Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X - E.O.L.?

[John L. B. <2si...@gm...>]

One more.

John L. Broughton
2si...@gm...
www.wb9vgj.us

On 6/8/2025 12:50 AM, Jim Brown via wsjt-devel wrote:
> On 6/7/2025 3:54 PM, Tom Hauer via wsjt-devel wrote:
>> I am astonished at how anyone with such a lack of knowledge and 
>> understanding could even consider criticism of someone who has 
>> contributed so much, without asking for anything in return, to our 
>> hobby and to the capabilities of radio communication.
>
> It's disappointing that you would attack me personally rather than 
> respond to the issues I've raised. I'm far from ignorant of the 
> issues, active on 6M and HF since 1956, active With multiple WSJT 
> modes since 2011. I contest primarily with CW and RTTY, but also SSB. 
> As a member of the ARRL's Contest Advisory Committee, I was quite 
> actively involved in setting up ARRL's Digital contest, and have been 
> quite supportive of it. I don't do FT8/FT4 contesting myself, because 
> it doesn't turn my crank.
>
> Lack of knowledge and understanding? My education was BSEE, and I've 
> taught it. I've been a contributor to the ARRL Handbook since 2011, 
> the Antenna Book since 2014, and to both editions of N0AX's ARRL Book 
> On Grounding and Bonding. My website, k9yc.com, is full of tutorials 
> on many aspects of ham radio. There are more than 200,000 QSOs in my 
> log since moving to California in 2006. You're my log once. My work on 
> common mode chokes for the MF and HF bands, first published in 2008, 
> and extending in 2018, is groundbreaking. In 2020, I was honored with 
> the ARRL Technical Excellence Award, which carried a nice honorarium 
> that I donated to the NCDXF, an organization that financially supports 
> DXpeditions. I was elected a Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society 
> on the basis of important technical work I'd done advancing the state 
> of that art.
>
> I have simply raised a major issue with how the WSJT design team has 
> made ONE mistake. That is NOT an attack, it is raising an issue that 
> needs to be addressed. That's called positive criticism. In my first 
> post on the topic, several days ago, I observed how choice of such a 
> high frequency for 6M FT8 contributed to the demise of CW on the band. 
> of NOT because it was FT8, but because the chosen operating frequency 
> was so high in the band. In a subsequent post, I observed that the 
> chosen 40M FT4 frequency interfered with several groups of users, that 
> I raised the issue when FT4 was in beta, and was ignored. Again, 
> positive criticism, and in time to have corrected the bad call.
>
> When people stop attacking ME without responding to the ISSUE, I will 
> stop responding. I didn't intend this as a thread. I was calling 
> attention to an issue that can easily be corrected by simply setting 
> new standard carrier frequencies in the upcoming releases of the 
> software. And I'd be happy to help write words to users to explain why.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com