Guys, We, the EME 47GHz and 76GHz team, are waiting for the new releases. Mode F, etc...
Best 73, Miguel CT1BYM *Sérgio Miguel Pelicano (Eng.º)* *Electrónica e Telecomunicações (I.S.T.)* *RF Engineer, R&D* A sábado, 7/06/2025, 20:09, Joseph Taylor via wsjt-devel < wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> escreveu: > OK Jim, as you wish. > > WSJT modes began to be widely used a decade ago on our HF bands, and more > than two decades ago on the VHF bands. These digital protocols have > attracted a huge following world-wide, but nevertheless the activity uses a > tiny fraction of the spectrum assigned to Amateur Radio. > > This public forum is intended for technical discussion of the WSJT > weak-signal digital protocols and their related software. It's hardly the > best place to expand further on why you would have done such an > overwhelmingly better job of selecting the tiny spectral slices > conventionally used for the WSJT modes. > > I've been a ham for more than seventy years. I'm well aware of the many > changes taking place on our bands over this time. Sensible band planning > is important, and by all means you should devise and promote improved plans > if you have good ideas addressing and accommodating the many competing > interests. Radio waves don't recognize national or even continental > boundaries, so band plans must be workable on a world-wide basis. Remember > that people generally resist change unless the proposed change brings > clearly recognizable benefits. > > Finally: a reasoned and collaborative approach has a much greater chance > of success than outbursts about the "major errors," "massive failures," > [etc., etc., ...] that you think have been made years ago, by others. > > -- 73, Joe, K1JT > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jim Brown via wsjt-devel <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > *Sent:* Friday, June 6, 2025 3:14 PM > *To:* wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > *Cc:* Jim Brown <k...@audiosystemsgroup.com> > *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X - E.O.L.? > > Hi Joe, > > On 6/6/2025 8:42 AM, Joseph Taylor via wsjt-devel wrote: > > We (developers of the digital protocols in WSJT and its sister programs) > > have never dictated any band usage plans or unilaterally set any rules > > for particular frequencies. > > But when you plugged default frequencies into you software, you DID, by > default, establish those frequencies. > > On the contrary, we've always emphasized > > that such plans must be community decisions. We have sought wide input > > before making even tentative recommendations for a dial frequency for > > exercising a potential new mode. > > Exactly WHERE did you solicit that input? But more to the point, why > didn't you learn what was happening on other bands first? > > One of the most egregious of these decisions was to plant the FT4 > frequency in the middle of 40M CW, in a part of the band that is widely > used by QRP operations, county expeditions, POTA, SOTA, and QRS CW (QRS > is slower speed). And I DID respond, VERY loudly to that decision. > > I could be wrong, but I don't recall > > that you ever responded to any of these requests for input, when we made > > them. > > Of course I didn't respond to requests in a space where I wasn't listening. > > On 6/6/2025 10:57 AM, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote: > > That 3 kHz slice that is being occupied by FT8 on most bands is > > supporting DOZENS of simultaneous QSOs when the band is open. That's > > spectral efficiency that no other popular mode can match, not even CW. > > Each signal on FT8 is about 50 Hz wide, so in theory there could be 60 > > active QSOs without mutual interference. > > I'm well aware of the spectral efficiency of the wonderful modes that > Joe and his team have developed. That's irrelevant. I've made great use > of several of them going back to when W6CQZ had a multi-decoder for > JT65. But you've missed the point I've made -- these watering holes are > 2.8 kHz, but you, and other users of various digital modes, have spaced > them at 10 kHz intervals, which for users of other modes, like CW, RTTY, > and SSB, that are not "channel-based," to lose 7 kHz of spectrum for > each of these watering holes. > > Why do they (I say we, because I use those modes during contests) lose > that space? Because users of these modes fail to follow the FUNDAMENTAL > rule of ham radio since its beginning century ago -- to not interfere > with existing activity on a frequency, which requires LISTENING on that > frequency before transmitting. And, by the nature of how software for > these digital modes work, the user cannot listen to the frequency on > which he/she is transmitting -- we hear only that 2.8 kHz bandwidth, of > which we're using only a few hundred Hz. Remember -- with a dial > frequency of 7,046 kHz and an offset of 500 Hz, I'm transmitting on > 7046.5 kHz. When I'm making CW or RTTY QSOs on that frequency, an FT4 > operator firing up on that frequency is interfering with me, violating > that fundamental rule! > > When I'm looking for a frequency to use, I listen, AND I look at a > waterfall showing activity on the frequency for a while. For CW, a > frequency is a few hundred Hz wide, for RTTY, it's 300-400 Hz wide. I > can't count the number of times I've been running on a frequency for > 10-20 minutes and have a digital signal come up on top of me. > > 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
