Menu
▾
▴
wsjt-devel
|
From: <rj...@gm...> - 2019-04-30 18:10:56
|
Hi Joe, Bill, Steve and team, I'm getting feedback about the frequency choices for the initial FT4 rollout. There is conflict with users because it is so low down in the band on 40 meters (7047). The QRP fox hunt (CW) guys are up in arms because that's where they operate. Other hams have been complaining to their ARRL officials (including me) about the QRM. I love the FT/JT modes and think that what the WSJT development team is doing is absolutely fantastic but I think some more thought has to go into where we want these modes to live so we can have peaceful coexistence on the bands. vy 73 Ria -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2...@ar... |
|
From: Wolfgang <oe...@gm...> - 2019-04-30 18:40:50
|
Hello the group, sorry for my kind of self-deception - problem solved! I am using a rather long batch file to set parameters, start WSJT-X and other utilities. Copied over the 2.01 batch into a 2.1 batch file and made one small typo. Did not change anything for the operation of the 2.1 WSJT-X, except that mode setting (bug) hidden in the back- ground. 73 de Wolfgang OE1MWW ---------- |
|
From: Joe T. <jo...@pr...> - 2019-04-30 19:06:23
|
Hi Ria, Good to hear from you! On 4/30/2019 14:10, rj...@gm... wrote: > Hi Joe, Bill, Steve and team, > > I'm getting feedback about the frequency choices for the initial FT4 > rollout. There is conflict with users because it is so low down in the > band on 40 meters (7047). The QRP fox hunt (CW) guys are up in arms > because that's where they operate. Other hams have been complaining to > their ARRL officials (including me) about the QRM. > > I love the FT/JT modes and think that what the WSJT development team > is doing is absolutely fantastic but I think some more thought has to > go into where we want these modes to live so we can have peaceful > coexistence on the bands. > > vy 73 > Ria Experience shows that it's impossible to select even 1% of a band -- say, a ~3 kHz slice in a 300 kHz band -- for a new purpose without stepping on some toes. Experience also shows that nobody wants to help with this important band-planning task. (Maybe something like a new ARRL and/or IARU Committee?) Finally, our experience shows that sometimes we have to try something, see how it plays, and then (if necessary) try something else. Our frequency choices are not arbitrary -- far from it. We're very willing to make changes when a balanced assessment shows them desirable. FT4 has been on 7047 kHz for all of 24 hours. Not much time, but enough to make it clear that a better frequency should be found on 40 meters. I hope those who experience QRM from FT8 or FT4 will keep in mind that (by some measures) these modes account for something like 70% of ham radio activity, world wide, while occupying something like 1-2% of our allocated HF spectrum. Please send us your suggestions for default frequencies for FT4 and/or other WSJT-X modes, doing your best to find choices acceptable worldwide. -- 73, Joe, K1JT |
|
From: <rj...@gm...> - 2019-04-30 21:25:09
|
Thanks Joe. I heard you brought down the house at FLARC! They appreciated the visit very much. I am a member of that club. Thank you for your comments on the frequencies. I am going to reach out again to the groups that had contacted me and I'll provide some suggestions. I am enjoying the mode quite a lot. It is an adjustment from FT8 but it seems like it will be a winner. On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 15:06, Joe Taylor <jo...@pr...> wrote: > > Hi Ria, > > Good to hear from you! > > On 4/30/2019 14:10, rj...@gm... wrote: > > Hi Joe, Bill, Steve and team, > > > > I'm getting feedback about the frequency choices for the initial FT4 > > rollout. There is conflict with users because it is so low down in the > > band on 40 meters (7047). The QRP fox hunt (CW) guys are up in arms > > because that's where they operate. Other hams have been complaining to > > their ARRL officials (including me) about the QRM. > > > > I love the FT/JT modes and think that what the WSJT development team > > is doing is absolutely fantastic but I think some more thought has to > > go into where we want these modes to live so we can have peaceful > > coexistence on the bands. > > > > vy 73 > > Ria > Experience shows that it's impossible to select even 1% of a band -- > say, a ~3 kHz slice in a 300 kHz band -- for a new purpose without > stepping on some toes. Experience also shows that nobody wants to help > with this important band-planning task. (Maybe something like a new > ARRL and/or IARU Committee?) > > Finally, our experience shows that sometimes we have to try something, > see how it plays, and then (if necessary) try something else. > > Our frequency choices are not arbitrary -- far from it. We're very > willing to make changes when a balanced assessment shows them desirable. > > FT4 has been on 7047 kHz for all of 24 hours. Not much time, but enough > to make it clear that a better frequency should be found on 40 meters. > > I hope those who experience QRM from FT8 or FT4 will keep in mind that > (by some measures) these modes account for something like 70% of ham > radio activity, world wide, while occupying something like 1-2% of our > allocated HF spectrum. > > Please send us your suggestions for default frequencies for FT4 and/or > other WSJT-X modes, doing your best to find choices acceptable worldwide. > > -- 73, Joe, K1JT -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2...@ar... |
|
From: Bill S. <g4...@cl...> - 2019-04-30 19:49:06
|
On 30/04/2019 19:40, Wolfgang wrote: > Hello the group, > > sorry for my kind of self-deception - problem solved! > > I am using a rather long batch file to set parameters, start WSJT-X > and other utilities. Copied over the 2.01 batch into a 2.1 batch file > and made one small typo. Did not change anything for the operation > of the 2.1 WSJT-X, except that mode setting (bug) hidden in the back- > ground. > > > 73 de Wolfgang > OE1MWW Thanks for the update Wolfgang, glad you are up and running. Progress cannot be made with making mistakes, hi hi! 73 Bill G4WJS. |
|
From: Bill S. <g4...@cl...> - 2019-04-30 20:49:13
|
