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

Re: [wsjtgroup] Default HF frequencies for JT65 and JT9

Expand Messages
  • bill
    What Tom K9TB. said!!! with my teeny 6 meter antenna, I ve worked more new states, counties, grids and even a few new countries on JT in the past few weeks
    Message 1 of 23 , Jul 11, 2013

      What Tom K9TB. said!!!

      with my teeny 6 meter antenna, I've worked more new states, counties, grids and even a few new countries on JT in the past few weeks than in my previous 40 years. (many of which I didn't hear by ear, but saw/read on the monitor)

      Thanks to all I've worked, and those involved in making these new modes so much fun.



      On 2013-07-11 5:59 PM, K8TB wrote:
       

      Joe,

      I would like to amplify Ed's recommendation. Activity on 50.276 has jumped way up in the last 3 months. It lets you work stations further out than normal ground wave, but shorter than normal E skip path lengths.

      Just gotta say, I love the mode.

      And thank you

      Tom Bosscher K8TB




      On 7/11/2013 2:26 PM, Ed Wilson wrote:
       
      Joe,
      ...
      I am sitting here working a lot of JT65 stations on six meters today at 50.276 MHz. How about a recommendation for that band?


      -- 
      
      A large income is the best recipe for happiness I ever heard of.-Jane Austen
      ---------------------------
      I have an unequaled gift.. of squeezing BIG mistakes into LOST opportunities.
      W9OL-Bill H. in Chicagoland
      webcams at http://w9ol-towercam.webhop.org:8080
      My weatherpage at http://home.comcast.net/~w9ol/WX/HH.htm
      
  • Jim
    Most JT65 activity for 30 meters seems to be at 10.138 I d like to see JT65 moved to 10.136 and leave 10.138 open for JT9 My reasoning is there are some
    Message 2 of 23 , Jul 12, 2013
      Most JT65 activity for 30 meters seems to be at 10.138

      I'd like to see JT65 moved to 10.136 and leave 10.138 open for JT9

      My reasoning is there are some beacons and loud QRM generated at 10.139. One is a very loud PSK PropNet beacon that I wish would shut down. It is very loud here and just generates QRM. I am not sure it serves a purpose. 30 meters is too small and already full of enough noise to not be adding to it with beacons. You can check PropNet here:

      http://www.propnet.org/

      73,
      Jim (AA0MZ)

      --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, Joe Taylor <joe@...> wrote:
      >
      > In advance of an upcoming open release of WSJT-X Version 1.1, I'd like
      > to consult the world-wide community about the best startup default
      > frequencies provided by the program. In my view these should be
      > community decisions, and I don't want to suggest something that's not
      > workable.
      >
      > I believe the following table summarizes the USB dial frequencies
      > presently used for JT65:
      >
      > Band JT65
      > --------------
      > 160 1.838
      > 80 3.576
      > 60 5.357
      > 40 7.039 (7.076 in USA)
      > 30 10.139
      > 20 14.076
      > 17 18.102
      > 15 21.076
      > 12 24.917
      > 10 28.076
      >
      > On most bands these frequencies could be the startup defaults in WSJT-X.
      > JT65 operation would then be more-or-less normal for those accustomed
      > to WSJT or JT65-HF. The customary JT65 sub-band puts sync tones at
      > audio frequencies 270 - 2270 Hz in WSJT-X, and offsets DF = -1000 to
      > +1000 in WSJT and JT65-HF. JT9 frequencies could start just above this
      > range. In the wideband, dual-mode configuration of WSJT-X these
      > frequencies will serve well also for JT9 operation. For single-mode JT9
      > operation you can set USB dial frequency 2 kHz higher than those in the
      > table.
      >
      > What best to do about 40m? Should the default in WSJT-X be 7.039
      > (causing problems, I believe, with QRP CW ops) or 7.076 (problems in
      > Europe?) ?
      >
      > And what best to do about 30m? I think 10.139 has not proved to be a
      > good choice, and using it will surely cause problems with MEPT and WSPR
      > signals. Going down to, say, 10.130 has been suggested, but I think is
      > not usable (or undesirable) in ITU Region 1. How about moving up to
      > 10.141 (dial), say ?
      >
      > Other suggestions ?? Now is the time to speak jup...
      >
      > If you're on other relevant email lists, please make inquiries there,
      > too! Feel free to re-post this message, or write your own -- and then
      > please report back here.
      >
      > -- 73, Joe, K1JT
      >
    • Jim
      I guess this PropNet discussion has been going on for quite some time... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/26758
      Message 3 of 23 , Jul 12, 2013
        I guess this PropNet discussion has been going on for quite some time...

