New to Q65 #Q65


Pat N6PAT
 

Just started venturing into Q65 on 6 meters. I've been monitoring 50.275 and 50.305 but haven't heard a thing. Is there a particular  sub mode and sequence length I should be using? Also, are QSO's being uploaded to LOTW as Q65 or DATA?

TIA


Bill Somerville
 

On 21/07/2021 13:31, Pat N6PAT via groups.io wrote:
Just started venturing into Q65 on 6 meters. I've been monitoring 50.275 and 50.305 but haven't heard a thing. Is there a particular  sub mode and sequence length I should be using? Also, are QSO's being uploaded to LOTW as Q65 or DATA?

TIA
Hi Pat,

you should find activity from stations trying ionoscatter a couple of hours around your local noon, probably using Q65-30A. When there are Es openings I suspect most will switch to FT8. Q65 QSOs should be uploaded to LoTW as Mode=MFSK, Submode=Q65, this is fully supported by recent versions of tQSL.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


Pat N6PAT
 

Bill,

Thanks for the info. I'll give it a try later today and see if I hear anything

73


Don Hill AA5AU
 

Hi Pat. In my very limited experience with Q65, it usually works best when stations with directional antennas are pointed at each other. That's not to say it won't work with a couple of stations using verticals or wires because it will.

The best way to see it work is to get someone you know to try it with you and to communicate back and forth either by phone, text or Slack to make sure  your settings are the same as the other station. For instance, make sure both are using the same timed sequence, typically 15 or 30 seconds and that both are using submode (typically A). Know the terminology (I'm not fully there yet), but if someone says Q65-30A, then it's Q65 submode A and 30 seconds. And of course, you have to know who is sending 1st and who is 2nd. It also helps to know where your partner is transmitting (DT Frequency) so that you can put the marker there and lower your F Tol value. I usually use F Tol of 50 for Q65.

Once you start to see "sparkles" on the waterfall you can click on the line to the left of the sparkles and you should be on the other station's receive frequency. You will then start to decode. Seeing sparkles for the first time was a magical experience for me. It reminds me of JT65. Sometimes you will decode without seeing anything on the waterfall at all. That's the magic of Q65. You can make contacts when no other mode will work.

Most rover stations on six meters will try Q65 when e-skip is not available and MSK144 is not working. They are most successful when they are able to point their antennas in the direction of a known station they are trying to work.

73, Don AA5AU


Jim Brown
 

On 7/21/2021 5:42 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
you should find activity from stations trying ionoscatter a couple of hours around your local noon, probably using Q65-30A.
This assumes that lots of hams within 1,000 miles of you RTFM about Q65. In my experience on the left coast of North America, few have, and the mode has so far had limited acceptance in NA.

N0AN and K5GXR have done a lot of disciplined tests comparing Q65 and MSK144 in the morning, and found that Q65 allows them to complete QSOs much faster and with lower power. They have also found mode B to be superior to mode A. Among other things observed in the excellent report they produced, they observed that, due to limited use, calling CQ is futile, but that it works best for skeds, and with both stations entering data for the other, which facilitates averaging.

Note also that there is nothing sacred about the watering holes cited in the doc for WSJT modes -- they can be used on any frequency for which users are licensed, and VHF/UHF bands are pretty wide (4 MHz each for 6M and 2M in NA).

73, Jim K9YC


Pat N6PAT
 

When I heard that Q65 was designed to work with very weak signals I immediately thought of the band filling up with far off DX ops running just a few watts. That's what I was hoping for on 6 meters.  Monitoring for hours and not hearing a single op is a bit disappointing so I'll stick to FT8. Perhaps Q65 will increase in popularity in the future.

73 Pat N6PAT


Tim
 

Hi Pat,

You might try joining the global 6m chat at http://www.on4kst.info/chat/login.php?band=1 and announcing that you're beaming a certain direction on a certain frequency with whatever Q65 mode you are using.

We in VK, have been organising Q65 tests with the Europeans, on that chat, since we've been getting quite a bit of TEP this winter.

We've had a few FT8 contacts with them as well.

We've also been trying out Q65 on the tail end of our morning interstate MSK144 events.

It will just take a bit of organising for people to start using the mode.

You could also join us on our local spotter at https://www.vkspotter.com/ and announce there too.

