channels – grouping both of the 
weak signal modes together in one segment. WSJT can decode both 
simultaneously and neither JT65 or JT9 has a lot of traffic these days 
so maybe that is the ultimate for everyone – given that in days gone 
by JT9 and JT65 used to share anyway to an extent).


You could apply that across the board – with the exception of Region 3 
on 80m. I would agree with the compromise that Bill has suggested with 
3568 in R3 and 3575 elsewhere (n fact make it 3576 and follow the 
above suggested convention).


Bill – a different approach – do you think it has merit?


HI Grant and George,

I agree that it could work but it will compress all the 60 T/R modes 
into a 2 kHz section. Although that is not unreasonable it does have the 
issue that there is no decoder that can decode JS8CALL and JT9 and JT65. 
The dual mode JT9+JT65 decoder in WSJT-X relies on JT9 signals being 
separated above other signals and decoder performance is severely 
degraded if that is not the case.


Anyway, for now we are going with my suggested changes since we have a 
deadline rushing up towards us. We are only into a beta testing phase 
and changes can still be made without too much disruption once we have a 
better feel for how FT4 is going to be used.


In summary WSJT-X v2.1.0 RC5 will have the following FT4 suggested 
frequencies (the Iter1 column):


Band Iter0   Iter1   Notes
-
80    3595    3575   (plus 3568 Region 3)
40    7090    7047
30   10140   10140
20   14140   14080
17   18104   18104
15   21140   21140
12   24919   24919
10   28180   28180
 6   50318   50318
 2  144170  144170

73
Bill
G4WJS.

___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[Grant VK5GR]

George,

 

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the JT65 folks, your suggestion in my 
mind has some merit. I would go as far to say an alternate strategy is to take 
the old JT65 frequencies and use them for FT4, and have the JT65 folks move to 
the JT9 channels – grouping both of the weak signal modes together in one 
segment. WSJT can decode both simultaneously and neither JT65 or JT9 has a lot 
of traffic these days so maybe that is the ultimate for everyone – given that 
in days gone by JT9 and JT65 used to share anyway to an extent).

 

You could apply that across the board – with the exception of Region 3 on 80m. 
I would agree with the compromise that Bill has suggested with 3568 in R3 and 
3575 elsewhere (n fact make it 3576 and follow the above suggested convention).

 

Bill – a different approach – do you think it has merit?

 

Grant

 

 

From: George J. Molnar [mailto:geo...@molnar.tv] 
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2019 12:16 AM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on 
frequencies

 

A quick two cents…

 

Is there a good reason why FT4 could not use the existing JT65 and JT9 watering 
holes on all bands? They are quite clear most of the time, and considerate 
operators could certainly share, especially with JT9.

 

In areas where licenses don’t allow operation on the watering holes, it seems 
that we have (mostly) figured it out around the world.

 

Looking forward to testing out the new mode. Wonder if speed will trump 
sensitivity for general use?

 

Many thanks to the dev team for years of effort for the ham community.

 

 

George J Molnar
KF2T, Arlington, Virginia, USA

 

Please note my new email: geo...@molnar.tv

 

___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[George J. Molnar]

A quick two cents…

Is there a good reason why FT4 could not use the existing JT65 and JT9 watering 
holes on all bands? They are quite clear most of the time, and considerate 
operators could certainly share, especially with JT9.

In areas where licenses don’t allow operation on the watering holes, it seems 
that we have (mostly) figured it out around the world.

Looking forward to testing out the new mode. Wonder if speed will trump 
sensitivity for general use?

Many thanks to the dev team for years of effort for the ham community.


George J Molnar
KF2T, Arlington, Virginia, USA


Please note my new email: geo...@molnar.tv

___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[Bill Somerville]

Hi Grant,

My main criteria was to try and offer suggestions that stay within the 
band plan narrow band digital mode sections. Although there are no good 
solutions for some bands (80m, 40m and 20m particularly) I think going 
below those sections is not justifiable as that would be straying into 
CW only sections. The most vociferous objections have been to choices 
above the band plan narrow band digital mode sections despite the band 
plans not disallowing such operation. In general band plans offer a 
dedicated section to a narrow mode, then the next wider modes above and 
so on, with no restriction on using a narrower mode in a wider mode 
section. Despite this suggestions of using FT4 in an all mode section of 
a band seem to be rejected out of hand. Specifically, some comments from 
members of the band planning committees have requested that we pick 
frequencies *below* the upper limits of narrow band digital mode sections.


On 29/04/2019 14:48, Grant VK5GR wrote:
Given your comments here, I still feel 80m will be a problem on 3590 
as it gives the JA community no guidance on where to go. I also think 
it is a little optimistic to think that the traffic will stay on 2kHz. 
It will spread to at least 3kHz. The use of 3567kHz by several 
expeditions for F?H mode despite being outside the band segment hasn’t 
been the end of the world. My suggestion is still for 3565kHz – and 
then lets start the move through various member societies to push IARU 
to widen the 80m digital modes segment down 5KHz to improve global 
alignment opportunities with Japan. If not, well 3590 will work (and 
at least avoids the WEFAX broadcast transmitter in Sth Korea on 
3585-3589kHz).


Unfortunately I made yet another typo with my suggestions above - having 
a bad day juggling frequencies here. I meant to suggest 3586 for all 
regions and 3568 for R3. That would offer both to R3 users so they can 
choose to interoperate simplex with JA, R1 and R2 ops. Those in R1 and 
R2 would have WSJT-X default to 3586 and they would have to QSY manually 
or set up a split to work JAs down on 3568.


Looking again I wonder if 3568 for R3 and 3575 for all regions might be 
better as it meets the criteria of staying within the narrow band 
digital mode sections for R1 and R2. The downside is that it will be 
close to the OLIVIA, Contestia, etc. folks who have a alternate QRG of 
3577 (USB dial) although I don't know if it gets used.


40m, I had like you originally considered going below 7050 but the 
desire to create some separation between the RTTY and FT4 contesters 
drove my recommendation to go above 7060. Yes it is an SSB segment 
(indeed digital voice is marked as a CoA in some regions for 7065) – 
but in that sense it is no better or worst than 7090 other than it is 
less likely to interfere with international DX SSB and more likely to 
interfere with domestic nets. 40m really is a mess and ultimately now 
that the world has access (since 2006) to 200kHz of the band it should 
be replanned properly, with CW 7000-7040, data 7040-7080 and SSB 
7080-7200. Another task to take to the IARU.


Here in the EU there are still many nets etc. right down to the upper 
limits of digital mode operation sections as the extra 7100 - 7200 
allocation is still shaking out. Any proposed frequency in an all mode 
section is bound to land on some claimed territory.


73
Bill
G4WJS.

___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting - more on frequencies

[Grant VK5GR]

Bill,

 

Thanks for the reply – and it looks like we were sending things at the same 
time J My apolgies for my earlier mail as it seems we crossed paths in the 
night.

 

Given your comments here, I still feel 80m will be a problem on 3590 as it 
gives the JA community no guidance on where to go. I also think it is a little 
optimistic to think that the traffic will stay on 2kHz. It will spread to at 
least 3kHz. The use of 3567kHz by several expeditions for F?H mode despite 
being outside the band segment hasn’t been the end of the world. My suggestion 
is still for 3565kHz – and then lets start the move through various member 
societies to push IARU to widen the 80m digital modes segment down 5KHz to 
improve global alignment opportunities with Japan. If not, well 3590 will work 
(and at least avoids the WEFAX broadcast transmitter in Sth Korea on 
3585-3589kHz).

