Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

how much power is appropriate on 6 meters JT9?

Expand Messages
  • bill
    I understand that JT9 is a weak signal mode, not necessarily a low power mode. But as 6 meters can be a real tough band for my weeny antenna, would 100 watts
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 13, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I understand that JT9 is a 'weak signal' mode, not necessarily a low power mode.

      But as 6 meters can be a real tough band for my weeny antenna, would 100 watts be considered excessive?

      Would hate to incur the wrath of the power police. LOL
      -- 
      
      A father is someone who carries pictures where his money used to be.
      ---------------------------
      W9OL-Bill H. in Chicagoland
      webcams at http://w9ol-towercam.webhop.org:8080
      My weatherpage at http://home.comcast.net/~w9ol/WX/HH.htm
      
    • Ed Wilson
      Bill, When the band is open, it has been my experience that signals are often quite strong and 100 watts might blow-up everyone s waterfall, even with your
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 13, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Bill,

        When the band is open, it has been my experience that signals are often quite strong and 100 watts might blow-up everyone's waterfall, even with your "weeny" antenna. :)

        If you are working point-to-point when the band is closed, one could argue that 100 watts is ok. When the band is open, a coat hanger would work as a pretty good antenna (I actually worked someone on JT65 who was using a coat hanger...I believe it was on 40 meters). My first ham radio contact was on 6 meters using a light bulb as a dummy load...about two blocks away (many years ago).
         
        Ed, K0KC


        From: bill <bill@...>
        To: WSJT Group <wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:23 AM
        Subject: [wsjtgroup] how much power is appropriate on 6 meters JT9?

         
        I understand that JT9 is a 'weak signal' mode, not necessarily a low power mode.

        But as 6 meters can be a real tough band for my weeny antenna, would 100 watts be considered excessive?

        Would hate to incur the wrath of the power police. LOL
        -- 
        
        A father is someone who carries pictures where his money used to be.
        ---------------------------
        W9OL-Bill H. in Chicagoland
        webcams at http://w9ol-towercam.webhop.org:8080
        My weatherpage at http://home.comcast.net/~w9ol/WX/HH.htm
        


      • Lance Collister, W7GJ
        Hello Bill, As one who devotes most of his activity to working with very weak signals (EME) on 6m, I can say unequivocally that 1500w is not at all excessive!
        Message 3 of 7 , Jun 13, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Bill,

          As one who devotes most of his activity to working with very weak signals (EME) on
          6m, I can say unequivocally that 1500w is not at all excessive! If you are faced
          with marginal propagation conditions, such as on multihop Es or EME, or extended path
          ground wave, you will benefit from using a very sensitive mode AND a good station
          with maximum ERP. The weak signal modes that have been developed by K1JT may also
          permit you to run QRP when you have favorable propagation conditions. However, they
          also have opened up tremendous opportunities to explore contact possibilities that
          were never before possible. This is certainly the situation with 6m EME, and I am
          confident will also be the case with other types of long distance VHF propagation
          that previously used to be limited to high power TV and radio stations ("indicator
          beacons"). As long as your signal is clean, I would urge you to experiment with
          what can be done with the power and modes you have available to you. Embrace the
          opportunities this new technology has provided! GL and VY 73, Lance

          On 6/13/2013 2:23 PM, bill wrote:
          >
          >
          > I understand that JT9 is a 'weak signal' mode, not necessarily a low power mode.
          >
          > But as 6 meters can be a real tough band for my weeny antenna, would 100 watts be
          > considered excessive?
          >
          > Would hate to incur the wrath of the power police. LOL
          > --
          >
          > A father is someone who carries pictures where his money used to be.
          > ---------------------------
          > W9OL-Bill H. in Chicagoland
          > webcams athttp://w9ol-towercam.webhop.org:8080
          > My weatherpage athttp://home.comcast.net/~w9ol/WX/HH.htm
          >
          >
          >


          --
          Lance Collister, W7GJ
          (ex WA3GPL, WA1JXN, WA1JXN/C6A, ZF2OC/ZF8, E51SIX, 3D2LR, 5W0GJ, E6M, TX5K)
          P.O. Box 73
          Frenchtown, MT 59834-0073
          USA
          TEL: (406) 626-5728
          QTH: DN27ub
          URL: http://www.bigskyspaces.com/w7gj
          Windows Messenger: W7GJ@...
          Skype: lanceW7GJ
          2m DXCC #11/6m DXCC #815

          Interested in 6m EME? Ask me about subscribing to the Magic Band EME
          email group, or just fill in the request box at the bottom of my web
          page (above)!
        • kc2wuf
          Bill, I can say I have successfully worked 17 JT65 and 2 JT9 contacts over the last month (when 6 meters was open) with 1 watt into a 6-meter dipole in my
          Message 4 of 7 , Jun 13, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill,

            I can say I have successfully worked 17 JT65 and 2 JT9 contacts over the last month (when 6 meters was open) with 1 watt into a 6-meter dipole in my attic. Most of these were single hop to the South or Midwest, although a couple were local contacts when the band was closed. I could probably have worked many more on JT65, but I worked many of the stations last year (using more power and a 40-meter dipole up about 35 feet) during the Es season and didn't want to repeat QSOs at this time.