On 30/04/2019 19:10, rj...@gm... wrote: > Hi Joe, Bill, Steve and team, > > I'm getting feedback about the frequency choices for the initial FT4 > rollout. There is conflict with users because it is so low down in the > band on 40 meters (7047). The QRP fox hunt (CW) guys are up in arms > because that's where they operate. Other hams have been complaining to > their ARRL officials (including me) about the QRM. > > I love the FT/JT modes and think that what the WSJT development team > is doing is absolutely fantastic but I think some more thought has to > go into where we want these modes to live so we can have peaceful > coexistence on the bands. > > vy 73 > Ria > -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national > association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org > n2...@ar... Hi Ria, we had several requests, including some from members of band planning committees, that we should choose a spot below 7050 on 40m, this based on that being the upper edge of any globally coordinated narrow band digital section. It was also pointed out that region three has an EMCOMM frequency at 7050 so with hindsight 7047 is not that good. Region 1 has digital modes up to 2700 Hz bandwidth including automatic stations between 7050 and 7053 and more automatic unattended <= 2700 Hz bandwidth allocation between 7053 and 7060 where the digital modes section ends. Region 2 is similar except 7060 is another EMCOMM QRG. Given that 7047 does not look so low as far as I can see. I missed that there was a W1AW code practice broadcast on 7074.5, which was unfortunate, but it looks to me that further down towards 7040 is the only way to go unless there are better options up in the all modes sections above 7060? Thanks in advance for any helpful input you can provide, we do have the advantage that in general everyone using a WSJT-X mode on HF tend to stick very close together and move as a pack. So changes are possible and we really want to find the least contentious spot. 73 Bill G4WJS. |
|
From: <rj...@gm...> - 2019-04-30 21:26:51
|
Hi Bill, Yes, the W1AW code practice bulletins is an issue. I'm going to consult with our station manager, Joe, NJ1Q as to what his thoughts are, as well as others. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 16:53, Bill Somerville <g4...@cl...> wrote: > > On 30/04/2019 19:10, rj...@gm... wrote: > > Hi Joe, Bill, Steve and team, > > > > I'm getting feedback about the frequency choices for the initial FT4 > > rollout. There is conflict with users because it is so low down in the > > band on 40 meters (7047). The QRP fox hunt (CW) guys are up in arms > > because that's where they operate. Other hams have been complaining to > > their ARRL officials (including me) about the QRM. > > > > I love the FT/JT modes and think that what the WSJT development team > > is doing is absolutely fantastic but I think some more thought has to > > go into where we want these modes to live so we can have peaceful > > coexistence on the bands. > > > > vy 73 > > Ria > > -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national > > association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org > > n2...@ar... > > Hi Ria, > > we had several requests, including some from members of band planning > committees, that we should choose a spot below 7050 on 40m, this based > on that being the upper edge of any globally coordinated narrow band > digital section. It was also pointed out that region three has an EMCOMM > frequency at 7050 so with hindsight 7047 is not that good. Region 1 has > digital modes up to 2700 Hz bandwidth including automatic stations > between 7050 and 7053 and more automatic unattended <= 2700 Hz bandwidth > allocation between 7053 and 7060 where the digital modes section ends. > Region 2 is similar except 7060 is another EMCOMM QRG. > > Given that 7047 does not look so low as far as I can see. I missed that > there was a W1AW code practice broadcast on 7074.5, which was > unfortunate, but it looks to me that further down towards 7040 is the > only way to go unless there are better options up in the all modes > sections above 7060? > > Thanks in advance for any helpful input you can provide, we do have the > advantage that in general everyone using a WSJT-X mode on HF tend to > stick very close together and move as a pack. So changes are possible > and we really want to find the least contentious spot. > > 73 > Bill > G4WJS. > > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2...@ar... |
|
From: Grant V. <vk5...@gm...> - 2019-04-30 22:20:53
|
Bill, Dont move down lower. Globally 7040-7043 is PSK land - JT/FT modes have stepped on enough PSK watering holes over the years. RTTY has to be left with something too. Again I come back to the original; desire to have some separation between RTTY contesters and FT4 contesters. 7047 was never a good choice from that perspective either. The first 10kHz of 7040-7050 in a contest is the busiest. It thins out some between 7050-7060. It then spills into the beginning of a mixed SSB segment (R1/3)+digital segment (USA) 7060-7070. EMCOM was moved to 7110 in Region 3 years ago (and the other regions should follow suit). In Region 1,2&3 7060-7100 is in fact marked all modes. Given the objectives I outlined for frequency selection earlier: 1. provides separation between RTTY and FT4 contesters when they are running simultaneously (RTTY runs above the FT8/JT9 segments currently) 2. avoids/limits impact on known QRP CW centres of activity 3. avoids impact on the PSK community on .070-.074 4. avoids pushing digital modes far into the voice segment of the bands particularly on 80/40/20m but is a major compromise on 40m. 40m’s digital modes segments are a mess anyway and harmonisation is difficult at best on that band. 7065 in my mind is looking like a better outcome or even 7067kHz. For consideration. Regards, Grant VK5GR -----Original Message----- From: Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@cl...] Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2019 6:19 AM To: wsj...@li... Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic On 30/04/2019 19:10, rj...@gm... wrote: > Hi Joe, Bill, Steve and team, > > I'm getting feedback about the frequency choices for the initial FT4 > rollout. There is conflict with users because it is so low down in the > band on 40 meters (7047). The QRP fox hunt (CW) guys are up in arms > because that's where they operate. Other hams have been complaining to > their ARRL officials (including me) about the QRM. > > I love the FT/JT modes and think that what the WSJT development team > is doing is absolutely fantastic but I think some more thought has to > go into where we want these modes to live so we can have peaceful > coexistence on the bands. > > vy 73 > Ria > -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national > association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org > n2...@ar... Hi Ria, we had several requests, including some from members of band planning committees, that we should choose a spot below 7050 on 40m, this based on that being the upper edge of any globally coordinated narrow band digital section. It was also pointed out that region three has an EMCOMM frequency at 7050 so with hindsight 7047 is not that good. Region 1 has digital modes up to 2700 Hz bandwidth including automatic stations between 7050 and 7053 and more automatic unattended <= 2700 Hz bandwidth allocation between 7053 and 7060 where the digital modes section ends. Region 2 is similar except 7060 is another EMCOMM QRG. Given that 7047 does not look so low as far as I can see. I missed that there was a W1AW code practice broadcast on 7074.5, which was unfortunate, but it looks to me that further down towards 7040 is the only way to go unless there are better options up in the all modes sections above 7060? Thanks in advance for any helpful input you can provide, we do have the advantage that in general everyone using a WSJT-X mode on HF tend to stick very close together and move as a pack. So changes are possible and we really want to find the least contentious spot. 73 Bill G4WJS. _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsj...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
