Hi Reino, Thank you for your response. I am glad to see your response is not matter of questions which I asked.
Yes, this comes from unavoidable and inherent FT8 down-link budget design i.e. 50% success rate which DX-peditioners should more pay attention to. I was surprised to know recent peditioner intentionally limit their output power to 40W QRP to control global-based uplink calls without using designated CQ message. Unfortunately, they do not upload their fox log to the clublog on time, they creates unnecessary QRMs by continuous (sometime more than hours) repeated calls from hounds. So, my intention is to provide a new tool to control these type of up-link congestion for FOX operator on the air. By the way, I noticed that my intention can be accomplished by the transmission of dupe message by “RR73” without creating “DUPE” message. By this, hound can understand fox has already logged by previous QSO and can stop their further retransmission. Regards, take de JA5AEA Windows の メール<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> から送信 差出人: Reino Talarmo via wsjt-devel<mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> 送信日時: 2022年11月9日 19:06 宛先: 'WSJT software development'<mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> CC: Reino Talarmo<mailto:reino.tala...@kolumbus.fi> 件名: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fox sends "DUPE" instead of "+rpt" in DX pedition mode Hi Take san, It's not you English, but a protocol challenge. The reason for not receiving the RR73 from a fox depends on the S/N at the hound station and the detection probability of various messages. The S/N depends on the propagation, but also strongly on the number of carriers fox is using. Quite often fox uses more carriers, when it responses to users meaning less S/N per carrier. Another issue is decoding probability of the message such as K1ABC RR73; W9XYZ -08 is a bit less than normal RR73 or R+rpt messages to a single user, when the hound uses AP decoding. Now your proposal is to change the +rpt to a Hound to DUPE in the case the hound has started a new QSO attempt after some time, not because fox receives repeated R+rpt from the Hound. At least I understood it that way. So on the protocol point of view fox uses one timeslot less resources than is normal QSO, if the Hound receives the DUPE message. BUT even that DUPE message is a lost timeslot as the QSO is already in the log. The detection probability of the DUPE message would be the same as for R+rpt or RR73 messages. So how many times the fox should repeat it to make the Hound happy? On the fox point of view that Hound is not a problem as long as it can decode other new stations. There is another possibility for fox to send the RR73 using less carriers or even a RR73 to that Hound without combining it with a report to some other station (again a lost message option). That method could be more effective due to better S/N and detection probability. I just doubt whether a DX station would apply either it or your proposal as long as he is completing new QSOs at "full" speed, hi! 73, Reino OH3mA _______________________________________________ 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
