I don't think there needs to really be more room. There are several bands that we can use. I prefer to use WARC bands because I have my fill of DX on 20 meters but WARC bands offer additional opportunities. Especially 30 meters where I have gain antennas.
73 Ria, N2RJ On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Andras Bato <ha6nn.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the attention > of members of IARU Administrative Council. > http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html > I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap! > gl de ha6nn > Andras > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@alloza.eu> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I would like to add something to the discussion. >> >> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8 >> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M >> band. >> >> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at excessive >> power) causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore reduces >> the performance of this mode. >> >> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of >> these digital mode. >> >> My 73, >> >> David, F4HTQ. >> >> >> >> De : g...@isect.com [mailto:g...@isect.com] >> Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41 >> À : 'WSJT software development' >> Objet : Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies? >> >> >> >> “There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for >> normal day to day FT8 operations.” >> >> >> >> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can >> successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly narrow >> slices of the HF bands. Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea of >> monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see very >> little hard evidence of an impending crisis. Just because there are few >> obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment is >> “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating overlapping >> signals. So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that >> additional frequences are needed. There most certainly is doubt, hence I >> disagree that expansion is “imperative”. >> >> >> >> A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and analyze >> data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff, >> subjectively. So what data would be needed? How would it be gathered and >> analyzed? By whom? These questions are worth exploring. >> >> >> >> If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about the >> options for avoiding or resolving it. Aside from the problems >> making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8, being >> able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major >> advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across >> additional band segments will make things harder. It could prove >> counterproductive. >> >> >> >> Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities and >> conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition >> fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more space >> for DXpedition use, specifically. >> >> >> >> I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a >> digimode DXpedition zone on each of the HF bands without specifying the >> digimode? That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK, FT8, >> JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being a >> multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it. It would be a good >> place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance. >> >> >> >> There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions attempt >> to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to slice >> the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter pileups, >> or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check that the >> area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite DXers. >> >> >> >> 73 >> >> Gary ZL2iFB >> >> >> >> PS This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence we >> should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector. >> >> >> >> From: Rich - K1HTV <k1...@comcast.net> >> Sent: Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m. >> To: WSJT <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> >> Subject: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies? >> >> >> >> As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the >> standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The waterfall is >> full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others. >> There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for >> normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has >> greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so >> these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone. >> >> >> >> The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew >> capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is, on a >> normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band. When you >> tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear more >> than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz, many >> dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times that >> the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during >> DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC. >> DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY frequencies. >> There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout the year, all >> scheduled over weekend days. >> >> >> >> A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of >> whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious problem if >> some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These might >> consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF RTTY >> bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com’website would be a good >> place to start. >> >> >> >> The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but as >> ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those >> frequencies probably should be left alone. >> >> >> >> Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to >> Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans. >> >> >> >> So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users are >> quickly growing. >> >> >> >> Comments? >> >> 73, >> >> Rich – K1HTV >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
