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

RE: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.

Expand Messages
  • chas cartmel
    Rudy You write as though it is the blue line which separates the band usage of JT9 and JT65. The separation is a matter of band zoning, There is no physical
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      Rudy

      You write as though it is the blue line which separates the band usage of JT9 and JT65. The separation is a matter of band zoning, There is no physical reason why any part of the allowed spectrum is usable by any mode, it is just convention that certain portions are used by certain modes. I am sure that the use of wideband data modes in the SSB area, or worse still the beacon zones would not be welcome. Although in most cases the use of these zones is governed by ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ there is no practical impediment to drifting between zones. Transmitting out of any recognised zone would however make it difficult to find. I never look for SSTV outside of the ‘accepted’ frequencies, it may exist but I won’t work it.

       

      My understanding of the Blue Line in Joe’s software is to help with the demodulation of both modes, rightmost decoded as JT9 while left side is JT65. I have not seen any software other than HRD which now is beyond my ability to justify it’s cost which does multiple mode decoding simultaneously so if this division of the spectrum aids that purpose then it must be as it is. You can of course TX JT9 in the JT65 zone but it may well not be decoded so what’s the point.

       

      73

      Charlie

      www.G4EST.me.uk

       

      From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rudy Benner
      Sent: 05 August 2013 13:02
      To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.

       

       

       

      Joe and the group.

       

      Is there a good reason why JT65 and JT9 are separated at all?

       

      Can we not occupy the same space? I propose eliminating the “Blue Line”

       

      ve3bdr rudy

    • chas cartmel
      Rudy does not consider my original answer (see below) pertinent. Will somebody else please answer his question as below “Is there a good reason why JT65 and
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 5, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        Rudy does not consider my original answer (see below) pertinent.

         

        Will somebody else please answer his question as below

        “Is there a good reason why JT65 and JT9 are separated at all?

        Can we not occupy the same space? I propose eliminating the “Blue Line”

         

        73

        Charlie

        www.G4EST.me.uk

         

        From: Rudy Benner [mailto:rudy@...]
        Sent: 05 August 2013 15:30
        To: chas cartmel
        Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.

         

        You have not answered my question. Don’t bother to respond.

         

        Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:06 AM

        Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.

         

        Again -  read my answer which is my logical explanation. Feel free to transmit outside the usual zone, just don’t expect your signal to be seen or if it is decoded.

         

         

        From: Rudy Benner [mailto:rudy@...]
        Sent: 05 August 2013 13:34
        To: chas cartmel
        Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.

         

        Again, why separate them?

         

        r

         

         

        Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 8:27 AM

        Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.

         

         

        Rudy

        You write as though it is the blue line which separates the band usage of JT9 and JT65. The separation is a matter of band zoning, There is no physical reason why any part of the allowed spectrum is usable by any mode, it is just convention that certain portions are used by certain modes. I am sure that the use of wideband data modes in the SSB area, or worse still the beacon zones would not be welcome. Although in most cases the use of these zones is governed by ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ there is no practical impediment to drifting between zones. Transmitting out of any recognised zone would however make it difficult to find. I never look for SSTV outside of the ‘accepted’ frequencies, it may exist but I won’t work it.

        My understanding of the Blue Line in Joe’s software is to help with the demodulation of both modes, rightmost decoded as JT9 while left side is JT65. I have not seen any software other than HRD which now is beyond my ability to justify it’s cost which does multiple mode decoding simultaneously so if this division of the spectrum aids that purpose then it must be as it is. You can of course TX JT9 in the JT65 zone but it may well not be decoded so what’s the point.

        From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rudy Benner
        Sent: 05 August 2013 13:02
        To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.

         

        Joe and the group.

        Is there a good reason why JT65 and JT9 are separated at all?

        Can we not occupy the same space? I propose eliminating the “Blue Line”

        ve3bdr rudy

      • Rudy Benner
        You might have something there. From: Jack W6NF Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:48 AM To: Rudy Benner Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the Blue Line
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 5, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          You might have something there.
           
          From: Jack W6NF
          Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:48 AM
          Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.
           
