wsjt-devel — WSJT software development

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJTX Scroll Back Amount..

[Dan C. <hot...@ho...>]

Everything is available in the all.txt file found by selecting <file><open log directory> in WSJTX
If what you seek is not viewable in the band activity window, you'll have to look there.

________________________________
From: Rick Ellison via wsjt-devel <wsj...@li...>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2025 1:01 PM
To: wsj...@li... <wsj...@li...>
Cc: Rick Ellison <rel...@tw...>
Subject: [wsjt-devel] WSJTX Scroll Back Amount..

I'm curious what the scroll back length of the Band Activity window is?? A user asked about making changes to the Band List in N1MM and I want to make sure it matches the scroll back in WSJTX.

73 Rick N2AMG

[wsjt-devel] WSJTX Scroll Back Amount..

[Rick E. <rel...@tw...>]

I'm curious what the scroll back length of the Band Activity window is?? 
A user asked about making changes to the Band List in N1MM and I want to 
make sure it matches the scroll back in WSJTX.

73 Rick N2AMG

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJTx unable to connecto to my Kenwood TS-570D

[Kyle Y <yo...@gm...>]

Thanks Andrew. This is the first radio I've had with PTT via CAT, I tried
it today with HRD and was surprised it worked! I can change the PTT setting
over to CAT now.

Thanks for your help

73

Kyle
K0KN

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025, 8:07 PM Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel <
wsj...@li...> wrote:

> Kyle,
>
> I'm certainly no expert, and never owned a 570D, but doesn't that rig have
> a serial port?  I would think that you would use CAT control and do the
> keying that way, not through a separate COM2 port listed in the picture you
> attached.  Am I wrong about this?  On my rigs, both 20 years old, I use a
> separate com port to do all the work, keying, frequency, etc.  I don't use
> a separate port to key, but don't know if the 570D requires that.
>
> 73,
> Andy, ka2uqw
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 16, 2025 at 06:50:57 PM EDT, Kyle Y via wsjt-devel <
> wsj...@li...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to connect my Kenwood TS-570D to WSJTx. Same settings work
> fine on Ham Radio Deluxe and flrig, so I know my COM port and USB adapter
> are working fine.
>
>  I am running WSJTx 2.5.4
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> Thanks. 73
>
> Kyle
> K0KN
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#m_2681117593835036291_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJTx unable to connecto to my Kenwood TS-570D

[Kyle Y <yo...@gm...>]

Oh wow! Thanks Ron, installing 2.7 made the difference! Not sure how I
downloaded such an old version a week ago!

73

Kyle
K0KN

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025, 6:09 PM Ron WV4P <wv...@gm...> wrote:

> You probably won't get a lot of support for software released  *January
> 3, 2022* when the current WSJTX version is 2.7.0 released  February 19,
> 2025
>
> Ron,  WV4P
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 5:55 PM Kyle Y via wsjt-devel <
> wsj...@li...> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am trying to connect my Kenwood TS-570D to WSJTx. Same settings work
>> fine on Ham Radio Deluxe and flrig, so I know my COM port and USB adapter
>> are working fine.
>>
>>  I am running WSJTx 2.5.4
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>> Thanks. 73
>>
>> Kyle
>> K0KN
>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> Virus-free.www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> <#m_9012992356247110318_m_4491278401778724041_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> wsj...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>>
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJTx unable to connecto to my Kenwood TS-570D

[Andrew N. <ka...@ya...>]

 Kyle,
I'm certainly no expert, and never owned a 570D, but doesn't that rig have a serial port?  I would think that you would use CAT control and do the keying that way, not through a separate COM2 port listed in the picture you attached.  Am I wrong about this?  On my rigs, both 20 years old, I use a separate com port to do all the work, keying, frequency, etc.  I don't use a separate port to key, but don't know if the 570D requires that.  
73,Andy, ka2uqw


    On Monday, June 16, 2025 at 06:50:57 PM EDT, Kyle Y via wsjt-devel <wsj...@li...> wrote:  
 
  Hello,
I am trying to connect my Kenwood TS-570D to WSJTx. Same settings work fine on Ham Radio Deluxe and flrig, so I know my COM port and USB adapter are working fine.
 I am running WSJTx 2.5.4 



Thanks. 73
KyleK0KN

|  | Virus-free.www.avast.com |

_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsj...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
  

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJTx unable to connecto to my Kenwood TS-570D

[Ron W. <wv...@gm...>]