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/26758

        http://propnet.org/docs/art/PropNet30MEvent.pdf

        http://forums.qrz.com/archive/index.php/t-316938.html

        73,
        Jim (AA0MZ)

        --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <aa0mz@...> wrote:
        >
        > Most JT65 activity for 30 meters seems to be at 10.138
        >
        > I'd like to see JT65 moved to 10.136 and leave 10.138 open for JT9
        >
        > My reasoning is there are some beacons and loud QRM generated at 10.139. One is a very loud PSK PropNet beacon that I wish would shut down. It is very loud here and just generates QRM. I am not sure it serves a purpose. 30 meters is too small and already full of enough noise to not be adding to it with beacons. You can check PropNet here:
        >
        > http://www.propnet.org/
        >
        > 73,
        > Jim (AA0MZ)
        >
        > --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, Joe Taylor <joe@> wrote:
        > >
        > > In advance of an upcoming open release of WSJT-X Version 1.1, I'd like
        > > to consult the world-wide community about the best startup default
        > > frequencies provided by the program. In my view these should be
        > > community decisions, and I don't want to suggest something that's not
        > > workable.
        > >
        > > I believe the following table summarizes the USB dial frequencies
        > > presently used for JT65:
        > >
        > > Band JT65
        > > --------------
        > > 160 1.838
        > > 80 3.576
        > > 60 5.357
        > > 40 7.039 (7.076 in USA)
        > > 30 10.139
        > > 20 14.076
        > > 17 18.102
        > > 15 21.076
        > > 12 24.917
        > > 10 28.076
        > >
        > > On most bands these frequencies could be the startup defaults in WSJT-X.
        > > JT65 operation would then be more-or-less normal for those accustomed
        > > to WSJT or JT65-HF. The customary JT65 sub-band puts sync tones at
        > > audio frequencies 270 - 2270 Hz in WSJT-X, and offsets DF = -1000 to
        > > +1000 in WSJT and JT65-HF. JT9 frequencies could start just above this
        > > range. In the wideband, dual-mode configuration of WSJT-X these
        > > frequencies will serve well also for JT9 operation. For single-mode JT9
        > > operation you can set USB dial frequency 2 kHz higher than those in the
        > > table.
        > >
        > > What best to do about 40m? Should the default in WSJT-X be 7.039
        > > (causing problems, I believe, with QRP CW ops) or 7.076 (problems in
        > > Europe?) ?
        > >
        > > And what best to do about 30m? I think 10.139 has not proved to be a
        > > good choice, and using it will surely cause problems with MEPT and WSPR
        > > signals. Going down to, say, 10.130 has been suggested, but I think is
        > > not usable (or undesirable) in ITU Region 1. How about moving up to
        > > 10.141 (dial), say ?
        > >
        > > Other suggestions ?? Now is the time to speak jup...
        > >
        > > If you're on other relevant email lists, please make inquiries there,
        > > too! Feel free to re-post this message, or write your own -- and then
        > > please report back here.
        > >
        > > -- 73, Joe, K1JT
        > >
        >
      • Joe Taylor
        Hi all, Thanks for the input in response to my questions, both on this reflector and off-list. I ve concluded that the best solutions for startup default
        Message 4 of 23 , Jul 12, 2013
          Hi all,

          Thanks for the input in response to my questions, both on this reflector
          and off-list.