 

40m, I had like you originally considered going below 7050 but the desire to 
create some separation between the RTTY and FT4 contesters drove my 
recommendation to go above 7060. Yes it is an SSB segment (indeed digital voice 
is marked as a CoA in some regions for 7065) – but in that sense it is no 
better or worst than 7090 other than it is less likely to interfere with 
international DX SSB and more likely to interfere with domestic nets. 40m 
really is a mess and ultimately now that the world has access (since 2006) to 
200kHz of the band it should be replanned properly, with CW 7000-7040, data 
7040-7080 and SSB 7080-7200. Another task to take to the IARU.

 

20m – 14.080 – I can see a case for that – but it is RTTY heartland and will 
cause conflict. (A bit like the problems on 14090 at times with F/H mode). We 
originally dismissed 14080 for F/H mode when I was working with the KH1/KH7Z 
team for that reason. If it was a choice between 14140 and 14080 I would pick 
14080. I would still encourage you to consider 14065 – which again is no worst 
off than 14140 in terms of band plan non compliance but does at least provide 
the separation between the FT4 and RTTY contest communities while avoiding 
angst with the PSK and QRP CW communities.

 

15m and 10m – my arguments are not strong – could easily be swayed.

 

Finally – WRC bands – if the idea is to reuse the JT9 assignments for now. 
I can understand if there is an expectation that DXers will want to use FT4 as 
well. I think you have to be very careful however with the word contesting and 
WRC bands or you will be howled down very loudly. Best make sure that on those 
bands only standard exchanges can be enabled and none of the fancy contesting 
exchange modes to preserve some face there.

 

Again feedback most welcome!

 

Regards,

Grant

 

 

 

From: Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@classdesign.com] 
Sent: Monday, 29 April 2019 9:00 PM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

 

Hi Grant,

 

thanks for taking the time to look at possibilities for FT4 band slots. 
Comments in line below.

 

On 26/04/2019 12:15, Grant VK5GR wrote:

Joe et al,
 
A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4
probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to consider:
 
80m 3.595 - PROPOSE 3562kHz - 3595 is completely out of band for JA
completely and into the phone part of the band outside of Region 2. My
suggestion based on occupancy and proximity to existing digital sub-bands is
something around 3562kHz (at least keeping away from 3560 which is sometimes
a CW QRP frequency). While the IARU band plans currently have digital as
3570-3590kHz a case can be made for expanding that - and given other
restrictions in some countries on 80m, expanding digital down at least 8kHz
to 3562kHz makes some sense. A case to be made for the IARU - but you can
"help" their decision by starting to use it anyway. BTW 3600kHz is the
centre frequency for IARU R3 80m disaster comms - LSB - so FT4 on 3595 USB
will badly clash with that - another reason not to use 3595.

3562 kHz is a problem in both regions 1 and 2 as it is below the narrow band 
digital mode sub-band which starts at 3570 kHz. The only overlap with JA and 
the rest of the World is 3570 - 3575 kHz which is effectively 3570 - 3573 kHz 
if we assume USB and a 2 kHz wide slot. Having looked at as many bad plans as I 
can find I can only suggest 3590 kHz with an alternate of 3568 kHz for region 
3. 3586 kHz is probably considered as RTTY territory so even that is not free 
of contention.



 
 
40m 7.090 - PROPOSE 7052kHz (inside the digital sub-band) or 7062kHz (just
above the digital sub-band noting it is heavily used for SSB at least in
region 3) - 7090 only makes sense in the USA! Many other countries have this
as SSB voice use. The IARU digital segment is (depending on region)
7040-7060 or 7040-7060. With 7056 already being used for FT8 F/H mode on a
fairly regular basis it would make sense to use say 7050 or 7052kHz instead.
Note

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Bill Somerville]

On 29/04/2019 12:30, Bill Somerville wrote:


So in summary, I am suggesting amending our proposed suggested 
frequencies for FT4 to:


*3595 kHz all regions 1 and 2**
**3568 kHz region 3*

*7074 kHz all regions*

10140 kHz all regions - shared with JT9 and JS8CALL

*14080 kHz all regions*

18104 kHz all regions - shared with JT9 and JS8CALL

21140 kHz all regions

24919 kHz all regions

28180 kHz all regions

50318 kHz all regions


Hi Grant and all,

there is a typo in the above please read as:

*7047 kHz all regions*

The in line commentary had the correct intended frequency.

73
Bill
G4WJS.
**

___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Bill Somerville]

Hi Grant,

thanks for taking the time to look at possibilities for FT4 band slots. 
Comments in line below.


On 26/04/2019 12:15, Grant VK5GR wrote:

Joe et al,

A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4
probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to consider:

80m 3.595 - PROPOSE 3562kHz - 3595 is completely out of band for JA
completely and into the phone part of the band outside of Region 2. My
suggestion based on occupancy and proximity to existing digital sub-bands is
something around 3562kHz (at least keeping away from 3560 which is sometimes
a CW QRP frequency). While the IARU band plans currently have digital as
3570-3590kHz a case can be made for expanding that - and given other
restrictions in some countries on 80m, expanding digital down at least 8kHz
to 3562kHz makes some sense. A case to be made for the IARU - but you can
"help" their decision by starting to use it anyway. BTW 3600kHz is the
centre frequency for IARU R3 80m disaster comms - LSB - so FT4 on 3595 USB
will badly clash with that - another reason not to use 3595.
3562 kHz is a problem in both regions 1 and 2 as it is below the narrow 
band digital mode sub-band which starts at 3570 kHz. The only overlap 
with JA and the rest of the World is 3570 - 3575 kHz which is 
effectively 3570 - 3573 kHz if we assume USB and a 2 kHz wide slot. 
Having looked at as many bad plans as I can find I can only suggest 3590 
kHz with an alternate of 3568 kHz for region 3. 3586 kHz is probably 
considered as RTTY territory so even that is not free of contention.


40m 7.090 - PROPOSE 7052kHz (inside the digital sub-band) or 7062kHz (just
above the digital sub-band noting it is heavily used for SSB at least in
region 3) - 7090 only makes sense in the USA! Many other countries have this
as SSB voice use. The IARU digital segment is (depending on region)
7040-7060 or 7040-7060. With 7056 already being used for FT8 F/H mode on a
fairly regular basis it would make sense to use say 7050 or 7052kHz instead.
Note that 7090 is the designated SSB QRP frequency. I would promote 7050 for
FT4. The only reason not to is that the RTTY guys if FT4 and RTTY are in the
same contest might object - but during the contests the RTTY guys spread out
and use anything from 7030 to 7120 anyway in complete disregard of the band
plans. If they are going to be that unruly then putting FT4 down there
doesn't seem all that bad.
7052 kHz is in the wide band digital mode section for region 1 and 
region 2 which allows packet and related modes where there are automatic 
stations active, so may not be compatible. As far as I can see 7047 kHz 
looks a reasonable choice with the main criteria being below the 7050 
kHz upper limit for narrow band digital modes in regions 1 and 2.


