Date   

Re: FT-950 Flashing Red on Transmit #WSJTX_config #FT8

Bill Somerville
 

On 02/04/2021 10:59, pineapple Lane via groups.io wrote:
Been trying to figure our how to configure my FT-950 for 60 meters FT8.
I am using MFJ USB radio interface. WSJT-X is working just great on all frequencies.
I have programmed WSJTx for frequency 5385.
Reception is great with a lot of waterfall activity at night and I want to join and QSO all you fine hams.
But on transmit all I get is the blinking RED light.
Is there a way to do this without doing the "MARS MOD?"
---Layne AE1N

Hi Layne,

there are a couple of possible options. I believe some of these rigs that restrict 60m operation on transmit may work if you set them up for USB rather than USB-DATA, that will require settings changes for 60m in both WSJT-X and on the rig. Perhaps an easier solution is to make a new configuration in WSJT-X with rig control disabled "Settings->Radio->Rig->None", you will need to ensure that PTT works since CAT PTT will not be available. PTT via RTS is probably best if you have a CAT interface. Once you have set up such a configuration you can switch to it when you want to operate 60m, all that is need on the rig is to switch to a suitable memory channel.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


moderated Re: #FT8 FT8 signal reports 2.4.0-rc4 #FT8

Bill Somerville
 

On 02/04/2021 12:30, groups@thebluecastle.org.uk wrote:
If the contact is allowed to fully complete then the final reports sent by each station will be the ones logged.
Hi Roger,

that's not correct, you have no way of knowing which report transmission is copied when repeats are necessary. For example your QSO partner could be acknowledging a prior report you sent, not the last one you sent. They may never hear the last one you sent.

When analysing these situations you have to assume that when there are repeats on both sides; then which message copies are actually received cannot be certain.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


FT-950 Flashing Red on Transmit #WSJTX_config #FT8

---Layne AE1N
 

Been trying to figure our how to configure my FT-950 for 60 meters FT8.
I am using MFJ USB radio interface. WSJT-X is working just great on all frequencies.
I have programmed WSJTx for frequency 5385.
Reception is great with a lot of waterfall activity at night and I want to join and QSO all you fine hams.
But on transmit all I get is the blinking RED light.
Is there a way to do this without doing the "MARS MOD?"
---Layne AE1N


moderated Re: #FT8 FT8 signal reports 2.4.0-rc4 #FT8

groups@...
 

On 02/04/2021 11:11, Tom Melvin wrote:
Another reason - contests - you send +05 on the repeat it changed to -06 - you log -06 but sender logs +05 as the report.
Points will be lost.
This was one of the main reasons that a large number of ft4/ft8 contests in the UK no longer require contest mode.
Regards
Tom
GM8MJV
If the contact is allowed to fully complete then the final reports sent by each station will be the ones logged.

If the contact is logged before completion there are going to be these discrepancies.

I've written to the RSGB about a couple of problems with their FT4 contest rules but they couldn't even be bothered to acknowledge my email.

I understand contest stations strive to raise their contact rate but those taking these short cuts deserve to lose points.

Roger
GW4HZA


moderated Re: #FT8 FT8 signal reports 2.4.0-rc4 #FT8

Tom Melvin
 

Another reason - contests - you send +05 on the repeat it changed to -06 - you log -06 but sender logs +05 as the report.

Points will be lost.

This was one of the main reasons that a large number of ft4/ft8 contests in the UK no longer require contest mode.

Regards

Tom
GM8MJV

On 2 Apr 2021, at 01:09, Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:

On 4/1/2021 3:33 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
if an amended signal report is sent in repeats as you cannot be certain which signal report your QSO partner copied.
Why does that matter?

73, Jim K9YC



Re: No PTT Icom Pro III #Cat_RigControl

Bill Somerville
 

On 02/04/2021 03:55, Jim Keller wrote:
Martin, the PC that I use for FT-8 is dedicated for ham use only. No email.  Very limited browsing.   I've turned off the notifications so I don't have a problem with beeps sneaking out.

73

Jim  W6yxy
Jim,

you are using a SignaLink USB which contains a sound card, there's no need to have the SignaLink USB sound card as the either of the Windows default sound devices (Default, or Default Communications). Assign the default sounds to and from your PC built in sound card, so there is no need to suppress sounds from the operating system or other applications like your occasionally used web browser.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


Re: No PTT Icom Pro III #Cat_RigControl

Jim Keller
 

Martin, the PC that I use for FT-8 is dedicated for ham use only. No email.  Very limited browsing.   I've turned off the notifications so I don't have a problem with beeps sneaking out.

