Re: Topband: FT8

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

Re: Topband: FT8 etc.

"Advancement of the radio art" The primary raison d'etra of amateur radio for over 100 years. Started with spark, CW followed, soon AM, SSB and zillions of forms of digital came to be. The day we stop innovating and striving for better is the day that amateur radio no longer has a reason to be.

Re: Topband: FT8 etc.

Nice post! Cecil K5DL Sent from my iPad > On Mar 10, 2021, at 5:58 PM, Steve HA0DU wrote: > > Gentlemen, > > Amateur radio is supposed to be a hobby. FUN. > > What we see is TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT! It certainly changes the hobby, but it > should not change the fun. I read my license, but I

Re: Topband: FT8 etc.

Interesting how people answer their own questions as if a survey had been sent and the “Answers” were from the census”. I really don’t care…just giving my take on these comments. Ham radio, like Politics, has taken a different turn. Life is too short to make a big deal of these things. “Don’t wo

Re: Topband: FT8

It is just another FT8 bashing post.  It is why we had to create another list.  I just set up a new filter so I won't be bothered by trolls. W0MU On 5/13/2020 1:03 PM, Ross Johnson wrote: Roger your lack understanding surprises me , and others here. Like your station mine only hears what it h

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

On 5/13/2020 7:51 AM, Henk PA5KT via Topband wrote: That is because for some people it can be useful information if they want to make contacts. Yes. Cluster and RBN spots can be quite useful for showing propagation. WSJT-X can be set to automatically post every decode to PSKReporter. Anyone c

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

It should be mentioned that when rarer DX shows up they often use FT8 Fox/Hound on non standard FT8 frequencies so the cluster can be helpful to find these operations. And really, the equivalent of the CW/SSB op who doesn't constantly tune the bands is the FT8 op who doesn't constantly stare a

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

I use the VE7CC node for spots. You can filter out FT8 spots on VE7CC via the 'set/noft8' command. 73, John W1FV _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

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

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

That is because for some people it can be useful information if they want to make contacts. What is DX or not is up for the listener. There is nothing different then with CW spots. 73 Henk PA5KT Op 13-5-2020 om 01:58 schreef Roger Kennedy: Why oh why do some people post on the DX Cluster eve

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

I think it is probably automatic.  Some are even posting every spot twice.  I emailed one guy and asked him why and he was clueless. Mind you, I only occasionally look at spots on the web (DXScape) so mental filtering is just fine for this Luddite. Wes N7WS On 5/13/2020 7:24 AM, pwhel...@ea

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

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

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

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

Re: Topband: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

Because they can. The DX cluster is like bragging on Twitter. :) May I suggest that you run some filters that are related to your cluster login that only allow spots for those bands you are interested in. Mike va3mw On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:58 PM Roger Kennedy wrote: > > Why oh why do s

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

Hi all, FT8 has the advantage of being located in a single frequency. So if one arrives on a totally empty band he'll be attracted to that single "watering hole" just like insects around a lonely light at night. It happens frequently to find a desert 10m band except for some weak beacons and the FT

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

Mark etal Using CW, I've worked DXCC on Topband for at least the past ten "seasons" including 2018/2019. But last year was the most skimpy with just 105 in the log. Peak was several years ago at 155. I use July 1 - June 30 as a "season". Mebbe when the new mode fad settles, CW on 160 may agn b

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

Jerry You said " Yes DX last year on 160 CW was pretty scarce" and other have made a similar comment. Are you referring to new ones, or just DX in general?I worked 16 new ones on CW last season and understand that "scarce" can be different depending upon how many DXCC one already has worked.

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

NR2DX asked: "If read your post correctly you are saying that you are working against an ambient noise level of 20-30 db over S9 is that correct.? " No. The S9+20 to 30 dB is the S meter reading when all the FT8 stations are transmitting after the band opens a little. Receiver bandwidth was

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

For me it is quite simple CW and SSB when I am in the shack and FT8 when I am not. It’s the same for all bands and has actually increased my enjoyment and access to the radio. I don’t have the luxury to spend hours in the shack so finding out what is being received when I am busy is a definite bo

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

> On Aug 3, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Cecil wrote: > > I worked very little DX on 6M until FT8 so there is still something more > going on than you have discovered in your testing. > > Cecil > K5DL > From my experience - it's simply that there is much more DX using FT8 on all bands than other modes

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

Dave If read your post correctly you are saying that you are working against an ambient noise level of 20-30 db over S9 is that correct.? And for starters your measurements are made against that background did I understand that correctly? Trying to keep this simple Dave NR1DX On 8/3/2019