* 30m / 17m / 12m - should NOT have FT4 allocations at all. FT4 is a
CONTESTING mode and CONTESTING is by global agreement excluded from those
WRC79 bands!!! *
FT4 is capable of the exact same operation style as FT8 and I doubt we 
will limit its use to contest modes only. the 30m, 17m, and 12m proposed 
suggestions are the same as currently used for JT9/JS8CALL, we are not 
encouraging increased bandwidth use on those band. If usage grows the 
working frequency suggestions can be revised later.


20m 14.140 - PROPOSE 14062kHz - the original proposed use of 14140KHz again
is well outside the digital segments where FT4 belongs. If anything,
creeping down into 14060-14070 might be considered acceptable despite not
being in the band plan if the aim was to separate RTTY and FT4 users in the
same contest. Going high above 14.112 (the acknowledged edge of the global
20m digital band plan segment) will be frowned upon. Take a leaf from 80m
and use 14062kHz - again at least that keeps it away from the CW QRP Centre
of activity and meets the objective of separating it from RTTY.
14062 kHz is below the lower limit for narrow band digital modes in all 
three regions at 14070 kHz. 14080 kHz is the best alternative I can come 
up with. It is in RTTY territory again but I don't see anything better 
below 14099 kHz.


15m 21.140 - PROPOSE 21062kHz - follow 20m and choose 21062kHz - although
21140kHz is the first proposed FT4 frequency that fell inside a digital
subband...
I don't see any issues with 21140 kHz and you are the first to suggest 
an alternative. What is your objection to 21140 kHz?


10m 28.180 - POROPOSE 28062kHz - again follow 20m
I don't see any issues with 28180 kHz and you are the first to suggest 
an alternative. What is your objection to 28180 kHz?


6m 50.318 - PROPOSE somewhere below 50.313 not above. Moving above is just
moving further into several countries beacon segments. Not likely to get a
lot of airplay as a international contesting band for FT8 so not as critical
- but my suggestion would be look below 50.313 not above.
I don't understand why countries like VK are putting beacons in the 50.3 
- 50.4 MHz range, I thought International 

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Grant VK5GR]

Ria and Brian,

Good points and I was unaware of the SOTA QRP activity.

The clash then is how to fit it in. My expectation is that it will need a 
channel bandwidth of at least 4kHz - and in a fully fledged contest I would 
expect it to spill wider than that at least on the primary bands of 40 and 20m 
and maybe 15m. The intent behind suggesting frequencies on say 14.062 was to 
avoid it creeping into the PSK segments above .070-.074 (the WSJT and PSK 
communities have already had enough conflict). At the same time there is no 
value in interfering with the CW community either. Looking more closely I also 
see that there is a CW QRP centre of activity on 3560kHz so I presume the 
comments about 20m may at some level even apply to that allocation on 80m?

Therefore an alternative frequency set could be:

3.565, 7.065, 14.065, 21.065 and 28.065 - ie 5kHz below the PSK segment. 

This meets the following criteria:
1. provides some separation between RTTY and FT4 contesters when they are 
running simultaneously
2. limits impact on known CW centres of activity
3. avoids impact on the PSK community on .070-.074 (and they are still there - 
I still make intercontinental PSK contacts in that segment especially on 20m to 
Europe from VK)
4. avoids pushing digital modes far into the voice segment of the bands 
particularly on 80/40/20m (hence moving lower rather than higher than the 
digital segments).

The problems then are collisions with 80m F/H FT8 mode activity on 3567 - but 
that isn’t insurmountable (and again all IARU regions need to re-look at the 
80m band to further work on common activity harmonisation, particularly given 
the band limit restrictions present across region 3 with this band). 

Finally, the comments about FT4 being used outside contests concern me, 
particularly on the WARC bands. While I accept it will probably happen, 
encouraging it on 30/17/12m will be very much frowned upon. 30m in particular 
being only 50kHz wide and a secondary service is not a band that too many more 
"dedicated" channels can be allocated against and  it is often quite busy 
already with CW in the lower 30kHz and digital in the top 20kHz. There are a 
small number of countries that do also allow SSB on 30m (VK being one of them) 
and that puts even more pressure on the use of the band. Associating anything 
related to contesting on the WRC bands will result in a sharp backlash I am 
sure. I know as  DXpeditioner that we welcome the refuge the WARC bands bring  
when running an expedition that clashes with a major contest. 

Further thoughts?

Regards,
Grant VK5GR


-Original Message-
From: rjai...@gmail.com [mailto:rjai...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2019 8:59 AM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

I'm not sure a WARC ban (not band, but ban) is necessary. This is
touted as a contest mode but people will use it for regular DX
contacts if it saves them time versus FT8. I can even see some
DXpeditions using it to replace or supplement RTTY contacts. Does it
have or support Fox and Hound mode? If it does, that reason alone is
good to keep it on WARC.  Ultimately contest sponsors will give zero
points for WARC QSOs anyway so it's essentially a non-issue.

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 19:22, Brian Dickman  wrote:
>
> Grant, I'd respectfully discourage any lower than about .065 for 20/15/10m. 
> .060 is the standard CW QRP activity frequency for each of those bands, and 
> .061 to .064 are the standard calling frequencies for CW SOTA activations in 
> most if not all IARU regions. The majority of the activity centers on 062. 
> Many dedicated chasers monitor 062 throughout the day for mountaintop 
> portable QRP signals.
>
> 73,
> Brian AF7MD
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 4:19 AM Grant VK5GR  wrote:
>>
>> Joe et al,
>>
>> A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4
>> probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to consider:
>>
>> 80m 3.595 - PROPOSE 3562kHz - 3595 is completely out of band for JA
>> completely and into the phone part of the band outside of Region 2. My
>> suggestion based on occupancy and proximity to existing digital sub-bands is
>> something around 3562kHz (at least keeping away from 3560 which is sometimes
>> a CW QRP frequency). While the IARU band plans currently have digital as
>> 3570-3590kHz a case can be made for expanding that - and given other
>> restrictions in some countries on 80m, expanding digital down at least 8kHz
>> to 3562kHz makes some sense. A case to be made for the IARU - but you can
>> "help" their decision by starting to use it anyway. BTW 3600kHz is the
>> centre frequency for IARU R3 80m disaster comms - LSB - so FT4 on 3595 USB
>> will badly clash with that - another reason not to use 3

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[rjai...@gmail.com]

I'm not sure a WARC ban (not band, but ban) is necessary. This is
touted as a contest mode but people will use it for regular DX
contacts if it saves them time versus FT8. I can even see some
DXpeditions using it to replace or supplement RTTY contacts. Does it
have or support Fox and Hound mode? If it does, that reason alone is
good to keep it on WARC.  Ultimately contest sponsors will give zero
points for WARC QSOs anyway so it's essentially a non-issue.