73

Jim  W6yxy


moderated Re: #FT8 FT8 signal reports 2.4.0-rc4 #FT8

Lance Collister, W7GJ
 

Think you will have a 2m beam up in 3 weeks? Just asking... ;-) GL and VY 73, Lance

P.S. - this "report freezing" was a big improvement when listening for responses in the AVERAGE window, and is consistent with the way Q65 works. You can't average out over the transmissions if they change content each time...

On 4/1/2021 20:43:01, Chris Hannagan wrote:
I was operating 30 metres FT8 this morning and believe that a behavior has changed in sending the signal reports.
When a station didn't copy the TX2 sent report and responded again with TX1, each time you resent the callers signal report in previous releases, the report updated to the latest decoded report.
The report now appears to no longer update to the last decode and continues to send the original report.
I'm not sure if this is a problem but it is a behavior that seems to have changed.
Call 1st is enabled and I noticed this on several stations that were calling.
Chris zl7dx

--
Lance Collister, W7GJ(ex WA3GPL, WA1JXN, WA1JXN/C6A, ZF2OC/ZF8, E51SIX, 3D2LR, 5W0GJ, E6M, TX5K, KH8/W7GJ, V6M, T8GJ, VK9CGJ, VK9XGJ, C21GJ, CP1GJ, S79GJ, TX7MB)
P.O. Box 73
Frenchtown, MT 59834-0073
USA
TEL: (406) 626-5728
QTH: DN27ub
URL: http://www.bigskyspaces.com/w7gj
Skype: lanceW7GJ
2m DXCC #11 - 6m DXCC #815 - FFMA #7

Interested in 6m EME? Ask me about subscribing to the new Magic Band EME
email group, or just fill in the request box at the bottom of my web
page (above)!


moderated Re: #FT8 FT8 signal reports 2.4.0-rc4 #FT8

Bill Somerville
 

On 02/04/2021 01:22, Jim Brown wrote:
On 4/1/2021 5:16 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
If that QSO specific information is a signal report then it is hard to confirm receipt of a report that has two values, i.e. the log entries may not match for critical QSO information.

That still makes no sense.

Jim,

if you made a QSO and received a QSL with a different report recorded than the one you sent would you query it? Yes I know QSL cards don't record received reports but electronic QSLs do.

Here's and example, your QSO partner receiving two different reports over three periods may reply with R+report to each but you could receive just the first or just the second, so you have no idea, in this case, which report is being confirmed. Which report sent do you log?

73
Bill
G4WJS.


moderated Re: #FT8 FT8 signal reports 2.4.0-rc4 #FT8

Jim Brown
 

On 4/1/2021 5:16 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
If that QSO specific information is a signal report then it is hard to confirm receipt of a report that has two values, i.e. the log entries may not match for critical QSO information.
That still makes no sense.
TBH the most important factor is in modes that use averaging to increase sensitivity of decoding there changing the report defeats the averaging as the bits change significantly (the report bits, the FEC bits, and the CRC). Keeping the sent report constant for each QSO seems reasonable in all cases as a default procedure.
This DOES make sense.

73, Jim K9YC


moderated Re: #FT8 FT8 signal reports 2.4.0-rc4 #FT8

Bill Somerville
 

On 02/04/2021 01:09, Jim Brown wrote:
On 4/1/2021 3:33 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
if an amended signal report is sent in repeats as you cannot be certain which signal report your QSO partner copied.

Why does that matter?

73, Jim K9YC

Hi Jim,

because most definitions of a complete QSO include exchange and confirmation of receipt of callsigns and a QSO specific piece of information. If that QSO specific information is a signal report then it is hard to confirm receipt of a report that has two values, i.e. the log entries may not match for critical QSO information.

TBH the most important factor is in modes that use averaging to increase sensitivity of decoding there changing the report defeats the averaging as the bits change significantly (the report bits, the FEC bits, and the CRC). Keeping the sent report constant for each QSO seems reasonable in all cases as a default procedure.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


moderated Re: #FT8 FT8 signal reports 2.4.0-rc4 #FT8

Jim Brown
 

On 4/1/2021 3:33 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
if an amended signal report is sent in repeats as you cannot be certain which signal report your QSO partner copied.
Why does that matter?

