wsjt-devel

[wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Rich - K. <k1...@co...>]

As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The waterfall is full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others. There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.


The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is, on a normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band. When you tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear more than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz, many dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times that the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC. DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY frequencies. There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout the year, all scheduled over weekend days.


A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious problem if some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These might consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF RTTY bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com’website would be a good place to start.


The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but as ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those frequencies probably should be left alone.


Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.


So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users are quickly growing.


Comments?

73,

Rich – K1HTV

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Randall H. <rha...@gm...>]

How about using the JT 9 space since there is almost no one using it



Thanks so

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 14:19 Rich - K1HTV <k1...@co...> wrote:

> *As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the
> standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The waterfall is
> full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others.
> There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for
> normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has
> greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so
> these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.*
>
>
> *The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew
> capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is, on a
> normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band. When
> you tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear
> more than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz,
> many dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times
> that the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during
> DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC.
> DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY
> frequencies. There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout
> the year, all scheduled over weekend days.*
>
>
> *A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of
> whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious problem
> if some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These
> might consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF
> RTTY bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com
> <http://rttycontesting.com>’website would be a good place to start.*
>
>
> *The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but
> as ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those
> frequencies probably should be left alone.*
>
>
> *Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to
> Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.*
>
>
> *So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users are
> quickly growing.*
>
>
> *Comments?*
>
> *73,*
>
> *Rich – K1HTV*
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[<ga...@is...>]

*	“There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for normal day to day FT8 operations.”

 

On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly narrow slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea of monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see very little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there are few obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment is “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating overlapping signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt, hence I disagree that expansion is “imperative”.  

 

A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and analyze data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff, subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered and analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.

 

If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about the options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8, being able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across additional band segments will make things harder.  It could prove counterproductive.

 

Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities and conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more space for DXpedition use, specifically.

 

I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a digimode DXpedition zone on each of the HF bands without specifying the digimode?  That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK, FT8, JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being a multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a good place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance.

 

There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions attempt to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to slice the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter pileups, or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check that the area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite DXers.

 

73

Gary  ZL2iFB

 

PS  This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence we should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.

 

From: Rich - K1HTV <k1...@co...> 
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
To: WSJT <wsj...@li...>
Subject: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

 

As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The waterfall is full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others. There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.

 

The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is, on a normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band. When you tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear more than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz, many dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times that the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC. DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY frequencies. There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout the year, all scheduled over weekend days.

 

A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious problem if some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These might consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF RTTY bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com’website would be a good place to start.

 

The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but as ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those frequencies probably should be left alone.

 

Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.

 

So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users are quickly growing.

 

Comments?

73,

Rich – K1HTV

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[David A. <da...@al...>]

Hi,

I would like to add something to the discussion.

At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8 band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M band.

The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at excessive power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore reduces the performance of this mode.

I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of these digital mode.

My 73,

David, F4HTQ.

 

De : ga...@is... [mailto:ga...@is...] 
Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
À : 'WSJT software development'
Objet : Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

 

*	“There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for normal day to day FT8 operations.”

 

On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly narrow slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea of monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see very little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there are few obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment is “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating overlapping signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt, hence I disagree that expansion is “imperative”.  

 

A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and analyze data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff, subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered and analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.

 

If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about the options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8, being able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across additional band segments will make things harder.  It could prove counterproductive.

 

Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities and conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more space for DXpedition use, specifically.

 

I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a digimode DXpedition zone on each of the HF bands without specifying the digimode?  That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK, FT8, JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being a multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a good place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance.

 

There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions attempt to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to slice the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter pileups, or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check that the area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite DXers.

 

73

Gary  ZL2iFB

 

PS  This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence we should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.

 

From: Rich - K1HTV <k1...@co...> 
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
To: WSJT <wsj...@li...>
Subject: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

 

As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The waterfall is full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others. There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.

 

The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is, on a normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band. When you tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear more than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz, many dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times that the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC. DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY frequencies. There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout the year, all scheduled over weekend days.

 

A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious problem if some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These might consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF RTTY bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com’website would be a good place to start.

 

The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but as ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those frequencies probably should be left alone.

 

Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.

 

So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users are quickly growing.

 

Comments?

73,

Rich – K1HTV

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Andras B. <ha6...@gm...>]

Hi all,
let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the
attention of members of IARU Administrative Council.
http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html
I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap!
gl de ha6nn
Andras

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@al...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to add something to the discussion.
>
> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8
> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M
> band.
>
> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at excessive
> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore reduces
> the performance of this mode.
>
> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of
> these digital mode.
>
> My 73,
>
> David, F4HTQ.
>
>
>
> *De :* ga...@is... [mailto:ga...@is...]
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
> *À :* 'WSJT software development'
> *Objet :* Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>
>
>
>    - *“There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it
>    is imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>    identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for
>    normal day to day FT8 operations.”*
>
>
>
> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can
> successfully pack in *loads* of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly
> narrow slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the
> idea of monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I
> see very little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there
> are few obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band
> segment is “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating
> overlapping signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt”
> that additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt,
> hence I disagree that expansion is “imperative”.
>
>
>
> A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and analyze
> data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff,
> subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered and
> analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.
>
>
>
> If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about the
> options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems
> making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8, being
> able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major
> advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across
> additional band segments will make things harder.  It could prove
> counterproductive.
>
>
>
> Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities and
> conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition
> fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more space
> for DXpedition use, specifically.
>
>
>
> I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a *digimode
> DXpedition zone* on each of the HF bands *without* specifying the
> digimode?  That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK, FT8,
> JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being a
> multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a good
> place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance.
>
>
>
> There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions attempt
> to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to slice
> the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter
> pileups, or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check
> that the area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite
> DXers.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Gary  ZL2iFB
>
>
>
> PS  This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence we
> should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.
>
>
>
> *From:* Rich - K1HTV <k1...@co...>
> *Sent:* Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
> *To:* WSJT <wsj...@li...>
> *Subject:* [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>
>
>
> *As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the
> standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The waterfall is
> full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others.
> There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for
> normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has
> greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so
> these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.*
>
>
>
> *The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew
> capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is, on a
> normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band. When
> you tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear
> more than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz,
> many dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times
> that the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during
> DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC.
> DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY
> frequencies. There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout
> the year, all scheduled over weekend days.*
>
>
>
> *A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of
> whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious problem
> if some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These
> might consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF
> RTTY bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com
> <http://rttycontesting.com>’website would be a good place to start.*
>
>
>
> *The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but
> as ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those
> frequencies probably should be left alone.*
>
>
>
> *Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to
> Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.*
>
>
>
> *So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users are
> quickly growing.*
>
>
>
> *Comments?*
>
> *73,*
>
> *Rich – K1HTV*
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[<rj...@gm...>]