|
From: Bill S. <g4...@cl...> - 2019-04-30 22:37:32
|
Hi Grant, thanks for the suggestions. Isn't 7065 going to clash with the DV CoA at 7070 in regions 1, and 2 at least. 7060 - 7100 is also designated as an SSB contest preferred segment, particularly heavily used in region 1 when working region 2 stations split above 7200 on darkness paths. I can't imagine a mode designed for digital contests will go down well in the middle of that prime territory during international phone contests! I'm not disagreeing but the problems of using an all modes section is that is is very hard to establish what rights are already claimed, e.g. long established nets. I understand you preference to lead the way for more DM allocation in the band plans, or at least some more rationalization of what there is, but is there really any chance of DM segment expansion in the near future? 73 Bill G4WJS. On 30/04/2019 23:20, Grant VK5GR wrote: > Bill, > > Dont move down lower. Globally 7040-7043 is PSK land - JT/FT modes have stepped on enough PSK watering holes over the years. RTTY has to be left with something too. Again I come back to the original; desire to have some separation between RTTY contesters and FT4 contesters. 7047 was never a good choice from that perspective either. The first 10kHz of 7040-7050 in a contest is the busiest. It thins out some between 7050-7060. It then spills into the beginning of a mixed SSB segment (R1/3)+digital segment (USA) 7060-7070. EMCOM was moved to 7110 in Region 3 years ago (and the other regions should follow suit). > > In Region 1,2&3 7060-7100 is in fact marked all modes. Given the objectives I outlined for frequency selection earlier: > > 1. provides separation between RTTY and FT4 contesters when they are running simultaneously (RTTY runs above the FT8/JT9 segments currently) > 2. avoids/limits impact on known QRP CW centres of activity > 3. avoids impact on the PSK community on .070-.074 > 4. avoids pushing digital modes far into the voice segment of the bands particularly on 80/40/20m but is a major compromise on 40m. 40m’s digital modes segments are a mess anyway and harmonisation is difficult at best on that band. > > 7065 in my mind is looking like a better outcome or even 7067kHz. > > For consideration. > > Regards, > Grant VK5GR > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@cl...] > Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2019 6:19 AM > To:wsj...@li... > Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic > > On 30/04/2019 19:10,rj...@gm... wrote: >> Hi Joe, Bill, Steve and team, >> >> I'm getting feedback about the frequency choices for the initial FT4 >> rollout. There is conflict with users because it is so low down in the >> band on 40 meters (7047). The QRP fox hunt (CW) guys are up in arms >> because that's where they operate. Other hams have been complaining to >> their ARRL officials (including me) about the QRM. >> >> I love the FT/JT modes and think that what the WSJT development team >> is doing is absolutely fantastic but I think some more thought has to >> go into where we want these modes to live so we can have peaceful >> coexistence on the bands. >> >> vy 73 >> Ria >> -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national >> association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275https://hudson.arrl.org >> n2...@ar... > Hi Ria, > > we had several requests, including some from members of band planning > committees, that we should choose a spot below 7050 on 40m, this based > on that being the upper edge of any globally coordinated narrow band > digital section. It was also pointed out that region three has an EMCOMM > frequency at 7050 so with hindsight 7047 is not that good. Region 1 has > digital modes up to 2700 Hz bandwidth including automatic stations > between 7050 and 7053 and more automatic unattended <= 2700 Hz bandwidth > allocation between 7053 and 7060 where the digital modes section ends. > Region 2 is similar except 7060 is another EMCOMM QRG. > > Given that 7047 does not look so low as far as I can see. I missed that > there was a W1AW code practice broadcast on 7074.5, which was > unfortunate, but it looks to me that further down towards 7040 is the > only way to go unless there are better options up in the all modes > sections above 7060? > > Thanks in advance for any helpful input you can provide, we do have the > advantage that in general everyone using a WSJT-X mode on HF tend to > stick very close together and move as a pack. So changes are possible > and we really want to find the least contentious spot. > > 73 > Bill > G4WJS. |
|
From: Grant V. <vk5...@gm...> - 2019-04-30 23:09:55
|
Bill, I know the IARU claims DV on 7070 impinge on 7065 – but then DV voice modes like FreeDV only need 1-2kHz – so perhaps it wont in fact interfere with 7065 USB? Incidentally – Ive never heard any there. I have heard it up around 7177-7180 by convention rather than band plan – and that is because it is perceived as ultimately a wideband voice mode. (US hams tell me they are not allowed to run DV on the IARU planned frequencies because the base modulation is voice – and the US generals can only start using voice above 7175kHz – hence they use 7177 and above). All of this highlights what I said earlier, the 40m band plan is a mess <sigh>. You make some good points too about 7065/7067 and I would love to hear from other ops across R1 and 2 of those modes to see if they really are using it. In Region 3 we more often than not have plain QRM in that part of the band from illegals. At least FT8 (and I presume FT4) can cut through a lot of that. AT some point given all the angst, I have to come back to the other suggestion, and that is that WSJT should reuse frequencies that have been mostly abandoned. Put JT65 and JT9 together but in the software design it so JT9 stays above 2000Hz and JT65 below. Both are today low utilisation modes yet they have 4kHz notionally consumed by them. So place JT65/9 on 7078 (spilling up to 7081) and insert FT4 on the JT65 channel. If it takes over from FT8 as suggested (although its drop in sensitivity wouldn’t encourage me I will say) then in time FT4 moves down to canabalise FT8 (or at least push FT8 back below 7076 – as today it uses the full 7074-7077 slot and still is congested currently). Meanwhile, I will begin more actively engaging with IARU globally to get a global band plan group set up rather than a set of regional ones. It is clear that the interest in digital modes is growing but that the space available isn’t keeping up. Global coordination is paramount. Its time this issue was fixed head on. Regards, Grant From: Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@cl...] Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2019 8:07 AM To: wsj...@li... Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic Hi Grant, thanks for the suggestions. Isn't 7065 going to clash with the DV CoA at 7070 in regions 1, and 2 at least. 7060 - 7100 is also designated as an SSB contest preferred segment, particularly heavily used in region 1 when working region 2 stations split above 7200 on darkness paths. I can't imagine a mode designed for digital contests will go down well in the middle of that prime territory during international phone contests! I'm not disagreeing but the problems of using an all modes section is that is is very hard to establish what rights are already claimed, e.g. long established nets. I understand you preference to lead the way for more DM allocation in the band plans, or at least some more rationalization of what there is, but is there really any chance of DM segment expansion in the near future? 73 Bill G4WJS. On 30/04/2019 23:20, Grant VK5GR wrote: Bill, Dont move down lower. Globally 7040-7043 is PSK land - JT/FT modes have stepped on enough PSK watering holes over the years. RTTY has to be left with something too. Again I come back to the original; desire to have some separation between RTTY contesters and FT4 contesters. 7047 was never a good choice from that perspective either. The first 10kHz of 7040-7050 in a contest is the busiest. It thins out some between 7050-7060. It then spills into the beginning of a mixed SSB segment (R1/3)+digital segment (USA) 7060-7070. EMCOM was moved to 7110 in Region 3 years ago (and the other regions should follow suit). In Region 1,2&3 7060-7100 is in fact marked all modes. Given the objectives I outlined for frequency selection earlier: 1. provides separation between RTTY and FT4 contesters when they are running simultaneously (RTTY runs above the FT8/JT9 segments currently) 2. avoids/limits impact on known QRP CW centres of activity 3. avoids impact on the PSK community on .070-.074 4. avoids pushing digital modes far into the voice segment of the bands particularly on 80/40/20m but is a major compromise on 40m. 40m’s digital modes segments are a mess anyway and harmonisation is difficult at best on that band. 7065 in my mind is looking like a better outcome or even 7067kHz. For consideration. Regards, Grant VK5GR -----Original Message----- From: Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@cl...] Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2019 6:19 AM To: wsj...@li... Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic On 30/04/2019 19:10, rj...@gm... wrote: Hi Joe, Bill, Steve and team, I'm getting feedback about the frequency choices for the initial FT4 rollout. There is conflict with users because it is so low down in the band on 40 meters (7047). The QRP fox hunt (CW) guys are up in arms because that's where they operate. Other hams have been complaining to their ARRL officials (including me) about the QRM. I love the FT/JT modes and think that what the WSJT development team is doing is absolutely fantastic but I think some more thought has to go into where we want these modes to live so we can have peaceful coexistence on the bands. vy 73 Ria -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2...@ar... Hi Ria, we had several requests, including some from members of band planning committees, that we should choose a spot below 7050 on 40m, this based on that being the upper edge of any globally coordinated narrow band digital section. It was also pointed out that region three has an EMCOMM frequency at 7050 so with hindsight 7047 is not that good. Region 1 has digital modes up to 2700 Hz bandwidth including automatic stations between 7050 and 7053 and more automatic unattended <= 2700 Hz bandwidth allocation between 7053 and 7060 where the digital modes section ends. Region 2 is similar except 7060 is another EMCOMM QRG. Given that 7047 does not look so low as far as I can see. I missed that there was a W1AW code practice broadcast on 7074.5, which was unfortunate, but it looks to me that further down towards 7040 is the only way to go unless there are better options up in the all modes sections above 7060? Thanks in advance for any helpful input you can provide, we do have the advantage that in general everyone using a WSJT-X mode on HF tend to stick very close together and move as a pack. So changes are possible and we really want to find the least contentious spot. 73 Bill G4WJS. |
|
From: Joel I. <co...@gm...> - 2019-04-30 23:19:42
|
Ok El mar., 30 de abril de 2019 7:14 p. m., Grant VK5GR <vk5...@gm...> escribió: > Bill, > > > > I know the IARU claims DV on 7070 impinge on 7065 – but then DV voice > modes like FreeDV only need 1-2kHz – so perhaps it wont in fact interfere > with 7065 USB? Incidentally – Ive never heard any there. I have heard it > up around 7177-7180 by convention rather than band plan – and that is > because it is perceived as ultimately a wideband voice mode. (US hams tell > me they are not allowed to run DV on the IARU planned frequencies because > the base modulation is voice – and the US generals can only start using > voice above 7175kHz – hence they use 7177 and above). > > > > All of this highlights what I said earlier, the 40m band plan is a mess > <sigh>. You make some good points too about 7065/7067 and I would love to > hear from other ops across R1 and 2 of those modes to see if they really > are using it. In Region 3 we more often than not have plain QRM in that > part of the band from illegals. At least FT8 (and I presume FT4) can cut > through a lot of that. > > > > AT some point given all the angst, I have to come back to the other > suggestion, and that is that WSJT should reuse frequencies that have been > mostly abandoned. Put JT65 and JT9 together but in the software design it > so JT9 stays above 2000Hz and JT65 below. Both are today low utilisation > modes yet they have 4kHz notionally consumed by them. So place JT65/9 on > 7078 (spilling up to 7081) and insert FT4 on the JT65 channel. If it takes > over from FT8 as suggested (although its drop in sensitivity wouldn’t > encourage me I will say) then in time FT4 moves down to canabalise FT8 (or > at least push FT8 back below 7076 – as today it uses the full 7074-7077 > slot and still is congested currently). > > > > Meanwhile, I will begin more actively engaging with IARU globally to get a > global band plan group set up rather than a set of regional ones. It is > clear that the interest in digital modes is growing but that the space > available isn’t keeping up. Global coordination is paramount. Its time this > issue was fixed head on. > > > > Regards, > > Grant > > > > *From:* Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@cl...] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 1 May 2019 8:07 AM > *To:* wsj...