73, Jim K9YC


locked Re: FT8 and 73: #FT8

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

but by not logging a QSO when you send your RR73 you're potentially not logging perfectly valid QSOs.
Better stated as "send your RR73 *or* RRR" ....

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-04-01 6:40 PM, Martin G0HDB wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 02:14 PM, Charlie Hoffman wrote:


I send  RR73.
When I receive a 73 then the QSO is complete.
If I don't receive a 73 then I consider the contact incomplete.
I don't log a QSO until I receive a 73 from the other station.
My log - my rules.
It is indeed your log and you can enter QSOs into it on whatever basis you choose, but by not logging a QSO when you send your RR73 you're potentially not logging perfectly valid QSOs.  The final 73 that you await/require before logging a QSO may be a nice courtesy but is completely superfluous as far as the completion of the exchange of the essential information required for the QSO is concerned.
--
Martin G0HDB


locked Re: FT8 and 73: #FT8

Bill Lederer
 

To support this, I would add "It might be your log, but it is not exclusively your QSO."

w8lvn

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:47 PM Martin G0HDB <marting0hdb@...> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 02:14 PM, Charlie Hoffman wrote:
I send  RR73.
When I receive a 73 then the QSO is complete.
If I don't receive a 73 then I consider the contact incomplete.
I don't log a QSO until I receive a 73 from the other station.
My log - my rules.
It is indeed your log and you can enter QSOs into it on whatever basis you choose, but by not logging a QSO when you send your RR73 you're potentially not logging perfectly valid QSOs.  The final 73 that you await/require before logging a QSO may be a nice courtesy but is completely superfluous as far as the completion of the exchange of the essential information required for the QSO is concerned.

--
Martin G0HDB




--
--w8lvn--


locked Re: FT8 and 73: #FT8

Martin G0HDB
 

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 02:14 PM, Charlie Hoffman wrote:
I send  RR73.
When I receive a 73 then the QSO is complete.
If I don't receive a 73 then I consider the contact incomplete.
I don't log a QSO until I receive a 73 from the other station.
My log - my rules.
It is indeed your log and you can enter QSOs into it on whatever basis you choose, but by not logging a QSO when you send your RR73 you're potentially not logging perfectly valid QSOs.  The final 73 that you await/require before logging a QSO may be a nice courtesy but is completely superfluous as far as the completion of the exchange of the essential information required for the QSO is concerned.

--
Martin G0HDB


moderated Re: #FT8 FT8 signal reports 2.4.0-rc4 #FT8

Bill Somerville
 

On 01/04/2021 21:43, Chris Hannagan wrote:
I was operating 30 metres FT8 this morning and believe that a behavior has changed in sending the signal reports.
When a station didn't copy the TX2 sent report and responded again with TX1, each time you resent the callers signal report in previous releases, the report updated to the latest decoded report.
The report now appears to no longer update to the last decode and continues to send the original report.
I'm not sure if this is a problem but it is a behavior that seems to have changed.
Call 1st is enabled and I noticed this on several stations that were calling.
Chris zl7dx
Hi Chris,

this is expected behaviour and was changed in v2.4.0-rc4. It creates ambiguity if an amended signal report is sent in repeats as you cannot be certain which signal report your QSO partner copied. If you really want to change the sent report you can clear down the QSO with ESC and restart by double-clicking a decode, be sure to check that the sent and received reports are set correctly in the Log QSO dialog when you do this.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


Re: No PTT Icom Pro III #Cat_RigControl

Bill, WB6JJJ
 

You’re not alone...  My new computer (son designed and built this gaming computer) also mutes the sound every once in a while.  Sometimes a couple times a day, then it will stay unmuted for days???  Weird...

Bill
WB6JJJ 



On Mar 31, 2021, at 8:04 PM, Martin G0HDB <marting0hdb@...> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 07:47 PM, Jim Keller wrote:
Problem solved.  As they say, a Cockpit error.   I noticed that the Windows speaker symbol in the lower right corner of the screen indicated that the speaker was muted.   Have no recollection of doing that but when I unmuted it I was back in business.
Hi Jim, glad to hear that you've got things working again but your reference to the speaker being muted has got me puzzled - have you got your SignaLink set as the default audio device for Windows?