I don't think there needs to really be more room. There are several
bands that we can use. I prefer to use WARC bands because I have my
fill of DX on 20 meters but WARC bands offer additional opportunities.
Especially 30 meters where I have gain antennas.

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Andras Bato <ha6...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi all,
> let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the attention
> of members of IARU Administrative Council.
> http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html
> I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap!
> gl de ha6nn
> Andras
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@al...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to add something to the discussion.
>>
>> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8
>> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M
>> band.
>>
>> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at excessive
>> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore reduces
>> the performance of this mode.
>>
>> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of
>> these digital mode.
>>
>> My 73,
>>
>> David, F4HTQ.
>>
>>
>>
>> De : ga...@is... [mailto:ga...@is...]
>> Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
>> À : 'WSJT software development'
>> Objet : Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>>
>>
>>
>> “There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
>> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for
>> normal day to day FT8 operations.”
>>
>>
>>
>> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can
>> successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly narrow
>> slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea of
>> monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see very
>> little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there are few
>> obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment is
>> “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating overlapping
>> signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that
>> additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt, hence I
>> disagree that expansion is “imperative”.
>>
>>
>>
>> A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and analyze
>> data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff,
>> subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered and
>> analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about the
>> options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems
>> making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8, being
>> able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major
>> advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across
>> additional band segments will make things harder.  It could prove
>> counterproductive.
>>
>>
>>
>> Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities and
>> conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition
>> fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more space
>> for DXpedition use, specifically.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a
>> digimode DXpedition zone on each of the HF bands without specifying the
>> digimode?  That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK, FT8,
>> JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being a
>> multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a good
>> place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance.
>>
>>
>>
>> There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions attempt
>> to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to slice
>> the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter pileups,
>> or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check that the
>> area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite DXers.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Gary  ZL2iFB
>>
>>
>>
>> PS  This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence we
>> should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Rich - K1HTV <k1...@co...>
>> Sent: Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
>> To: WSJT <wsj...@li...>
>> Subject: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>>
>>
>>
>> As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the
>> standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The waterfall is
>> full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others.
>> There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
>> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for
>> normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has
>> greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so
>> these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.
>>
>>
>>
>> The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew
>> capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is, on a
>> normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band. When you
>> tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear more
>> than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz, many
>> dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times that
>> the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during
>> DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC.
>> DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY frequencies.
>> There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout the year, all
>> scheduled over weekend days.
>>
>>
>>
>> A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of
>> whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious problem if
>> some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These might
>> consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF RTTY
>> bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com’website would be a good
>> place to start.
>>
>>
>>
>> The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but as
>> ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those
>> frequencies probably should be left alone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to
>> Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users are
>> quickly growing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Rich – K1HTV
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> wsj...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Andras B. <ha6...@gm...>]

It's only you Ria!
All FT8 subbands are much too crowded, even in the WARC bands.
We badly need the higher bands like 21, 24 and 28 MHz but it takes several
years when
there will be regular openings on those bands.
I am terribly surprised when you are living in the USA where there are
ARRL, IARU HQ,
and Administrative Council members like K1ZZ and the president is a
Canadian.
Is it a problem to ask them for their opinion and propose new band plans
which would precisely devide e.g. the digital band portions
to RTTY, PSK, FT8, JT65, JT9 subbands?
gl de ha6nn
Andras

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM, rj...@gm... <rj...@gm...>
wrote:

> I don't think there needs to really be more room. There are several
> bands that we can use. I prefer to use WARC bands because I have my
> fill of DX on 20 meters but WARC bands offer additional opportunities.
> Especially 30 meters where I have gain antennas.
>
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Andras Bato <ha6...@gm...> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the
> attention
> > of members of IARU Administrative Council.
> > http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html
> > I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap!
> > gl de ha6nn
> > Andras
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@al...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I would like to add something to the discussion.
> >>
> >> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8
> >> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M
> >> band.
> >>
> >> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at
> excessive
> >> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore
> reduces
> >> the performance of this mode.
> >>
> >> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of
> >> these digital mode.
> >>
> >> My 73,
> >>
> >> David, F4HTQ.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> De : ga...@is... [mailto:ga...@is...]
> >> Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
> >> À : 'WSJT software development'
> >> Objet : Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> “There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
> >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
> >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly
> for
> >> normal day to day FT8 operations.”
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can
> >> successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly
> narrow
> >> slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea of
> >> monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see
> very
> >> little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there are few
> >> obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment is
> >> “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating
> overlapping
> >> signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that
> >> additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt, hence
> I
> >> disagree that expansion is “imperative”.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and
> analyze
> >> data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff,
> >> subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered
> and
> >> analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about
> the
> >> options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems
> >> making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8,
> being
> >> able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major
> >> advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across
> >> additional band segments will make things harder.  It could prove
> >> counterproductive.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities
> and
> >> conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition
> >> fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more
> space
> >> for DXpedition use, specifically.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a
> >> digimode DXpedition zone on each of the HF bands without specifying the
> >> digimode?  That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK,
> FT8,
> >> JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being
> a
> >> multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a good
> >> place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions attempt
> >> to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to
> slice
> >> the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter
> pileups,
> >> or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check that
> the
> >> area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite DXers.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 73
> >>
> >> Gary  ZL2iFB
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> PS  This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence
> we
> >> should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Rich - K1HTV <k1...@co...>
> >> Sent: Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
> >> To: WSJT <wsj...@li...>
> >> Subject: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the
> >> standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The
> waterfall is
> >> full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others.
> >> There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
> >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
> >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly
> for
> >> normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has
> >> greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so
> >> these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew
> >> capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is,
> on a
> >> normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band.
> When you
> >> tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear
> more
> >> than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz, many
> >> dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times
> that
> >> the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during
> >> DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC.
> >> DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY
> frequencies.
> >> There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout the
> year, all
> >> scheduled over weekend days.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of
> >> whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious
> problem if
> >> some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These
> might
> >> consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF
> RTTY
> >> bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com’website would be a
> good
> >> place to start.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but
> as
> >> ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those
> >> frequencies probably should be left alone.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to
> >> Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users are
> >> quickly growing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Comments?
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >> Rich – K1HTV
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> wsjt-devel mailing list
> >> wsj...@li...
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > _______________________________________________
> > wsjt-devel mailing list
> > wsj...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[George M. <Ge...@Mo...>]