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

I worked very little DX on 6M until FT8 so there is still something more going on than you have discovered in your testing. Cecil K5DL Sent from my iPad > On Aug 3, 2019, at 4:23 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote: > > Have you attempted to open a conversation with the creators of the mode and > d

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

Have you attempted to open a conversation with the creators of the mode and discuss what you are seeing?  They seem like they are quite knowledgeable.  How can you disprove their claims of weak signal mode when you are not sure how they are coming up with their numbers? I never heard EU or JA

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

Well said. Thank you. From: Topband on behalf of Cecil Acuff Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 7:06 PM To: DXer Cc: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers. Yeah the elitist attitude of CW being the only thing that’s real

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

Yeah the elitist attitude of CW being the only thing that’s real that seems to permeate this list at times is quite stale. I work CW, SSB, RTTY, FT8whatever gets the contact in the log...it’s all radiotake the radio away or have Mother Nature take the path down and nothing gets through.

Re: Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers

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

Re: Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers

Mike, you are buying into a myth that both supporters and detractors of FT8 perpetuate. The myth that FT8 is superior for DX'ing, to other modes. 2018 was my "year of FT8". I participated in several on-air WSJT new feature tests including DXpedition mode testing. I spent the vast majority of my on

Re: Topband: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers

FT8 was not created to be a rate mode.  It is a weak signal mode.  For those of us a long way from the East Coast and salt it allows us to work stations that we probably had very little shot of working without FT8. Productive in what way?  To work new ones?  Check!    DXing is not necessarily

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

. On the > article, > the test was CW at 12 wpm and 9 Hz filter BW , no ring using WWV as time > source for the synchronization. > > That was state of the art back in the early 70's, almost 50 years ago. > > 73's > JC > N4IS > > > -Original Message- >

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of K4SAV Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 3:10 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works Although I have finished my FT8 testing, there is one final thought I woul

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

t from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: K4SAV > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 2:10 PM > To: topband@contesting.com > Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works > > Although I have finished my FT8 testing, there is one final thought I > would like to leave with you, a

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

stations! > >Just sayin’. > >Chuck W5PR > >Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > >From: K4SAV >Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 2:10 PM >To: topband@contesting.com >Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works > >Although I have finished my FT8 testing, there i

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

sayin’. Chuck W5PR Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: K4SAV Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 2:10 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works Although I have finished my FT8 testing, there is one final thought I would like to leave with you, and also to correct

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

Although I have finished my FT8 testing, there is one final thought I would like to leave with you, and also to correct one statement I made earlier. Someone thought FT8 measured the noise in the interval when the FT8 signals were off, and I replied that would result in a real S/N number. Tha

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

Jerry, If you would like to do some mid-day comparison testing between FT8 and CW, let me know. Looks like the path length is about 400 miles. Jim, K9SE _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

Still doing FT8 testing this morning 3 hours after sunrise I looked for something resembling dead band conditions with only a few weak stations. There was nothing on 160 but the west coast guys were still on 80. They were weak but there. They would have been good copy on CW but FT8 was having

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

Yesterday I said " I don't have a measurement with the results of that showdown of CW versus FT8 in dead band conditions but the answer would be interesting to know." This afternoon I tried to get an answer to that. I wanted to see if FT8 would decode a station I couldn't hear. I wanted

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

Jerry: Clever way to evaluate FT8 SNR reports with your VFO 1 and 2 comparisons. I often see positive numbers on FT8 160 meter signal reports for strong stations on FT8. For example -- if a station is S9 + 10 dB audible, then it reads a positive number for the FT8 signal report. At the risk of

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

Correct me if im wrong: A K3 owner could easily check this. You need 2 computers, running WSJT on both. Don't know if you can run 2 instances of WSJT on a single computer. Feed the left channel from LINE OUT (=mainRX) to one instance of FT-8 and the right channel (=sub-RX) to the other instance

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

Hi,Narroving filter in WSJT-X digi modes will degrade decodes! Best performance you'll get using wide open filters on you radio.I sugest you to look at the WSJT-X archives and find the answer to your question by the author it self - K1JT.As we are radio Amateurs i beleive its worth to experimen

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

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

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

Thanks to the folks commenting on how FT8 works. VE3KI said: "The noise floor the wsjt-x signal is referenced to is the noise within the bandpass during the two-second period when no-one is transmitting, not the signal level when people are transmitting." That was what I originally thought mi

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

HI, Thanks for sharing experience! Question to FT8 and "noise" relations - In usual case everything in passband is noise except signal of interest. So with only one FT8 signal and white noise in passband S/N can be increased narrowing passband till it matches signal width. EME guys know that

