Date   

Re: Tail ending my signal #FT8

mchenryproj <mchenryproj@...>
 

I still politely disagree. If you are a station calling on some exotic island it would be natural to have a pileup, in any mode. What you are advocating is everyone around the world trying to make contact randomly spread out all over the waterfall and all TX at the exact same time thereby filling up the slots available.  There is a conversation on the group about how many simultaneous contacts can be going on. Doing this could potentially limit the entire usable bandwidth to a single station and the responders.

One thing people ALWAYS forget is just because you don't hear a conversation on a frequency doesn't mean that just out of your range to hear there is possibly a conversation happening especially in peak hours on a band like 40m FT8. For rare DX you are advocating who knows how many people to flood the band essentially rather than take one spot and work it until you get through.  This is tantamount to an SSB op calling and asking everyone to randomly spread out every 2.5 KHz up and down the band.

I am fully aware of the ability to receive all through the audio spectrum of a given frequency and hearing multiple responders.

Again, not a very fair usage of the band for the rest of us.  Pretty sure the whole thing has started to change into a contesting mode at this point anyway.  I too get disappointed when my responses seem to go unanswered by a rare station and I have occasionally split off but not all over the band. I tend to go slightly high or low to try there but usually only half the signal width of the calling station.  That's me being courteous if I can be.

If you could hear simultaneous responses to SSB or CW up and down the band no matter where people were actually responding, would you still advocate this behavior for SSB or CW?

I try to minimize band usage and power.  The other abuse is throwing a killowatt signal at someone to make sure you get through a pileup, but hey, we can't make people be civil I suppose.  We can only ask them to be good stewards.

I leave the rest of this conversation up to everyone else. I just don't operate that way and find it a dangerous precedent to set.

KB8JNE

Spell checked by the NSA.

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 3:08 AM, Reino Talarmo
<reino.talarmo@...> wrote:




moderated Re: Class C PA on FT8? #FT8

K9RX - Gary
 

It is a shame that one can't run the new SS amps in at least Class B. My KPA1500 is extremely inefficient at less than legal limit (another issue re drain voltage - Expert handles it well, Elecraft not so much) ... even at the legal limit its not unusual for the amp to be as low as 50% on some bands. LOTS of heat there. If one could do Class B it would be more like 63 - 65% efficient. 

Gary 
K9RX


moderated Re: Class C PA on FT8? #FT8

John McHarry
 

I was thinking more of driving the rf stages nonlinear.

On Fri, 2021-01-29 at 14:07 +0000, Bill Somerville wrote:
Hi John,

not quite sure what you are referring to, but note that over-driving
the audio input of a transmitter is very different from running an RF
stage in a non-linear class of operation. The key difference being
that the harmonic content is at multiples of the base frequency +
modulation frequency. When the base frequency is zero those
modulation products are very close to the wanted frequencies and
harder to remove.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 29/01/2021 14:02, John McHarry wrote:
Then why not overdrive a transceiver?

On Fri, 2021-01-29 at 13:21 +0000, Bill Somerville wrote:
On 29/01/2021 13:08, Steve Kavanagh via groups.io wrote:
Thanks, Bill. I stand corrected. I hadn't realized it was
possible
to introduce some pulse shaping without some amplitude
variation.
I
won't worry about class C (or D) amps, then!

73,
Steve VE3SMA
Hi Steve,

it is the frequency transitions that are smoothed, not the
amplitude.

73
Bill
G4WJS.



moderated Re: Class C PA on FT8? #FT8

Bill Somerville
 

Hi John,

not quite sure what you are referring to, but note that over-driving the audio input of a transmitter is very different from running an RF stage in a non-linear class of operation. The key difference being that the harmonic content is at multiples of the base frequency + modulation frequency. When the base frequency is zero those modulation products are very close to the wanted frequencies and harder to remove.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 29/01/2021 14:02, John McHarry wrote:
Then why not overdrive a transceiver?

