Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X - E.O.L.?

2025-06-06 Thread Takehiko Tsutsumi via wsjt-devel
Joe, Greeting from nice weather weekend just before rainy season here in Japan. I am fine with your comment if you "WSJT developer team" has already being working for next generation format, such as sensitivity and fading performance of FT8 (15 Second format) to be compatible with WSPR (one

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X - E.O.L.?

2025-06-06 Thread Jim Brown via wsjt-devel
Hi Joe, On 6/6/2025 8:42 AM, Joseph Taylor via wsjt-devel wrote: We (developers of the digital protocols in WSJT and its sister programs) have never dictated any band usage plans or unilaterally set any rules for particular frequencies. But when you plugged default frequencies into you soft

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X - E.O.L.?

2025-06-06 Thread Shirley Márquez Dúlcey via wsjt-devel
That 3 kHz slice that is being occupied by FT8 on most bands is supporting DOZENS of simultaneous QSOs when the band is open. That's spectral efficiency that no other popular mode can match, not even CW. Each signal on FT8 is about 50 Hz wide, so in theory there could be 60 active QSOs without mutu

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X - E.O.L.?

2025-06-06 Thread Joseph Taylor via wsjt-devel
Hi Jim, K9YC: You write here of "major errors," "massive failures," "developers living in their own world," "failing to consult with other users of the spectrum," etc., etc. You write: "The major error that developers made way back when, and CONTINUE to make, is to chew up way too much spectru