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

Re: [wsjtgroup] Re: WSJT-X v1.1 and Default frequencies for JT65 and JT9

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 23 , Jul 12, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 23 , Jul 14, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 23 , Jul 14, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 23 , Jul 14, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 23 , Jul 14, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              > 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 6 of 23 , Jul 15, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 23 , Jul 15, 2013
                • 0 Attachment

                  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.