On Fri, 2021-01-29 at 13:21 +0000, Bill Somerville wrote:
On 29/01/2021 13:08, Steve Kavanagh via groups.io wrote:
Thanks, Bill.  I stand corrected.  I hadn't realized it was
possible
to introduce some pulse shaping without some amplitude variation.
I
won't worry about class C (or D) amps, then!

73,
Steve VE3SMA
Hi Steve,

it is the frequency transitions that are smoothed, not the amplitude.

73
Bill
G4WJS.



moderated Re: Class C PA on FT8? #FT8

John McHarry
 

Then why not overdrive a transceiver?

On Fri, 2021-01-29 at 13:21 +0000, Bill Somerville wrote:
On 29/01/2021 13:08, Steve Kavanagh via groups.io wrote:
Thanks, Bill. I stand corrected. I hadn't realized it was
possible
to introduce some pulse shaping without some amplitude variation.
I
won't worry about class C (or D) amps, then!

73,
Steve VE3SMA
Hi Steve,

it is the frequency transitions that are smoothed, not the amplitude.

73
Bill
G4WJS.



moderated Re: Class C PA on FT8? #FT8

Bill Somerville
 

On 29/01/2021 13:08, Steve Kavanagh via groups.io wrote:
Thanks, Bill.  I stand corrected.  I hadn't realized it was possible to introduce some pulse shaping without some amplitude variation.  I won't worry about class C (or D) amps, then!

73,
Steve VE3SMA
Hi Steve,

it is the frequency transitions that are smoothed, not the amplitude.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


Re: Tail ending my signal #FT8

Williams, G (af8c) <af8c@...>
 

Hi Phil,

I wouldn't ordinarily do that.  The idea was to ascertain about whether FT8 "cares" about holding the other guy's TX frequency as where to RX, or if a new "sort" after 15 seconds again finds the guy who QSY's.  It's  kind of like some people are in an echo chamber.  You speak English.  A person with a very bass voice with perfect pitch says hello in Spanish on some basically musical note and you hear him amidst several voices talking in English.  You answer in Spanish.  Then he says hello again with a mild falsetto in the same conditions.  If you can under understand Spanish you could still understand him though his frequency changed.

--73, Glenn, AF8C

On 1/29/2021 8:08 AM, Philip Rose via groups.io wrote:

Hi Glenn,

 

I’ve done this accidentally a few times. Mostly though it’s when I’ve QSY’d and someone calls me for my CQ on the previous frequency. It’s about 50% success that the QSO completes. I suppose it’s whether your QSO partner is monitoring the band view window or the RX frequency one.

 

73 Phil GM3ZZA

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Williams, G (af8c) via groups.io
Sent: 29 January 2021 12:38
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Tail ending my signal

 

Hi Reino,
I said yesterday I would experiment.   Three times in a row this morning I called someone who called CQ.  Then I immediately changed my TX frequency by a few hundred Hz. The QSOs completed without any problem.

--73, Glenn, AF8C

On 1/29/2021 3:08 AM, Reino Talarmo via groups.io wrote:

>Personally I see this as cutting the available bandwidth in half. It’s similar to telling everyone to run split. Takes 2 frequencies to make a QSO that way

 

Hi,

Personally I am a selfish person and prefer to select whom I answer, but that is not the issue. Let me explain how FT8 is different to many other digital modes. The biggest difference is multi decoding that covers the whole waterfall and even overlapping signals. You still got a RX frequency where the first decoding is tried. RX frequency need not to be same as your TX frequency for successful QSOs. You receive and try to decode all stations over whole waterfall bandwidth.
Now let’s see what happens, when I call CQ. If all stations answers at my TX frequency they will QRM each other and none may not be decoded or only some close by station I am not currently interested in. On the other hand, when answering stations are spread over waterfall range, my receiver will decode most of those and I have nice opportunity to select one.
By the way I totally disagree any statement about cutting available bandwidth in half. Bandwidth is *used* only, when you or anybody is transmitting. When you receive, you don’t *use* any bandwidth. There is another essential difference to most other modes. All transmissions happen in timeslots either even or odd. In effect band is divided timewise into two independent “bands”. QSO uses alternating those “bands” and using a single frequency on each. On the usage point of view it is totally irrelevant, whether those frequencies are same or not. They cannot QRM each other due the time division.