          I've concluded that the best solutions for startup default frequencies
          in WSJT-X are these:

          Band Dial Freq
          (m) (MHz)
          ---------------
          160 1.838
          80 3.576
          60 5.357
          40 7.076
          30 10.138
          20 14.076
          17 18.102
          15 21.076
          12 24.917
          10 28.076
          6 50.276

          With these dial frequency settings JT65 signals would be expected at
          audio frequencies 270 to 2270 Hz, JT9 signals at 2500 to 4000 Hz.

          For operators who cannot use the extended bandwidth capability of WSJT-X
          v1.1, the program now has a checkbox labeled "+ 2 kHz", just under the
          band selector. With that box checked, selecting 20 m will set your dial
          frequency to 14.078 rather than 14.076, with no need to edit the default
          frequency table.

          I believe this scheme will work well on all bands except 30 m. On that
          band, with dial frequency 10.138 the 200 Hz "WSPR band" is from 2100 to
          2300 Hz. WSJT-X will now accommodate WSPR by refusing to transmit in
          that band. If you try to do so, the program will pop up this message:

          "Please choose another Tx frequency.
          WSJT-X will not knowingly transmit
          in the WSPR sub-band on 30 m."

          Rather conveniently, with dial frequency 10.138 MHz the WSPR band is
          located essentially between the JT65 and JT9 segments.

          A full release of WSJT-X Version 1.1 will probably be made next week.
          VK3AMA tells me that a compatible release of JT-Alert will be available
          then, as well.

          In the meantime, if you'd like to try the latest v1.1 beta release, a
          Windows installation package for r3482 can be downloaded from
          http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSJTX_110r3482.exe

          Here's a quick list of differences between r3459 and r3482:

          1. Operating in "Split Tx" mode is now optional (but of course is
          required if you will transmit above 2.7 kHz). See "Split Tx" checkbox
          on the Configuration screen.

          2. Correct TxMode label now appears on program startup.

          3. "Transmitting..." message in ALL.TXT now has the correct TxMode.

          4. File wsjt_status.txt includes the TxMode.

          5. F4 clears Az, Dist, and the Tx1 through Tx5 message boxes.

          6. You can decode JT9 signals in the JT65 frequency range, and
          vice-versa, by double-clicking the signal in the waterfall.

          7. Better logic for enabling/disabling the TestPTT button.

          8. Do not call getFreq() when the TestPTT button is clicked and
          PTTmethod is via CAT control.

          9. New cold-start default frequencies, set at reasonable values for
          JT65, and a "+ 2 kHz" checkbox.

          10. A few default Tx macros, as examples.

          11. Fixed several bugs in the interaction between WSJT-X and Commander,
          especially for frequency settings below 10 MHz and above 100 MHz.

          12. Display the correct UTC on decoded lines, when "Shift+D" has been
          used to do another wideband decode during the following Rx sequence.

          13. Correct a flaw in comparing Dial Frequency against a modified
          default frequency setting.

          14. The digital gain slider now affects waterfall signal levels.

          15. Radio is no longer polled when blue "Decode" button is lit. On a
          few systems this was found to cause rig-communication problems.

          16. Disallow split Tx operation through Ham Radio Deluxe -- it doesn't
          seem to work.

          17. Don't knowingly allow transmissions in the WSPR sub-band on 30 m.

          18. Many updates to User's Guide.

          As always, your thoughtful feedback on the beta release will be much
          appreciated.

          -- 73, Joe, K1JT
        • Ian Wade G3NRW
          ___Original Message_________________________________________ From: Joe Taylor Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 Time: 15:55:45 ... Joe With respect,
          Message 5 of 23 , Jul 12, 2013
            ___Original Message_________________________________________
            From: Joe Taylor <joe@...>
            Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 Time: 15:55:45

            >
            >I believe this scheme will work well on all bands except 30 m.

