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

Re: how much power is appropriate on 6 meters JT9?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.