be serious about the JT65 to JT9 transition by
my proposal.
Regards,
take
de JA5AEA
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 22:33:43 +0100
From: Bill Somerville
To:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X: Working frequency suggestions
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; for
> On Jul 6, 2017, at 3:33 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
>
> If you move that separator down to zero on a band full of JT65 signals you
> will probably see the problem.
Interestingly, I’ve run 1K separator for quite some time now and I haven’t
noticed a problem. However, when I just tried changi
On 06/07/2017 09:14, Takehiko Tsutsumi wrote:
Finally, it is a great idea to allocate "JT9 on same frequency as
JT65" on 2200m and 630m. I really wish you to expand this idea up to
6m band as it is a first step to obsolete JT65 and replace to JT9
today and FT8 later. It is the time to deploy t
Bill,
Thank you for compiling such a precise list concerning default working
frequency suggestions. I am indeed impressed by you professional manner.
Here is my comments presented in your list.
1. 80m:
Thank you for including my proposal. JARL has spent a few years to have
international ha
Hi All,
further to my prior message on this subject and some off list
discussion, here is part two. The following file lists a number of
changes and questions related to proposed default working frequency
suggestions provided by WSJT-X:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5gay9ng7856glz7/working%20fre
On 26/06/2017 19:16, Jim Brown wrote:
On Mon,6/26/2017 11:07 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
BTW the definition of narrow band digital modes is problematic as
region 3 defines NB as not exceeding 2kHz bandwidth even though it
shares spectrum with SSB which is allowed up to 6kHz b/w. That means
regi
On Mon,6/26/2017 11:07 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
On 26/06/2017 18:36, Jim Brown wrote:
On Mon,6/26/2017 10:27 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
To give an example of what we face, the current IARU region 1 band
plan requires all MGM activity to be between 50300 and 50400 so
expecting to run transatl
On 26/06/2017 18:36, Jim Brown wrote:
On Mon,6/26/2017 10:27 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
To give an example of what we face, the current IARU region 1 band
plan requires all MGM activity to be between 50300 and 50400 so
expecting to run transatlantic QSOs on 6m JT9E/H on 50290 or indeed
JT65/JT
your list for
the program.
73 Jay KA9CFD
Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone
Original message From: Bill Somerville
Date: 6/26/17 12:27 (GMT-06:00) To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject:
Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X: Working frequency suggestions
On 26/06/2017 18:16
On Mon,6/26/2017 10:27 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
To give an example of what we face, the current IARU region 1 band
plan requires all MGM activity to be between 50300 and 50400 so
expecting to run transatlantic QSOs on 6m JT9E/H on 50290 or indeed
JT65/JT9 on 50276 is going to cause the region
On 26/06/2017 18:16, Jay Hainline wrote:
In NA, the 6 meter msk144 calling frequency has been moved down to
50260 to get away from the JT65 users.
50290 is being used for JT9E, JT9H fast modes for North America to
Europe contacts.
This is what I have observed this season on 6 meters. Good Lu
from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone
Original message From: Bill Somerville
Date: 6/26/17 11:53 (GMT-06:00) To: WSJT software development
Subject: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X: Working
frequency suggestions
Hi All,
there has been much discussion here and many other places about the
Hi All,
there has been much discussion here and many other places about the
suggested working frequencies offered by WSJT-X. In general we have
followed the crowd and set default frequencies that have already become
common usage. This is because we do not claim to be the arbiters of band
plan
13 matches
Mail list logo