@li... > *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic > > > > Hi Grant, > > > > thanks for the suggestions. > > > > Isn't 7065 going to clash with the DV CoA at 7070 in regions 1, and 2 at > least. 7060 - 7100 is also designated as an SSB contest preferred segment, > particularly heavily used in region 1 when working region 2 stations split > above 7200 on darkness paths. I can't imagine a mode designed for digital > contests will go down well in the middle of that prime territory during > international phone contests! > > > > I'm not disagreeing but the problems of using an all modes section is that > is is very hard to establish what rights are already claimed, e.g. long > established nets. I understand you preference to lead the way for more DM > allocation in the band plans, or at least some more rationalization of what > there is, but is there really any chance of DM segment expansion in the > near future? > > > > 73 > Bill > G4WJS. > > > > On 30/04/2019 23:20, Grant VK5GR wrote: > > Bill, > > > > Dont move down lower. Globally 7040-7043 is PSK land - JT/FT modes have stepped on enough PSK watering holes over the years. RTTY has to be left with something too. Again I come back to the original; desire to have some separation between RTTY contesters and FT4 contesters. 7047 was never a good choice from that perspective either. The first 10kHz of 7040-7050 in a contest is the busiest. It thins out some between 7050-7060. It then spills into the beginning of a mixed SSB segment (R1/3)+digital segment (USA) 7060-7070. EMCOM was moved to 7110 in Region 3 years ago (and the other regions should follow suit). > > > > In Region 1,2&3 7060-7100 is in fact marked all modes. Given the objectives I outlined for frequency selection earlier: > > 1. provides separation between RTTY and FT4 contesters when they are running simultaneously (RTTY runs above the FT8/JT9 segments currently) > > 2. avoids/limits impact on known QRP CW centres of activity > > 3. avoids impact on the PSK community on .070-.074 > > 4. avoids pushing digital modes far into the voice segment of the bands particularly on 80/40/20m but is a major compromise on 40m. 40m’s digital modes segments are a mess anyway and harmonisation is difficult at best on that band. > > > > 7065 in my mind is looking like a better outcome or even 7067kHz. > > > > For consideration. > > > > Regards, > > Grant VK5GR > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@cl... <g4...@cl...>] > > Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2019 6:19 AM > > To: wsj...@li... > > Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic > > > > On 30/04/2019 19:10, rj...@gm... wrote: > > Hi Joe, Bill, Steve and team, > > > > I'm getting feedback about the frequency choices for the initial FT4 > > rollout. There is conflict with users because it is so low down in the > > band on 40 meters (7047). The QRP fox hunt (CW) guys are up in arms > > because that's where they operate. Other hams have been complaining to > > their ARRL officials (including me) about the QRM. > > > > I love the FT/JT modes and think that what the WSJT development team > > is doing is absolutely fantastic but I think some more thought has to > > go into where we want these modes to live so we can have peaceful > > coexistence on the bands. > > > > vy 73 > > Ria > > -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national > > association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org > > n2...@ar... > > Hi Ria, > > > > we had several requests, including some from members of band planning > > committees, that we should choose a spot below 7050 on 40m, this based > > on that being the upper edge of any globally coordinated narrow band > > digital section. It was also pointed out that region three has an EMCOMM > > frequency at 7050 so with hindsight 7047 is not that good. Region 1 has > > digital modes up to 2700 Hz bandwidth including automatic stations > > between 7050 and 7053 and more automatic unattended <= 2700 Hz bandwidth > > allocation between 7053 and 7060 where the digital modes section ends. > > Region 2 is similar except 7060 is another EMCOMM QRG. > > > > Given that 7047 does not look so low as far as I can see. I missed that > > there was a W1AW code practice broadcast on 7074.5, which was > > unfortunate, but it looks to me that further down towards 7040 is the > > only way to go unless there are better options up in the all modes > > sections above 7060? > > > > Thanks in advance for any helpful input you can provide, we do have the > > advantage that in general everyone using a WSJT-X mode on HF tend to > > stick very close together and move as a pack. So changes are possible > > and we really want to find the least contentious spot. > > > > 73 > > Bill > > G4WJS. > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > |
|
From: John T H. <jth...@ch...> - 2019-04-30 23:29:42
Attachments:
smime.p7s
|
Hello, I have had a large number of failed QSO’s. The station responds with Tx2 within a couple of calls, but then it appears they are not decoding my Tx3 response and eventually abandon the QSO. The stations are normally very strong and give an equally strong report. What could be some areas to investigate? Configuration: -Ubuntu 18.04 LTS -Elecraft K3 with USB/Sound Card upgrade Thanks and 73 John NU8M |
|
From: Bill S. <g4...@cl...> - 2019-04-30 23:33:27
|
On 01/05/2019 00:29, John T Haworth wrote: > Hello, > > I have had a large number of failed QSO’s. The station responds with Tx2 within a couple of calls, but then it appears they are not decoding my Tx3 response and eventually abandon the QSO. The stations are normally very strong and give an equally strong report. > > What could be some areas to investigate? > > Configuration: > > -Ubuntu 18.04 LTS > -Elecraft K3 with USB/Sound Card upgrade > > Thanks and 73 John NU8M Hi John, are you using the tab 2 messages? If so then try tab 1 and let us know how it goes please. 73 Bill G4WJS. |
|
From: Joel I. <co...@gm...> - 2019-04-30 23:38:33
|
Ok El mar., 30 de abril de 2019 7:37 p. m., Bill Somerville < g4...@cl...> escribió: > On 01/05/2019 00:29, John T Haworth wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have had a large number of failed QSO’s. The station responds with Tx2 > within a couple of calls, but then it appears they are not decoding my Tx3 > response and eventually abandon the QSO. The stations are normally very > strong and give an equally strong report. > > > > What could be some areas to investigate? > > > > Configuration: > > > > -Ubuntu 18.04 LTS > > -Elecraft K3 with USB/Sound Card upgrade > > > > Thanks and 73 John NU8M > > Hi John, > > are you using the tab 2 messages? If so then try tab 1 and let us know > how it goes please. > > 73 > Bill > G4WJS. > > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > |
|
From: <rj...@gm...> - 2019-04-30 23:36:35
|
I also experience same. Ria N2RJ On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 19:33, John T Haworth <jth...@ch...> wrote: > > Hello, > > I have had a large number of failed QSO’s. The station responds with Tx2 within a couple of calls, but then it appears they are not decoding my Tx3 response and eventually abandon the QSO. The stations are normally very strong and give an equally strong report. > > What could be some areas to investigate? > > Configuration: > > -Ubuntu 18.04 LTS > -Elecraft K3 with USB/Sound Card upgrade > > Thanks and 73 John NU8M_______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2...@ar... |
|
From: Joel I. <co...@gm...> - 2019-04-30 23:44:18
|
Muy bien El mar., 30 de abril de 2019 7:39 p. m., rj...@gm... < rj...@gm...> escribió: > I also experience same. > > Ria > N2RJ > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 19:33, John T Haworth <jth...@ch...> > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I have had a large number of failed QSO’s. The station responds with Tx2 > within a couple of calls, but then it appears they are not decoding my Tx3 > response and eventually abandon the QSO. The stations are normally very > strong and give an equally strong report. > > > > What could be some areas to investigate? > > > > Configuration: > > > > -Ubuntu 18.04 LTS > > -Elecraft K3 with USB/Sound Card upgrade > > > > Thanks and 73 John NU8M_______________________________________________ > > wsjt-devel mailing list > > wsj...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > > -- > Ria Jairam, N2RJ > Director, Hudson Division > ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ > +1.973.594.6275 > https://hudson.arrl.org > n2...@ar... > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > |
|
From: John T H. <jth...@ch...> - 2019-04-30 23:44:08
Attachments:
smime.p7s
|
Hello Bill, I am using tab1 messages. I switched over to FT8 and had no issues. I also called CQ for 5 minutes and saw someone attempting to respond with a strong signal, but no decode on my side. Thanks and 73 John NU8M > On Apr 30, 2019, at 19:33, Bill Somerville <g4...@cl...> wrote: > > On 01/05/2019 00:29, John T Haworth wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I have had a large number of failed QSO’s. The station responds with Tx2 within a couple of calls, but then it appears they are not decoding my Tx3 response and eventually abandon the QSO. The stations are normally very strong and give an equally strong report. >> >> What could be some areas to investigate? >> >> Configuration: >> >> -Ubuntu 18.04 LTS >> -Elecraft K3 with USB/Sound Card upgrade >> >> Thanks and 73 John NU8M > > Hi John, > > are you using the tab 2 messages? If so then try tab 1 and let us know how it goes please. > > 73 > Bill > G4WJS. > > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
|
From: Joel I. <co...@gm...> - 2019-04-30 23:50:47
|
Muy bien El mar., 30 de abril de 2019 7:47 p. m., John T Haworth < jth...@ch...> escribió: > Hello Bill, > > I am using tab1 messages. I switched over to FT8 and had no issues. I also > called CQ for 5 minutes and saw someone attempting to respond with a strong > signal, but no decode on my side. > > Thanks and 73 John NU8M > > > On Apr 30, 2019, at 19:33, Bill Somerville <g4...@cl...> > wrote: > > > > On 01/05/2019 00:29, John T Haworth wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I have had a large number of failed QSO’s. The station responds with > Tx2 within a couple of calls, but then it appears they are not decoding my > Tx3 response and eventually abandon the QSO. The stations are normally very > strong and give an equally strong report. > >> > >> What could be some areas to investigate? > >> > >> Configuration: > >> > >> -Ubuntu 18.04 LTS > >> -Elecraft K3 with USB/Sound Card upgrade > >> > >> Thanks and 73 John NU8M > > > > Hi John, > > > > are you using the tab 2 messages? If so then try tab 1 and let us know > how it goes please. > > > > 73 > > Bill > > G4WJS. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wsjt-devel mailing list > > wsj...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > |
|
From: Lorin H. <lor...@gm...> - 2019-04-30 23:57:35
|
I have experienced this countless times using FT8. In my case it raised complex questions about display algorithms in Windows 10. The closest explanations addressing these issues were given to me by Mike .mdb...@ya... <mailto:mdb...@ya...> Below is a copy of my email referencing this information to another user of this list. I would like to know what really is going on. All the best Lorin WA1PGB/6 From email thread " [wsjt-devel] Feature Request” April 1 2019 ( I don’t think it was date related - At least I hope not) …. I believe Mike is correct in suspecting an audio dropout. He helped me understand the complex power-use issues in Windows 10 (made even more complicated when running Parallels on a Mac).. instead of using the Halt button (which I never tried} I have to leave the WSJT FT8 program by switching to Safari or email or something else for a minute or two and then return to find my FT8 window covered in red with incoming received calls from the exotic DX stations I had called for hours that seemed to never reply for those hours on end. While I don’t know exactly what’s happening, I had spent months with only a rare return call and then in frustration started to do something else to then return to see the fruits of the program’s labors. Fascinating question about whether the laptop display screen on the Macbook Pro effects the power usage of wsjtx FT8 enough to prevent or distort reception and/or decoding. Would love to know more from anyone about what might be going on, > On Apr 30, 2019, at 4:36 PM, rj...@gm... wrote: > > I also experience same. > > Ria > N2RJ > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 19:33, John T Haworth <jth...@ch...> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I have had a large number of failed QSO’s. The station responds with Tx2 within a couple of calls, but then it appears they are not decoding my Tx3 response and eventually abandon the QSO. The stations are normally very strong and give an equally strong report. >> >> What could be some areas to investigate? >> >> Configuration: >> >> -Ubuntu 18.04 LTS >> -Elecraft K3 with USB/Sound Card upgrade >> >> Thanks and 73 John NU8M_______________________________________________ >> wsjt-devel mailing list >> wsj...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > > -- > Ria Jairam, N2RJ > Director, Hudson Division > ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ > +1.973.594.6275 > https://hudson.arrl.org > n2...@ar... > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
|
From: Lorin H. <lor...@gm...> - 2019-05-01 00:05:56
|
Cannot open FT4 2.1.0-rc5 on Mac
Hi Again,
By the way,
I have been trying to open a newly downloaded Wsjtx FT4 2.1.0-rc5 app on a MacBook Pro running 10.4.4 It crashes every time and I cannot open it. I use the FT8 version all the time without problem. I have taken care of all the memory issues, for the standard version. Am I missing something? The beginning of the crash report is below.
Thanks
Lorin
WA1PGB/6
Process: wsjtx [1112]
Path: /Applications/WSJTX - FT4/wsjtx 2.app/Contents/MacOS/wsjtx
Identifier: org.k1jt.wsjtx
Version: v2.1.0-rc5 (2.1.0-rc5)
Code Type: X86-64 (Native)
Parent Process: ??? [1]
Responsible: wsjtx [1112]
User ID: 501
Date/Time: 2019-04-30 17:03:15.958 -0700
OS Version: Mac OS X 10.14.4 (18E227)
Report Version: 12
Anonymous UUID: EB2CC34D-9192-6924-D0D8-049FEBF57DC7
Time Awake Since Boot: 2400 seconds
System Integrity Protection: enabled
Crashed Thread: 0 Dispatch queue: com.apple.main-thread
Exception Type: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (SIGSEGV)
Exception Codes: KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS at 0x0000000000000000
Exception Note: EXC_CORPSE_NOTIFY
Termination Signal: Segmentation fault: 11
Termination Reason: Namespace SIGNAL, Code 0xb
Terminating Process: exc handler [1112]
VM Regions Near 0:
-->
__TEXT 0000000108bae000-0000000109076000 [ 4896K] r-x/rwx SM=COW /Applications/WSJTX - FT4/wsjtx 2.app/Contents/MacOS/wsjtx
Thread 0 Crashed:: Dispatch queue: com.apple.main-thread
0 libgfortran.5.dylib 0x000000010e36e2da _gfortran_concat_string + 23
1 org.k1jt.wsjtx 0x0000000108cf0c3d azdist_ + 93
2 org.k1jt.wsjtx 0x0000000108c15cd5 MainWindow::on_dxGridEntry_textChanged(QString const&) + 389
3 org.k1jt.wsjtx 0x0000000108c25a72 MainWindow::qt_metacall(QMetaObject::Call, int, void**) + 82
4 org.qt-project.QtCore 0x000000010de83bfd QMetaObject::activate(QObject*, int, int, void**) + 1773
5 org.qt-project.QtWidgets 0x000000010d07d684 0x10cf29000 + 1394308
6 org.qt-project.QtCore 0x000000010de8414c QMetaObject::activate(QObject*, int, int, void**) + 3132
7 org.qt-project.QtWidgets 0x000000010d07f186 QWidgetLineControl::finishChange(int, bool, bool) + 614
8 org.qt-project.QtWidgets 0x000000010d08031a QWidgetLineControl::internalSetText(QString const&, int, bool) + 570
9 org.qt-project.QtWidgets 0x000000010d077cef 0x10cf29000 + 1371375
10 org.k1jt.wsjtx 0x0000000108c416cc MainWindow::readSettings() + 1436
11 org.k1jt.wsjtx 0x0000000108c2d76d MainWindow::MainWindow(QDir const&, bool, MultiSettings*, QSharedMemory*, unsigned int, QSplashScreen*, QWidget*) + 31901
12 org.k1jt.wsjtx 0x0000000108cbbe35 main + 6613
13 libdyld.dylib 0x00007fff7a1753d5 start + 1
TOTAL, minus reserved VM space 834.5M 744
> On Apr 30, 2019, at 4:57 PM, Lorin Hollander <lor...@gm...> wrote:
>
> I have experienced this countless times using FT8. In my case it raised complex questions about display algorithms in Windows 10. The closest explanations addressing these issues were given to me by Mike .mdb...@ya... <mailto:mdb...@ya...> Below is a copy of my email referencing this information to another user of this list.
>
> I would like to know what really is going on.
>
> All the best
>
> Lorin WA1PGB/6
>
> From email thread " [wsjt-devel] Feature Request” April 1 2019 ( I don’t think it was date related - At least I hope not)
>
> …. I believe Mike is correct in suspecting an audio dropout. He helped me understand the complex power-use issues in Windows 10 (made even more complicated when running Parallels on a Mac).. instead of using the Halt button (which I never tried} I have to leave the WSJT FT8 program by switching to Safari or email or something else for a minute or two and then return to find my FT8 window covered in red with incoming received calls from the exotic DX stations I had called for hours that seemed to never reply for those hours on end.
>
> While I don’t know exactly what’s happening, I had spent months with only a rare return call and then in frustration started to do something else to then return to see the fruits of the program’s labors.
>
> Fascinating question about whether the laptop display screen on the Macbook Pro effects the power usage of wsjtx FT8 enough to prevent or distort reception and/or decoding.
>
> Would love to know more from anyone about what might be going on,
>
>
>> On Apr 30, 2019, at 4:36 PM, rj...@gm... <mailto:rj...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> I also experience same.
>>
>> Ria
>> N2RJ
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 19:33, John T Haworth <jth...@ch... <mailto:jth...@ch...>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have had a large number of failed QSO’s. The station responds with Tx2 within a couple of calls, but then it appears they are not decoding my Tx3 response and eventually abandon the QSO. The stations are normally very strong and give an equally strong report.
>>>
>>> What could be some areas to investigate?
>>>
>>> Configuration:
>>>
>>> -Ubuntu 18.04 LTS
>>> -Elecraft K3 with USB/Sound Card upgrade
>>>
>>> Thanks and 73 John NU8M_______________________________________________
>>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>>> wsj...@li... <mailto:wsj...@li...>
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ria Jairam, N2RJ
>> Director, Hudson Division
>> ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™
>> +1.973.594.6275
>> https://hudson.arrl.org <https://hudson.arrl.org/>
>> n2...@ar...
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> wsj...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
|
|
From: Harald N. <li...@k7...> - 2019-05-01 03:25:59
|
Having four digits in the grid square box seems to crash 2.1.0-rc5. I got it running by loading 2.0.1, putting three digits in the "DX Grid" box, then exiting. When you load 2.1.0-rc5 it should then run. You can respond to people by typing their call into the "DX Call" box and then clicking "Generate Std Msgs" and manually handling the transmit process - just be aware that any action that would put four digits into the "DX Grid" box will cause the program to crash (e.g. trying to call CQ and have someone answer you). On a side note: sorry to anyone who tried to answer me calling CQ last night, it took a few tries before I realized it was never going to work! I think they're aware of this issue and are working on a fix though I haven't see any sort of timeline about when we can expect it. -- Harald K7HPN On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:07 PM Lorin Hollander <lor...@gm...> wrote: > Cannot open FT4 2.1.0-rc5 on Mac > > Hi Again, > > By the way, > > I have been trying to open a newly downloaded Wsjtx FT4 2.1.0-rc5 app on > a MacBook Pro running 10.4.4 It crashes every time and I cannot open it. > I use the FT8 version all the time without problem. I have taken care of > all the memory issues, for the standard version. Am I missing something? > The beginning of the crash report is below. > > Thanks > > Lorin > WA1PGB/6 > > > > > Process: wsjtx [1112] > Path: /Applications/WSJTX - FT4/wsjtx > 2.app/Contents/MacOS/wsjtx > Identifier: org.k1jt.wsjtx > Version: v2.1.0-rc5 (2.1.0-rc5) > Code Type: X86-64 (Native) > Parent Process: ??? [1] > Responsible: wsjtx [1112] > User ID: 501 > > Date/Time: 2019-04-30 17:03:15.958 -0700 > OS Version: Mac OS X 10.14.4 (18E227) > Report Version: 12 > Anonymous UUID: EB2CC34D-9192-6924-D0D8-049FEBF57DC7 > > > Time Awake Since Boot: 2400 seconds > > System Integrity Protection: enabled > > Crashed Thread: 0 Dispatch queue: com.apple.main-thread > > Exception Type: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (SIGSEGV) > Exception Codes: KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS at 0x0000000000000000 > Exception Note: EXC_CORPSE_NOTIFY > > Termination Signal: Segmentation fault: 11 > Termination Reason: Namespace SIGNAL, Code 0xb > Terminating Process: exc handler [1112] > > VM Regions Near 0: > --> > __TEXT 0000000108bae000-0000000109076000 [ 4896K] > r-x/rwx SM=COW /Applications/WSJTX - FT4/wsjtx 2.app/Contents/MacOS/wsjtx > > Thread 0 Crashed:: Dispatch queue: com.apple.main-thread > 0 libgfortran.5.dylib 0x000000010e36e2da > _gfortran_concat_string + 23 > 1 org.k1jt.wsjtx 0x0000000108cf0c3d azdist_ + 93 > 2 org.k1jt.wsjtx 0x0000000108c15cd5 > MainWindow::on_dxGridEntry_textChanged(QString const&) + 389 > 3 org.k1jt.wsjtx 0x0000000108c25a72 > MainWindow::qt_metacall(QMetaObject::Call, int, void**) + 82 > 4 org.qt-project.QtCore 0x000000010de83bfd > QMetaObject::activate(QObject*, int, int, void**) + 1773 > 5 org.qt-project.QtWidgets 0x000000010d07d684 0x10cf29000 + > 1394308 > 6 org.qt-project.QtCore 0x000000010de8414c > QMetaObject::activate(QObject*, int, int, void**) + 3132 > 7 org.qt-project.QtWidgets 0x000000010d07f186 > QWidgetLineControl::finishChange(int, bool, bool) + 614 > 8 org.qt-project.QtWidgets 0x000000010d08031a > QWidgetLineControl::internalSetText(QString const&, int, bool) + 570 > 9 org.qt-project.QtWidgets 0x000000010d077cef 0x10cf29000 + > 1371375 > 10 org.k1jt.wsjtx 0x0000000108c416cc > MainWindow::readSettings() + 1436 > 11 org.k1jt.wsjtx 0x0000000108c2d76d > MainWindow::MainWindow(QDir const&, bool, MultiSettings*, QSharedMemory*, > unsigned int, QSplashScreen*, QWidget*) + 31901 > 12 org.k1jt.wsjtx 0x0000000108cbbe35 main + 6613 > 13 libdyld.dylib 0x00007fff7a1753d5 start + 1 > > > TOTAL, minus reserved VM space 834.5M 744 > > > On Apr 30, 2019, at 4:57 PM, Lorin Hollander <lor...@gm...> > wrote: > > I have experienced this countless times using FT8. In my case it raised > complex questions about display algorithms in Windows 10. The closest > explanations addressing these issues were given to me by Mike . > mdb...@ya... Below is a copy of my email referencing this > information to another user of this list. > > I would like to know what really is going on. > > All the best > > Lorin WA1PGB/6 > > From email thread " [wsjt-devel] Feature Request” April 1 2019 ( I don’t > think it was date related - At least I hope not) > > …. I believe Mike is correct in suspecting an audio dropout. He helped me > understand the complex power-use issues in Windows 10 (made even more > complicated when running Parallels on a Mac).. instead of using the Halt > button (which I never tried} I have to leave the WSJT FT8 program by > switching to Safari or email or something else for a minute or two and then > return to find my FT8 window covered in red with incoming received calls > from the exotic DX stations I had called for hours that seemed to never > reply for those hours on end. > > While I don’t know exactly what’s happening, I had spent months with only > a rare return call and then in frustration started to do something else to > then return to see the fruits of the program’s labors. > > Fascinating question about whether the laptop display screen on the > Macbook Pro effects the power usage of wsjtx FT8 enough to prevent or > distort reception and/or decoding. > > Would love to know more from anyone about what might be going on, > > > On Apr 30, 2019, at 4:36 PM, rj...@gm... wrote: > > I also experience same. > > Ria > N2RJ > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 19:33, John T Haworth <jth...@ch...> > wrote: > > > Hello, > > I have had a large number of failed QSO’s. The station responds with Tx2 > within a couple of calls, but then it appears they are not decoding my Tx3 > response and eventually abandon the QSO. The stations are normally very > strong and give an equally strong report. > > What could be some areas to investigate? > > Configuration: > > -Ubuntu 18.04 LTS > -Elecraft K3 with USB/Sound Card upgrade > > Thanks and 73 John NU8M_______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > > > -- > Ria Jairam, N2RJ > Director, Hudson Division > ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ > +1.973.594.6275 > https://hudson.arrl.org > n2...@ar... > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > |
|
From: Brian G. <ya...@pl...> - 2019-05-01 00:47:23
|
"Grant VK5GR" <vk5...@gm...> wrote: > Meanwhile, I will begin more actively engaging with IARU globally to get a > global band plan group set up rather than a set of regional ones. It is > clear that the interest in digital modes is growing but that the space > available isn’t keeping up. Global coordination is paramount. Its time > this issue was fixed head on. > Well said, 40m is a global band and a lot of the differences stem from when the band ceased at 7.1MHz in region1 and 3. It's about time the IARU planners sorted out this mess and coordinated the band plans for the world, not regional differences. -- Brian G3VGZ --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
|
From: Matthew M. <mmi...@ma...> - 2019-05-01 03:42:29
|
For a fair portion of tonight "something" (I'm not proficient at reading code) was obliterating most of my FT4 spectrum really hot signal. Later I found what I think was W1AW bulletins (had to try and decode with fldigi) in it. Monday I swear I was hearing voices between the timeslots. That said, I know its not unique to FT4...I've had people blast code in FT8, JT65, SSTV...I could go on and on. It's one of my biggest frustrations with HF when I'm copying a weak digital signal and it gets obliterated with some ultra-hot CW. I agree there needs to be some global frequency coordination done but I agree, chances of that seem slim. -Matt / KK4NDE -----Original Message----- From: Brian G3VGZ [mailto:ya...@pl...] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:34 PM To: wsj...@li... Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic "Grant VK5GR" <vk5...@gm...> wrote: > Meanwhile, I will begin more actively engaging with IARU globally to > get a global band plan group set up rather than a set of regional > ones. It is clear that the interest in digital modes is growing but > that the space available isn’t keeping up. Global coordination is > paramount. Its time this issue was fixed head on. > Well said, 40m is a global band and a lot of the differences stem from when the band ceased at 7.1MHz in region1 and 3. It's about time the IARU planners sorted out this mess and coordinated the band plans for the world, not regional differences. -- Brian G3VGZ --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsj...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X