Hi Jim, and tnx 20m FT4 qso. I have been spotted on 40m, 20m, 30m in the last 10 min or so. I have not seen any spots from my 17m signal, nor have I seen any sigs.
I'll try a few CQs on 15 and 10 to see if any spots show up. 73, N0AN Hasan On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:50 AM James Shaver <[email protected]> wrote: > I watched one CW signal on 40 intentionally move until it was zero beat > with it signal. Not a single QSO was disrupted by them. Hilariously, their > attempt to QRM gave me great data about how easily the protocol will reject > DQRM of that nature. The irony is delicious. > > Jim S. > N2ADV > > On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Gary Kohtala - K7EK via wsjt-devel < > [email protected]> wrote: > > It's already happening. Just a few minutes ago on the current 40m FT4 > frequency I am hearing multiple > attempts at jamming and harassment. People tuning up and swishing their > VFO's, sending unidentified > CW messages such as "Go away", etc. They have to be very optimistic > thinking that (m)any of the folks on > JT modes are able to hear them and/or be expected to respond to CW > messages. Absolutely hilarious. > The jammers don't know that the software will just see their attempts at > disruption as very insignificant > bumps in the road. FT4 will just keep on sending until the message is > received, just like the other JT > modes. Very entertaining. I seem to remember something similar when FT8 > exploded onto the scene in a similar manner. Let's revisit this in six > months and see where we stand. > > Best regards, > > Gary, K7EK > > --- > > > On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 7:32:44 AM EDT, James Shaver <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 60 is never included because people don’t read before they transmit (I > know that’s a shocker) and were transmitting out of band or illegally > because of the vast differences between 60 meter rules. > > > On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:25 AM, Christoph Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Re: Bill Somerville 2019-04-29 < > [email protected]> > >> In summary WSJT-X v2.1.0 RC5 will have the following FT4 suggested > >> frequencies (the Iter1 column): > >> > >> Band Iter0 Iter1 Notes > >> ----------------------------------------- > >> 80 3595 3575 (plus 3568 Region 3) > >> 40 7090 7047 > > > > Shouldn't 60m be included here as well? (Also FT8) > > > > (My assumption is that FT4 will take much of the existing FT8 traffic, > > because people hate waiting. Judging by the amount of FT4 on the first > > day, that might happen very soon.) > > > > Christoph > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
