Well said and to the point. Perhaps the most important thing to understand is that this is an experimental and adjustment time for FT4 that will (and needs to) fade away. It's use after the current fascination with it subsides, needs to be reserved for contests only.
Its only advantage is speed. It is less sensitive and more bandwidth hungry than FT8. The problem: the perceived "need for speed", becomes expected making FT8 seem downright slow. Unless strongly discouraged by people held in respect by those inclined to run this mode outside contests, it will gain a following. People lack patience and seem to have a preference for immediate gratification. F + H was extolled as a dxpedition mode. Now it is showing up from everyone who thinks they are important enough to justify it. FT4 was developed for contests, will the same trend of unintended consequences continue? Most likely it will, no matter what the developers say their intent was. A lockout, except for pre-approved contests would be appropriate, but is loaded with its own set of unintended consequences, and obvious loopholes. User education and peer pressure may be the only option left, however historically ineffective they have been. 73, N0AN Hasan On Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 8:49 AM Ed Muns <e...@w0yk.com> wrote: > I find the words "pretty inconsiderate or pretty ignorant" to be insulting > and inflammatory, regardless of context. And, they add no value to the > discussion. > > For example, one could say that "users are pretty inconsiderate or pretty > ignorant of the intended purpose of FT4" and the dialogue would be > distracted from an important point. > > The use of FT4 during a highly active contest is different than using it > in everyday operating. There are specific frequency claims or "band plans" > for virtually all of our HF spectrum. Attempting to carve out everyday > slots for yet another use (FT4) is extremely difficult and invites > unnecessary controversy. > > On the other hand, a precedent exists from the long-standing convention of > spectrum utilization during contests. In major CW contests, operation > extends into the digital portions of the everyday band plan. In RTTY > contests, the same happens in the everyday CW operating areas. It is > generally accepted that extensive use of the our HF spectrum during > contests is a good thing for all amateur interests and a worthwhile > compromise of everyday frequency usage. > > FT4 is a slightly adjusted companion to FT8 intended for a specific > application. There is little need to use it outside of contesting. For > non-contest usage, FT8 is more sensitive and narrower bandwidth. Twice the > cycle time is a negligible cost in daily operation. > > Similarly, the WSJT-X team gave us Fox and Hound mode intended exclusively > for DXpeditions. The QSO rate benefit comes at the cost of the radio > generating significant IMD around the resulting RF signals. In this > specific DXpedition application, that IMD is confined to a small portion of > the sub-band where no one is affected by the signal quality. It is our > responsibility as users to respect that intended use of Fox and Hound mode, > lest we knowingly cause QRM to other users. Multiple "foxes" distributed > throughout the FT sub-band would subject most users to the ill-effects of > unnecessary IMD. > > As users, we can choose to set a convention of using FT8 for everyday > operation and reserve FT4 for contests. Wouldn't that be a better use of > our hobby time than exacerbating the ongoing bandplan conflicts? > > Ed W0YK > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Brown <k...@audiosystemsgroup.com> > Sent: 17 July, 2019 14:52 > To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 Default Frequencies > > On 7/17/2019 12:14 PM, Joe Taylor wrote: > > out frequencies we have suggested are made by people who have been > > silent when we've asked for community input. It's not helpful to call > > those who have worked hard to come up with acceptable defaults > > "inconsiderate" or "ignorant" - > > Out of context quotation! You could be a politician. :) I said "either > pretty inconsiderate or pretty ignorant of long established practice on > the band." > > Ignorant of long established practice on the band" is quite different > from "ignorant." > > And I stand by my comments. General practice on 40M has long been for > digital operation above 7070 kHz. Yes, FT4 is INTENDED for contesting, > but many hams will use it simply because it'd the latest and greatest, > or because it gets the buzz. N4TM noted that 7072 was proposed earlier, > but seems to have been rejected. > > As to my failing to make suggestions -- I spend a LOT of time making my > own contributions to ham radio. > > 73, Jim K9YC > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