You probably won't get a lot of support for software released  *January 3,
2022* when the current WSJTX version is 2.7.0 released  February 19, 2025

Ron,  WV4P

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 5:55 PM Kyle Y via wsjt-devel <
wsj...@li...> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to connect my Kenwood TS-570D to WSJTx. Same settings work
> fine on Ham Radio Deluxe and flrig, so I know my COM port and USB adapter
> are working fine.
>
>  I am running WSJTx 2.5.4
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> Thanks. 73
>
> Kyle
> K0KN
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#m_4491278401778724041_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

[wsjt-devel] WSJTx unable to connecto to my Kenwood TS-570D

[Kyle Y <yo...@gm...>]

Hello,

I am trying to connect my Kenwood TS-570D to WSJTx. Same settings work fine
on Ham Radio Deluxe and flrig, so I know my COM port and USB adapter are
working fine.

 I am running WSJTx 2.5.4

[image: image.png]

Thanks. 73

Kyle
K0KN

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [wsjt-devel] Feature request

[Ron W. <wv...@gm...>]

It's in WSJTX Improved...

WV4P

On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 9:58 PM rob--- via wsjt-devel <
wsj...@li...> wrote:

> One feature that I would love to see is a button to temporarily disable
> the advanced settings for contests from the main window for those times
> you’re working someone that is not participating in the contest.
> Just hit the button and it responds with a signal report and not a grid,
> such as what happens with the vhf contest going on this weekend.
>
> Thanks,
>
> KW2E
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] Feature request

[N1trk R. <lit...@gm...>]

I hear that.
On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 10:58 PM rob--- via wsjt-devel <
wsj...@li...> wrote:

> One feature that I would love to see is a button to temporarily disable
> the advanced settings for contests from the main window for those times
> you’re working someone that is not participating in the contest.
> Just hit the button and it responds with a signal report and not a grid,
> such as what happens with the vhf contest going on this weekend.
>
> Thanks,
>
> KW2E
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

[wsjt-devel] Feature request

[<ro...@ho...>]

One feature that I would love to see is a button to temporarily disable the advanced settings for contests from the main window for those times you’re working someone that is not participating in the contest. 
Just hit the button and it responds with a signal report and not a grid, such as what happens with the vhf contest going on this weekend. 

Thanks,

KW2E

Sent from my iPhone

Re: [wsjt-devel] New Call By Band doesn't appear to work

[Reino T. <rei...@ko...>]

Marty,

Have you selected in the Settings | General the ‘Show DXCC, grid, and worked-before status’? Otherwise only you first two selections on the Colors work as those are not related to the worked-before information.

 

As such your order of the message is fine and should work as described in the user guide 4.1. Colors discarding all CQ (and possibly 73 and RR73) messages from stations you have worked on that band. The order of other lines after that line does not affect, when it is a new call on this band.

 

73, Reino OH3mA

Re: [wsjt-devel] New Call By Band doesn't appear to work

[WB5JJJ <wb...@gm...>]

Disregarding my color choices, place your items in this order and all will
work perfectly.  Just for those with a check in the box.

73's
George - WB5JJJ
HoIP - 100105
Cell - 479.857.7737


On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 8:37 PM Marty Wayne via wsjt-devel <
wsj...@li...> wrote:

> I have downloaded the newest version of WSJTx, v2.7.0 b4f9a4.  The “New
> Call by Band" color function doesn’t seem to work.  Attached is a copy of
> my selections.  The "Transmitted Message” and "My Call in Message” function
> as I think they should.  Attached is a PDF of my Decodde Highlighting.
> 73,
>
> Marty, W6NEV
> mcw...@co...
> 408-234-8023
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

[wsjt-devel] New Call By Band doesn't appear to work

[Marty W. <mcw...@co...>]

I have downloaded the newest version of WSJTx, v2.7.0 b4f9a4.  The “New Call by Band" color function doesn’t seem to work.  Attached is a copy of my selections.  The "Transmitted Message” and "My Call in Message” function as I think they should.  Attached is a PDF of my Decodde Highlighting.
73,

Marty, W6NEV
mcw...@co...
408-234-8023



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

[Grant W. <vk5...@gm...>]

Jim,

7047.5 is in the DATA sub band outside the united states. The merits of that band position selection for FT4 are perhaps still debatable, but it is most certainly not in the CW segment as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

If we are going into history, even the placement of 7076 for JT65 and subsequently 7074 for FT8 set off a chain of events that has made 40m band plan global reconciliation problematic ever since. I believe a lot of the issues can be traced to the FCC mode/licence grade divisions and their seeming lack of recognition that the rest of the world does not have access to 300 kHz of 40m. Looking back in the past however will not help us move forward in the future.

