Reino and Bill,

 

Thank you very much for the updated information.  I’ll listen for FT4 and look forward to trying it.  Other that 50.318 do you have a recommendation for what HF band I should try?

 

73,

 

Tad Danley, K3TD

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bill Somerville
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 9:56 AM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] FT4 asynchronous mode

 

On 16/06/2020 14:27, Reino Talarmo wrote:

>I have never used FT4, but recall at Hamvention in 2019 after the initial FT4 trials there was discussion about FT4 possibly being available in asynchronous mode for contests.  Was that ever enabled?

 

Hi Tad,

To my understanding it was tested before FT4 came publicly available and in those tests result we less encouraging. Perhaps also needed the processing power for synchronization was excessive. In principle asynchronous mode, if you mean that transmission time is not synchronized to timeslots, is less effective as you own transmission may ‘corrupt’ many potential signals  you may wish receive.
Of course working would have been more ‘RTTY’ like and perhaps big guns would have gained a bit more than in the current FT4, hi!

73, Reino OH3mA

Hi Tad and Reino,

it was indeed trialled but it quickly became apparent that it did not achieve the objective of faster QSOs. The combination of signal detection at arbitrary start times, particularly when also transmitting, and interference from other signals within the passband reduced the QSO rate to much lower than simulations with synchronous odd/even sequencing of signals.

73
Bill
G4WJS.