The digital mode watering holes are not (as far as I know in most cases) part of any international agreement or national regulation. If a group of operators want to agree amongst themselves to operate on a particular spot, it is incumbent on them to avoid interference with existing operations and be “good neighbors.” Don’t think it is the dev team’s job to dictate slots (and they have been extremely thoughtful in this regard).

It seems JT9 and FT8 would be the best fit for side-by-side operation. If the FT8 watering hole is crowded where you are, may I suggest that sliding up a couple of kHz would be an acceptable practice? In most situations, this will leave the JT65 slot open for very weak signal users.

Users can add frequencies to their configurations very easily (see the manual). Wide receive passbands are possible on some radios, and who knows, this may be a spur to future I/Q stream development, allowing even more bandwidth to be guarded at once.


George J Molnar
Washington, DC, USA
KF2T   -   @GJMolnar

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[<rj...@gm...>]

I would concede that in Europe it is a problem. My antennas are beamed
to Europe most of the time but there aren't many strong band openings
these days.

I have also heard grumbling among the PSK31 and Olivia crowd that FT8
is interfering with them. They can move but when we move it may cause
conflict. WinLink and Pactor may expand, especially if the new
Technician privilege proposal is approved by the FCC.

So any change has to be considered carefully and with the
understanding that we may just not get what we want.

73
Ria
N2RJ

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Andras Bato <ha6...@gm...> wrote:
> It's only you Ria!
> All FT8 subbands are much too crowded, even in the WARC bands.
> We badly need the higher bands like 21, 24 and 28 MHz but it takes several
> years when
> there will be regular openings on those bands.
> I am terribly surprised when you are living in the USA where there are ARRL,
> IARU HQ,
> and Administrative Council members like K1ZZ and the president is a
> Canadian.
> Is it a problem to ask them for their opinion and propose new band plans
> which would precisely devide e.g. the digital band portions
> to RTTY, PSK, FT8, JT65, JT9 subbands?
> gl de ha6nn
> Andras
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM, rj...@gm... <rj...@gm...>
> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think there needs to really be more room. There are several
>> bands that we can use. I prefer to use WARC bands because I have my
>> fill of DX on 20 meters but WARC bands offer additional opportunities.
>> Especially 30 meters where I have gain antennas.
>>
>> 73
>> Ria, N2RJ
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Andras Bato <ha6...@gm...> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the
>> > attention
>> > of members of IARU Administrative Council.
>> > http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html
>> > I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap!
>> > gl de ha6nn
>> > Andras
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@al...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I would like to add something to the discussion.
>> >>
>> >> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8
>> >> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M
>> >> band.
>> >>
>> >> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at
>> >> excessive
>> >> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore
>> >> reduces
>> >> the performance of this mode.
>> >>
>> >> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of
>> >> these digital mode.
>> >>
>> >> My 73,
>> >>
>> >> David, F4HTQ.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> De : ga...@is... [mailto:ga...@is...]
>> >> Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
>> >> À : 'WSJT software development'
>> >> Objet : Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> “There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
>> >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>> >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly
>> >> for
>> >> normal day to day FT8 operations.”
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can
>> >> successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly
>> >> narrow
>> >> slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea
>> >> of
>> >> monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see
>> >> very
>> >> little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there are
>> >> few
>> >> obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment
>> >> is
>> >> “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating
>> >> overlapping
>> >> signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that
>> >> additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt, hence
>> >> I
>> >> disagree that expansion is “imperative”.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and
>> >> analyze
>> >> data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff,
>> >> subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered
>> >> and
>> >> analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about
>> >> the
>> >> options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems
>> >> making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8,
>> >> being
>> >> able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major
>> >> advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across
>> >> additional band segments will make things harder.  It could prove
>> >> counterproductive.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities
>> >> and
>> >> conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition
>> >> fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more
>> >> space
>> >> for DXpedition use, specifically.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a
>> >> digimode DXpedition zone on each of the HF bands without specifying the
>> >> digimode?  That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK,
>> >> FT8,
>> >> JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being
>> >> a
>> >> multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a good
>> >> place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions
>> >> attempt
>> >> to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to
>> >> slice
>> >> the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter
>> >> pileups,
>> >> or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check that
>> >> the
>> >> area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite DXers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 73
>> >>
>> >> Gary  ZL2iFB
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> PS  This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence
>> >> we
>> >> should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: Rich - K1HTV <k1...@co...>
>> >> Sent: Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
>> >> To: WSJT <wsj...@li...>
>> >> Subject: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the
>> >> standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The
>> >> waterfall is
>> >> full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others.
>> >> There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
>> >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>> >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly
>> >> for
>> >> normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has
>> >> greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so
>> >> these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew
>> >> capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is,
>> >> on a
>> >> normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band.
>> >> When you
>> >> tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear
>> >> more
>> >> than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz,
>> >> many
>> >> dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times
>> >> that
>> >> the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during
>> >> DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC.
>> >> DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY
>> >> frequencies.
>> >> There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout the
>> >> year, all
>> >> scheduled over weekend days.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of
>> >> whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious
>> >> problem if
>> >> some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These
>> >> might
>> >> consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF
>> >> RTTY
>> >> bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com’website would be a
>> >> good
>> >> place to start.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but
>> >> as
>> >> ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those
>> >> frequencies probably should be left alone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to
>> >> Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users
>> >> are
>> >> quickly growing.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Comments?
>> >>
>> >> 73,
>> >>
>> >> Rich – K1HTV
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> >> wsj...@li...
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > wsjt-devel mailing list
>> > wsj...@li...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> wsj...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Gary M. <mcd...@ag...>]