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 19:22, Brian Dickman  wrote:
>
> Grant, I'd respectfully discourage any lower than about .065 for 20/15/10m. 
> .060 is the standard CW QRP activity frequency for each of those bands, and 
> .061 to .064 are the standard calling frequencies for CW SOTA activations in 
> most if not all IARU regions. The majority of the activity centers on 062. 
> Many dedicated chasers monitor 062 throughout the day for mountaintop 
> portable QRP signals.
>
> 73,
> Brian AF7MD
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 4:19 AM Grant VK5GR  wrote:
>>
>> Joe et al,
>>
>> A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4
>> probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to consider:
>>
>> 80m 3.595 - PROPOSE 3562kHz - 3595 is completely out of band for JA
>> completely and into the phone part of the band outside of Region 2. My
>> suggestion based on occupancy and proximity to existing digital sub-bands is
>> something around 3562kHz (at least keeping away from 3560 which is sometimes
>> a CW QRP frequency). While the IARU band plans currently have digital as
>> 3570-3590kHz a case can be made for expanding that - and given other
>> restrictions in some countries on 80m, expanding digital down at least 8kHz
>> to 3562kHz makes some sense. A case to be made for the IARU - but you can
>> "help" their decision by starting to use it anyway. BTW 3600kHz is the
>> centre frequency for IARU R3 80m disaster comms - LSB - so FT4 on 3595 USB
>> will badly clash with that - another reason not to use 3595.
>>
>> 40m 7.090 - PROPOSE 7052kHz (inside the digital sub-band) or 7062kHz (just
>> above the digital sub-band noting it is heavily used for SSB at least in
>> region 3) - 7090 only makes sense in the USA! Many other countries have this
>> as SSB voice use. The IARU digital segment is (depending on region)
>> 7040-7060 or 7040-7060. With 7056 already being used for FT8 F/H mode on a
>> fairly regular basis it would make sense to use say 7050 or 7052kHz instead.
>> Note that 7090 is the designated SSB QRP frequency. I would promote 7050 for
>> FT4. The only reason not to is that the RTTY guys if FT4 and RTTY are in the
>> same contest might object - but during the contests the RTTY guys spread out
>> and use anything from 7030 to 7120 anyway in complete disregard of the band
>> plans. If they are going to be that unruly then putting FT4 down there
>> doesn't seem all that bad.
>>
>> * 30m / 17m / 12m - should NOT have FT4 allocations at all. FT4 is a
>> CONTESTING mode and CONTESTING is by global agreement excluded from those
>> WRC79 bands!!! *
>>
>> 20m 14.140 - PROPOSE 14062kHz - the original proposed use of 14140KHz again
>> is well outside the digital segments where FT4 belongs. If anything,
>> creeping down into 14060-14070 might be considered acceptable despite not
>> being in the band plan if the aim was to separate RTTY and FT4 users in the
>> same contest. Going high above 14.112 (the acknowledged edge of the global
>> 20m digital band plan segment) will be frowned upon. Take a leaf from 80m
>> and use 14062kHz - again at least that keeps it away from the CW QRP Centre
>> of activity and meets the objective of separating it from RTTY.
>>
>> 15m 21.140 - PROPOSE 21062kHz - follow 20m and choose 21062kHz - although
>> 21140kHz is the first proposed FT4 frequency that fell inside a digital
>> subband...
>>
>> 10m 28.180 - POROPOSE 28062kHz - again follow 20m
>>
>> 6m 50.318 - PROPOSE somewhere below 50.313 not above. Moving above is just
>> moving further into several countries beacon segments. Not likely to get a
>> lot of airplay as a international contesting band for FT8 so not as critical
>> - but my suggestion would be look below 50.313 not above.
>>
>> For discussion folks.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Grant VK5GR
>> WIA Appointee to the IARU Region 3 Band Plan committee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Taylor [mailto:j...@princeton.edu]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2019 1:04 AM
>> To: WSJT software development
>> Subject: [wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Brian Dickman]

Grant, I'd respectfully discourage any lower than about .065 for 20/15/10m.
.060 is the standard CW QRP activity frequency for each of those bands, and
.061 to .064 are the standard calling frequencies for CW SOTA activations
in most if not all IARU regions. The majority of the activity centers on
062. Many dedicated chasers monitor 062 throughout the day for mountaintop
portable QRP signals.

73,
Brian AF7MD

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 4:19 AM Grant VK5GR  wrote:

> Joe et al,
>
> A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4
> probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to consider:
>
> 80m 3.595 - PROPOSE 3562kHz - 3595 is completely out of band for JA
> completely and into the phone part of the band outside of Region 2. My
> suggestion based on occupancy and proximity to existing digital sub-bands
> is
> something around 3562kHz (at least keeping away from 3560 which is
> sometimes
> a CW QRP frequency). While the IARU band plans currently have digital as
> 3570-3590kHz a case can be made for expanding that - and given other
> restrictions in some countries on 80m, expanding digital down at least 8kHz
> to 3562kHz makes some sense. A case to be made for the IARU - but you can
> "help" their decision by starting to use it anyway. BTW 3600kHz is the
> centre frequency for IARU R3 80m disaster comms - LSB - so FT4 on 3595 USB
> will badly clash with that - another reason not to use 3595.
>
> 40m 7.090 - PROPOSE 7052kHz (inside the digital sub-band) or 7062kHz (just
> above the digital sub-band noting it is heavily used for SSB at least in
> region 3) - 7090 only makes sense in the USA! Many other countries have
> this
> as SSB voice use. The IARU digital segment is (depending on region)
> 7040-7060 or 7040-7060. With 7056 already being used for FT8 F/H mode on a
> fairly regular basis it would make sense to use say 7050 or 7052kHz
> instead.
> Note that 7090 is the designated SSB QRP frequency. I would promote 7050
> for
> FT4. The only reason not to is that the RTTY guys if FT4 and RTTY are in
> the
> same contest might object - but during the contests the RTTY guys spread
> out
> and use anything from 7030 to 7120 anyway in complete disregard of the band
> plans. If they are going to be that unruly then putting FT4 down there
> doesn't seem all that bad.
>
> * 30m / 17m / 12m - should NOT have FT4 allocations at all. FT4 is
> a
> CONTESTING mode and CONTESTING is by global agreement excluded from those
> WRC79 bands!!! *
>
> 20m 14.140 - PROPOSE 14062kHz - the original proposed use of 14140KHz again
> is well outside the digital segments where FT4 belongs. If anything,
> creeping down into 14060-14070 might be considered acceptable despite not
> being in the band plan if the aim was to separate RTTY and FT4 users in the
> same contest. Going high above 14.112 (the acknowledged edge of the global
> 20m digital band plan segment) will be frowned upon. Take a leaf from 80m
> and use 14062kHz - again at least that keeps it away from the CW QRP Centre
> of activity and meets the objective of separating it from RTTY.
>
> 15m 21.140 - PROPOSE 21062kHz - follow 20m and choose 21062kHz - although
> 21140kHz is the first proposed FT4 frequency that fell inside a digital
> subband...
>
> 10m 28.180 - POROPOSE 28062kHz - again follow 20m
>
> 6m 50.318 - PROPOSE somewhere below 50.313 not above. Moving above is just
> moving further into several countries beacon segments. Not likely to get a
> lot of airplay as a international contesting band for FT8 so not as
> critical
> - but my suggestion would be look below 50.313 not above.
>
> For discussion folks.
>
> Regards,
> Grant VK5GR
> WIA Appointee to the IARU Region 3 Band Plan committee
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Taylor [mailto:j...@princeton.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2019 1:04 AM
> To: WSJT software development
> Subject: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting
>
> To:   WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
> From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS
>
> Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started
> serious work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can
> compete with RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the
> benefits of FT8.  The result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically
> designed for radio contesting.
>
> Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting
> on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and
> helped us to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe
> FT4 has considerable promise for its intended purpose.
>
> We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Don AA5AU]