Today, in my humble opinion, any change to the status quo now on 40m or any other HF band plan (and even 6m where a large amount of activity is internationally focused below 51 MHz at least), needs to be done with the vision of trying to once and for all establish a single global band plan as far as possible through IARU. I can tell you this is no easy task and will require some give and take by operators of all modes. 

Unfortunately today it seems that the #mefirst attitude of a growing number of people is likely going to doom global  harmonisation to failure. We unfortunately today find ourselves in an increasingly intolerant world and global cooperation has all but disappeared. 

Regards,
Grant Willis VK5GR / KR1F

P.S. this is drifting off the core purpose of this list but is also influenced by the use of WSJT based modes and what is programmed into the software that drives them. Please forgive me for taking this opportunity to describe a broader vision for how this could be addressed.

> On 9 Jun 2025, at 5:57 am, Jim Brown via wsjt-devel <wsj...@li...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Every journey/task begins with a single step.
> 
> It would begin with a study of watering holes (dial frequencies) on each band, with two concentrations. First, those that are causing QRM to other users of the bands during contests, moving all activity above .070. Second, reducing the spacing between dial frequencies to 5 kHz, allowing the suggested use of rigs with wider IFs to use that much spectrum.
> 
> 160M is an example of excellent allocation of multiple digital modes that are appropriate for that band.
> 
> The process requires the participation of active users both analog and digital modes on the bands in question, and in different parts of the world.
> 
> On 6M, with NA allocations, there's no good reason for digital operations to start higher than 50.25, and to be spaced more widely than 5 kHz. With Es, TE, EME, and occasional F2 openings, choices need to work worldwide. BUT -- contesting, DXing, grid chasing are the operations that need relatively tightly packed operating frequencies so that they can be monitored on spectral displays (the factor that killed CW on 6M when 50.313 was chosen for FT8).
> 
> I suggest beginning with moving FT4 out of the CW portion of the 40M band, and understanding that the needed spectrum is 3 kHz.
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC
> 
>> On 6/8/2025 5:52 AM, Brian Morrison via wsjt-devel wrote:
>> How would you propose that these issues are addressed now Jim?
>> I'm in no way knowledgeable enough to know where to start but the thing
>> that comes out from what you've said is the sheer complexity and
>> timescale for getting changes made, perhaps the problem now is that the
>> horse has bolted and that catching it and returning it to the stable is
>> going to be a difficult job. There may be more than one horse.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

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

[Brian D <gr...@pl...>]

Jim Brown via wsjt-devel <wsj...@li...> wrote:

> I suggest beginning with moving FT4 out of the CW portion of the 40M band,
> and understanding that the needed spectrum is 3 kHz.
> 
40m is a problematic band. Most of the world used to have only 7-7.1MHz,
which was when the present 40m band plan developed. In the 60a I regularly
operated SSB on 7042. 

Since the extension of 40M in region 1 the bandplan hasn't been adequately
updated. this needs to be done in all regions and be coordinasted between
all of them. 

The Australians (region3) have proposed an update which certainly won't go
down well in this region.

My biggest peeve is the contest operation (I AM an avid contester),
particularly contests beginning with CQ, trampling over all other modes. It
is about time the contest adjudicators DQd stations operating out of the
appropriate contest segment. 160M is particularly affected.
   

-- 
Brian D 
G3VGZ G8AOE G3T
IO94im

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

[Jim B. <k9...@au...>]

Hi Brian,

Every journey/task begins with a single step.

It would begin with a study of watering holes (dial frequencies) on each 
band, with two concentrations. First, those that are causing QRM to 
other users of the bands during contests, moving all activity above 
.070. Second, reducing the spacing between dial frequencies to 5 kHz, 
allowing the suggested use of rigs with wider IFs to use that much 
spectrum.

160M is an example of excellent allocation of multiple digital modes 
that are appropriate for that band.

The process requires the participation of active users both analog and 
digital modes on the bands in question, and in different parts of the 
world.

On 6M, with NA allocations, there's no good reason for digital 
operations to start higher than 50.25, and to be spaced more widely than 
5 kHz. With Es, TE, EME, and occasional F2 openings, choices need to 
work worldwide. BUT -- contesting, DXing, grid chasing are the 
operations that need relatively tightly packed operating frequencies so 
that they can be monitored on spectral displays (the factor that killed 
CW on 6M when 50.313 was chosen for FT8).