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

That would be my definition of noise power also. That would not help explain the numbers produced by FT8. It's curious that my VFO1 - VFO2 measurement produces numbers very close to what FT8 reports. I have no information as to why that should be, only measurements that produce those results

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

Is the definition of "noise floor" being changed for FT8? WSJT-X (and WSJT before that) defines noise as the integrated value of noise (noise power) across the 2500 Hz (approximately based on the receiver filter) receive bandwidth. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2018-12-19 9:57 PM, K4SAV wrote: J

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

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

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote: > The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB > below the noise floor. That is not a correct statement most of the > time. No, that is a correct statement. Signal reports in WSJT-X for FT8, JT65 and JT9 are *all* measured *with regard

Re: Topband: FT8 Tonight

If you are decoding them they are not "just listening". Sent from my iPad > On Jul 19, 2018, at 6:02 PM, CT1EKD wrote: > > MIKE > You can find DH5CW/ DP0GVN Matthias at the ON4KST chat, he as a modest > antenna for TX. > Check with him, and ask him to reply to you. > > Pedro - CT1EKD

Re: Topband: FT8 Tonight

Thanks...I never thought to look there.  I am usually hanging out on the 50mhz  chat. On 7/19/2018 4:02 PM, CT1EKD wrote: MIKE You can find  DH5CW/ DP0GVN Matthias  at the ON4KST chat, he as a modest antenna for TX. Check with him, and ask him to reply to you. Pedro - CT1EKD Citando W0MU

Re: Topband: FT8 Tonight

MIKE  You can find  DH5CW/ DP0GVN Matthias  at the ON4KST chat, he as a modest antenna for TX. Check with him, and ask him to reply to you.  Pedro - CT1EKD   Citando W0MU Mike Fatchett : Once again being decoded at DP0GVN  -15db.  No contact is it appear they are just listening.

Re: Topband: FT8 Tonight

Interesting. Must be a fun place in the middle of Antarctic winter and keeping a 160m antenna up. OTOH, they can lay wire on the ice for a 660 ft elevated dipole. I had 3 SSB QSO's with them on 20m when I was MM in the Southern Ocean Jan 2017. From the newbies on the radio I think getting a

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

Having no interest in FT8 or JT modes (for now), I don't have much to comment on that, but do have a few comments on the subsequent discussion. My feeling is that, as mentioned already, many stations haven't made a decent job of improving their receiving capability, or are unable to do so. The

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

I'm not sure how many people have actually compared the new digital modes with CW as far as low signal level decoding. I did that for a long time when JT-65 first became available. Back then it was much easier to separate one station and compare the reported S/N to what I see on my receiver w

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

On 2018-04-23 12:08 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote: On being able to hear signals at -12 to -17 dB on FT8, I do broadly > agree. A CW signal at those levels would be easily heard and copied > by any decent CW operator. -12 to -17 dB on FT8 (or any of the other "JT modes") is signal to noise + QRM in a 25

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

I have no idea how FT8 compares with other weak-signal digital modes (such as the ones that JT himself wrote), Dave. If no one knows here, then Google is your friend. :-) As for waiting until next fall and winter, keep in mind that we are approaching the southern hemisphere's fall and winter. Sinc

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

  Hi Mike and all who responded.     I guess I was just underwhelmed at what I could accomplish on FT8 vs CW on 160.  I figured it would open up a whole new level of rare countries and places that were now workable to me. Working Kazakhstan on 160 CW from my location is difficult, but doable o

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

Dave, Remember that the reported S/N is relative to the receive station noise + QRM level. Since many TB stations don't have your antennas and have high noise, they can't decode you or report a poor S/N. I get +9 and -18 reports from YB stations a hundred KM apart. It's not spotlight prop

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

Hi Dave, In my [very, very, extremely] limited experiences with any of the JT modes, it has always seemed to me that many are alligators. I think the FT8 craze has inspired a lot of people to get on 160 with compromise tx antennas -- this is a good thing -- but I'm not sure they realize how much t

Re: Topband: FT8 Observations

On being able to hear signals at -12 to -17 dB on FT8, I do broadly agree. A CW signal at those levels would be easily heard and copied by any decent CW operator. I think a lot of the FT8 “processing gain” claims, assumes a really poor CW operator. A 0dB FT8 signal is not at noise level, it is

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

- From: Chuck Dietz Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 12:09 PM To: Mike Waters ; Tree Cc: topband Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 discussion I know this has been “Discussed Out,” but I just want to ask why the window is in the 1840 area instead of the 1990 area? _ Topband Reflector