 Grant's suggested frequencies make sense to me. I would support his 
recommendations.
Don AA5AU
On Friday, April 26, 2019, 6:18:08 AM CDT, Grant VK5GR 
 wrote:  
 
 Joe et al,

A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4
probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to consider:

80m 3.595 - PROPOSE 3562kHz - 3595 is completely out of band for JA
completely and into the phone part of the band outside of Region 2. My
suggestion based on occupancy and proximity to existing digital sub-bands is
something around 3562kHz (at least keeping away from 3560 which is sometimes
a CW QRP frequency). While the IARU band plans currently have digital as
3570-3590kHz a case can be made for expanding that - and given other
restrictions in some countries on 80m, expanding digital down at least 8kHz
to 3562kHz makes some sense. A case to be made for the IARU - but you can
"help" their decision by starting to use it anyway. BTW 3600kHz is the
centre frequency for IARU R3 80m disaster comms - LSB - so FT4 on 3595 USB
will badly clash with that - another reason not to use 3595.

40m 7.090 - PROPOSE 7052kHz (inside the digital sub-band) or 7062kHz (just
above the digital sub-band noting it is heavily used for SSB at least in
region 3) - 7090 only makes sense in the USA! Many other countries have this
as SSB voice use. The IARU digital segment is (depending on region)
7040-7060 or 7040-7060. With 7056 already being used for FT8 F/H mode on a
fairly regular basis it would make sense to use say 7050 or 7052kHz instead.
Note that 7090 is the designated SSB QRP frequency. I would promote 7050 for
FT4. The only reason not to is that the RTTY guys if FT4 and RTTY are in the
same contest might object - but during the contests the RTTY guys spread out
and use anything from 7030 to 7120 anyway in complete disregard of the band
plans. If they are going to be that unruly then putting FT4 down there
doesn't seem all that bad. 

* 30m / 17m / 12m - should NOT have FT4 allocations at all. FT4 is a
CONTESTING mode and CONTESTING is by global agreement excluded from those
WRC79 bands!!! *

20m 14.140 - PROPOSE 14062kHz - the original proposed use of 14140KHz again
is well outside the digital segments where FT4 belongs. If anything,
creeping down into 14060-14070 might be considered acceptable despite not
being in the band plan if the aim was to separate RTTY and FT4 users in the
same contest. Going high above 14.112 (the acknowledged edge of the global
20m digital band plan segment) will be frowned upon. Take a leaf from 80m
and use 14062kHz - again at least that keeps it away from the CW QRP Centre
of activity and meets the objective of separating it from RTTY.

15m 21.140 - PROPOSE 21062kHz - follow 20m and choose 21062kHz - although
21140kHz is the first proposed FT4 frequency that fell inside a digital
subband...

10m 28.180 - POROPOSE 28062kHz - again follow 20m 

6m 50.318 - PROPOSE somewhere below 50.313 not above. Moving above is just
moving further into several countries beacon segments. Not likely to get a
lot of airplay as a international contesting band for FT8 so not as critical
- but my suggestion would be look below 50.313 not above.

For discussion folks.

Regards,
Grant VK5GR
WIA Appointee to the IARU Region 3 Band Plan committee




-Original Message-
From: Joe Taylor [mailto:j...@princeton.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2019 1:04 AM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

To:  WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS

Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started 
serious work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can 
compete with RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the 
benefits of FT8.  The result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically 
designed for radio contesting.

Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting 
on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and 
helped us to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe 
FT4 has considerable promise for its intended purpose.

We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group.  If you might be 
interested in participating and offering your considered feedback, 
please read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital 
Contesting", posted here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf

We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 
on April 29, one week from today.  The document linked above includes

  - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration

  - Operating instructions for FT4

  - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform

  - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of
    simulated propagation conditions

  - Schedule for upcoming test sessions

Please c

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Andras Bato]

Köszi!
Nekem is jönnek ezek a levelek!

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:19 AM Grant VK5GR  wrote:

> Joe et al,
>
> A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4
> probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to consider:
>
> 80m 3.595 - PROPOSE 3562kHz - 3595 is completely out of band for JA
> completely and into the phone part of the band outside of Region 2. My
> suggestion based on occupancy and proximity to existing digital sub-bands
> is
> something around 3562kHz (at least keeping away from 3560 which is
> sometimes
> a CW QRP frequency). While the IARU band plans currently have digital as
> 3570-3590kHz a case can be made for expanding that - and given other
> restrictions in some countries on 80m, expanding digital down at least 8kHz
> to 3562kHz makes some sense. A case to be made for the IARU - but you can
> "help" their decision by starting to use it anyway. BTW 3600kHz is the
> centre frequency for IARU R3 80m disaster comms - LSB - so FT4 on 3595 USB
> will badly clash with that - another reason not to use 3595.
>
> 40m 7.090 - PROPOSE 7052kHz (inside the digital sub-band) or 7062kHz (just
> above the digital sub-band noting it is heavily used for SSB at least in
> region 3) - 7090 only makes sense in the USA! Many other countries have
> this
> as SSB voice use. The IARU digital segment is (depending on region)
> 7040-7060 or 7040-7060. With 7056 already being used for FT8 F/H mode on a
> fairly regular basis it would make sense to use say 7050 or 7052kHz
> instead.
> Note that 7090 is the designated SSB QRP frequency. I would promote 7050
> for
> FT4. The only reason not to is that the RTTY guys if FT4 and RTTY are in
> the
> same contest might object - but during the contests the RTTY guys spread
> out
> and use anything from 7030 to 7120 anyway in complete disregard of the band
> plans. If they are going to be that unruly then putting FT4 down there
> doesn't seem all that bad.
>
> * 30m / 17m / 12m - should NOT have FT4 allocations at all. FT4 is
> a
> CONTESTING mode and CONTESTING is by global agreement excluded from those
> WRC79 bands!!! *
>
> 20m 14.140 - PROPOSE 14062kHz - the original proposed use of 14140KHz again
> is well outside the digital segments where FT4 belongs. If anything,
> creeping down into 14060-14070 might be considered acceptable despite not
> being in the band plan if the aim was to separate RTTY and FT4 users in the
> same contest. Going high above 14.112 (the acknowledged edge of the global
> 20m digital band plan segment) will be frowned upon. Take a leaf from 80m
> and use 14062kHz - again at least that keeps it away from the CW QRP Centre
> of activity and meets the objective of separating it from RTTY.
>
> 15m 21.140 - PROPOSE 21062kHz - follow 20m and choose 21062kHz - although
> 21140kHz is the first proposed FT4 frequency that fell inside a digital
> subband...
>
> 10m 28.180 - POROPOSE 28062kHz - again follow 20m
>
> 6m 50.318 - PROPOSE somewhere below 50.313 not above. Moving above is just
> moving further into several countries beacon segments. Not likely to get a
> lot of airplay as a international contesting band for FT8 so not as
> critical
> - but my suggestion would be look below 50.313 not above.
>
> For discussion folks.
>
> Regards,
> Grant VK5GR
> WIA Appointee to the IARU Region 3 Band Plan committee
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Taylor [mailto:j...@princeton.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2019 1:04 AM
> To: WSJT software development
> Subject: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting
>
> To:   WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
> From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS
>
> Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started
> serious work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can
> compete with RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the
> benefits of FT8.  The result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically
> designed for radio contesting.
>
> Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting
> on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and
> helped us to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe
> FT4 has considerable promise for its intended purpose.
>
> We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group.  If you might be
> interested in participating and offering your considered feedback,
> please read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital
> Contesting", posted here:
> http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf
>
> We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5
> on April 29, on