> On Mar 23, 2018, at 9:07 AM, rj...@gm... wrote:
> 
> If the FT8 watering hole is crowded where you are, may I suggest that sliding up a couple of kHz would be an acceptable practice?

In order to keep continuity of waterfall, I’d prefer moving JT65 up to the current JT9 slot and have JT9 move down to share a wider slot.

Gary - AG0N

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Bill B. <W2P...@gm...>]

This is 20M about noon in Tampa Fl area on a ground mounted vertical. This
picture is with about 35 decodes every 15 seconds.
During the most active times on 20 & 40M  I can see nearly 50 decodes in 15
seconds. Imagine Ops with better antennas see even more decodes.
This picture only shows the strongest of signals as well. There could be
weaker signals under the strong ones.
For those who would like to track stats on the various modes see:
https://www.pskreporter.info/cgi-bin/pskstats.pl middle of the page.
Activity on FT8 is amazingly higher than any other mode and will only
increase over time.
Lets see what ultimately happens.

Bill W2PKY




On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:07 AM, rj...@gm... <rj...@gm...>
wrote:

> I would concede that in Europe it is a problem. My antennas are beamed
> to Europe most of the time but there aren't many strong band openings
> these days.
>
> I have also heard grumbling among the PSK31 and Olivia crowd that FT8
> is interfering with them. They can move but when we move it may cause
> conflict. WinLink and Pactor may expand, especially if the new
> Technician privilege proposal is approved by the FCC.
>
> So any change has to be considered carefully and with the
> understanding that we may just not get what we want.
>
> 73
> Ria
> N2RJ
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Andras Bato <ha6...@gm...>
> wrote:
> > It's only you Ria!
> > All FT8 subbands are much too crowded, even in the WARC bands.
> > We badly need the higher bands like 21, 24 and 28 MHz but it takes
> several
> > years when
> > there will be regular openings on those bands.
> > I am terribly surprised when you are living in the USA where there are
> ARRL,
> > IARU HQ,
> > and Administrative Council members like K1ZZ and the president is a
> > Canadian.
> > Is it a problem to ask them for their opinion and propose new band plans
> > which would precisely devide e.g. the digital band portions
> > to RTTY, PSK, FT8, JT65, JT9 subbands?
> > gl de ha6nn
> > Andras
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM, rj...@gm... <rj...@gm...>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think there needs to really be more room. There are several
> >> bands that we can use. I prefer to use WARC bands because I have my
> >> fill of DX on 20 meters but WARC bands offer additional opportunities.
> >> Especially 30 meters where I have gain antennas.
> >>
> >> 73
> >> Ria, N2RJ
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Andras Bato <ha6...@gm...>
> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> > let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the
> >> > attention
> >> > of members of IARU Administrative Council.
> >> > http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html
> >> > I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap!
> >> > gl de ha6nn
> >> > Andras
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@al...>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to add something to the discussion.
> >> >>
> >> >> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8
> >> >> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the
> 30M
> >> >> band.
> >> >>
> >> >> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at
> >> >> excessive
> >> >> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore
> >> >> reduces
> >> >> the performance of this mode.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future
> of
> >> >> these digital mode.
> >> >>
> >> >> My 73,
> >> >>
> >> >> David, F4HTQ.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> De : ga...@is... [mailto:ga...@is...]
> >> >> Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
> >> >> À : 'WSJT software development'
> >> >> Objet : Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> “There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
> >> >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band
> be
> >> >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly
> >> >> for
> >> >> normal day to day FT8 operations.”
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we
> can
> >> >> successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly
> >> >> narrow
> >> >> slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea
> >> >> of
> >> >> monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see
> >> >> very
> >> >> little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there are
> >> >> few
> >> >> obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment
> >> >> is
> >> >> “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating
> >> >> overlapping
> >> >> signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that
> >> >> additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt,
> hence
> >> >> I
> >> >> disagree that expansion is “imperative”.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and
> >> >> analyze
> >> >> data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting
> stuff,
> >> >> subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be
> gathered
> >> >> and
> >> >> analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about
> >> >> the
> >> >> options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems
> >> >> making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8,
> >> >> being
> >> >> able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major
> >> >> advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across
> >> >> additional band segments will make things harder.  It could prove
> >> >> counterproductive.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities
> >> >> and
> >> >> conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition
> >> >> fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more
> >> >> space
> >> >> for DXpedition use, specifically.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a
> >> >> digimode DXpedition zone on each of the HF bands without specifying
> the
> >> >> digimode?  That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY,
> PSK,
> >> >> FT8,
> >> >> JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to
> being
> >> >> a
> >> >> multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a
> good
> >> >> place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions
> >> >> attempt
> >> >> to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to
> >> >> slice
> >> >> the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter
> >> >> pileups,
> >> >> or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check
> that
> >> >> the
> >> >> area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite
> DXers.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 73
> >> >>
> >> >> Gary  ZL2iFB
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> PS  This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development,
> hence
> >> >> we
> >> >> should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> From: Rich - K1HTV <k1...@co...>
> >> >> Sent: Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
> >> >> To: WSJT <wsj...@li...>
> >> >> Subject: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the
> >> >> standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The
> >> >> waterfall is
> >> >> full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling
> others.
> >> >> There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
> >> >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band
> be
> >> >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly
> >> >> for
> >> >> normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users
> has
> >> >> greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF,
> so
> >> >> these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew
> >> >> capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there
> is,
> >> >> on a
> >> >> normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band.
> >> >> When you
> >> >> tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear
> >> >> more
> >> >> than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz,
> >> >> many
> >> >> dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only
> times
> >> >> that
> >> >> the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during
> >> >> DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital
> DXCC.
> >> >> DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY
> >> >> frequencies.
> >> >> There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout the
> >> >> year, all
> >> >> scheduled over weekend days.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most
> of
> >> >> whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious
> >> >> problem if
> >> >> some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These
> >> >> might
> >> >> consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF
> >> >> RTTY
> >> >> bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com’website would
> be a
> >> >> good
> >> >> place to start.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use,
> but
> >> >> as
> >> >> ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those
> >> >> frequencies probably should be left alone.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to
> >> >> Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users
> >> >> are
> >> >> quickly growing.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Comments?
> >> >>
> >> >> 73,
> >> >>
> >> >> Rich – K1HTV
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> >> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> >> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> wsjt-devel mailing list
> >> >> wsj...@li...
> >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> >> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> >> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > wsjt-devel mailing list
> >> > wsj...@li...
> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> wsjt-devel mailing list
> >> wsj...@li...
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > _______________________________________________
> > wsjt-devel mailing list
> > wsj...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[<ga...@is...>]