          On 8/5/2013 7:01 AM, Rudy Benner wrote:
           
           
          Joe and the group.
           
          Is there a good reason why JT65 and JT9 are separated at all?
           
          Can we not occupy the same space? I propose eliminating the “Blue Line”
           
          ve3bdr rudy
          Hi, Rudy:

          How about *two* blue lines...and end zone for each mode and a neutral zone for both? :>)

          Visiting Winnipeg...had to throw that out.

          73,

          -- 
          Jack, W6NF/VE4
          Shelley, K7MKL/VE4
        • Joe Subich, W4TV
          The blue line is a way to divide the *software load* in the decoding process. If the blue line were eliminated and both decoders were required to process
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 5, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            The "blue line" is a way to divide the *software load* in the
            decoding process. If the "blue line" were eliminated and both
            decoders were required to process the entire 5 KHz spectrum, I
            seriously doubt that the decodes could be completed quickly
            enough for the user to react before the start of the next minute.

            73,

            ... Joe, W4TV


            On 8/5/2013 10:39 AM, chas cartmel wrote:
            > Rudy does not consider my original answer (see below) pertinent.
            >
            >
            >
            > Will somebody else please answer his question as below
            >
            > “Is there a good reason why JT65 and JT9 are separated at all?
            >
            > Can we not occupy the same space? I propose eliminating the “Blue Line”
            >
            >
            >
            > 73
            >
            > Charlie
            >
            > www.G4EST.me.uk
            >
            >
            >
            > From: Rudy Benner [mailto:rudy@...]
            > Sent: 05 August 2013 15:30
            > To: chas cartmel
            > Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.
            >
            >
            >
            > You have not answered my question. Don’t bother to respond.
            >
            >
            >
            > From: chas cartmel <mailto:chas@...>
            >
            > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:06 AM
            >
            > To: 'Rudy Benner' <mailto:rudy@...>
            >
            > Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.
            >
            >
            >
            > Again - read my answer which is my logical explanation. Feel free to transmit outside the usual zone, just don’t expect your signal to be seen or if it is decoded.
            >
            >
            >
            > 73
            >
            > Charlie
            >
            > www.G4EST.me.uk
            >
            >
            >
            > From: Rudy Benner [mailto:rudy@...]
            > Sent: 05 August 2013 13:34
            > To: chas cartmel
            > Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.
            >
            >
            >
            > Again, why separate them?
            >
            >
            >
            > r
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > From: chas cartmel <mailto:chas@...>
            >
            > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 8:27 AM
            >
            > To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Rudy
            >
            > You write as though it is the blue line which separates the band usage of JT9 and JT65. The separation is a matter of band zoning, There is no physical reason why any part of the allowed spectrum is usable by any mode, it is just convention that certain portions are used by certain modes. I am sure that the use of wideband data modes in the SSB area, or worse still the beacon zones would not be welcome. Although in most cases the use of these zones is governed by ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ there is no practical impediment to drifting between zones. Transmitting out of any recognised zone would however make it difficult to find. I never look for SSTV outside of the ‘accepted’ frequencies, it may exist but I won’t work it.
            >
            > My understanding of the Blue Line in Joe’s software is to help with the demodulation of both modes, rightmost decoded as JT9 while left side is JT65. I have not seen any software other than HRD which now is beyond my ability to justify it’s cost which does multiple mode decoding simultaneously so if this division of the spectrum aids that purpose then it must be as it is. You can of course TX JT9 in the JT65 zone but it may well not be decoded so what’s the point.
            >
            > 73
            >
            > Charlie
            >
            > www.G4EST.me.uk
            >
            > From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rudy Benner
            > Sent: 05 August 2013 13:02
            > To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and JT9.
            >
            >
            >
            > Joe and the group.
            >
            > Is there a good reason why JT65 and JT9 are separated at all?
            >
            > Can we not occupy the same space? I propose eliminating the “Blue Line”
            >
            > ve3bdr rudy
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Rudy Benner
            Yes, that makes sense. Thanks Joe. r ... From: Joe Subich, W4TV Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:56 AM To: chas cartmel Cc: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com Subject:
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 5, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, that makes sense. Thanks Joe.

              r


              -----Original Message-----
              From: Joe Subich, W4TV
              Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:56 AM
              To: chas cartmel
              Cc: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and
              JT9.