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Grant VK5GR]

Joe et al,

A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4
probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to consider:

80m 3.595 - PROPOSE 3562kHz - 3595 is completely out of band for JA
completely and into the phone part of the band outside of Region 2. My
suggestion based on occupancy and proximity to existing digital sub-bands is
something around 3562kHz (at least keeping away from 3560 which is sometimes
a CW QRP frequency). While the IARU band plans currently have digital as
3570-3590kHz a case can be made for expanding that - and given other
restrictions in some countries on 80m, expanding digital down at least 8kHz
to 3562kHz makes some sense. A case to be made for the IARU - but you can
"help" their decision by starting to use it anyway. BTW 3600kHz is the
centre frequency for IARU R3 80m disaster comms - LSB - so FT4 on 3595 USB
will badly clash with that - another reason not to use 3595.

40m 7.090 - PROPOSE 7052kHz (inside the digital sub-band) or 7062kHz (just
above the digital sub-band noting it is heavily used for SSB at least in
region 3) - 7090 only makes sense in the USA! Many other countries have this
as SSB voice use. The IARU digital segment is (depending on region)
7040-7060 or 7040-7060. With 7056 already being used for FT8 F/H mode on a
fairly regular basis it would make sense to use say 7050 or 7052kHz instead.
Note that 7090 is the designated SSB QRP frequency. I would promote 7050 for
FT4. The only reason not to is that the RTTY guys if FT4 and RTTY are in the
same contest might object - but during the contests the RTTY guys spread out
and use anything from 7030 to 7120 anyway in complete disregard of the band
plans. If they are going to be that unruly then putting FT4 down there
doesn't seem all that bad. 

* 30m / 17m / 12m - should NOT have FT4 allocations at all. FT4 is a
CONTESTING mode and CONTESTING is by global agreement excluded from those
WRC79 bands!!! *

20m 14.140 - PROPOSE 14062kHz - the original proposed use of 14140KHz again
is well outside the digital segments where FT4 belongs. If anything,
creeping down into 14060-14070 might be considered acceptable despite not
being in the band plan if the aim was to separate RTTY and FT4 users in the
same contest. Going high above 14.112 (the acknowledged edge of the global
20m digital band plan segment) will be frowned upon. Take a leaf from 80m
and use 14062kHz - again at least that keeps it away from the CW QRP Centre
of activity and meets the objective of separating it from RTTY.

15m 21.140 - PROPOSE 21062kHz - follow 20m and choose 21062kHz - although
21140kHz is the first proposed FT4 frequency that fell inside a digital
subband...

10m 28.180 - POROPOSE 28062kHz - again follow 20m 

6m 50.318 - PROPOSE somewhere below 50.313 not above. Moving above is just
moving further into several countries beacon segments. Not likely to get a
lot of airplay as a international contesting band for FT8 so not as critical
- but my suggestion would be look below 50.313 not above.

For discussion folks.

Regards,
Grant VK5GR
WIA Appointee to the IARU Region 3 Band Plan committee




-Original Message-
From: Joe Taylor [mailto:j...@princeton.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2019 1:04 AM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

To:   WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS

Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started 
serious work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can 
compete with RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the 
benefits of FT8.  The result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically 
designed for radio contesting.

Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting 
on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and 
helped us to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe 
FT4 has considerable promise for its intended purpose.

We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group.  If you might be 
interested in participating and offering your considered feedback, 
please read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital 
Contesting", posted here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf

We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 
on April 29, one week from today.  The document linked above includes

  - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration

  - Operating instructions for FT4

  - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform

  - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of
simulated propagation conditions

  - Schedule for upcoming test sessions

Please consider helping us to make FT4 a successful mode for digital 
contesting

With best wishes and 73,

-- Joe (K1JT),

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Bill Somerville]

On 23/04/2019 16:40, Tom Melvin wrote:

I don’t want to assume so will ask - FT4 aimed at ‘Contest Friendly digital 
modes’ - cool - BUT will it cater for the pile of weird contest rules that are 
out there. The abundance of requests for QSO Parties, Field Days where 
non-standards messages.  Heck for us UK VHF types - 6 character Locator squares 
etc.


Hi Tom,

the FT8 payload protocol is identical to that of FT8 and MSK144, that 
means it can support each of the contest modes available on the 
"Settings->Advanced->Special operating activity" panel. That already 
includes EU VHF Contest mode which is designed to match Region 1 VHF and 
up contest rules requiring exchange of a 6-digit Maidenhead locator, 
report and serial number. With respect to generic contest support, that 
will not happen due to the constraints of fitting the messages into the 
77-bit payload. There will be many requests to support various contest 
but that is not possible since the ones we have are "baked in" to the 
message encoding and restricted to exactly and rigidly the required 
exchange information. For example a naive observer might think that the 
US states and VE provinces used in the RTTY Roundup contest exchange may 
be used for some other contest that uses a different set of regional 
abbreviations, that is not how it works as the codes are not sent as is 
but compressed to an index number only. A less naive observer might then 
say well that's ok, just change the translation of the indexes to 
contest X's exchange requirements, but we are very unlikely to do that 
because there is no space in the message to encode which set of mappings 
are to be used and chaos will follow with decoded messages being widely 
misinterpreted.


Here is a simple case study of a request to support a particular 
contest. The ARRL Winter Field Day (WFD) is almost identical in exchange 
requirements as the ARRL Field Day (FD), the only difference is that WFD 
uses a different set of class category codes, (I)door, (O)utdoor, and 
(H)ome. So initially it seems trivial to use 'I', 'O', and 'H' instead 
of the normal FD 'A' thru 'F' class category codes. This doesn't work 
for two reasons, firstly the codes are hard coded, and secondly even if 
they weren't they all have to fit into three bits. So we could change 
the encoding and decoding to accept 'A' thru 'F' *and two other codes* 
but there is no room for a third, it is simply not possible to encode 
the nine required values in three bits. All we could offer to the many 
that requested support for WFD is that three of the 'A' thru 'F' 
categories be accepted by the WFD organizers as valid substitutes for 
their 'I', 'O', and 'H' categories. Of course they didn't accept that, 
why should the software for a new digital mode enforce a change in the 
long standing rules for an established contest. Anyway either because 
our unavoidable technical intransigence, or more likely because a 
strictly formatted digital mode exchange is not really in the sprit of a 
FD w/e, they simple changed the rules such that FT8 is not allowed for 
valid WFD contacts.


73
Bill
G4WJS.



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Dave Boniface]

Hi Tom, GM8MJV.

My thoughts exactly.

However of course it's not just UK contesting it's the EU and most of
Region 1 where 6 character locators are needed to be exchanged.

73's all
Dave, M0HJS.