So use split, please. It is more efficient at QSO setup time and after that there is no difference at all.

73, Reino OH3Ma                      



 
 
 

 

 

Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



 


--
73 Phil GM3ZZA




Re: WSJT-X RC4 Rig Control on Yaesu FTDX-3000 #IssueReport

Mark Steele
 

Good morning.

I will make my rig available for testing new rig control.

Best regards,


Re: Tail ending my signal #FT8

Bobby Chandler
 

Sorry I started this. I know how to operate the program and used it since Joe started it (Hold, etc) but guess no one understood what I was trying to ask. Maybe not clear enough.

Thanks anyhow,

Bobby/N4AU

--
n4au@outlook.com
n4au@arrl.net


Re: Tail ending my signal #FT8

 

Hi Glenn,

 

I’ve done this accidentally a few times. Mostly though it’s when I’ve QSY’d and someone calls me for my CQ on the previous frequency. It’s about 50% success that the QSO completes. I suppose it’s whether your QSO partner is monitoring the band view window or the RX frequency one.

 

73 Phil GM3ZZA

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Williams, G (af8c) via groups.io
Sent: 29 January 2021 12:38
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Tail ending my signal

 

Hi Reino,
I said yesterday I would experiment.   Three times in a row this morning I called someone who called CQ.  Then I immediately changed my TX frequency by a few hundred Hz. The QSOs completed without any problem.

--73, Glenn, AF8C

On 1/29/2021 3:08 AM, Reino Talarmo via groups.io wrote:

>Personally I see this as cutting the available bandwidth in half. It’s similar to telling everyone to run split. Takes 2 frequencies to make a QSO that way

 

Hi,

Personally I am a selfish person and prefer to select whom I answer, but that is not the issue. Let me explain how FT8 is different to many other digital modes. The biggest difference is multi decoding that covers the whole waterfall and even overlapping signals. You still got a RX frequency where the first decoding is tried. RX frequency need not to be same as your TX frequency for successful QSOs. You receive and try to decode all stations over whole waterfall bandwidth.
Now let’s see what happens, when I call CQ. If all stations answers at my TX frequency they will QRM each other and none may not be decoded or only some close by station I am not currently interested in. On the other hand, when answering stations are spread over waterfall range, my receiver will decode most of those and I have nice opportunity to select one.
By the way I totally disagree any statement about cutting available bandwidth in half. Bandwidth is *used* only, when you or anybody is transmitting. When you receive, you don’t *use* any bandwidth. There is another essential difference to most other modes. All transmissions happen in timeslots either even or odd. In effect band is divided timewise into two independent “bands”. QSO uses alternating those “bands” and using a single frequency on each. On the usage point of view it is totally irrelevant, whether those frequencies are same or not. They cannot QRM each other due the time division.

So use split, please. It is more efficient at QSO setup time and after that there is no difference at all.

73, Reino OH3Ma                      



 
 
 

 

 

Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



 


--
73 Phil GM3ZZA


moderated Re: Class C PA on FT8? #FT8

Steve Kavanagh
 

Thanks, Bill.  I stand corrected.  I hadn't realized it was possible to introduce some pulse shaping without some amplitude variation.  I won't worry about class C (or D) amps, then!