I suggest beginning with moving FT4 out of the CW portion of the 40M 
band, and understanding that the needed spectrum is 3 kHz.

73, Jim K9YC

  On 6/8/2025 5:52 AM, Brian Morrison via wsjt-devel wrote:
> How would you propose that these issues are addressed now Jim?
> 
> I'm in no way knowledgeable enough to know where to start but the thing
> that comes out from what you've said is the sheer complexity and
> timescale for getting changes made, perhaps the problem now is that the
> horse has bolted and that catching it and returning it to the stable is
> going to be a difficult job. There may be more than one horse.
> 

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

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

[Brian M. <bd...@fe...>]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 15:09:55 -0700
Jim Brown via wsjt-devel <wsj...@li...> wrote:

> Joe, I have great respect for you and the team that has developed
> your software, and have long advocated for and promoted its use. But
> you're still missing the major point of my criticism, which is that 
> coordination of these digital watering holes was done WITHOUT
> adequate coordination, both internationally AND with significant
> input from existing users of the spectrum in question.

How would you propose that these issues are addressed now Jim?

I'm in no way knowledgeable enough to know where to start but the thing
that comes out from what you've said is the sheer complexity and
timescale for getting changes made, perhaps the problem now is that the
horse has bolted and that catching it and returning it to the stable is
going to be a difficult job. There may be more than one horse.

Changing the default frequencies in WSJT-X is fairly simple, but the
issue there is that the current ones are already in the published
bandplans and everyone uses them so they're not going away. There is
also the fact that not every country mandates use of bandplans,
enforcement will therefore be a problem.

One aspect of new modes that causes some problems is that they are not
recognised to start with, no one knows what they are and it's then
assumed that it is unregulated or pirate activity and people step on the
transmissions to try and get them to go away. Using another animal
metaphor, there is a chicken and egg problem here when a new mode
arrives, it ends up wherever it gets the least hassle and the most
traction in frequency terms.

I don't have the answer and I'm not active enough on air to really grasp
all that you say but I think that if you want to effect change then it
will have to be by finding the right path to determine a way forward
that works for as many people as possible.

I'm also a mere whippersnapper with only 46 years since I was licensed,
so what do I know ;-)

-- 

Brian  G8SEZ

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

[Jim B. <k9...@au...>]

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

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

[Gene M. <w8...@me...>]