OK guys, at the risk of sounding like a cracked record or a corrupted MP3, I’ll give this one more shot.

 

Anecdotal reports tell us very little except in your opinions “The FT8 segment looks crowded”.  I agree, that is how it LOOKS.  It LOOKS crowded here too … and yet we are still making loads of FT8 QSOs with little hard evidence of problems due to overcrowding.  Repeatedly re-stating “It looks crowded”, sharing busy waterfall snapshots, counting decode rates and telling us it is “imperative” to expand the allocation, is getting us nowhere.  

 

In fact, Bill, your comment that you are seeing “nearly 50 decodes every 15 seconds” when the band is busy tells us it is working just fine as it is.  Your own waterfall pic shows all those FT8 signals sharing roughly 2,000 Hz of band.  In theory there is room for 40 optimally-spaced 50 Hz wide FT8 signals with no overlaps in 2,000 Hz.  The ‘extra’ ~10 decodes you see probably include a few outside the 2,000 Hz segment, and others where signals are overlapping. 

 

I often see overlapping signals decoded successfully, sometimes separated by just a few Hz and occasionally fully overlapped on exactly the same frequency.  FT8 does a much better job at separating overlapping signals than we do simply by looking at our “overcrowded” waterfalls.  But of course there are limits to the magic of FT8.

 

Based on the above, and actual experience every day on the air, I could conclude that there is plenty of capacity remaining and no desperate need to expand the HF allocations … but what it doesn’t tell us is how many additional signals might be present that are not being decoded due to overcrowding, nor how the FT8 band occupancy is changing.  If we are not currently experiencing severe overcrowding, are we days, weeks, months or years away from that crisis point – or will band occupancy automatically level itself out as people shift to other less occupied bands and modes?

 

73,

Gary  ZL2iFB 

 

From: Bill Barrett <W2P...@gm...> 
Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2018 5:38 a.m.
To: WSJT software development <wsj...@li...>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

 

This is 20M about noon in Tampa Fl area on a ground mounted vertical. This picture is with about 35 decodes every 15 seconds.

During the most active times on 20 & 40M  I can see nearly 50 decodes in 15 seconds. Imagine Ops with better antennas see even more decodes.

This picture only shows the strongest of signals as well. There could be weaker signals under the strong ones.

For those who would like to track stats on the various modes see: https://www.pskreporter.info/cgi-bin/pskstats.pl middle of the page.

Activity on FT8 is amazingly higher than any other mode and will only increase over time.

Lets see what ultimately happens.

 

Bill W2PKY

 

 

 

 

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:07 AM, rj...@gm... <mailto:rj...@gm...>  <rj...@gm... <mailto:rj...@gm...> > wrote:

I would concede that in Europe it is a problem. My antennas are beamed
to Europe most of the time but there aren't many strong band openings
these days.

I have also heard grumbling among the PSK31 and Olivia crowd that FT8
is interfering with them. They can move but when we move it may cause
conflict. WinLink and Pactor may expand, especially if the new
Technician privilege proposal is approved by the FCC.

So any change has to be considered carefully and with the
understanding that we may just not get what we want.

73
Ria
N2RJ


On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Andras Bato <ha6...@gm... <mailto:ha6...@gm...> > wrote:
> It's only you Ria!
> All FT8 subbands are much too crowded, even in the WARC bands.
> We badly need the higher bands like 21, 24 and 28 MHz but it takes several
> years when
> there will be regular openings on those bands.
> I am terribly surprised when you are living in the USA where there are ARRL,
> IARU HQ,
> and Administrative Council members like K1ZZ and the president is a
> Canadian.
> Is it a problem to ask them for their opinion and propose new band plans
> which would precisely devide e.g. the digital band portions
> to RTTY, PSK, FT8, JT65, JT9 subbands?
> gl de ha6nn
> Andras
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM, rj...@gm... <mailto:rj...@gm...>  <rj...@gm... <mailto:rj...@gm...> >
> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think there needs to really be more room. There are several
>> bands that we can use. I prefer to use WARC bands because I have my
>> fill of DX on 20 meters but WARC bands offer additional opportunities.
>> Especially 30 meters where I have gain antennas.
>>
>> 73
>> Ria, N2RJ
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Andras Bato <ha6...@gm... <mailto:ha6...@gm...> > wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the
>> > attention
>> > of members of IARU Administrative Council.
>> > http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html
>> > I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap!
>> > gl de ha6nn
>> > Andras
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@al... <mailto:da...@al...> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I would like to add something to the discussion.
>> >>
>> >> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8
>> >> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M
>> >> band.
>> >>
>> >> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at
>> >> excessive
>> >> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore
>> >> reduces
>> >> the performance of this mode.
>> >>
>> >> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of
>> >> these digital mode.
>> >>
>> >> My 73,
>> >>
>> >> David, F4HTQ.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> De : ga...@is... <mailto:ga...@is...>  [mailto:ga...@is... <mailto:ga...@is...> ]
>> >> Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
>> >> À : 'WSJT software development'
>> >> Objet : Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> “There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
>> >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>> >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly
>> >> for
>> >> normal day to day FT8 operations.”
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can
>> >> successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly
>> >> narrow
>> >> slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea
>> >> of
>> >> monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see
>> >> very
>> >> little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there are
>> >> few
>> >> obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment
>> >> is
>> >> “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating
>> >> overlapping
>> >> signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that
>> >> additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt, hence
>> >> I
>> >> disagree that expansion is “imperative”.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and
>> >> analyze
>> >> data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff,
>> >> subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered
>> >> and
>> >> analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about
>> >> the
>> >> options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems
>> >> making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8,
>> >> being
>> >> able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major
>> >> advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across
>> >> additional band segments will make things harder.  It could prove
>> >> counterproductive.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities
>> >> and
>> >> conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition
>> >> fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more
>> >> space
>> >> for DXpedition use, specifically.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a
>> >> digimode DXpedition zone on each of the HF bands without specifying the
>> >> digimode?  That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK,
>> >> FT8,
>> >> JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being
>> >> a
>> >> multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a good
>> >> place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions
>> >> attempt
>> >> to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to
>> >> slice
>> >> the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter
>> >> pileups,
>> >> or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check that
>> >> the
>> >> area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite DXers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 73
>> >>
>> >> Gary  ZL2iFB
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> PS  This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence
>> >> we
>> >> should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: Rich - K1HTV <k1...@co... <mailto:k1...@co...> >
>> >> Sent: Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
>> >> To: WSJT <wsj...@li... <mailto:wsj...@li...> >
>> >> Subject: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the
>> >> standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The
>> >> waterfall is
>> >> full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others.
>> >> There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
>> >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>> >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly
>> >> for
>> >> normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has
>> >> greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so
>> >> these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew
>> >> capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is,
>> >> on a
>> >> normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band.
>> >> When you
>> >> tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear
>> >> more
>> >> than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz,
>> >> many
>> >> dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times
>> >> that
>> >> the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during
>> >> DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC.
>> >> DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY
>> >> frequencies.
>> >> There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout the
>> >> year, all
>> >> scheduled over weekend days.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of
>> >> whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious
>> >> problem if
>> >> some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These
>> >> might
>> >> consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF
>> >> RTTY
>> >> bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com <http://rttycontesting.com> ’website would be a
>> >> good
>> >> place to start.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but
>> >> as
>> >> ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those
>> >> frequencies probably should be left alone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to
>> >> Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users
>> >> are
>> >> quickly growing.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Comments?
>> >>
>> >> 73,
>> >>
>> >> Rich – K1HTV
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> >> wsj...@li... <mailto:wsj...@li...> 
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > wsjt-devel mailing list
>> > wsj...@li... <mailto:wsj...@li...> 
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> wsj...@li... <mailto:wsj...@li...> 
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li... <mailto:wsj...@li...> 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsj...@li... <mailto:wsj...@li...> 
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

 

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Gary M. <mcd...@ag...>]

> On Mar 23, 2018, at 2:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@al...> wrote:
> 
> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at excessive power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore reduces the performance of this mode.
> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of these digital mode.

This brings up a topic I would like to see discussed.  Similar to the DXpedition mode, I would like to see a setting available to either ignore or not even display signals over a certain SNR.  For instance, allow me to say I don’t care about this guy that is bending the needle.  Show me only the ones that are -15 or weaker.  If not a problem, allow ME to set that level for flexibility and band condx.
 
Gary - AG0N

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[<rj...@gm...>]

How do you know we're running power? I run gain antennas including a 3
element beam at height on 30 meters. I get complaints from some that I
am running excessive power. (I run 50 watts except on 80/160 and 6m
where I will run up to 1500W)

Should I just run a G5RV so as not to bend the needle now?

Ria
N2RJ

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Gary McDuffie <mcd...@ag...> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 23, 2018, at 2:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@al...> wrote:
>>
>> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at excessive power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore reduces the performance of this mode.
>> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of these digital mode.
>
> This brings up a topic I would like to see discussed.  Similar to the DXpedition mode, I would like to see a setting available to either ignore or not even display signals over a certain SNR.  For instance, allow me to say I don’t care about this guy that is bending the needle.  Show me only the ones that are -15 or weaker.  If not a problem, allow ME to set that level for flexibility and band condx.
>
> Gary - AG0N
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Gary M. <mcd...@ag...>]

> On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:50 PM, rj...@gm... wrote:
> 
> How do you know we're running power?

I said nothing about running power.  I said strong signal, wanting to have a way to only allow display or decode of weaker signals, the level of which I determine and set.  This is similar to the function available in DXpedition mode.

Gary - AG0N

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Bill B. <W2P...@gm...>]

Just say'n-

Strong propagation can make a low power station decode with a high signal
report.
If you retire the strong signals first you will hear the weak signals under
neigh them.
Finally, short of checking Hamspots [hopefully the station is reporting to
H.S.] how is an Op to know what his report is at the FOX?

Just say'n....

Bill W2PKY


On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Gary McDuffie <mcd...@ag...> wrote:

>
>
> > On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:50 PM, rj...@gm... wrote:
> >
> > How do you know we're running power?
>
> I said nothing about running power.  I said strong signal, wanting to have
> a way to only allow display or decode of weaker signals, the level of which
> I determine and set.  This is similar to the function available in
> DXpedition mode.
>
> Gary - AG0N
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[ok2zo <ok...@em...>]

If there are strong signals, those close ALC and weak signals have no chance then. If there is only one, I can use notch on my FT950 and it helps a bit. But in many cases there is more than one over +10dB, so it's difficult to catch some DX sometimes. In some cases is possible turn the main knob up or down to cut part of band with roofing filter, but some possible split callers are lost then..


Odesláno z mého chytrého telefonu Samsung Galaxy.
-------- Původní zpráva --------Od: Bill Barrett <W2P...@gm...> Datum: 24.03.18  14:13  (GMT+01:00) Komu: WSJT software development <wsj...@li...> Předmět: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies? 
Just say'n- Strong propagation can make a low power station decode with a high signal report.If you retire the strong signals first you will hear the weak signals under neigh them.Finally, short of checking Hamspots [hopefully the station is reporting to H.S.] how is an Op to know what his report is at the FOX?
Just say'n....
Bill W2PKY

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Gary McDuffie <mcd...@ag...> wrote:




> On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:50 PM, rj...@gm... wrote:

>

> How do you know we're running power?



I said nothing about running power.  I said strong signal, wanting to have a way to only allow display or decode of weaker signals, the level of which I determine and set.  This is similar to the function available in DXpedition mode.



Gary - AG0N

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most

engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

_______________________________________________

wsjt-devel mailing list

wsj...@li...

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Andras B. <ha6...@gm...>]

All in all: It's evident that some stations are using kW and directional
antennas in FT8!
FT8 is NOT A QRP MODE ANY LONGER!
JT9 was the last one which favoured QRP stations and wire antennas.
Beside this, there is a tendency of using high power in certain stations
mainly in Southern Europe!
GL de HA6NN
Andras

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:30 PM, ok2zo <ok...@em...> wrote:

> If there are strong signals, those close ALC and weak signals have no
> chance then. If there is only one, I can use notch on my FT950 and it helps
> a bit. But in many cases there is more than one over +10dB, so it's
> difficult to catch some DX sometimes. In some cases is possible turn the
> main knob up or down to cut part of band with roofing filter, but some
> possible split callers are lost then..
>
>
>
> Odesláno z mého chytrého telefonu Samsung Galaxy.
>
> -------- Původní zpráva --------
> Od: Bill Barrett <W2P...@gm...>
> Datum: 24.03.18 14:13 (GMT+01:00)
> Komu: WSJT software development <wsj...@li...>
> Předmět: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>
> Just say'n-
>
> Strong propagation can make a low power station decode with a high signal
> report.
> If you retire the strong signals first you will hear the weak signals
> under neigh them.
> Finally, short of checking Hamspots [hopefully the station is reporting to
> H.S.] how is an Op to know what his report is at the FOX?
>
> Just say'n....
>
> Bill W2PKY
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Gary McDuffie <mcd...@ag...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:50 PM, rj...@gm... wrote:
>> >
>> > How do you know we're running power?
>>
>> I said nothing about running power.  I said strong signal, wanting to
>> have a way to only allow display or decode of weaker signals, the level of
>> which I determine and set.  This is similar to the function available in
>> DXpedition mode.
>>
>> Gary - AG0N
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> wsj...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Neil Z. <ne...@te...>]

Can this " 'power' and what is QRP" thread go to the Yahoo group??

This is for reports of BUGS or other ISSUES with the software, not how 
users OPERATE.

FWIW ... FT8 was NEVER a QRP mode, it is a WEAK SIGNAL mode as is the 
other WSJT-X modes.

 From the first page of K1JT's website:

"/WSJT-X, WSJT, MAP65, /and/WSPR /are open-source programs designed for 
weak-signal digital communication by amateur radio.


Neil, KN3ILZ


On 3/24/2018 9:49 AM, Andras Bato wrote:
> All in all: It's evident that some stations are using kW and 
> directional antennas in FT8!
> FT8 is NOT A QRP MODE ANY LONGER!
> JT9 was the last one which favoured QRP stations and wire antennas.
> Beside this, there is a tendency of using high power in certain 
> stations mainly in Southern Europe!
> GL de HA6NN
> Andras
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:30 PM, ok2zo <ok...@em... 
> <mailto:ok...@em...>> wrote:
>
>     If there are strong signals, those close ALC and weak signals have
>     no chance then. If there is only one, I can use notch on my FT950
>     and it helps a bit. But in many cases there is more than one over
>     +10dB, so it's difficult to catch some DX sometimes. In some cases
>     is possible turn the main knob up or down to cut part of band with
>     roofing filter, but some possible split callers are lost then..
>
>
>
>     Odesláno z mého chytrého telefonu Samsung Galaxy.
>
>     -------- Původní zpráva --------
>     Od: Bill Barrett <W2P...@gm... <mailto:W2P...@gm...>>
>     Datum: 24.03.18 14:13 (GMT+01:00)
>     Komu: WSJT software development <wsj...@li...
>     <mailto:wsj...@li...>>
>     Předmět: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>
>     Just say'n-
>     Strong propagation can make a low power station decode with a high
>     signal report.
>     If you retire the strong signals first you will hear the weak
>     signals under neigh them.
>     Finally, short of checking Hamspots [hopefully the station is
>     reporting to H.S.] how is an Op to know what his report is at the FOX?
>     *
>     *
>     Just say'n....
>
>     Bill W2PKY
>
>
>     On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Gary McDuffie <mcd...@ag...
>     <mailto:mcd...@ag...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         > On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:50 PM, rj...@gm...
>         <mailto:rj...@gm...> wrote:
>         >
>         > How do you know we're running power?
>
>         I said nothing about running power.  I said strong signal,
>         wanting to have a way to only allow display or decode of
>         weaker signals, the level of which I determine and set.  This
>         is similar to the function available in DXpedition mode.
>
>         Gary - AG0N
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>         engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>         _______________________________________________
>         wsjt-devel mailing list
>         wsj...@li...
>         <mailto:wsj...@li...>
>         https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>         <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel>
>
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>     engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>     _______________________________________________
>     wsjt-devel mailing list
>     wsj...@li...
>     <mailto:wsj...@li...>
>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>     <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel>
>
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Ed S. <ed...@gm...>]

What is the Yahoo Group name ?

Ed


On 3/24/2018 3:14 PM, Neil Zampella wrote:
>
> Can this " 'power' and what is QRP" thread go to the Yahoo group??
>
> This is for reports of BUGS or other ISSUES with the software, not how 
> users OPERATE.
>
> FWIW ... FT8 was NEVER a QRP mode, it is a WEAK SIGNAL mode as is the 
> other WSJT-X modes.
>
> From the first page of K1JT's website:
>
> "/WSJT-X, WSJT, MAP65, /and/WSPR /are open-source programs designed 
> for weak-signal digital communication by amateur radio.
>
>
> Neil, KN3ILZ
>
>
> On 3/24/2018 9:49 AM, Andras Bato wrote:
>> All in all: It's evident that some stations are using kW and 
>> directional antennas in FT8!
>> FT8 is NOT A QRP MODE ANY LONGER!
>> JT9 was the last one which favoured QRP stations and wire antennas.
>> Beside this, there is a tendency of using high power in certain 
>> stations mainly in Southern Europe!
>> GL de HA6NN
>> Andras
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:30 PM, ok2zo <ok...@em... 
>> <mailto:ok...@em...>> wrote:
>>
>>     If there are strong signals, those close ALC and weak signals
>>     have no chance then. If there is only one, I can use notch on my
>>     FT950 and it helps a bit. But in many cases there is more than
>>     one over +10dB, so it's difficult to catch some DX sometimes. In
>>     some cases is possible turn the main knob up or down to cut part
>>     of band with roofing filter, but some possible split callers are
>>     lost then..
>>
>>
>>
>>     Odesláno z mého chytrého telefonu Samsung Galaxy.
>>
>>     -------- Původní zpráva --------
>>     Od: Bill Barrett <W2P...@gm... <mailto:W2P...@gm...>>
>>     Datum: 24.03.18 14:13 (GMT+01:00)
>>     Komu: WSJT software development <wsj...@li...
>>     <mailto:wsj...@li...>>
>>     Předmět: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>>
>>     Just say'n-
>>     Strong propagation can make a low power station decode with a
>>     high signal report.
>>     If you retire the strong signals first you will hear the weak
>>     signals under neigh them.
>>     Finally, short of checking Hamspots [hopefully the station is
>>     reporting to H.S.] how is an Op to know what his report is at the
>>     FOX?
>>     *
>>     *
>>     Just say'n....
>>
>>     Bill W2PKY
>>
>>
>>     On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Gary McDuffie
>>     <mcd...@ag... <mailto:mcd...@ag...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>         > On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:50 PM, rj...@gm...
>>         <mailto:rj...@gm...> wrote:
>>         >
>>         > How do you know we're running power?
>>
>>         I said nothing about running power.  I said strong signal,
>>         wanting to have a way to only allow display or decode of
>>         weaker signals, the level of which I determine and set.  This
>>         is similar to the function available in DXpedition mode.
>>
>>         Gary - AG0N
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>         Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>         engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         wsjt-devel mailing list
>>         wsj...@li...
>>         <mailto:wsj...@li...>
>>         https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>>         <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>     engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     wsjt-devel mailing list
>>     wsj...@li...
>>     <mailto:wsj...@li...>
>>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>>     <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Ed S. <ed...@gm...>]

Found it

Ed


On 3/24/2018 3:14 PM, Neil Zampella wrote:
>
> Can this " 'power' and what is QRP" thread go to the Yahoo group??
>
> This is for reports of BUGS or other ISSUES with the software, not how 
> users OPERATE.
>
> FWIW ... FT8 was NEVER a QRP mode, it is a WEAK SIGNAL mode as is the 
> other WSJT-X modes.
>
> From the first page of K1JT's website:
>
> "/WSJT-X, WSJT, MAP65, /and/WSPR /are open-source programs designed 
> for weak-signal digital communication by amateur radio.
>
>
> Neil, KN3ILZ
>
>
> On 3/24/2018 9:49 AM, Andras Bato wrote:
>> All in all: It's evident that some stations are using kW and 
>> directional antennas in FT8!
>> FT8 is NOT A QRP MODE ANY LONGER!
>> JT9 was the last one which favoured QRP stations and wire antennas.
>> Beside this, there is a tendency of using high power in certain 
>> stations mainly in Southern Europe!
>> GL de HA6NN
>> Andras
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:30 PM, ok2zo <ok...@em... 
>> <mailto:ok...@em...>> wrote:
>>
>>     If there are strong signals, those close ALC and weak signals
>>     have no chance then. If there is only one, I can use notch on my
>>     FT950 and it helps a bit. But in many cases there is more than
>>     one over +10dB, so it's difficult to catch some DX sometimes. In
>>     some cases is possible turn the main knob up or down to cut part
>>     of band with roofing filter, but some possible split callers are
>>     lost then..
>>
>>
>>
>>     Odesláno z mého chytrého telefonu Samsung Galaxy.
>>
>>     -------- Původní zpráva --------
>>     Od: Bill Barrett <W2P...@gm... <mailto:W2P...@gm...>>
>>     Datum: 24.03.18 14:13 (GMT+01:00)
>>     Komu: WSJT software development <wsj...@li...
>>     <mailto:wsj...@li...>>
>>     Předmět: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>>
>>     Just say'n-
>>     Strong propagation can make a low power station decode with a
>>     high signal report.
>>     If you retire the strong signals first you will hear the weak
>>     signals under neigh them.
>>     Finally, short of checking Hamspots [hopefully the station is
>>     reporting to H.S.] how is an Op to know what his report is at the
>>     FOX?
>>     *
>>     *
>>     Just say'n....
>>
>>     Bill W2PKY
>>
>>
>>     On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Gary McDuffie
>>     <mcd...@ag... <mailto:mcd...@ag...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>         > On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:50 PM, rj...@gm...
>>         <mailto:rj...@gm...> wrote:
>>         >
>>         > How do you know we're running power?
>>
>>         I said nothing about running power.  I said strong signal,
>>         wanting to have a way to only allow display or decode of
>>         weaker signals, the level of which I determine and set.  This
>>         is similar to the function available in DXpedition mode.
>>
>>         Gary - AG0N
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>         Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>         engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         wsjt-devel mailing list
>>         wsj...@li...
>>         <mailto:wsj...@li...>
>>         https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>>         <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>     engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     wsjt-devel mailing list
>>     wsj...@li...
>>     <mailto:wsj...@li...>
>>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>>     <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com