73,
Steve VE3SMA


Re: Tail ending my signal #FT8

Jon Ermels
 


SSB is different? If you ever chase rare DX they always want to be answered on a different frequency. There in gives you a hint there might be a problem piling on where he are calling. If any idiot piles on is frequency they will receive a hornets nest of "split" instructions.
73 de NØIGU Jon


On Friday, January 29, 2021, 01:05:57 AM CST, mchenryproj via groups.io <mchenryproj@...> wrote:


Personally I see this as cutting the available bandwidth in half. It’s similar to telling everyone to run split. Takes 2 frequencies to make a QSO that way.  As I figure it, if someone is calling CQ, you double tap to answer and move to his frequency that’s normal in every other mode. If you are the station responding to someone’s call, at the end of the conversation, move off and find your own open spot OR, go find others to respond to.  The bad manners in the situation is taking over someone else’s spot if you are responding to someone’s call.  Not occupying 2 spots on the crowded bands to make a QSO.

 

This is different than wandering around the dial looking for people calling CQ to respond to in SSB or CW modes, mostly.  In other modes you wander around, find a station looking for a contact and park there and respond. When you are done you move off.  If you want to call CQ, find an empty spot and start calling.  Now – the notable bug in that ointment is that you can effectively “hear” multiple people calling and answering calls all at the same time in these digital modes where as in SSB or even CW, that’s not the case.  Yet, if you use an SDR with a spectrum display, you can still essentially “see” other conversations going on and don’t actually need to drive the dial to them.

 

I guess what I am saying is I don’t see why these digital modes should operate all that much differently from SSB and CW.  If you’re the guy calling, it’s your frequency.  If you responded to a call, don’t start calling stations before you move your transmit frequency off the other guys spot.  It should be that easy.

 

When I see folks QRZ page stating they won’t answer on their own frequency, I don’t bother with them as I see those folks as wasting bandwidth.   But hey, what do I know, right?

 

My 2 cents (not adjusted for inflation)

 

KB8JNE

 





Re: Tail ending my signal #FT8

Williams, G (af8c) <af8c@...>
 

Hi Reino,
I said yesterday I would experiment.   Three times in a row this morning I called someone who called CQ.  Then I immediately changed my TX frequency by a few hundred Hz. The QSOs completed without any problem.

--73, Glenn, AF8C

On 1/29/2021 3:08 AM, Reino Talarmo via groups.io wrote:

>Personally I see this as cutting the available bandwidth in half. It’s similar to telling everyone to run split. Takes 2 frequencies to make a QSO that way

 

Hi,

Personally I am a selfish person and prefer to select whom I answer, but that is not the issue. Let me explain how FT8 is different to many other digital modes. The biggest difference is multi decoding that covers the whole waterfall and even overlapping signals. You still got a RX frequency where the first decoding is tried. RX frequency need not to be same as your TX frequency for successful QSOs. You receive and try to decode all stations over whole waterfall bandwidth.
Now let’s see what happens, when I call CQ. If all stations answers at my TX frequency they will QRM each other and none may not be decoded or only some close by station I am not currently interested in. On the other hand, when answering stations are spread over waterfall range, my receiver will decode most of those and I have nice opportunity to select one.
By the way I totally disagree any statement about cutting available bandwidth in half. Bandwidth is *used* only, when you or anybody is transmitting. When you receive, you don’t *use* any bandwidth. There is another essential difference to most other modes. All transmissions happen in timeslots either even or odd. In effect band is divided timewise into two independent “bands”. QSO uses alternating those “bands” and using a single frequency on each. On the usage point of view it is totally irrelevant, whether those frequencies are same or not. They cannot QRM each other due the time division.

So use split, please. It is more efficient at QSO setup time and after that there is no difference at all.

73, Reino OH3Ma                      








Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



Re: Tail ending my signal #FT8

Jim Shorney
 

Time division multiplexing. Not a new idea. Kids these days just don't understand technology. :D

73

-Jim
NU0C

On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 08:15:50 +0000
"Philip Rose via groups.io" <gm3zza=btinternet.com@groups.io> wrote:

Well said, Reino.

What I have highlighted below is the significant factor, that some people seem not able to get their heads around. People transmitting on the same frequency as you but in the other timeslot will NOT interfere with your signal, and you will still receive on all the frequencies in your filter bandwidth.