We have a few Canadians and stations from South America on our spotter that we have made JT65 contacts with in our Summer months. No doubt we will try Q65 with them as soon as spring and summer roll around.

cheers

Tim

On 22/7/21 11:46 am, Pat N6PAT via groups.io wrote:
When I heard that Q65 was designed to work with very weak signals I immediately thought of the band filling up with far off DX ops running just a few watts. That's what I was hoping for on 6 meters.  Monitoring for hours and not hearing a single op is a bit disappointing so I'll stick to FT8. Perhaps Q65 will increase in popularity in the future.
--
VK2XAX : QF56if : ITU59 : CQ30 : BMARC : WIA


Pat N6PAT
 

Hi Tim,

I'll check out the global chat that you mentioned . I'll keep an eye on PSKReporter as well.

There's been some great FT8 openings on 6 from my QTH in New York out to Japan and Hawaii and across Europe and the Middle East. I'm still looking for VK and ZL on 6 so perhaps someday I'll get to have a QSO with you in one mode or another.  I'm only at 62 countries on the magic band so I've a long ways to go .

73 Pat N6PAT


Gary - AG0N
 

On Jul 21, 2021, at 08:31, Don Hill AA5AU <aa5au@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Once you start to see "sparkles" on the waterfall you can click on the line to the left of the sparkles and you should be on the other station's receive frequency. You will then start to decode.
Not necessarily. I think I’ve only worked one station that was not operating split, almost never looking where he is transmitting. You probably meant "you can click on the line to the left of the sparkles and you should be on the other station's transmit frequency.
73, Gary - AG0N


Bob
 

I’ve made a few Q65 QSOs on 6m and was impressed. Also tinkered with it on 10m.   I’ll try to drop by the 6m freqs  more often.  I suspect Es season has most of the casual 6m operators, such as myself, working FT8.

73 de Bob
K4RCG

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 21:46 Pat N6PAT via groups.io <n6pat=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
When I heard that Q65 was designed to work with very weak signals I immediately thought of the band filling up with far off DX ops running just a few watts. That's what I was hoping for on 6 meters.  Monitoring for hours and not hearing a single op is a bit disappointing so I'll stick to FT8. Perhaps Q65 will increase in popularity in the future.

73 Pat N6PAT



Hasan Schiers N0AN
 

Hi Pat,
The issue is operator density. There just aren't enough Q65 ops to make casual CQ'ing productive. As far as performance goes, Q65 is exceptional. It takes advantage of every possible propagation mode that is present at the time of the qso, unlike FT8 which is destroyed by meteor pings, but is very good for fading signals.

Q65 uses everything, including meteor bursts, ionoscatter, troposcatter, tropo-ducting, ground wave ....anything and everything, and Q65 has exceptional sensitivity.

One thing to consider, unlike FT8 , Q65 is not designed for crowded band conditions. Overlapping signals do not decode anywhere nearly as well as FT8. So, if you are expecting just a better version of FT8 out of Q65...forget it. It is not meant for the same purposes. FT8 is spectacular for crowded bands. 

You can only get the most out of Q65 in relatively uncrowded conditions (non-overlapping signals)...in other words, it is never going to be like FT8. It works much, much better in terms of sensitivity, but the price is poor performance in a congested band. Keep in mind, Q65 is meant for a specific purpose. It works when nothing else will...but certain conditions need to be maintained to gain success with it.

73, N0AN

Depending on your local hams, you may find some activity each morning on Q65-30A on 50.275.  I test with a group of people on 30A/275, 30B/235, 120E/235 and 15A/275

We have been spending most of our time of late on 50.275 Q65-30A to encourage more activity. (KB7IJ;Dallas, K5GZR;Houston, WB4HIE;North Carolina and N0AN in central Iowa)

We are also active nearly every morning on Chatango:


We are all active on 6 meter MSK144/Q65/FT8 . We start early around 6 a.m. central time and are usually there for about 3 hours. We welcome anyone who wants to know more about Q65 or wants to jump  in with our tests.

73, N0AN
Hasan


On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 7:34 AM Pat N6PAT via groups.io <n6pat=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Just started venturing into Q65 on 6 meters. I've been monitoring 50.275 and 50.305 but haven't heard a thing. Is there a particular  sub mode and sequence length I should be using? Also, are QSO's being uploaded to LOTW as Q65 or DATA?

TIA



Buddy Morgan
 

I have not used Q65, on 6M. However. I have used Q65-30C, with a 500 Hz transmit frequency, on the bands 2M and higher. Q65 really is not a good random contact mode, like FT8 or MSK144. Every contact I have made, using Q65 was a sked. You can make contacts, with weaker signals, than FT8. But, as was stated below, overlapping signals do not work well. Here in the Southeastern United States, we use xxxx.170 Mhz, for Q65.