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

The 160 m Band Plan was only fairly recently formalised in Australia, a decade or so ago. We have 1800 - 1875 kHz, with the CW sub-band 1810 - 1840 kHz. The digital narrow band modes seem to have established themselves on 1838 here with no great problems, but there are few users of the band he

Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM

On 11/30/2017 6:05 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote: There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem. Just "update the app" to default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there. The FT8 operator has every right to operate in an area that will allow him international QSOs - just as CW and SSB ope

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

operating events (eg: contests). 73 JEFF K1ZM/VY2ZM -----Original Message- From: Ed Sawyer To: topband Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:44 pm Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is to accept everyone else's inte

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

With a 1 minute cycle, where only 46 seconds of it is payload, like in JT65 and JT9, a CW id is possible, and indeed available, to those that want to activate it. Not feasible with a 15 seconds cycle where 13 seconds is payload. If CW id becomes mandatory, it may be the end of FT8, to the delight

Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM

I respect your right to enjoy not enjoying FT8, or any other mode for that matter. I'll side with you every time this right is challenged. Bottom line is, nature hates vacuum. If a section of a band is not used most of the time, it may be 'adopted' by another SIG. There is strength in numbers, and

Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM

The beauty of any mode, not just FT8, is that no makes you use it. If you don't like it, that is fine. Don't. However, this is many a night, even recently, where there are a bunch of guys on FT8 including good DX and only 1 guy on CW if that. For all you complaining about not liking it, that is

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

Actually the problem with the alleged QRM and FT8 is more about simply identifying ham computerized modes of digital transmission and reception and separating them out from the rest of the noise generated by poorly filtered appliances, leaky cable TV, power line data communications etc. I am evide

Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM

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

Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM

The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode sounds. There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem. Just "update the app" to default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there. Amazingly, most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 16

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

Ladies and Gentlemen, Isn't it time to just stop the discussion?? 73, George, K8GG _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

likely) create a lot of food fights going forward. >> At the end of the day - we must respect that 160M is a most UNUSUAL band and >> there are no really HARD ans FAST inviolate sub-bands in the traditional >> sense that we find on the higher bands. >> Personally - I

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

ting events (eg: contests). 73 JEFF K1ZM/VY2ZM -Original Message- From: Ed Sawyer To: topband Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:44 pm Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is to accept everyone else&

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

I know this has been “Discussed Out,” but I just want to ask why the window is in the 1840 area instead of the 1990 area? They are asking for QRM at 1840. It will be a losing battle during contests. Just sayin’ Chuck W5PR Sent from Mail for Windows 10 _ Topband Reflector Arc

Re: Topband: FT8 and digital QRM

160 is the only HF band where all HF modes (except CW) have no restrictions. The FT8 guys will really enjoy the CQ WW 160 SSB contest! At least 160 isn't all that useful to the 2.8 kHz wide Sailmail guys -- they really use the full 2.8 kHz. The band segmants are pretty consistent on all the bands.

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

UAL band > and there are no really HARD ans FAST inviolate sub-bands in the > traditional sense that we find on the higher bands. > > > Personally - I am not an FT8 user - but I respect the rights of others to > use this new mode. We cannot hold back technology here - that ne

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

rstand the need to be FLEXIBLE - especially during competitive operating events (eg: contests). 73 JEFF K1ZM/VY2ZM -Original Message- From: Ed Sawyer To: topband Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:44 pm Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument t

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm - 3khz wideband digital

My two cents is - at least with FT8 so far 99.99 percent of the folks stay in the 2 - 3 khz segment . I am amazed I see virtually nothing about the proliferation of 3 khz wideband digital two way hash on all HF bands . For instance last night on the ZA1WW on 3536 , it covered both the ZA and

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

KH7XS/K4XS -Original Message- From: Greg To: 'topband' Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:26 pm Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm Jeez -- enough already...how difficult is it to avoid 2.5 khz of bandwidth that is not even in the DX portion of the band! Leave FT8 alone and fight the QRM below

Re: Topband: FT8 discussion

Well said. Just a few weeks ago, someone made the point that we should be thankful that there is activity up there. The gist of it was that during the year, much of the time the only activity on 160m is digital. "Use it or lose it" was his point. I do not wish to discuss this. 73, Mike www.w0btu

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Hi Ed, Being a gentleman isn't not about putting one's own interests ahead of everybody else, either. 73, Bill KU8H On 11/29/2017 11:47 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote: I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is to accept everyone else's interests above your own. A "ge

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

oun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 11:23 AM To: 'Greg'; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm You should ask that question on the FT8 users group actually. There is an interest group that is wanting to use the frequency for a shor