73 Phil GM3ZZA

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Reino Talarmo
Sent: 29 January 2021 08:08
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Tail ending my signal

Personally I see this as cutting the available bandwidth in half. It’s similar to telling everyone to run split. Takes 2 frequencies to make a QSO that way
Hi,
Personally I am a selfish person and prefer to select whom I answer, but that is not the issue. Let me explain how FT8 is different to many other digital modes. The biggest difference is multi decoding that covers the whole waterfall and even overlapping signals. You still got a RX frequency where the first decoding is tried. RX frequency need not to be same as your TX frequency for successful QSOs. You receive and try to decode all stations over whole waterfall bandwidth.
Now let’s see what happens, when I call CQ. If all stations answers at my TX frequency they will QRM each other and none may not be decoded or only some close by station I am not currently interested in. On the other hand, when answering stations are spread over waterfall range, my receiver will decode most of those and I have nice opportunity to select one.
By the way I totally disagree any statement about cutting available bandwidth in half. Bandwidth is *used* only, when you or anybody is transmitting. When you receive, you don’t *use* any bandwidth. There is another essential difference to most other modes. All transmissions happen in timeslots either even or odd. In effect band is divided timewise into two independent “bands”. QSO uses alternating those “bands” and using a single frequency on each. On the usage point of view it is totally irrelevant, whether those frequencies are same or not. They cannot QRM each other due the time division.
So use split, please. It is more efficient at QSO setup time and after that there is no difference at all.
73, Reino OH3Ma                      


Re: Big Sur Progress Bar #macOS

Bill Somerville
 

On 28/01/2021 06:29, James Bennett / K7TXA via groups.io wrote:
I recently installed the -RC4 version of the program on my M1 Mac Mini. Glad to see that the wonky operation of the PWR slider has been fixed. :-)

One other issue that still persists is the loss of seeing the progress bar when WSJT-X looses focus. Is this something that can be fixed or has Apple stuck it to us for good on this issue?

Jim / K7TXA
Hi Jim,

someone has raised the issue with the Qt development team already, hopefully one of the developers will be addressing it soon. I have added a vote to the issue.

https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-89816

73
Bill
G4WJS.


Re: #Mac Pwr Slider #macOS

Bill Somerville
 

On 29/01/2021 02:23, James Bennett / K7TXA via groups.io wrote:
Bill, you stated that it was resolved in RC3. I installed RC4 yesterday and it is still broken.

Jim / K7TXA
Hi Jim,

it is working for me and others have reported the issue is resolved. Are you certain you are running the latest WSJT-X v2.3.0 RC4 version?

73
Bill
G4WJS.


Re: #Cat_RigControl #Cat_RigControl

Dave Garber
 

have you also checked with the manufacturer
Dave Garber
VE3WEJ / VE3IE


On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:12 PM Bill Murrell <bmurrell55@...> wrote:
Trying to hook up WMR DxPro to IC706MKIIG.  CAT control will not work.  Anybody have the majic settings?



Re: Tail ending my signal #FT8

 

Well said, Reino.

 

What I have highlighted below is the significant factor, that some people seem not able to get their heads around. People transmitting on the same frequency as you but in the other timeslot will NOT interfere with your signal, and you will still receive on all the frequencies in your filter bandwidth.

 

73 Phil GM3ZZA

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Reino Talarmo
Sent: 29 January 2021 08:08
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Tail ending my signal

 

>Personally I see this as cutting the available bandwidth in half. It’s similar to telling everyone to run split. Takes 2 frequencies to make a QSO that way

 

