On 23/11/2017 8:58 AM, Laurie, VK3AMA wrote:
On 23/11/2017 7:31 AM, Dan Malcolm wrote:
WSJT-X is pretty good at running QSO’s with ‘split’ frequency
operation. JTAlert is essential for smooth QSO tracking and
logging. What I am missing is logging the separate frequencies for a
split QSO.
Hi,
Thank you very much for providing so many additional comments to my request.
However, these comments are not directly related to my proposal. I included the
fact that members are interested in JT65 phase out policy and it should be
decided by the owner of wsjt-x and then reflect to the work
Laurie,
the /QSO Logged/ datagram is *coherent* in that the ADIF field *FREQ* is
defined to be "QSO frequency in Megahertz", which would be dial
frequency plus TX offset, allowing for the datagram fields to be
represented in Hz, rather than MHz. There is also an ADIF field
*FREQ_RX* defined a
On 23/11/2017 9:34 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
Hi Laurie,
the frequency provided is consistent with what is logged to the WSJT-X
log files. The Status message provides the displayed dial frequency
and also contains the current Rx and Tx offsets so you can have all
options from that. I belie
On 22/11/2017 22:05, Laurie, VK3AMA wrote:
WSJT-X 1.8.0 r8193.
The UDP QSO Logged packet defines the following...
Dial frequency (Hz) quint64
In my tests, the frequency being conveyed in the data is the Dial plus
Tx DF.
Is this a defect or by design?
The UDP Status packet defines a simila
WSJT-X 1.8.0 r8193.
The UDP QSO Logged packet defines the following...
Dial frequency (Hz) quint64
In my tests, the frequency being conveyed in the data is the Dial plus
Tx DF.
Is this a defect or by design?
The UDP Status packet defines a similar Dial frequency and in my tests
it is corr
On 23/11/2017 7:31 AM, Dan Malcolm wrote:
WSJT-X is pretty good at running QSO’s with ‘split’ frequency
operation. JTAlert is essential for smooth QSO tracking and logging.
What I am missing is logging the separate frequencies for a split
QSO. I suspect that most ops don’t track the diff
WSJT-X is pretty good at running QSO’s with ‘split’ frequency operation.
JTAlert is essential for smooth QSO tracking and logging. What I am missing is
logging the separate frequencies for a split QSO. I suspect that most ops
don’t track the different Tx and Rx frequencies, but I do. Perhap
On 11/22/2017 02:25 PM, Dan Malcolm wrote:
Hi Dan & all,
> WSJT-X is pretty good at running QSO’s with ‘split’ frequency
> operation. JTAlert is essential for smooth QSO tracking and logging.
> What I am missing is logging the separate frequencies for a split QSO.
> I suspect that most ops don
It wasn't "too long ago" when the spark people grumbled about CW. Then the
CW people grumbled about AM Phone. Then the AM Phone people grumbled about
SSB.
If you don't like it, don't do it - stick with CW and SSB, they aren't going
away anytime soon and a good number of us here enjoy those
Hi,
I use(d) JT9(a) slow, JT65 and FT8 on 6 , 4m and 2m quite a lot and achieved with JT9(a) quite a number of qso's iwhich did not complete in JT65 or FT8.
The actual difference between J9a and JT65 may be even slightly more that the two dB calculated theory: 2dB is a lot at flat VHF conditions
I figured out that FT8 operation is similar to contest operation. The band is
crowded, there is some overlapping between stations.
Some hams choose a frequency, stick to it and call. Some others listen (or read
with FT8), browse the band, and try to contact the ones who call.
During a contest, th
I don’t think that taking another kc for FT8 would go over well with people
who use other digital modes. The Olivia and PSK31 crowd are already
grumbling.
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:08 AM Erik - wrote:
> I don’t think so. Skeds with distant stations on the low bands that failed
> wit
I don’t think so. Skeds with distant stations on the low bands that failed with
JT65 have succeeded immediately after with JT9. In practical use at least JT9
has a maybe 2-3dB benefit and seems to hold up better through Arctic flutter.
These QSOs were west Europe to Pacific over N Pole on 80mtrs
Hi Mike,
> On Nov 22, 2017, at 1:31 PM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel
> wrote:
>
> JT65 is more sensitive than JT9 too.
I don’t think that I agree with this. According to the WSJT-X User Guide,
second paragraph, "JT9 was originally designed for the LF, MF, and lower HF
bands. Its submode JT9A
Dear all,
it is not too long ago and we commonly used to run our qso's in person (cw/ssb) and log on paper.
Do we realy need to get all radio contacts fully automated?
Just go to the shack in the morning and activate the PC with all add-on automated software?
I got a radio licence, not my PC
JT65 is more sensitive than JT9 too.This is the same as saying we only need one
PSK mode or such.There really is no logical reason to "retire" a mode.
de Mike W9MDB
On Wednesday, November 22, 2017, 3:46:24 AM CST, David Alloza
wrote:
Hello Mike,
I agree with Gary.
We can conside
WSJT-X is pretty good at running QSO’s with ‘split’ frequency operation.
JTAlert is essential for smooth QSO tracking and logging. What I am missing is
logging the separate frequencies for a split QSO. I suspect that most ops
don’t track the different Tx and Rx frequencies, but I do. Perhaps
Hello Mike,
I agree with Gary.
We can consider JT65 as obsolete on HF bands if we have FT8 and JT9.
One solution would be quick out JT65 on WSJT-X configuration, keep JT9, and
split FT8 into 2k adjacent allocation. One location for CQ from southern
hemisphere and other for CQ from northern hem
19 matches
Mail list logo