              The "blue line" is a way to divide the *software load* in the
              decoding process. If the "blue line" were eliminated and both
              decoders were required to process the entire 5 KHz spectrum, I
              seriously doubt that the decodes could be completed quickly
              enough for the user to react before the start of the next minute.

              73,

              ... Joe, W4TV


              On 8/5/2013 10:39 AM, chas cartmel wrote:
              > Rudy does not consider my original answer (see below) pertinent.
              >
              >
              >
              > Will somebody else please answer his question as below
              >
              > “Is there a good reason why JT65 and JT9 are separated at all?
              >
              > Can we not occupy the same space? I propose eliminating the “Blue Line”
              >
              >
              >
              > 73
              >
              > Charlie
              >
              > www.G4EST.me.uk
              >
              >
              >
              > From: Rudy Benner [mailto:rudy@...]
              > Sent: 05 August 2013 15:30
              > To: chas cartmel
              > Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65
              > and JT9.
              >
              >
              >
              > You have not answered my question. Don’t bother to respond.
              >
              >
              >
              > From: chas cartmel <mailto:chas@...>
              >
              > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:06 AM
              >
              > To: 'Rudy Benner' <mailto:rudy@...>
              >
              > Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65
              > and JT9.
              >
              >
              >
              > Again - read my answer which is my logical explanation. Feel free to
              > transmit outside the usual zone, just don’t expect your signal to be seen
              > or if it is decoded.
              >
              >
              >
              > 73
              >
              > Charlie
              >
              > www.G4EST.me.uk
              >
              >
              >
              > From: Rudy Benner [mailto:rudy@...]
              > Sent: 05 August 2013 13:34
              > To: chas cartmel
              > Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65
              > and JT9.
              >
              >
              >
              > Again, why separate them?
              >
              >
              >
              > r
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > From: chas cartmel <mailto:chas@...>
              >
              > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 8:27 AM
              >
              > To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65
              > and JT9.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Rudy
              >
              > You write as though it is the blue line which separates the band usage of
              > JT9 and JT65. The separation is a matter of band zoning, There is no
              > physical reason why any part of the allowed spectrum is usable by any
              > mode, it is just convention that certain portions are used by certain
              > modes. I am sure that the use of wideband data modes in the SSB area, or
              > worse still the beacon zones would not be welcome. Although in most cases
              > the use of these zones is governed by ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ there is no
              > practical impediment to drifting between zones. Transmitting out of any
              > recognised zone would however make it difficult to find. I never look for
              > SSTV outside of the ‘accepted’ frequencies, it may exist but I won’t work
              > it.
              >
              > My understanding of the Blue Line in Joe’s software is to help with the
              > demodulation of both modes, rightmost decoded as JT9 while left side is
              > JT65. I have not seen any software other than HRD which now is beyond my
              > ability to justify it’s cost which does multiple mode decoding
              > simultaneously so if this division of the spectrum aids that purpose then
              > it must be as it is. You can of course TX JT9 in the JT65 zone but it may
              > well not be decoded so what’s the point.
              >
              > 73
              >
              > Charlie
              >
              > www.G4EST.me.uk
              >
              > From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On
              > Behalf Of Rudy Benner
              > Sent: 05 August 2013 13:02
              > To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [wsjtgroup] Fw: Eliminate the "Blue Line" and combine JT65 and
              > JT9.
              >
              >
              >
              > Joe and the group.
              >
              > Is there a good reason why JT65 and JT9 are separated at all?
              >
              > Can we not occupy the same space? I propose eliminating the “Blue Line”
              >
              > ve3bdr rudy
              >
              >
              >
              >


              ------------------------------------

              To unsubscribe, send an email to:
              wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              WSJTGroup Homepage --> http://www.wsjtgroup.org/





              Yahoo! Groups Links
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.