Hi,

Personally I am a selfish person and prefer to select whom I answer, but that is not the issue. Let me explain how FT8 is different to many other digital modes. The biggest difference is multi decoding that covers the whole waterfall and even overlapping signals. You still got a RX frequency where the first decoding is tried. RX frequency need not to be same as your TX frequency for successful QSOs. You receive and try to decode all stations over whole waterfall bandwidth.
Now let’s see what happens, when I call CQ. If all stations answers at my TX frequency they will QRM each other and none may not be decoded or only some close by station I am not currently interested in. On the other hand, when answering stations are spread over waterfall range, my receiver will decode most of those and I have nice opportunity to select one.
By the way I totally disagree any statement about cutting available bandwidth in half. Bandwidth is *used* only, when you or anybody is transmitting. When you receive, you don’t *use* any bandwidth.
There is another essential difference to most other modes. All transmissions happen in timeslots either even or odd. In effect band is divided timewise into two independent “bands”. QSO uses alternating those “bands” and using a single frequency on each. On the usage point of view it is totally irrelevant, whether those frequencies are same or not. They cannot QRM each other due the time division.

So use split, please. It is more efficient at QSO setup time and after that there is no difference at all.

73, Reino OH3Ma                      

 


--
73 Phil GM3ZZA


Re: Tail ending my signal #FT8

Reino Talarmo
 

>Personally I see this as cutting the available bandwidth in half. It’s similar to telling everyone to run split. Takes 2 frequencies to make a QSO that way

 

Hi,

Personally I am a selfish person and prefer to select whom I answer, but that is not the issue. Let me explain how FT8 is different to many other digital modes. The biggest difference is multi decoding that covers the whole waterfall and even overlapping signals. You still got a RX frequency where the first decoding is tried. RX frequency need not to be same as your TX frequency for successful QSOs. You receive and try to decode all stations over whole waterfall bandwidth.
Now let’s see what happens, when I call CQ. If all stations answers at my TX frequency they will QRM each other and none may not be decoded or only some close by station I am not currently interested in. On the other hand, when answering stations are spread over waterfall range, my receiver will decode most of those and I have nice opportunity to select one.
By the way I totally disagree any statement about cutting available bandwidth in half. Bandwidth is *used* only, when you or anybody is transmitting. When you receive, you don’t *use* any bandwidth. There is another essential difference to most other modes. All transmissions happen in timeslots either even or odd. In effect band is divided timewise into two independent “bands”. QSO uses alternating those “bands” and using a single frequency on each. On the usage point of view it is totally irrelevant, whether those frequencies are same or not. They cannot QRM each other due the time division.

So use split, please. It is more efficient at QSO setup time and after that there is no difference at all.

73, Reino OH3Ma                      


Re: Tail ending my signal #FT8

mchenryproj <mchenryproj@...>
 

Personally I see this as cutting the available bandwidth in half. It’s similar to telling everyone to run split. Takes 2 frequencies to make a QSO that way.  As I figure it, if someone is calling CQ, you double tap to answer and move to his frequency that’s normal in every other mode. If you are the station responding to someone’s call, at the end of the conversation, move off and find your own open spot OR, go find others to respond to.  The bad manners in the situation is taking over someone else’s spot if you are responding to someone’s call.  Not occupying 2 spots on the crowded bands to make a QSO.

 

This is different than wandering around the dial looking for people calling CQ to respond to in SSB or CW modes, mostly.  In other modes you wander around, find a station looking for a contact and park there and respond. When you are done you move off.  If you want to call CQ, find an empty spot and start calling.  Now – the notable bug in that ointment is that you can effectively “hear” multiple people calling and answering calls all at the same time in these digital modes where as in SSB or even CW, that’s not the case.  Yet, if you use an SDR with a spectrum display, you can still essentially “see” other conversations going on and don’t actually need to drive the dial to them.

 

I guess what I am saying is I don’t see why these digital modes should operate all that much differently from SSB and CW.  If you’re the guy calling, it’s your frequency.  If you responded to a call, don’t start calling stations before you move your transmit frequency off the other guys spot.  It should be that easy.

 

When I see folks QRZ page stating they won’t answer on their own frequency, I don’t bother with them as I see those folks as wasting bandwidth.   But hey, what do I know, right?

 

My 2 cents (not adjusted for inflation)

 

KB8JNE

 

8301 - 8320 of 29455