<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Incredibly ignorant. &nbsp;Please stop this thread.&nbsp;<div><br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfSignature"><div dir="ltr"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">73 de W8NET Miles “Gene” Marsh</span><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">ARRL A1 Operator&nbsp;</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">3905 Century Club Master #47</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">3905 Century Club 8th Area Director</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Hurricane Watch Net member</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Portage County Amateur Radio Service trustee</span></div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 7, 2025, at 6:57 PM, Tom Hauer via wsjt-devel &lt;wsj...@li...&gt; wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div>To K9YC,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.&nbsp;</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You need to open your eyes, understand and help our community grow instead of trying to tear it down.&nbsp;</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Compared to Joe my contributions are miniscule but believe me, I hope my contributions were a positive to the community.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">BSEE Drexel University 1970, 35 years satellite RF systems design and implementation, including the satellite system used today by airlines for global communication. Only one patent!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Please stop being a negative and become a positive to our community.&nbsp; Thank you.</div><div><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><blockquote type="cite" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Tom Hauer, K0YA<div>ARES Emergency Coordinator</div><div>Blanco, Burnet, Llano and Mason Counties</div><div>ARRL ARES District 8, STX Section</div><div>TDEM RACES District 12-053</div><div>Burnet County CERT</div><div>319 551-9788<br></div><div><a href="mailto:rdr...@gm..." style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rdr...@gm...</a></div><div>PO Box 1522 (mailing ADR)</div><div>11700 E FM 1431 R37</div><div>Marble Falls, Tx 78654</div><div>EM00wn</div><div>Latitude:&nbsp; 30.568805</div><div>Longitude:&nbsp; -98.140287</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jun 7, 2025, 5:13 PM Jim Brown via wsjt-devel &lt;<a href="mailto:wsj...@li..." target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">wsj...@li...</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 6/7/2025 10:26 AM, Joseph Taylor via wsjt-devel wrote:<br>
&gt; I've been a ham for more than seventy years. <br>
<br>
This August marks my 70th anniversary as a ham. I was active on the HF <br>
bands to experience SSB taking over from AM, and all of the antipathy <br>
that ensued. I switched when I was out of school and could afford a SSB <br>
rig. I started actively using FSK441 on VHF in 2011, JT65 on both VHF <br>
and HF that same year, and on HF, using W6CQZ's multi-decoder. My first <br>
ISCAT and JT9 QSOs were in 2014, MSK144 since 2017.<br>
<br>
I'm well aware of the many<br>
&gt; changes taking place on our bands over this time.&nbsp; Sensible band <br>
&gt; planning is important, and by all means you should devise and promote <br>
&gt; improved plans if you have good ideas addressing and accommodating the <br>
&gt; many competing interests. <br>
<br>
Once established, band plans can take decades to change. That's one of <br>
many things I've paid attention to over the years. I raised the issue on <br>
this and the WSJT-X lists at least five years ago, and I raised the FT4 <br>
40M issue when it was still beta, but nothing changed.<br>
<br>
&gt; Radio waves don't recognize national or even <br>
&gt; continental boundaries, so band plans must be workable on a world-wide <br>
&gt; basis.<br>
<br>
I'm quite aware of all of that, both in my professional life, as part of <br>
architectural design teams that included a dozen disciplines; as a <br>
member of the Standards Committee of the Audio Engineering Society for <br>
35 years, member of six Working Groups, Vice-Chair of the Working Group <br>
on EMC, and a principal author of a half-dozen Standards; and as a <br>
member of ARRL's Contest Advisory Committee. All of these are <br>
collaborative activities.<br>
<br>
Joe, I have great respect for you and the team that has developed your <br>
software, and have long advocated for and promoted its use. But you're <br>
still missing the major point of my criticism, which is that <br>
coordination of these digital watering holes was done WITHOUT adequate <br>
coordination, both internationally AND with significant input from <br>
existing users of the spectrum in question. And that your team has been <br>
completely deaf when announcing new versions of software, about doing <br>
anything to correct those early bad calls.<br>
<br>
73, Jim K9YC<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
wsjt-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:wsj...@li..." rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">wsj...@li...</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>wsjt-devel mailing list</span><br><span>wsj...@li...</span><br><span>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel</span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>

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

[Tom H. <rdr...@gm...>]

To K9YC,

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.

You need to open your eyes, understand and help our community grow instead
of trying to tear it down.

Compared to Joe my contributions are miniscule but believe me, I hope my
contributions were a positive to the community.

BSEE Drexel University 1970, 35 years satellite RF systems design and
implementation, including the satellite system used today by airlines for
global communication. Only one patent!

Please stop being a negative and become a positive to our community.  Thank
you.

Tom Hauer, K0YA
ARES Emergency Coordinator
Blanco, Burnet, Llano and Mason Counties
ARRL ARES District 8, STX Section
TDEM RACES District 12-053
Burnet County CERT
319 551-9788
rdr...@gm...
PO Box 1522 (mailing ADR)
11700 E FM 1431 R37
Marble Falls, Tx 78654
EM00wn
Latitude:  30.568805
Longitude:  -98.140287


On Sat, Jun 7, 2025, 5:13 PM Jim Brown via wsjt-devel <
wsj...@li...> wrote:

> On 6/7/2025 10:26 AM, Joseph Taylor via wsjt-devel wrote:
> > I've been a ham for more than seventy years.
>
> This August marks my 70th anniversary as a ham. I was active on the HF
> bands to experience SSB taking over from AM, and all of the antipathy
> that ensued. I switched when I was out of school and could afford a SSB
> rig. I started actively using FSK441 on VHF in 2011, JT65 on both VHF
> and HF that same year, and on HF, using W6CQZ's multi-decoder. My first
> ISCAT and JT9 QSOs were in 2014, MSK144 since 2017.
>
> 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.
>
> Once established, band plans can take decades to change. That's one of
> many things I've paid attention to over the years. I raised the issue on
> this and the WSJT-X lists at least five years ago, and I raised the FT4
> 40M issue when it was still beta, but nothing changed.
>
> > Radio waves don't recognize national or even
> > continental boundaries, so band plans must be workable on a world-wide
> > basis.
>
> I'm quite aware of all of that, both in my professional life, as part of
> architectural design teams that included a dozen disciplines; as a
> member of the Standards Committee of the Audio Engineering Society for
> 35 years, member of six Working Groups, Vice-Chair of the Working Group
> on EMC, and a principal author of a half-dozen Standards; and as a
> member of ARRL's Contest Advisory Committee. All of these are
> collaborative activities.
>
> Joe, I have great respect for you and the team that has developed your
> software, and have long advocated for and promoted its use. But you're
> still missing the major point of my criticism, which is that
> coordination of these digital watering holes was done WITHOUT adequate
> coordination, both internationally AND with significant input from
> existing users of the spectrum in question. And that your team has been
> completely deaf when announcing new versions of software, about doing
> anything to correct those early bad calls.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