I use a G4ZLP datamodes interface unit that's functionally almost identical to the SignaLink-USB but without the latter's performance shortcomings; in my Win 10 setup the G4ZLP device isn't configured as the default audio device for Windows - the default device is the Dell motherboard's onboard audio.  I've just tried muting the speaker and it's made no difference whatsoever to the operation of WSJT-X and the G4ZLP interface device - when the PC's speaker is muted WSJT-X and the G4ZLP device continue to output audio and key the PTT.

The danger with setting your SignaLink-USB, or any other external audio codec such as my G4ZLP device, as the default audio device for Windows is that you run the risk of transmitting all the Windows beeps and bongs over the air - Section 4.3 in the WSJT-X User Guide states that all Windows system sounds should be turned off when using the default audio device for WSJT-X's output.

Will it be possible for you to assign another audio device in your system as the default for WIndows so that you can use the SignaLink-USB solely for WSJT-X?  Most PCs have an inbuilt sound capability that can be used as the default for WIndows.

73
--
Martin G0HDB



moderated #FT8 FT8 signal reports 2.4.0-rc4 #FT8

Chris Hannagan
 

I was operating 30 metres FT8 this morning and believe that a behavior has changed in sending the signal reports.
When a station didn't copy the TX2 sent report and responded again with TX1, each time you resent the callers signal report in previous releases, the report updated to the latest decoded report.
The report now appears to no longer update to the last decode and continues to send the original report.
I'm not sure if this is a problem but it is a behavior that seems to have changed.
Call 1st is enabled and I noticed this on several stations that were calling.
Chris zl7dx


locked Re: FT8 and 73: #FT8

Lawrence Godek
 

Agreed.  Same thoughts.

Larry W0OGH

On 4/1/2021 6:11 AM, Charlie Hoffman wrote:
I send  RR73.
When I receive a 73 then the QSO is complete.
If I don't receive a 73 then I consider the contact incomplete.
I don't log a QSO until I receive a 73 from the other station.
My log - my rules.

73, Charlie WD4CNO






locked Re: FT8 and 73: #FT8

Tom V. Segalstad
 

The following definition of a QSO is approved by the IARU (International Amateur Radio Union) Region 1, here extracted from the last version of The HF Managers’ Handbook:

 

2.1.1 QSO-DEFINITION

 

A definition for a valid QSO is:

A valid contact is one where both operators during the contact have

1. mutually identified each other

2. received a report, and

3. received a confirmation of the successful identification and the reception of the report.

It is emphasized that the responsibility always lies with the operator for the integrity of the contact.

 

A similar definition is in the IARU Region 1 VHF Managers’ Handbook Chapter 4.1.

 

There is no mention of «73» in this QSO definition – so 73 is just to be considered as «frosting on the cake» … or the QSO.

 

73 from Tom, LA4LN

 

 

Fra: Joe Subich, W4TV
Sendt: torsdag 1. april 2021 kl. 16.59
Til: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Emne: Re: [WSJTX] FT8 and 73: #FT8

 

On 2021-04-01 9:11 AM, Charlie Hoffman wrote:
 >
 > I don't log a QSO until I receive a 73 from the other station.
 > My log - my rules.

That's well and good until you are on the other side ...

Say you are working a rare DX (or rare state for WAS, etc.),
he sends you RR73 and someone else (who also needs him) calls
right on top of your 73.  Now, that rare station can't hear
your 73, does not log the QSO and goes right on working the
new caller.

*THE QSO IS COMPLETE WHEN BOTH STATIONS HAVE SENT "R"* -
either R-##, RRR, or RR73.  "R" acknowledges receipt of the
signal report ("+/-##" or "R+/-##) and exchange of signal
reports is what constitutes a "complete QSO" under *every*
definition of a QSO - not the exchange of reports *and*
acknowledgements.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-04-01 9:11 AM, Charlie Hoffman wrote:
> I send  RR73.
> When I receive a 73 then the QSO is complete.
> If I don't receive a 73 then I consider the contact incomplete.
> I don't log a QSO until I receive a 73 from the other station.
> My log - my rules.
>
> 73, Charlie WD4CNO
>
>

 


--
Tom (LA4LN)

2081 - 2100 of 25840