On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 16:43, Tom Melvin  wrote:

>
>
> Hi All
>
> I don’t want to assume so will ask - FT4 aimed at ‘Contest Friendly
> digital modes’ - cool - BUT will it cater for the pile of weird contest
> rules that are out there. The abundance of requests for QSO Parties, Field
> Days where non-standards messages.  Heck for us UK VHF types - 6 character
> Locator squares etc.
>
> Or … is this aimed specifically at the 'RTTY Contest types’
>
> The docs on the web site for the RC does just refer to the RTTY contest -
> are other types in the pipeline?
> If not then perhaps a subtle change to the description now before release
> may stop the multitude region/country contest requests hitting the
> reflector.
>
> Tom
>
> --
> 73’s
>
> Tom
> GM8MJV (IO85)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22 Apr 2019, at 16:34, Joe Taylor  wrote:
>
> > To:   WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
> > From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS
> >
> > Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started
> serious work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can
> compete with RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the
> benefits of FT8.  The result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically
> designed for radio contesting.
> >
> > Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting
> on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and helped
> us to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe FT4 has
> considerable promise for its intended purpose.
> >
> > We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group.  If you might be
> interested in participating and offering your considered feedback, please
> read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting",
> posted here:
> > http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf
> >
> > We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5
> on April 29, one week from today.  The document linked above includes
> >
> > - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration
> >
> > - Operating instructions for FT4
> >
> > - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform
> >
> > - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of
> >   simulated propagation conditions
> >
> > - Schedule for upcoming test sessions
> >
> > Please consider helping us to make FT4 a successful mode for digital
> contesting
> >
> > With best wishes and 73,
> >
> >   -- Joe (K1JT), Steve (K9AN), and Bill (G4WJS)
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > wsjt-devel mailing list
> > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> >
>
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Joe Taylor]

Thanks to Michael Chen, BD5RV, for translating "The FT4 Protocol for 
Digital Contesting" into Chinese.  The English document and all 
available translations are now will posted on the WSJT-X web page:


https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/wsjtx.html

Scroll down to near the bottom.

-- 73, Joe, K1JT


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Joe Taylor]

Thanks to Saku Nylund, OH1KH, for translating "The FT4 Protocol for 
Digital Contesting" into Finnish.


I have posted the translation here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol_fi.pdf

A link to this document in English and all available translations will 
soon be posted on the WSJT-X web page.


-- 73, Joe, K1JT


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Paul Kube]

Thanks Joe, Steve, and Bill. This looks very good.

1. Where do you want folks to submit their feedback after using the RC? You
all seem to be good at dealing with the firehose of emails coming in to
wsjt-devel, but maybe you want to set up something just for this.

2. Any chance of having "Best S+P" also consider end-of-QSO messages (RR73,
etc.) as well as CQ's? Tailending, without waiting for a CQ, can really
help with rates.

3. Any chance of implementing F/H style "W1ABC 73; W0XYZ 569" call queueing?

Thanks!

73, Paul K6PO

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 8:38 AM Joe Taylor  wrote:

> To:   WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
> From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS
>
> Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started
> serious work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can
> compete with RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the
> benefits of FT8.  The result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically
> designed for radio contesting.
>
> Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting
> on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and
> helped us to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe
> FT4 has considerable promise for its intended purpose.
>
> We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group.  If you might be
> interested in participating and offering your considered feedback,
> please read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital
> Contesting", posted here:
> http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf
>
> We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5
> on April 29, one week from today.  The document linked above includes
>
>   - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration
>
>   - Operating instructions for FT4
>
>   - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform
>
>   - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of
> simulated propagation conditions
>
>   - Schedule for upcoming test sessions
>
> Please consider helping us to make FT4 a successful mode for digital
> contesting
>
> With best wishes and 73,
>
> -- Joe (K1JT), Steve (K9AN), and Bill (G4WJS)
>
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Joe Taylor]

Thanks to Dany Bélanger, VE2EBK, for translating "The FT4 Protocol for 
Digital Contesting" into French.


I have posted the translation here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol_fr.pdf

-- 73, Joe, K1JT


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Tom Melvin]

Hi All

I don’t want to assume so will ask - FT4 aimed at ‘Contest Friendly digital 
modes’ - cool - BUT will it cater for the pile of weird contest rules that are 
out there. The abundance of requests for QSO Parties, Field Days where 
non-standards messages.  Heck for us UK VHF types - 6 character Locator squares 
etc.

Or … is this aimed specifically at the 'RTTY Contest types’

The docs on the web site for the RC does just refer to the RTTY contest - are 
other types in the pipeline?
If not then perhaps a subtle change to the description now before release may 
stop the multitude region/country contest requests hitting the reflector.

Tom

--
73’s

Tom
GM8MJV (IO85)





On 22 Apr 2019, at 16:34, Joe Taylor  wrote:

> To:   WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
> From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS
> 
> Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started serious 
> work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can compete with 
> RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the benefits of FT8.  The 
> result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically designed for radio 
> contesting.
> 
> Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting 
> on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and helped us 
> to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe FT4 has 
> considerable promise for its intended purpose.
> 
> We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group.  If you might be 
> interested in participating and offering your considered feedback, please 
> read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting", 
> posted here:
> http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf
> 
> We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 on 
> April 29, one week from today.  The document linked above includes
> 
> - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration
> 
> - Operating instructions for FT4
> 
> - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform
> 
> - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of
>   simulated propagation conditions
> 
> - Schedule for upcoming test sessions
> 
> Please consider helping us to make FT4 a successful mode for digital 
> contesting
> 
> With best wishes and 73,
> 
>   -- Joe (K1JT), Steve (K9AN), and Bill (G4WJS)
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> 



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Joe Taylor]

Thanks to Miguel Iborra, EA4BAS, for translating "The FT4 Protocol for 
Digital Contesting" into Spanish.


I have posted the translation here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol_es.pdf

-- 73, Joe, K1JT


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Edfel Rivera]

Hi:

The Dev Team raise again the level.  Given FT8 success, FT4 Could be
another killer mode.  I hope so. Now some questions, When the Dev Team
expects the mode will be available for loading QSO with it.  Yes I know it
is premature but...  have to ask.  Until that QSO are advised to upload as
"DATA",  or How?

Thank you for improving what was already a standard.  Wonder I was thinking
about WSJTX 2.1 dev and you guys launch that amazing announcement.  Hope
everything works as intended.!

73'

Edfel
KP4AJ



On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 6:54 PM Bill Frantz  wrote:

> On 4/22/19 at 1:41 PM, a...@abartlett.org (Adam Bartlett) wrote:
>
> >I could also see some non-contest uses for it - think SOTA/WWFF/POTA type
> >'activations' which are not WARC band restricted but where an operator may
> >wish to use a higher throughput rate for QSOs.  While primarily a contest
> >tool, FT4 could serve as a mechanism for operators who operate non-contest
> >award programs where there is some value in operating faster QSOs than FT8
> >or other low signal modes allow for.
>
> It might also be possible that many will migrate to FT4 because
> QSOs are faster than with FT8. I have one JT9 QSO in my log, but
> decided it was too much like watching paint dry. FT4 will appeal
> to adrenaline junkies (a description which sometimes includes me).
>
> 73 Bill AE6JV
>
> -
> Bill Frantz| Re: Hardware Management Modes: | Periwinkle
> (408)356-8506  | If there's a mode, there's a   | 16345
> Englewood Ave
> www.pwpconsult.com | failure mode. - Jerry Leichter | Los Gatos,
> CA 95032
>
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[David F4HTQ]

Dear Joe,
Thank you for your message.
Can you tell us if this new FT4 mode will be accessible for classic QSOs
(such as FT8, JT65 and JT9) or if it can only be used in contest mode?
My 73,
David F4HTQ.