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

[Jim B. <k9...@au...>]

On 6/7/2025 10:26 AM, Joseph Taylor via wsjt-devel wrote:
> I've been a ham for more than seventy years. 

This August marks my 70th anniversary as a ham. I was active on the HF 
bands to experience SSB taking over from AM, and all of the antipathy 
that ensued. I switched when I was out of school and could afford a SSB 
rig. I started actively using FSK441 on VHF in 2011, JT65 on both VHF 
and HF that same year, and on HF, using W6CQZ's multi-decoder. My first 
ISCAT and JT9 QSOs were in 2014, MSK144 since 2017.

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. 

Once established, band plans can take decades to change. That's one of 
many things I've paid attention to over the years. I raised the issue on 
this and the WSJT-X lists at least five years ago, and I raised the FT4 
40M issue when it was still beta, but nothing changed.

> Radio waves don't recognize national or even 
> continental boundaries, so band plans must be workable on a world-wide 
> basis.

I'm quite aware of all of that, both in my professional life, as part of 
architectural design teams that included a dozen disciplines; as a 
member of the Standards Committee of the Audio Engineering Society for 
35 years, member of six Working Groups, Vice-Chair of the Working Group 
on EMC, and a principal author of a half-dozen Standards; and as a 
member of ARRL's Contest Advisory Committee. All of these are 
collaborative activities.

Joe, I have great respect for you and the team that has developed your 
software, and have long advocated for and promoted its use. But you're 
still missing the major point of my criticism, which is that 
coordination of these digital watering holes was done WITHOUT adequate 
coordination, both internationally AND with significant input from 
existing users of the spectrum in question. And that your team has been 
completely deaf when announcing new versions of software, about doing 
anything to correct those early bad calls.

73, Jim K9YC

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

[Miguel P. <mig...@gm...>]

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 <
wsj...@li...> 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 <wsj...@li...>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 6, 2025 3:14 PM
> *To:* wsj...@li... <wsj...@li...>
> *Cc:* Jim Brown <k9...@au...>
> *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
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

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

[Joseph T. <jo...@Pr...>]

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 <wsj...@li...>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:14 PM
To: wsj...@li... <wsj...@li...>
Cc: Jim Brown <k9...@au...>
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
wsj...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

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

[Takehiko T. <ja...@ou...>]

Joe,


Greeting from nice weather weekend just before rainy season here in Japan.


I am fine with your comment if you "WSJT developer team" has already 
being working for next generation format, such as sensitivity and fading 
performance of FT8 (15 Second format) to be compatible with WSPR (one 
minutes format).


Regards,


take


de JA5AEA


On 2025/06/07 0:42, Joseph Taylor via wsjt-devel wrote:
> Hi Jim, K9YC:
>
> You write here of "major errors," "massive failures," "developers 
> living in their own world," "failing to consult with other users of 
> the spectrum," etc., etc.
>
> You write: "The major error that developers made way back when, and 
> CONTINUE to make, is to chew up way too much spectrum by spacing 
> watering holes with excessive spacing, and by... "
>
> 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.  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. I could be wrong, but I 
> don't recall that you ever responded to any of these requests for 
> input, when we made them.
>
> Chewing up "way too much spectrum" ???  The 3 kHz slices of spectrum 
> used for most FT8 and FT4 activity on the HF bands are on the order of 
> one percent of our allocated spectrum on most HF bands. WSPR uses an  
> order of magnitude less still.  The consensus "way back when" was that 
> something like 10 kHz spacing between (say) initially recommended 3 
> kHz slices for FT8 and FT4 made good sense because usage patterns 
> suggested increased future occupancy and a likely need for the 
> conventional sub-bands to grow somewhat.
>
> Suggestions for better band plans could be useful.  Why not produce 
> some, rather than  issuing broadside complaints with the implications 
> that you would have done it better?
>
>     -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel