Ria and Brian, Good points and I was unaware of the SOTA QRP activity.
The clash then is how to fit it in. My expectation is that it will need a channel bandwidth of at least 4kHz - and in a fully fledged contest I would expect it to spill wider than that at least on the primary bands of 40 and 20m and maybe 15m. The intent behind suggesting frequencies on say 14.062 was to avoid it creeping into the PSK segments above .070-.074 (the WSJT and PSK communities have already had enough conflict). At the same time there is no value in interfering with the CW community either. Looking more closely I also see that there is a CW QRP centre of activity on 3560kHz so I presume the comments about 20m may at some level even apply to that allocation on 80m? Therefore an alternative frequency set could be: 3.565, 7.065, 14.065, 21.065 and 28.065 - ie 5kHz below the PSK segment. This meets the following criteria: 1. provides some separation between RTTY and FT4 contesters when they are running simultaneously 2. limits impact on known CW centres of activity 3. avoids impact on the PSK community on .070-.074 (and they are still there - I still make intercontinental PSK contacts in that segment especially on 20m to Europe from VK) 4. avoids pushing digital modes far into the voice segment of the bands particularly on 80/40/20m (hence moving lower rather than higher than the digital segments). The problems then are collisions with 80m F/H FT8 mode activity on 3567 - but that isn’t insurmountable (and again all IARU regions need to re-look at the 80m band to further work on common activity harmonisation, particularly given the band limit restrictions present across region 3 with this band). Finally, the comments about FT4 being used outside contests concern me, particularly on the WARC bands. While I accept it will probably happen, encouraging it on 30/17/12m will be very much frowned upon. 30m in particular being only 50kHz wide and a secondary service is not a band that too many more "dedicated" channels can be allocated against and it is often quite busy already with CW in the lower 30kHz and digital in the top 20kHz. There are a small number of countries that do also allow SSB on 30m (VK being one of them) and that puts even more pressure on the use of the band. Associating anything related to contesting on the WRC bands will result in a sharp backlash I am sure. I know as DXpeditioner that we welcome the refuge the WARC bands bring when running an expedition that clashes with a major contest. Further thoughts? Regards, Grant VK5GR -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2019 8:59 AM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting I'm not sure a WARC ban (not band, but ban) is necessary. This is touted as a contest mode but people will use it for regular DX contacts if it saves them time versus FT8. I can even see some DXpeditions using it to replace or supplement RTTY contacts. Does it have or support Fox and Hound mode? If it does, that reason alone is good to keep it on WARC. Ultimately contest sponsors will give zero points for WARC QSOs anyway so it's essentially a non-issue. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 19:22, Brian Dickman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Grant, I'd respectfully discourage any lower than about .065 for 20/15/10m. > .060 is the standard CW QRP activity frequency for each of those bands, and > .061 to .064 are the standard calling frequencies for CW SOTA activations in > most if not all IARU regions. The majority of the activity centers on 062. > Many dedicated chasers monitor 062 throughout the day for mountaintop > portable QRP signals. > > 73, > Brian AF7MD > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 4:19 AM Grant VK5GR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Joe et al, >> >> A word if I may about frequency choices. Some of those proposed for FT4 >> probably leave a bit to be desired. Here are some thoughts to consider: >> >> 80m 3.595 - PROPOSE 3562kHz - 3595 is completely out of band for JA >> completely and into the phone part of the band outside of Region 2. My >> suggestion based on occupancy and proximity to existing digital sub-bands is >> something around 3562kHz (at least keeping away from 3560 which is sometimes >> a CW QRP frequency). While the IARU band plans currently have digital as >> 3570-3590kHz a case can be made for expanding that - and given other >> restrictions in some countries on 80m, expanding digital down at least 8kHz >> to 3562kHz makes some sense. A case to be made for the IARU - but you can >> "help" their decision by starting to use it anyway. BTW 3600kHz is the >> centre frequency for IARU R3 80m disaster comms - LSB - so FT4 on 3595 USB >> will badly clash with that - another reason not to use 3595. >> >> 40m 7.090 - PROPOSE 7052kHz (inside the digital sub-band) or 7062kHz (just >> above the digital sub-band noting it is heavily used for SSB at least in >> region 3) - 7090 only makes sense in the USA! Many other countries have this >> as SSB voice use. The IARU digital segment is (depending on region) >> 7040-7060 or 7040-7060. With 7056 already being used for FT8 F/H mode on a >> fairly regular basis it would make sense to use say 7050 or 7052kHz instead. >> Note that 7090 is the designated SSB QRP frequency. I would promote 7050 for >> FT4. The only reason not to is that the RTTY guys if FT4 and RTTY are in the >> same contest might object - but during the contests the RTTY guys spread out >> and use anything from 7030 to 7120 anyway in complete disregard of the band >> plans. If they are going to be that unruly then putting FT4 down there >> doesn't seem all that bad. >> >> ********* 30m / 17m / 12m - should NOT have FT4 allocations at all. FT4 is a >> CONTESTING mode and CONTESTING is by global agreement excluded from those >> WRC79 bands!!! ********* >> >> 20m 14.140 - PROPOSE 14062kHz - the original proposed use of 14140KHz again >> is well outside the digital segments where FT4 belongs. If anything, >> creeping down into 14060-14070 might be considered acceptable despite not >> being in the band plan if the aim was to separate RTTY and FT4 users in the >> same contest. Going high above 14.112 (the acknowledged edge of the global >> 20m digital band plan segment) will be frowned upon. Take a leaf from 80m >> and use 14062kHz - again at least that keeps it away from the CW QRP Centre >> of activity and meets the objective of separating it from RTTY. >> >> 15m 21.140 - PROPOSE 21062kHz - follow 20m and choose 21062kHz - although >> 21140kHz is the first proposed FT4 frequency that fell inside a digital >> subband... >> >> 10m 28.180 - POROPOSE 28062kHz - again follow 20m >> >> 6m 50.318 - PROPOSE somewhere below 50.313 not above. Moving above is just >> moving further into several countries beacon segments. Not likely to get a >> lot of airplay as a international contesting band for FT8 so not as critical >> - but my suggestion would be look below 50.313 not above. >> >> For discussion folks..... >> >> Regards, >> Grant VK5GR >> WIA Appointee to the IARU Region 3 Band Plan committee >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Taylor [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2019 1:04 AM >> To: WSJT software development >> Subject: [wsjt-devel] The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting >> >> To: WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4 >> From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS >> >> Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started >> serious work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can >> compete with RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the >> benefits of FT8. The result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically >> designed for radio contesting. >> >> Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting >> on-the-air tests of FT4. The early tests were very successful and >> helped us to make a number of important design decisions. We believe >> FT4 has considerable promise for its intended purpose. >> >> We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group. If you might be >> interested in participating and offering your considered feedback, >> please read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital >> Contesting", posted here: >> http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf >> >> We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 >> on April 29, one week from today. The document linked above includes >> >> - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration >> >> - Operating instructions for FT4 >> >> - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform >> >> - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of >> simulated propagation conditions >> >> - Schedule for upcoming test sessions >> >> Please consider helping us to make FT4 a successful mode for digital >> contesting >> >> With best wishes and 73, >> >> -- Joe (K1JT), Steve (K9AN), and Bill (G4WJS) >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> wsjt-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> wsjt-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