Buddy WB4OMG


-----Original Message-----
From: Hasan Schiers N0AN <hbasri.schiers6@...>
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io Notification <main@wsjtx.groups.io>
Sent: Thu, Jul 22, 2021 8:52 am
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] New to Q65 #Q65

Hi Pat,
The issue is operator density. There just aren't enough Q65 ops to make casual CQ'ing productive. As far as performance goes, Q65 is exceptional. It takes advantage of every possible propagation mode that is present at the time of the qso, unlike FT8 which is destroyed by meteor pings, but is very good for fading signals.

Q65 uses everything, including meteor bursts, ionoscatter, troposcatter, tropo-ducting, ground wave ....anything and everything, and Q65 has exceptional sensitivity.

One thing to consider, unlike FT8 , Q65 is not designed for crowded band conditions. Overlapping signals do not decode anywhere nearly as well as FT8. So, if you are expecting just a better version of FT8 out of Q65...forget it. It is not meant for the same purposes. FT8 is spectacular for crowded bands. 

You can only get the most out of Q65 in relatively uncrowded conditions (non-overlapping signals)...in other words, it is never going to be like FT8. It works much, much better in terms of sensitivity, but the price is poor performance in a congested band. Keep in mind, Q65 is meant for a specific purpose. It works when nothing else will...but certain conditions need to be maintained to gain success with it.

73, N0AN

Depending on your local hams, you may find some activity each morning on Q65-30A on 50.275.  I test with a group of people on 30A/275, 30B/235, 120E/235 and 15A/275

We have been spending most of our time of late on 50.275 Q65-30A to encourage more activity. (KB7IJ;Dallas, K5GZR;Houston, WB4HIE;North Carolina and N0AN in central Iowa)

We are also active nearly every morning on Chatango:


We are all active on 6 meter MSK144/Q65/FT8 . We start early around 6 a.m. central time and are usually there for about 3 hours. We welcome anyone who wants to know more about Q65 or wants to jump  in with our tests.

73, N0AN
Hasan


On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 7:34 AM Pat N6PAT via groups.io <n6pat=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Just started venturing into Q65 on 6 meters. I've been monitoring 50.275 and 50.305 but haven't heard a thing. Is there a particular  sub mode and sequence length I should be using? Also, are QSO's being uploaded to LOTW as Q65 or DATA?

TIA






M0PWX
 

Been playing on 6m today with Q65/30a calling CQ a few times to see if anyone is out there (I do it now and again)

 

And got heard in US

 

So there are people listening Pat

 

73 Peter

M0PWX

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 21:46 Pat N6PAT via groups.io <n6pat=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

When I heard that Q65 was designed to work with very weak signals I immediately thought of the band filling up with far off DX ops running just a few watts. That's what I was hoping for on 6 meters.  Monitoring for hours and not hearing a single op is a bit disappointing so I'll stick to FT8. Perhaps Q65 will increase in popularity in the future.

73 Pat N6PAT

 


Joe
 

To clear up some misunderstandings and correct a few misleading statements, I will make a few additional comments about Q65.

1. Q65-30A is the best mode known for making ionospheric scatter QSOs on 6 meters.

2. With 100+ Watts and a decent Yagi high and in the clear, you can work any similarly equipped station at distances of 500 - 1200 miles at any time.   It also works well for tropospheric scatter over distances up to about 500 miles. 

3. Mode comparison:  FT8 bottoms out at signal-to-noise ratios around -21 dB, and does not fare well with the very rapid QSB typical of ionospheric scatter.  Q65-30A gets down to -25 dB with steady signals, does very well with rapid fading, and gains several more dB still more when message averaging is enabled.

4. With kW-class power you will copy nearly every transmission from a QSO partner, especially around mid-day.  With 30-second sequences, QSOs are usually completed in no more than two or three minutes.  With low power or in the evening more repeats will be needed: it may take 15 minutes or more to exchange reports and acknowledgments to complete a QSO.

5. Long before the Q65 mode was publicly available we made dozens of hours of tests on 50 MHz ionospheric scatter paths.  Some of these tests used a special version of WSJT-X that transmitted the same message simultaneously in two Q65 submodes, separated in frequency by 500 Hz.   Performance of submodes Q65-30A and Q65-30B was found to be identical: if a particular transmission was copied in submode A it was also copied in B, and vice-versa.  We also tested 15-second and 60-second submodes.  Q65-30A (and Q65-30B) consistently allowed QSOs to be completed faster than submodes using 15 or 60 s sequences.  Because Q65-30A requires half the bandwidth of Q65-30B, we recommend Q65-30A for ionospheric scatter on 6 meters.

