I am headed to 17 myself - maybe I’ll see you there :)
> On Apr 30, 2019, at 11:02 AM, Hasan al-Basri <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
