Vince, Thanks for the comments. I think the key point is "by a proficient operator". I often do manually what I am proposing to do automatically.
There are a lot of newbie non-proficient operators on the band, with the smash-hit popularity of FT8. I was one of them, until recently... I find lot of times that stations call me incessantly on exactly the same frequency as the station that I am in QSO with. I don't think it is deliberate, but rather just what the default is for the program. A minor amount of spreading out of signals would go a long way toward improving the situation. If it were automatic, then newbies would not be a problem. Ted K9IMM -----Original Message----- From: DXer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 10:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Possible enhancement? Hi Ted, I don't speak for the developers. I'm simply a user. What you are suggesting can easily be done now by a proficient operator. I use N1MM+, and what they did was mitigate poor operating practices, after all education attempts had failed. There are people out there that will click on a spot, and start yelling their 'lasss two', before confirming the call is correct, and/or they can hear the DX. Dxing by instruments, as I call it. It always boils down to operating practices. There was an interesting case yesterday involving an all time new one for me, and based on the pile up, for many others as well. The DX was asking for people to spread out, and and yet to the best of my observation, he was only answering those on frequency. After a while his requests to spread out were ignored, and the QSO rate collapsed. 73 de Vince, VA3VF On 2017-10-01 11:22 AM, Ted Gisske wrote: > I’ve noticed, and judging from the lively discussion on enforcing > split operation, others have too, that when I call CQ, lots of folks > call me on my exact transmitting frequency, resulting in no decode for any > reply. > > The developers of N1MM faced a similar situation with packet-spotted > replies. When everyone pounced on a new CW packet spot at the same > time on the same frequency, the result was an indecipherable mess of > dits and dahs. Their clever solution was to add an optional random > offset to the frequency to a reply to an incoming packet spot of 30Hz > or 60Hz. This spread signals out enough to help the situation considerably. > > It strikes me as a variation on that trick might help out FT8 QRM. FT8 > appears to be able to decode signals only a few Hz apart. Why not add > an option to add/subtract a random offset of up to +/-15 Hz or so to > any reply to a CQ? This would make decoding much more likely and add > negligible additional QRM to the band. > > Ted > > K9IMM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