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

-Original Message- From: Greg [mailto:n...@windstream.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:44 PM To: sawye...@earthlink.net Subject: RE: Topband: FT8 qrm Just because you have the right to be on a frequency, if you know another interest group wants to use it and it has become that group&#

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

To me, the reality is FT8 is no matter how someone spins it, using a tiny part of the spectrum. A reality is few there are using power with FT8, my Cook Island contact with FT8 was with something like 40 or so watts and to many using FT8, that is high power. As I see it, here's what'll happe

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

This is Joe Taylor K1JTs description of how WSJT-X default frequencies (windows) are established: "The authors of WSJT, MAP65, WSPR, and WSJT-X have never attempted to impose standards for operating frequencies of our various modes. Sometimes we have made initial suggestions, usually with IARU

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

band [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tim Shoppa Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 7:53 AM To: Wes Stewart Cc: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm You don�t understand how the FT8 guys work. They have a 2kHz slice they all work in whether they were there firs

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

e. 73, Greg-N4CC -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:48 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gen

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

>>established band usage Out of curiosity, exactly who "established" 1840 + 2.5 KHz as the FT8 "window"? Mark K3MSB On Nov 29, 2017 12:04 PM, "Brian D G3VGZ" wrote: I shall be operating this weekend full legal limit *below* 1837.5 CW, and also FT*/JT65/JT9 at up to the legal limit above 1838.

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

I shall be operating this weekend full legal limit *below* 1837.5 CW, and also FT*/JT65/JT9 at up to the legal limit above 1838. There's no reason both can't co-exist. It should be a rule in contests that all stations deliberately operatimg out of the established band usage to be disqualified. I re

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is to accept everyone else's interests above your own. A "gentleman" is respectful of others and treats others as he/she wants to be treated. No one owns a frequency channel at least in the US - read your license. If I

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

I think you are missing the larger issue here. It is not *just* 2.5 Khz out of 1800-2000. Consider that many folks have directional antennas that are cut for the lower part of the band - typically covering 1800-1860 at best. So - that 2.5 Khz starts to represent at least 4 percent of the availab

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

I've been watching this thread with interest, having recently taken the plunge and experimented with FT8 (but got bored very quickly!). Three comments on aspects that I don't think have been covered: 1. FT8 is very new (albeit it seems to be taking the world by storm) and I suspect many operators

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

I think we may be missing a key point...There are probably many 1000’s of 160m cw/ssb ops out there who have never heard –or heard of- FT8. They probably think the noisy tone they hear is some local QRN and don’t relate it at all to another ham signal. We all have to live with some QRM once in a

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Jeez -- enough already...how difficult is it to avoid 2.5 khz of bandwidth that is not even in the DX portion of the band! Leave FT8 alone and fight the QRM below 1835. 73, Greg-N4CC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

make it a better experience for all. ...Dave - N9FN -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael Walker Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:58 AM To: Bill Cromwell Cc: topband Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm Yes, you could and should. It nee

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Perhaps I shouldn't have started this thread! The whole point of my original posting was that I was definitely transmitting more than 500Hz HF of the FT8 tones, so from an 'analogue' perspective there should have been no problem. As others have mentioned, FT8 is received though an SSB bandwid

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Yes, you could and should. It needs to be looked from everyone's point of view. Of course, that deal falls apart for the 20m sstv guys. They own the frequency. Mike On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bill Cromwell wrote: > Hi, > > Well...we could look at who was on first from the CW op's poin

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Hi, Well...we could look at who was on first from the CW op's point of view just as easily. It just depends on who's ox is being gored. As for not listening longer than a few seconds after QRL that is just reasonable. Some of us (me for example) listen around for five or ten minutes *before*

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

Tim is correct. Also, when you do operate most digital modes today (FT8, RTTY, JT65, etc), it is 50/50 if you even have the volume turned up as you are focusing on the waterfall. Heck, even when I do RTTY, I usually just watch the cross hairs on the simulated scope since that is the way I grew wi

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

You don’t understand how the FT8 guys work. They have a 2kHz slice they all work in whether they were there first or not by usual CW practice. They only transmit every 30 seconds and no CW operator is gonna wait a whole 30 seconds for a response to QRL?. Not that a FT8 guy can respond to a QRL

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

My scenario had the CW man on the frequency FIRST. On 11/29/2017 4:54 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote: A typical CW guy will hear FT8 or JT65 as a kinda whiny wobbly intermittent carrier. And will probably think it’s just some neighborhood switching power supply noise. He won’t CQ right on top of it (bec

  1   2   >