Date   

Re: Nosiey USB cable #NewUser

Ken WB8UFC
 

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 02:44 AM, Patrick Jackson wrote:
I do have another computer that I can try out so I will give that a whirl. If that doesn't cut it I'll investigate chokes and a new cable.
Yes. Better to treat the disease than the symptom - if you can.


Re: #Linux #linux

Bill Somerville
 

Hi Richard,

please send the output of the following two commands?
pactl list short sources
pactl list short sinks
73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 16/02/2021 14:59, Pa3gcu wrote:

Hi Bill.

Thanks for the reply, yes i have that package installed.
I can decode a little with sound set to;
alsa_input.pci-0000_00_1b.0.analog-sterio
alsa_output.pci-0000_00_1b.0.analog-sterio
all other audio settings result in either no decode or error(s)

"Error in Sound Output"
Requested output
audio format is not
supported on device

It will only decode if i have the volume trued up to get a reading on the Db scale.
when i enable tx or hit the tune button i get sound out of the speakers and no power out of the rig.
I am doing something wrong but i just can seem to find what it is.

 
Thanks for the help.

Richard PA3GCU

Bill Somerville schreef op 16 feb '21:

On 16/02/2021 08:49, Pa3gcu wrote:
Hi all.

Firstly thanks to the developers for there work.

Question, is anybody using a microham MK3 on Linux, I have mine working for 90% however sound is mt problem.
command id shows permission for dialout, audio and mhuxd.

I'm missing something but i just can't hit the jackpot. Maybe someone has this device running and can supply me with his/her configuration.
Using ubuntu 20.04 wsjtx V 2.1.2 installed via apt.
Thanks in advance.
Have a nice day 73 Richard PA3GCU.

Hi Richard,

have you installed the libqt5multimedia5-plugins package?

73
Bill
G4WJS.



Re: "Remember power settings by band" changes behavior unexpectedly #BugReport

Ken WB8UFC
 

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 01:01 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
I'm not sure I see the link your subject implies, are you saying that disabling the recall Tx and Tune power by band options fixes this issue?
Hi Bill,

After using the "Tune" button, you can't just click "Enable Tx" and expect it to work because more than half the time it doesn't.
I've tested Gene's workaround (using "Halt Tx" to stop tuning instead of toggling "Tune" off) and that seems to work.
I only experience this on my IC-7300 - not my FTDX10.


Re: #Linux #linux

Pa3gcu
 

Hi Bill.

Thanks for the reply, yes i have that package installed.
I can decode a little with sound set to;
alsa_input.pci-0000_00_1b.0.analog-sterio
alsa_output.pci-0000_00_1b.0.analog-sterio
all other audio settings result in either no decode or error(s)

"Error in Sound Output"
Requested output
audio format is not
supported on device

It will only decode if i have the volume trued up to get a reading on the Db scale.
when i enable tx or hit the tune button i get sound out of the speakers and no power out of the rig.
I am doing something wrong but i just can seem to find what it is.

 
Thanks for the help.

Richard PA3GCU

Bill Somerville schreef op 16 feb '21:

On 16/02/2021 08:49, Pa3gcu wrote:
Hi all.

Firstly thanks to the developers for there work.

Question, is anybody using a microham MK3 on Linux, I have mine working for 90% however sound is mt problem.
command id shows permission for dialout, audio and mhuxd.

I'm missing something but i just can't hit the jackpot. Maybe someone has this device running and can supply me with his/her configuration.
Using ubuntu 20.04 wsjtx V 2.1.2 installed via apt.
Thanks in advance.
Have a nice day 73 Richard PA3GCU.

Hi Richard,

have you installed the libqt5multimedia5-plugins package?

73
Bill
G4WJS.






Re: "Remember power settings by band" changes behavior unexpectedly #BugReport

Gene, K5PA
 

This is the TUNE Toggle bug I have reported in the past. The best solution offered by Joe Taylor was to not toggle the TUNE but rather click the Halt Tx button to stop tuning. This resolves the bug behavior. I use an external remote tune also and the TUNE toggle always requires the Enable Tx to miss the next transmission prior to transmitting power. I noted this in prior version of the software and it has followed to the latest release, v2.3.0 GA and v2.4.0-rc1. Once you are in the habit of following the TUNE button with the Halt Tx button, all is good.
Hope that makes sense and helps, Gene, K5PA


Re: #Linux #linux

Bill Somerville
 

On 16/02/2021 08:49, Pa3gcu wrote:
Hi all.

Firstly thanks to the developers for there work.

Question, is anybody using a microham MK3 on Linux, I have mine working for 90% however sound is mt problem.
command id shows permission for dialout, audio and mhuxd.

I'm missing something but i just can't hit the jackpot. Maybe someone has this device running and can supply me with his/her configuration.
Using ubuntu 20.04 wsjtx V 2.1.2 installed via apt.
Thanks in advance.
Have a nice day 73 Richard PA3GCU.
Hi Richard,

have you installed the libqt5multimedia5-plugins package?

73
Bill
G4WJS.


Re: Nosiey USB cable #NewUser

Jim Bacher - WB8VSU
 

The only USB cables I will use are Cables2Go (C2G), Tripp Lite, Dell or HP. I used to do FCC, etc compliance tests, and those are the ones I know are good. There are likely others, but I haven't seen them tested. I have crossed paths with a number of junk (RF Wise) USB cables and devices.

If a cable gets a lot of mechanical use, it gets replaced once a year.

Jim Bacher, WB8VSU
wb8vsu@...

On Feb 14, 2021, at 11:16 PM, Patrick Jackson <kj7noz@...> wrote:
I've noticed that on occasion, but not all, when I open wsjtx I get an awful lot of noise showing up on my IC-705 spectrum scope. This primarily happens in the HF bands. I've tried putting a ferrite choke on the cable, and that helps a little, but still leaves a lot of noise. I am connecting my radio to a Macbook (M1). The cable is a basic usb-c to micro usb I got off amazon. If there was noise all the time I'd just get a new cable. But since it is intermittent I'd like to find the cause before buying another. Any suggestions on things to check or investigate would be appreciated. 

73
Patrick
KJ7NOZ




#Linux #linux

Pa3gcu
 

Hi all.

Firstly thanks to the developers for there work.

Question, is anybody using a microham MK3 on Linux, I have mine working for 90% however sound is mt problem.
command id shows permission for dialout, audio and mhuxd.

I'm missing something but i just can't hit the jackpot. Maybe someone has this device running and can supply me with his/her configuration.
Using ubuntu 20.04 wsjtx V 2.1.2 installed via apt.
Thanks in advance.
Have a nice day 73 Richard PA3GCU.


Re: Nosiey USB cable #NewUser

Williams, G (af8c)
 

A good USB cable should be completely shielded end to end by being constructed using raw cable that has a shield.  Maybe find out if the cable has a shield.  Some USB cables have clear transparent insulation so you can see the shield.  We "assume" that the Macbook has passed FCC RFI requirements.

--73, Glenn, AF8C

On 2/14/2021 10:57 PM, Patrick Jackson via groups.io wrote:
I've noticed that on occasion, but not all, when I open wsjtx I get an awful lot of noise showing up on my IC-705 spectrum scope. This primarily happens in the HF bands. I've tried putting a ferrite choke on the cable, and that helps a little, but still leaves a lot of noise. I am connecting my radio to a Macbook (M1). The cable is a basic usb-c to micro usb I got off amazon. If there was noise all the time I'd just get a new cable. But since it is intermittent I'd like to find the cause before buying another. Any suggestions on things to check or investigate would be appreciated. 

73
Patrick
KJ7NOZ






Avast logo

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



Re: Nosiey USB cable #NewUser

Patrick Jackson
 

I do have another computer that I can try out so I will give that a whirl. If that doesn't cut it I'll investigate chokes and a new cable. I did find a setting on the radio to charge it while plugged into a laptop. I doubt that will have any effect but i will disable that feature so its not trying to charge the radio at the same time. 

Thanks for input!!

73
Patrick
KJ7NOZ


Re: JT9 vs FST4 vs Q65 #Q65

Jim Brown
 

On 2/15/2021 2:09 PM, Amos Sobel 4X4MF wrote:
My conclusion is that if we want to get FST4 to work we have to decide a set of default parameters and start calling CQ at set times.
Here in the US, the sweet spot to take advantage of its greater noise rejection is FST4-60, and nearly all activity is between 1839.5 and 1840 kHz. Using the multi-decoder set for those limits works fine for watching for activity. Sitting in the shack watching the waterfall, nearly everything I've seen has been FST4-60. The exception were skeds that N6SS and I separately arranged with VK4TUX on 160M midway up the east coast of Australia.

The primary use for longer TX periods and narrower decoding tolerance is for skeds over very difficult paths, where the software's Noise Blanking function can be utilized. The Getting Started with FST4 tutorial, on the WSJT-X website, a screen shot of NO3M's (in West PA) had set usd FST4W-300 (the WSPR replacement) to decode N6LF (in Oregon) and VK4YB on the 2200m band.

The main thing FST4 needs is activity. My goal is to fill in DXCC entities in EU from my QTH near San Francisco. I've CQed running FST4-60 at legal limit while watching PSKReporter, and never seen a report for my signal from across the Atlantic. In years past doing the same with FT8 got lots of decodes, and I would decode a fair number of EU stations, typically more than a dozen in an evening.

I had good success the last two years with FT8, but conditions have been much poorer this season, and the additional 6dB of FST4 could expand that.

73, Jim K9YC


Re: CAT issue using Yaesu FT757GXII #Cat_RigControl

 

Mike,
I first had a problem to the 757GXII UART TX line, one buffer transistor after the microcontroller was gone, I fixed it and honestly I have to say that now it always replay with the correct data.
If you issue with a serial terminal the hex code 0x01 then the RTX  replies with the 75 status byte  where you can read all the information.
Once I realized the communication was bidirectional I said : well now it has to work also with WSJT, actually not !
WSJT sends the correct request and the RTX replays accordingly providing the status bytes but this polling never stops and everything is stacked into a never ending loop where WJST asks continuously
and RTX replies accordingly.
At this point I do not know what to think but my feeling is that WSJT does not interpret the RTX data correctly, I dumped into a file and analyzed the 75 bytes and they are all consistent with what I aspect ed to have.
Hope to hear some news about this strange behavior.
Marco
DK5SQX
 

--------------------
Marco De Pas
European lab for non
linear spectroscopy
LENS
Via N. Carrara 1, 50019
Sesto Fiorentino (FI)
ITALY
--------------------


On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 7:17 PM Mike WA0YCN <mgassman@...> wrote:
Marco,

I have a 757 - they don’t work well (or at all) sending back information, only receiving it. 
--
Mike Gassman
WA0YCN



#FT8 #txaudio #FT8 #txaudio

Bryan, KJ7PRS
 

Greetings, 

I have tried two different computers with the same result so this should be a radio settings issue?  I am using an Icom IC-705.

I receive just fine.  A new issue is that the radio does an interrupted transmit.  I can watch the scope and see the transmit line keeps breaking, it is not solid.  I get an error from WSJT-X "Error sound input"  Also when I do a cat test I get very brief computer audio through the 705 speaker when I click on the cat test. The transmit test does not duplicate the problem.  This is all new.  Things were working fine. It seems like it may be sound through the usb port, but it is the same with two different computers.   I have read through the threads here but I did not see a solution.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.

73, KJ7PRS.  


Re: JT9 vs FST4 vs Q65 #Q65

Bill Somerville
 

On 15/02/2021 21:19, John, K9MM wrote:
I've been trying without success to make a QSO with a station in SE Asia on 80M using FT8. This is a polar path, going right through the Auroral zone where absorption is high.

We have decided to try one of the more sensitive modes such as JT9. The Quick-Start Guide to FST4 and FST4W says FST4-60 is 1.7dB more sensitive than JT9. But it also says that FST4 was designed particularly for the LF and MF bands.

Since 80M is (barely) in the HF range, I'm wondering if there is any data on how it's performance on that band compares with JT9? I'm also wondering if the fact that the desired path goes through the Auroral zone has any influence on the relative performance of the two modes on that band?

I also have the same questions about the Q65 mode.

73,

John, K9MM
Hi John,

FST4 would be a good choice as it has a few advantages over JT9, including AP decoding which increases its sensitivity, the newer 77-bit message protocol used in modes like MSK144, FT8, FT4, and Q65 which gives more flexibility for working non-standard calls as well as some contest orientated exchanges. You also have the option to select longer T/R period variants which increase sensitivity considerably, but note that the tone spacing gets smaller so requirements for frequency stability are stricter for both you and your QSO partners. Frequency drift greater than the tone spacing over a message transmission or reception period will disrupt decoding. Although FST4 and FST4W target LF and MF bands, that does not mean that they are unsuitable for HF communications. I would expect Auroral flutter to impact JT9 and FST4-60 similarly although that theory has not been tested to my knowledge.

We would not normally recommend Q65 for use on HF bands, except perhaps for ionoscatter on the higher HF bands when no other propagation mode is available. The Q65 variants are best when used on VHF through to microwave bands for weak signal operation, including EME. You can of course try Q65 on 80m if you can find a willing QSO partner, but you will probably get better performance with FST4 without using anywhere near as much bandwidth.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


Re: Sudden blindness to sound card and ports windows 10 #AudioIssues #Cat_RigControl #BugReport

Bill Somerville
 

On 15/02/2021 21:15, Chris wrote:
New information courtesy of "Serial Port Monitor":  For some reason, wsjt-x is now sending the wrong status query string to the radio!  It is sending ID; (that's I D semicolon).  The correct query is IF; (I F semicolon).  The wrong string returns a ? (question mark) which means huh? Not sure why this would change.  I verified its operation on my FT-817, and it is sending the correct string there and CAT works correctly on that radio.

We now understand why CAT isn't working but we don't know how to fix it.  Is there a file that provides this info to wsjt-x that might have been corrupted?  Is there any way to fix it?

Now, I still don't have sound cards showing up, and this is true with either the Kenwood or the Yaesu. The problems might be related, such as if a table look-up by the program wasn't working correctly.

Chris, AB6QK
Chris,

ID is a valid query on most modern Kenwood and Yasesu rigs, Hamlib uses that command as a way of verifying commands with no conformation response have been completed. If an ID command is not recognized then you may well have the wrong number of stop bits specified or the rig may not have that command, that's fine as Hamlib may be probing the rig to see if it is supported. You talk about an FT-817 but these commands would not be sent to that rig since it has a completely different CAT command set and protocol. If you want help with CAT communications how about revealing what version of WSJT-X you are actually trying to connect with?

73
Bill
G4WJS.


Re: JT9 vs FST4 vs Q65 #Q65

Amos Sobel 4X4MF
 

John

I have been trying to use FST4 on 160m with little success. First you have to choose T/R period 15,30,60,120,300,900 or 1800 Sec. Second you have to choose F Low,Rx Frq,Tx Frq and F High. Third you have to choose HF Frequency.
I did leave my receiver the whole of last night on 1839Khz T/R 30,60 and 120 Sec. This morning I did find just one reception from Denmark, on 60 Sec, which I could not QSO.
My conclusion is that if we want to get FST4 to work we have to decide a set of default parameters and start calling CQ at set times.

Amos 4X4MF

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of John, K9MM
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 11:19 PM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] JT9 vs FST4 vs Q65 #Q65

I've been trying without success to make a QSO with a station in SE Asia on 80M using FT8. This is a polar path, going right through the Auroral zone where absorption is high.

We have decided to try one of the more sensitive modes such as JT9. The Quick-Start Guide to FST4 and FST4W says FST4-60 is 1.7dB more sensitive than JT9. But it also says that FST4 was designed particularly for the LF and MF bands.

Since 80M is (barely) in the HF range, I'm wondering if there is any data on how it's performance on that band compares with JT9? I'm also wondering if the fact that the desired path goes through the Auroral zone has any influence on the relative performance of the two modes on that band?

I also have the same questions about the Q65 mode.

73,

John, K9MM


Re: "Remember power settings by band" changes behavior unexpectedly #BugReport

Hasan Schiers N0AN
 

Thanks Bill, then all the work I did setting levels for TX and TUNE for each of 12 configurations by band was a good idea.

It just so happens, that each of my configurations is by MODE. Makes for simplicity, even if it doesn't seem that way.  :-)

p.s., I never change a mode inside a configuration...ever. I change Submode and T/R inside my Q65 configuration, but I do not change from Q65 to MSK144 to FT8 to....anything. Each of those modes have their own configuration. 
73, N0AN 
Hasan


On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 4:14 PM Bill Somerville <g4wjs@...> wrote:
Hi Hasan,

all settings are stored independently for each configuration.

Settings are not stored per mode, your Tune power settings should not change when you only change mode.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 15/02/2021 20:22, Hasan Schiers N0AN wrote:
A related question:

If you have more than one configuration, do you have to calibrate Tx and Tune by Band for Each configuration? I just went through that process this afternoon and it doesn't seem to hold across different configurations. ...at least for TUNE.

In fact, when I went through and did separate calibrations for each of the following configurations by band:

FT8, FT4, MSK144, Q65, WSPR etc..

They did not hold the TUNE calibration after having switching from FT8 to FT4, for example. Strangely enough, they did hold the TX calibrate, just not the TUNE.

Running 2.4.0 RC1, 64 bit , Win10 Pro

Have I been sitting in front of the keyboard too long today? 

73,. N0AN
Hasan


On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 12:01 PM Bill Somerville <g4wjs@...> wrote:
On 15/02/2021 17:44, Ken WB8UFC wrote:

I have two rigs currently running WSJT-X v2.3.0.

One is an ICOM IC-7300 v1.3

The other is a Yaesu FTDX10.

 

Because I use external antenna tuners on both, I have checked both the "Transmit" and "Tune" check boxes in the "Remember power settings by band" group box on the "Audio" tab and set the "Pwr" slider to the values I prefer on each band.

This is a very nice time-saving feature and it works as expected on the FTDX10.

 

But on the IC-7300, after using the "Tune" button, I will often need to "cycle" the transmitter before it will produce power.

More specifically...

 

I click the Tune button and then click it again to cease transmission.

Then, I click the Enable Tx button and wait for the next transmission cycle.

When transmission begins, it's often a 0 Watt transmission - by which, I mean that the IC-7300's fan comes on, the Vd drops slightly, and the Id shows a few amps - but Po is zero on the rig as well as the external meters.

 

The Pwr slider is at the correct (non-zero) position at all times.

Disabling and re-enabling transmission causes normal operation to resume. 

I have found that clicking on the "Tx even/1st" check box twice (cycling the transmitter) is the easiest/quickest way to get things working properly again, but clicking "Halt Tx" followed by "Enable Tx" works as well.

 

This occurs on all bands and I can cause it to occur with at most 3 attempts, almost always with 2, and frequently with only 1 attempt.

 

No RFI problems in the well-grounded shack.

PTT is CAT.

Baud rate is 19200.

Tx delay is .2 s.

 

 

???

Hi Ken,

I'm not sure I see the link your subject implies, are you saying that disabling the recall Tx and Tune power by band options fixes this issue?

73
bill
G4WJS.






Re: "Remember power settings by band" changes behavior unexpectedly #BugReport

Bill Somerville
 

Hi Hasan,

all settings are stored independently for each configuration.

Settings are not stored per mode, your Tune power settings should not change when you only change mode.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 15/02/2021 20:22, Hasan Schiers N0AN wrote:
A related question:

If you have more than one configuration, do you have to calibrate Tx and Tune by Band for Each configuration? I just went through that process this afternoon and it doesn't seem to hold across different configurations. ...at least for TUNE.

In fact, when I went through and did separate calibrations for each of the following configurations by band:

FT8, FT4, MSK144, Q65, WSPR etc..

They did not hold the TUNE calibration after having switching from FT8 to FT4, for example. Strangely enough, they did hold the TX calibrate, just not the TUNE.

Running 2.4.0 RC1, 64 bit , Win10 Pro

Have I been sitting in front of the keyboard too long today? 

73,. N0AN
Hasan


On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 12:01 PM Bill Somerville <g4wjs@...> wrote:
On 15/02/2021 17:44, Ken WB8UFC wrote:

I have two rigs currently running WSJT-X v2.3.0.

One is an ICOM IC-7300 v1.3

The other is a Yaesu FTDX10.

 

Because I use external antenna tuners on both, I have checked both the "Transmit" and "Tune" check boxes in the "Remember power settings by band" group box on the "Audio" tab and set the "Pwr" slider to the values I prefer on each band.

This is a very nice time-saving feature and it works as expected on the FTDX10.

 

But on the IC-7300, after using the "Tune" button, I will often need to "cycle" the transmitter before it will produce power.

More specifically...

 

I click the Tune button and then click it again to cease transmission.

Then, I click the Enable Tx button and wait for the next transmission cycle.

When transmission begins, it's often a 0 Watt transmission - by which, I mean that the IC-7300's fan comes on, the Vd drops slightly, and the Id shows a few amps - but Po is zero on the rig as well as the external meters.

 

The Pwr slider is at the correct (non-zero) position at all times.

Disabling and re-enabling transmission causes normal operation to resume. 

I have found that clicking on the "Tx even/1st" check box twice (cycling the transmitter) is the easiest/quickest way to get things working properly again, but clicking "Halt Tx" followed by "Enable Tx" works as well.

 

This occurs on all bands and I can cause it to occur with at most 3 attempts, almost always with 2, and frequently with only 1 attempt.

 

No RFI problems in the well-grounded shack.

PTT is CAT.

Baud rate is 19200.

Tx delay is .2 s.

 

 

???

Hi Ken,

I'm not sure I see the link your subject implies, are you saying that disabling the recall Tx and Tune power by band options fixes this issue?

73
bill
G4WJS.



Re: #install #install

Brian N6RZR
 

Hi Reino,
I like to drag the window wide to fill my monitor screen. All the previous releases would keep the Freq and Tabs display at the bottom roughly 50-50 in size, as per the first image.
But now with the 2.3.0 the tabs take up more like 75% width and the freq. display is only about 25% as shown in the second image. Seems like a lot of unused screen
with the Tab's display as in the second image.

Thanks for the response.

Brian
N6RZR


 


JT9 vs FST4 vs Q65 #Q65

John, K9MM
 

I've been trying without success to make a QSO with a station in SE Asia on 80M using FT8. This is a polar path, going right through the Auroral zone where absorption is high.

We have decided to try one of the more sensitive modes such as JT9. The Quick-Start Guide to FST4 and FST4W says FST4-60 is 1.7dB more sensitive than JT9. But it also says that FST4 was designed particularly for the LF and MF bands.

Since 80M is (barely) in the HF range, I'm wondering if there is any data on how it's performance on that band compares with JT9? I'm also wondering if the fact that the desired path goes through the Auroral zone has any influence on the relative performance of the two modes on that band?

I also have the same questions about the Q65 mode.

73,

John, K9MM

3721 - 3740 of 25840