            Hope this helps with your efforts to try JT9 on 6 meters and hope to see you on the band sometime since I rarely see JT9 activity on 6 meters here in the U.S. It seems that Europe has been more open to trying JT9 out on the 6 meter band based on the PSKReporter map as well as spots on HamSpots.

            73 David KC2WUF

            --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, bill <bill@...> wrote:
            >
            > I understand that JT9 is a 'weak signal' mode, not necessarily a low
            > power mode.
            >
            > But as 6 meters can be a real tough band for my weeny antenna, would 100
            > watts be considered excessive?
            >
            > Would hate to incur the wrath of the power police. LOL
            >
            > --
            >
            > A father is someone who carries pictures where his money used to be.
            > ---------------------------
            > W9OL-Bill H. in Chicagoland
            > webcams at http://w9ol-towercam.webhop.org:8080
            > My weatherpage at http://home.comcast.net/~w9ol/WX/HH.htm
            >
          • Thomas F Giella W4HM
            No matter the 6 meter radio wave propagation mode or conditions 5 watts is all that you need with JT9 to make a successful QSO. I make many 6 meter QSO s using
            Message 5 of 7 , Jun 13, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              No matter the 6 meter radio wave propagation mode or conditions 5 watts is
              all that you need with JT9 to make a successful QSO. I make many 6 meter
              QSO's using JT-9 with as little as 1 watt.

              1500 watts, even 100 watts would more than likely wipe out the waterfall
              for most ham's on the receiving end.

              Just my .05 cents due to inflation.

              73 & GUD DX,
              Thomas F. Giella W4HM
              Lakeland, FL, USA
              w4hm@...

              BARTG #8531
              PODXS 070 #349
              FELD HELD #141
              30MDG # 691
              DMC #1243
              WARC-CC #20

              W4HM Amateur Radio & SWL Autobiography: http://www.w4hm.org
            • John
              Lets not confuse Weak signal with Low power A typical single hop sporadicE opening on 6M will produce very strong high-angle signals,so a simple dipole
              Message 6 of 7 , Jun 13, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Lets not confuse "Weak signal" with "Low power"

                A typical single hop sporadicE opening on 6M will produce very strong high-angle signals,so a simple dipole antenna and low power is often sufficient.
                But with such strong signals, why not use SSB?

                When the Es "season" is over and propogation is reduced to weak troposcatter, thats when JT9 comes into its own.
                You may then also need a better antenna and a bit more power.

                JT9 works fine on 6M, but does not like any doppler spread caused by multipath or meteor reflections,
                - ISCAT-B or JT6M will perform better in those conditions.

                John
                GW4MBN


                --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas F Giella W4HM" <w4hm@...> wrote:
                >
                > No matter the 6 meter radio wave propagation mode or conditions 5 watts is
                > all that you need with JT9 to make a successful QSO. I make many 6 meter
                > QSO's using JT-9 with as little as 1 watt.
                >
                > 1500 watts, even 100 watts would more than likely wipe out the waterfall
                > for most ham's on the receiving end.
                >
                > Just my .05 cents due to inflation.
                >
                > 73 & GUD DX,
                > Thomas F. Giella W4HM
                > Lakeland, FL, USA
                > w4hm@...
                >
                > BARTG #8531
                > PODXS 070 #349
                > FELD HELD #141
                > 30MDG # 691
                > DMC #1243
                > WARC-CC #20
                >
                > W4HM Amateur Radio & SWL Autobiography: http://www.w4hm.org
                >
              • Jim Brown
                ... When that happens, the receiving station may need a better receiver. There are detailed reviews of the technical capabilities of most currently available
                Message 7 of 7 , Jun 13, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 6/13/2013 10:26 AM, Thomas F Giella W4HM wrote:
                  > 1500 watts, even 100 watts would more than likely wipe out the waterfall
                  > for most ham's on the receiving end.

                  When that happens, the receiving station may need a better receiver.

                  There are detailed reviews of the technical capabilities of most
                  currently available transceivers on the ARRL website, as well as on Rob
                  Sherwood's website.

                  I agree completely with Lance -- the WSJT modes are WEAK SIGNAL modes,
                  NOT QRP modes. Signals can be weak because the propagation path is
                  difficult, or because the stations involved have poor antennas, or
                  because they CHOOSE to run QRP. One of the principal uses of WSJT modes
                  is to work paths that have VERY high losses, and need the combination of
                  high power, great antennas, and the noise immunity of these modes to
                  have a chance of making a QSO.

                  A station running high power as two obligations -- to stay out of the
                  way of others already using a given frequency, and by keeping their
                  transmitted signal CLEAN. Most rigs that get blown away be strong
                  signals also put out dirty signals -- that is, they take up more than
                  their share of bandwidth.

                  To have a clean signal, we must have a clean transceiver, a clean power
                  amp, and we must carefully tune the power amp for minimum distortion.
                  This is an obligation. Running QRP is a CHOICE, not a requirement.

                  73, Jim K9YC
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.