6. At times of good activity it's not hard to make ionospheric scatter QSOs by calling CQ, at least here in the east.  But if you're just starting out with this propagation mode it's best to go to https://www.pingjockey.net/cgi-bin/pingtalk , find someone there at a suitable distance, and make a sked.  Normally the westernmost station transmits in the first sequence eastern station second, and 50.275 is the default dial frequency.

7. Don't expect much (if any) scatter activity during sporadic-E season, when all 6-meter action will be elsewhere.  FT8 was explicitly designed to enable QSOs using weak, fading, multi-hop sporadic-E signals.  For that purpose FT8 serves much better than Q65.

  -- 73, Joe, K1JT


Buddy Morgan
 

I find Joe's post, most interesting. As I said, earlier, here in the South East United States, on the bands 2M and higher. We kind of settled on Q65-30C. Is that the best mode? Is one mode good for Tropo, on 2M and not so good for 1296? Rather than go through a lot of testing, if someone has any information about the optimal Q65 mode for Tropo, on the various VHF and UHF bands, it would be helpful.

Buddy WB4OMG EL 98



Jim Brown
 

On 7/22/2021 9:19 AM, Joe wrote:
With kW-class power you will copy nearly every transmission from a QSO
partner, especially around mid-day.
This ignores the effects of RX noise. I'm lucky -- in the Santa Cruz Mountains, with closest neighbors 300 ft from my antennas, my worst case noise on 6M is S3-4 on a calibrated K3, S1 in my best directions and at best times. In the Chicago residential neighborhood where I lived, it was more like S6=7. I run legal limit on 6M, and regularly receive signal reports 10-15 dB worse than I give.

At times of good activity it's not hard to make ionospheric scatter QSOs > by calling CQ, at least here in the east.
Activity in high population density areas like the northeastern US is VERY different from those with much lower population density in the midwest, and MUCH MUCH lower in the great plains, southwest, mountain west, and west coast. As others have noted, CQing is a massive waste of time.

I DO love the mode, look forward to opportunities to use it, and have urged others to do so in place of MSK144.

73, Jim K9YC


Dave (NK7Z)
 

What frequency on 6 are you using Jim? My rig was set to 30 second, Sub-mode A, for most of the morning, and not a single decode... The K3 is in Data A.

My antenna is not the best, but I would have expected to pick up something...

I am back on Q65 at 50.275 listening now.

73, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
https://www.nk7z.net
ARRL Volunteer Examiner
ARRL Technical Specialist, RFI
ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources

On 7/22/21 11:51 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
On 7/22/2021 9:19 AM, Joe wrote:
> With kW-class power you will copy nearly every transmission from a QSO
> partner, especially around mid-day.
This ignores the effects of RX noise. I'm lucky -- in the Santa Cruz Mountains, with closest neighbors 300 ft from my antennas, my worst case noise on 6M is S3-4 on a calibrated K3, S1 in my best directions and at best times. In the Chicago residential neighborhood where I lived, it was more like S6=7. I run legal limit on 6M, and regularly receive signal reports 10-15 dB worse than I give.

At times of good activity it's not hard to make ionospheric scatter QSOs  > by calling CQ, at least here in the east.
Activity in high population density areas like the northeastern US is VERY different from those with much lower population density in the midwest, and MUCH MUCH lower in the great plains, southwest, mountain west, and west coast. As others have noted, CQing is a massive waste of time.
I DO love the mode, look forward to opportunities to use it, and have urged others to do so in place of MSK144.
73, Jim K9YC


Pat N6PAT
 

Dave,

I'm transmitting CQ on 50.275 A30 right now from New York pointing in your direction

Pat N6PAT


Dave (NK7Z)
 

Not a thing here... I need a far better antenna I suspect... A dipole at 30 feet does not cut it.

73, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
https://www.nk7z.net
ARRL Volunteer Examiner
ARRL Technical Specialist, RFI
ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources

On 7/22/21 1:10 PM, Pat N6PAT via groups.io wrote:
Dave,
I'm transmitting CQ on 50.275 A30 right now from New York pointing in your direction
Pat N6PAT


Dave (NK7Z)
 

BTW, thank you for the attempt!

73, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
https://www.nk7z.net
ARRL Volunteer Examiner
ARRL Technical Specialist, RFI
ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources

On 7/22/21 1:10 PM, Pat N6PAT via groups.io wrote:
Dave,
I'm transmitting CQ on 50.275 A30 right now from New York pointing in your direction
Pat N6PAT