            Joe

            With respect, JT-9 will not work *at all* with a frequency of 10.138
            +2500 to +4000. This dial frequency puts JT-9 signals between 10.140.5
            and 10.142, which is slap bang in the middle of the busiest and
            "noisiest" part of 30m; namely PSK31 up to PSK125.

            JT-9 won't stand a chance there.

            --
            73
            Ian, G3NRW

            The 30m Band Utilization Chart:
            http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wadei/30m_band_utilization.htm
          • Joe Taylor
            Hi Ian, ... Nothing in my list is written in stone. We must start somewhere. If something doesn t work, it can (and will) be changed. Dial frequency 10.138
            Message 6 of 23 , Jul 12, 2013
              Hi Ian,

              On 07/12/2013 04:29 PM, Ian Wade G3NRW wrote:

              > With respect, JT-9 will not work *at all* with a frequency of 10.138
              > +2500 to +4000. This dial frequency puts JT-9 signals between 10.140.5
              > and 10.142, which is slap bang in the middle of the busiest and
              > "noisiest" part of 30m; namely PSK31 up to PSK125.
              >
              > JT-9 won't stand a chance there.

              Nothing in my list is written in stone. We must start somewhere. If
              something doesn't work, it can (and will) be changed.

              Dial frequency 10.138 is considered OK for JT65. If JT9 is found by the
              community to be as good as JT65, or better, than JT9 signals will likely
              move down into the present JT65 zone -- with far better efficiency of
              spectral usage.

              Please propose something specific that you think would be better, and
              would be readily adopted.

              -- Joe, K1JT
            • Joe Taylor
              Hi Andy, ... It seems you intended your message to go to the wsjtgroup reflector, so I ll copy this reply there. Here s my take: JT65 is a popular mode, with
              Message 7 of 23 , Jul 12, 2013
                Hi Andy,

                On 7/12/2013 7:32 PM, k3wyc wrote:
                > "If JT9 is found by the community to be as good as JT65, or better, than JT9 signals will likely move down into the present JT65 zone -- with far better efficiency of spectral usage."
                >
                > I understand that hope but, on 20m, I think I'm seeing a trend of JT65 moving up into the JT9 area and fewer JT9 signals than before 1.1 was released.
                >
                > Anyone else see that or it just my imagination?

                It seems you intended your message to go to the wsjtgroup reflector, so
                I'll copy this reply there.

                Here's my take:

                JT65 is a popular mode, with many hundreds of users. Except for those
                on EME, most are using JT65-HF. Many (perhaps most?) have scarcely
                heard of JT9 or WSJT-X, and with our present band-use patterns they
                don't even see JT9 signals on their 2-kHz-wide JT65-HF waterfalls.

                People won't change unless and until they think something significantly
                better is available. For good reasons, many don't choose to be bothered
                with "beta-release" software. Having a real WSJT-X Version 1.1 on the
                WSJT web site may make a difference.

                Nevertheless, if activity patterns change, they will probably change
                slowly.

                -- Joe, K1JT
              • Andrew O'Brien
                ... 2359 3 JT65 3 JT9 00 6 3 01 3 2 02 7 2 03 8 3 2 JT65 signals above 2500 04 4 4 2
                Message 8 of 23 , Jul 12, 2013
                  No, I see an increase in JT9 activity and no change real  in JT65A on HF.  Take this random sample from 20M tonight
                   
                  2359 3 JT65   3 JT9
                  00     6          3
                  01     3          2
                  02     7          2
                  03     8          3   2 JT65 signals above 2500
                  04     4          4   2 JT65 above 2500
                  05     3          3 
                  06     5          3
                  07     5          2  1 JT65 above 2500

                  Andy K3UK



                • Jim and Hannelore Fisher
                  As someone who has made extensive and sometimes successful use of 6M JT9-1 to try to ID undiscovered transatlantic openings in a very weak season, I really
                  Message 9 of 23 , Jul 14, 2013
                    As someone who has made extensive and sometimes successful use of 6M JT9-1 to try to ID undiscovered transatlantic openings in a very weak season, I really like the idea of re-setting JT9-1 to the 50276 range. I had previously made the case for issuing a version that combined WSPR2 with JT9-1, but now what I find is that WSPR is mainly an issue interfering with JT9-1 reception, particularly in populated EU where one strong WSPR signal may locally blank large portions of the JT9-1 segment, and that other transatlantic participants are more interesting in alternating between JT65A and JT9-1. Many WSPR stns are unattended, and both JT9-1 and JT65A offer the opportunity to convert an identified path rapidly into a QSO.
                     
                    I agree that JT9-1 is gaining adherents on 6M. Concerns notwithstanding, I now find that with the latest version I am getting excellent decodes from very weak JT9-1 signals so long as they persist a significant fraction of the minute.
                     
                    With at least partial success, I am pushing the idea that 6M stns pursuing transatlantic QSOs adopt the convention that NA is even and EU/AS/AF is odd. Stns on both sides are running QRO es still usually weak on the other side, so it is nice not to have a local's 1.5KW competing with the weak transatlantic signal you are seeking.
                     
                    Joe, thanks for all these wonderful possibilities!
                     
                    Jim
                  • k0og
                    Joe, That all looks good, but I have found it useful with my limited-bandwidth FT-100D (around 3 kHz passband) to set the VFO-A to 14.077 MHz, then set the
                    Message 10 of 23 , Jul 14, 2013
                      Joe,

                      That all looks good, but I have found it useful with my limited-bandwidth FT-100D (around 3 kHz passband) to set the VFO-A to 14.077 MHz, then set the boundary between JT65 and JT9 at 1500 Hz. For me, a "+ 1 kHz" checkbox option would make more sense, and I suspect I'm not the only one. I suggest providing a "+ xxxx Hz" box, where the "xxxx" is set by the user in the configuration (able to type in any number between 0000 and 9999).

                      73,
                      -Joe-

                      --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, Joe Taylor <joe@...> wrote:

                      > 9. New cold-start default frequencies, set at reasonable values for
                      > JT65, and a "+ 2 kHz" checkbox.
                      ...
                      >
                      > -- 73, Joe, K1JT
                      >
                    • KD7YZ Bob
                      ... I had trouble with JT65 down-freq from 1400 offset on 6m today .. eliminated any possibility of decode when it was on. If we move to 076 then won t JT65 be
                      Message 11 of 23 , Jul 14, 2013
                        On 7/14/2013, () sent :

                        > JT9-1 to try to ID undiscovered transatlantic openings in a very weak
                        > season, I really like the idea of re-setting JT9-1 to the 50276
                        > range. I had previously made the case for issuing a version that
                        > combined WSPR2 with JT9-1, but now what I find is that WSPR is mainly
                        > an issue interfering with JT9-1 reception,

                        I had trouble with JT65 down-freq from 1400 offset on 6m today ..
                        eliminated any possibility of decode when it was on.

                        If we move to 076 then won't JT65 be right on us there?

                        --
                        73,
                        Bob KD7YZ
                        http://www.qrz.com/db/KD7YZ
                      • Joe Subich, W4TV
                        ... The goal would be to move JT9 to 50.278 (2 KHz higher dial than JT65) which would put the actual JT9 activity between 50.279 and 50.300 (+3000 to +4000
                        Message 12 of 23 , Jul 14, 2013
                          > If we move to 076 then won't JT65 be right on us there?

                          The goal would be to move JT9 to 50.278 (2 KHz higher "dial" than
                          JT65) which would put the actual JT9 activity between 50.279 and
                          50.300 (+3000 to +4000 in WSJT-X).

                          > I had trouble with JT65 down-freq from 1400 offset on 6m today ..
                          > eliminated any possibility of decode when it was on.

                          Your 1400 offset put you nearly in the middle of the JT65A activity
                          today (about +150 in JT65-HF) which is a recipe for trouble as you
                          almost certainly found out.

                          I probably will not be doing much JT9 on six since WSJT-X will not
                          use right channel audio and I have been using the K3's sub receiver
                          for monitoring JT65A (and turning on split to work stations) while
                          also watching 50.075-50.175 with the main RX/P3. However, I can
                          always tune the main RX up and switch to WSJT-X with split TX off
                          for JT9 if I see a lot of activity.

                          73,

                          ... Joe, W4TV


                          On 7/14/2013 11:11 PM, KD7YZ Bob wrote:
                          > On 7/14/2013, () sent :
                          >
                          >> JT9-1 to try to ID undiscovered transatlantic openings in a very weak
                          >> season, I really like the idea of re-setting JT9-1 to the 50276
                          >> range. I had previously made the case for issuing a version that
                          >> combined WSPR2 with JT9-1, but now what I find is that WSPR is mainly
                          >> an issue interfering with JT9-1 reception,
                          >
                          > I had trouble with JT65 down-freq from 1400 offset on 6m today ..
                          > eliminated any possibility of decode when it was on.
                          >
                          > If we move to 076 then won't JT65 be right on us there?
                          >
                        • Joe Taylor
                          Joe -- ... I haven t imagined that there would be much reason to use JT9 on 6m, where there s more available spectrum and (as far as I know) seldom QRM from
                          Message 13 of 23 , Jul 15, 2013
                            Joe --

                            > I probably will not be doing much JT9 on six since WSJT-X will not
                            > use right channel audio and I have been using the K3's sub receiver
                            > for monitoring JT65A (and turning on split to work stations) while
                            > also watching 50.075-50.175 with the main RX/P3. However, I can
                            > always tune the main RX up and switch to WSJT-X with split TX off
                            > for JT9 if I see a lot of activity.

                            I haven't imagined that there would be much reason to use JT9 on 6m,
                            where there's more available spectrum and (as far as I know) seldom QRM
                            from too many JT65 signals. Am I wrong about this?

                            Right-channel audio would be easy enough to provide as an option, if
                            there were any significant demand.

                            -- Joe, K1JT
                          • chas cartmel
                            Joe Did you not say in the 1.1 guide: JT9 is optimized for the LF, MF, and HF bands. It is about 2 dB more sensitive than JT65 If that is true then is that
                            Message 14 of 23 , Jul 15, 2013

                              Joe

                               

                              Did you not say in the 1.1 guide:  “JT9 is optimized for the LF, MF, and HF bands. It is about 2 dB more sensitive than JT65 “ If that is true then is that not a good reason to use it?

                               

                              73

                              Charlie

                              www.G4EST.me.uk

                               

                              From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Taylor
                              Sent: 15 July 2013 17:09
                              To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Re: WSJT-X v1.1 and Default frequencies for JT65 and JT9

                               

                               

                              Joe --

                              > I probably will not be doing much JT9 on six since WSJT-X will not
                              > use right channel audio and I have been using the K3's sub receiver
                              > for monitoring JT65A (and turning on split to work stations) while
                              > also watching 50.075-50.175 with the main RX/P3. However, I can
                              > always tune the main RX up and switch to WSJT-X with split TX off
                              > for JT9 if I see a lot of activity.

                              I haven't imagined that there would be much reason to use JT9 on 6m,
                              where there's more available spectrum and (as far as I know) seldom QRM
                              from too many JT65 signals. Am I wrong about this?

                              Right-channel audio would be easy enough to provide as an option, if
                              there were any significant demand.

                              -- Joe, K1JT

                            • Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.