-Message d'origine-
De : Joe Taylor [mailto:j...@princeton.edu] 
Envoyé : lundi 22 avril 2019 17:34
À : WSJT software development 
Objet : [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

To:   WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS

Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started serious
work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can compete with
RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the benefits of FT8.  The
result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically designed for radio
contesting.

Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting
on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and helped us
to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe
FT4 has considerable promise for its intended purpose.

We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group.  If you might be
interested in participating and offering your considered feedback, please
read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting",
posted here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf

We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 on
April 29, one week from today.  The document linked above includes

  - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration

  - Operating instructions for FT4

  - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform

  - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of
simulated propagation conditions

  - Schedule for upcoming test sessions

Please consider helping us to make FT4 a successful mode for digital
contesting

With best wishes and 73,

-- Joe (K1JT), Steve (K9AN), and Bill (G4WJS)



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Bill Frantz]

On 4/22/19 at 1:41 PM, a...@abartlett.org (Adam Bartlett) wrote:


I could also see some non-contest uses for it - think SOTA/WWFF/POTA type
'activations' which are not WARC band restricted but where an operator may
wish to use a higher throughput rate for QSOs.  While primarily a contest
tool, FT4 could serve as a mechanism for operators who operate non-contest
award programs where there is some value in operating faster QSOs than FT8
or other low signal modes allow for.


It might also be possible that many will migrate to FT4 because 
QSOs are faster than with FT8. I have one JT9 QSO in my log, but 
decided it was too much like watching paint dry. FT4 will appeal 
to adrenaline junkies (a description which sometimes includes me).


73 Bill AE6JV

-
Bill Frantz| Re: Hardware Management Modes: | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506  | If there's a mode, there's a   | 16345 
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | failure mode. - Jerry Leichter | Los Gatos, 
CA 95032




___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Adam Bartlett]

I could also see some non-contest uses for it - think SOTA/WWFF/POTA type
'activations' which are not WARC band restricted but where an operator may
wish to use a higher throughput rate for QSOs.  While primarily a contest
tool, FT4 could serve as a mechanism for operators who operate non-contest
award programs where there is some value in operating faster QSOs than FT8
or other low signal modes allow for.

73
adam N5YHF

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 3:18 PM Joe Taylor  wrote:

> Hi Jordan,
>
> On 4/22/2019 14:30, Jordan Sherer KN4CRD wrote:
> > Contesting on the WARC bands is discouraged. It seems reasonable to
> > think that including calling frequencies on 10/18/24 MHz should be
> > avoided for this mode since it is specifically designed for radio
> > contesting. Do you agree?
>
> Of course we agree that contesting activity should not happen on the
> WARC bands.  Perhaps a note to that effect should appear in FT4
> documentation.
>
> Our tentative list of default frequencies for FT4 activity includes
> frequencies for the WARC bands because we assume that, at least during a
> testing period, some people may look for non-contest FT4 QSOs on those
> bands.
> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Joe Taylor]

Hi Jordan,

On 4/22/2019 14:30, Jordan Sherer KN4CRD wrote:
Contesting on the WARC bands is discouraged. It seems reasonable to 
think that including calling frequencies on 10/18/24 MHz should be 
avoided for this mode since it is specifically designed for radio 
contesting. Do you agree?


Of course we agree that contesting activity should not happen on the 
WARC bands.  Perhaps a note to that effect should appear in FT4 
documentation.


Our tentative list of default frequencies for FT4 activity includes 
frequencies for the WARC bands because we assume that, at least during a 
testing period, some people may look for non-contest FT4 QSOs on those 
bands.

-- 73, Joe, K1JT


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Joe Taylor]

Thanks to Enrico Schürrer, OE1EQW, for translating "The FT4 Protocol for 
Digital Contesting" into German.


I have posted the translation here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol_de.pdf

-- 73, Joe, K1JT


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Jordan Sherer]

Interesting development, Joe. One thought here, though.

> The result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically designed for *radio
contesting*

Contesting on the WARC bands is discouraged. It seems reasonable to think
that including calling frequencies on 10/18/24 MHz should be avoided for
this mode since it is specifically designed for radio contesting. Do you
agree?

Cheers!

Best,
Jordan / KN4CRD

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:03 PM John Evans  wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Apr 22, 2019, at 10:34, Joe Taylor  wrote:
> >
> > To:   WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
> > From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS
> >
> > Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started
> serious work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can
> compete with RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the
> benefits of FT8.  The result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically
> designed for radio contesting.
> >
> > Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting
> on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and helped
> us to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe FT4 has
> considerable promise for its intended purpose.
> >
> > We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group.  If you might be
> interested in participating and offering your considered feedback, please
> read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting",
> posted here:
> > http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf
> >
> > We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5
> on April 29, one week from today.  The document linked above includes
> >
> > - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration
> >
> > - Operating instructions for FT4
> >
> > - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform
> >
> > - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of
> >   simulated propagation conditions
> >
> > - Schedule for upcoming test sessions
> >
> > Please consider helping us to make FT4 a successful mode for digital
> contesting
> >
> > With best wishes and 73,
> >
> >-- Joe (K1JT), Steve (K9AN), and Bill (G4WJS)
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > wsjt-devel mailing list
> > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[John Evans]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 22, 2019, at 10:34, Joe Taylor  wrote:
> 
> To:   WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
> From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS
> 
> Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started serious 
> work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can compete with 
> RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the benefits of FT8.  The 
> result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically designed for radio 
> contesting.
> 
> Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting 
> on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and helped us 
> to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe FT4 has 
> considerable promise for its intended purpose.
> 
> We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group.  If you might be 
> interested in participating and offering your considered feedback, please 
> read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting", 
> posted here:
> http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf
> 
> We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 on 
> April 29, one week from today.  The document linked above includes
> 
> - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration
> 
> - Operating instructions for FT4
> 
> - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform
> 
> - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of
>   simulated propagation conditions
> 
> - Schedule for upcoming test sessions
> 
> Please consider helping us to make FT4 a successful mode for digital 
> contesting
> 
> With best wishes and 73,
> 
>-- Joe (K1JT), Steve (K9AN), and Bill (G4WJS)
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

[wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting

[Joe Taylor]

To:   WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS

Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started 
serious work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can 
compete with RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the 
benefits of FT8.  The result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically 
designed for radio contesting.


Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting 
on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and 
helped us to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe 
FT4 has considerable promise for its intended purpose.


We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group.  If you might be 
interested in participating and offering your considered feedback, 
please read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital 
Contesting", posted here:

http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf

We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 
on April 29, one week from today.  The document linked above includes


 - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration

 - Operating instructions for FT4

 - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform

 - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of
   simulated propagation conditions

 - Schedule for upcoming test sessions

Please consider helping us to make FT4 a successful mode for digital 
contesting


With best wishes and 73,

-- Joe (K1JT), Steve (K9AN), and Bill (G4WJS)



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel