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

JT9 Contest

Expand Messages
  • fred_darrah
    I can imagine what would happen if 10 to 49 watts and 50+ watts were used. It would be a disaster. Many like myself would not participate because of the
    Message 1 of 22 , Aug 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I can imagine what would happen if 10 to 49 watts and 50+ watts were used. It would be a disaster. Many like myself would not participate because of the tremendous QRM. I for one do not feel a contest on this basis is a good idea. If you were considering submitting QSO logs over an extended period made under normal conditions who knows. Possibly many would see the number of contacts,distances or countries,and possibly the conditions they are being made under and be impressed with the result. Please do not have a weak signal mode be assaulted in this manner.
      73 Fred N9GUE
    • Jeff Stillinger
      Fred, In reality, there are many 50-100 watt stations using JT9 and JT65 every day. The average power used, by admission of the stations, is 25-35 watts.
      Message 2 of 22 , Aug 20, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Fred,

        In reality, there are many 50-100 watt stations using JT9 and JT65 every day.   The average power used, by admission of the stations, is 25-35 watts.  However, I have seen admissions of 300 watts.  If a 35 watt station is acceptable out side of a contest, then it would be acceptable within the confines of a contest.   You will note that the higher power used, the fewer points a station could obtain.  Higher power could actually loose the contest for the operator.   Again, die hard contesters are going to operate to extract the highest number of points per hour.   Which would be 1-10 watts.   

        As far a log submitted over time, we already have awards for that.   DXCC, WAS, WAC, etc…  Funny how not many are showing off the awards.   I have seen a few WAS's, no DXCC that I know of.

        --
        Jeff - KB6IBB

        From: fred_darrah <cfdarrah@...>
        Date: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:45 PM
        To: <wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: [wsjtgroup] JT9 Contest

         

        I can imagine what would happen if 10 to 49 watts and 50+ watts were used. It would be a disaster. Many like myself would not participate because of the tremendous QRM. I for one do not feel a contest on this basis is a good idea. If you were considering submitting QSO logs over an extended period made under normal conditions who knows. Possibly many would see the number of contacts,distances or countries,and possibly the conditions they are being made under and be impressed with the result. Please do not have a weak signal mode be assaulted in this manner.
        73 Fred N9GUE

      • kc2wuf
        Jeff, I believe the reason for no DXCC awards being discussed is that until ARRL changes the DXCC awards rules, there are no awards for individual modes, just
        Message 3 of 22 , Aug 20, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Jeff,

          I believe the reason for no DXCC awards being discussed is that until ARRL changes the DXCC awards rules, there are no awards for individual modes, just CW, Phone and Digital (used to be called RTTY). There is discussion at ARRL of expanding the awards and I believe individual modes for DXCC might be one of the endorsements added.

          73 David KC2WUF

          --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Stillinger <kb6ibb@...> wrote:
          > As far a log submitted over time, we already have awards for that. DXCC,
          > WAS, WAC, etcŠ Funny how not many are showing off the awards. I have seen
          > a few WAS's, no DXCC that I know of.
        • Hisami DEJIMA
          very interesting. Too strong signals are disadvantage of the HF WSJT community. The Alligator should receive penalty. hi 73, Hisami 7L4IOU
          Message 4 of 22 , Aug 20, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            very interesting.

            Too strong signals are disadvantage of the HF WSJT community.
            The Alligator should receive penalty. hi

            73, Hisami 7L4IOU

            >On 8/19/2013 9:06 AM, Jeff Stillinger wrote:
            >
            >Hi Charlie,
            >
            >Keep in the back of your mind… My brain has three ham radio modes.
            >DX, Contest, Fun.
            >
            >Following my U.S. Field Day experience working 65 and 9 exclusively.
            >QSO exchange is rather long, but, that is the mode. Because I was
            >competing with different modes during field day. I didn't bother
            >sending in my score sheet. After all calculations were done, I got
            >420 total F.D. points. Pathetic score when competing against CW and
            >SSB. I would not expect to see a winner with 10,000 points. I would
            >expect to see the winner in the mid 300's, maybe high 400's depending
            >upon the bonus points. I think to properly showcase the mode, the
            >contest should stick to the standard format.
            >
            >Propagation is one reason I did not consider breaking things down by
            >band. Die hard contesters will select the band/s at any one point in
            >time that will best extract the maximum number of points. If there
            >are ZL and VK stations on 40 meters, but not on 20, I would expect the
            >U.S. contesters to go for the distance bonus. The 3 hour updates from
            >the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center are a contesters best friend.
            >
            >--
            >Jeff - KB6IBB
            >
            >
            >From: chas cartmel <[a:mailto:chas@...]chas@...>
            >Date: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:21 AM
            >To: Jeff Stillinger <[a:mailto:kb6ibb@...]kb6ibb@...>
            >Cc: <[a:mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com>
            >Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] my only complaint
            >
            >
            >Jeff
            >This is a thought I had toyed around with for a few minutes but got no
            >further than thinking about exchanges. I could handle the technical
            >side as in my working life I was heavily involved with data,
            >validation, structure and utilising many query and analysis tools, and
            >latterly with web data interfaces.
            >Could of course publicise through the RSGB and their news broadcasts
            >
            >The downside will be length of each valid QSO, possible format – note
            >format differences minutes 1 and 5
            >
            >Min 1
            >
            >TEST G4EST IO83
            >
            >Min 2
            >
            >G4EST K6BBB DM24
            >
            >Min 3
            >
            >K6BBB G4EST -10
            >
            >Min 4
            >
            >G4EST K6BBB R-12
            >
            >Min 5
            >
            >K6BBB G4EST R-12
            >
            >Min 6
            >
            >Change TX odd – even?
            >
            >
            >The normal conditions of exchanging and correctly acknowledging
            >reports are met, but over a minimum 5 minute QSO
            >= 12 / hour
            >= 288 over 24 hour period (we wish)
            >
            >Perhaps monthly activity nights say 4 hours with a 2 hour incrementing
            >start time to cover propagation over time of day? Need to avoid RTTY
            >contest periods as the JT9 spectrum at this location this last weekend
            >was unusable due to RTTY QRM.
            >
            >Might be worth putting a Yahoo Group poll out to see who may be
            >interested.
            >
            >
            >73
            >Charlie
            >[a:http://www.G4EST.me.uk]www.G4EST.me.uk
            >
            >
            >From: [a:mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
            >[[a:mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]
            >On Behalf Of Jeff Stillinger
            >Sent: 19 August 2013 13:53
            >To: [a:mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] my only complaint
            >
            >
            >Ed and Charlie,
            >
            >
            >I have thought about this a lot over the past month or so. I too see
            >JT65 users constantly out numbering the JT9 users. A big shot in the
            >arm for JT9 would be to have a fully authorized JT9 contest. A
            >contest would get some good write ups in the ham media, demonstrate
            >the mode, and improve operator skill.
            >
            >
            >Putting together the contest is rather simple, however, there is a lot
            >of work involved. I can write the rules and awards. I would need a
            >media volunteer. Someone who can not only get the word out in
            >multiple countries, but corporate sponsorships as well. Then 3 or 4
            >log overseers. Maybe with some keen computer skills that could
            >automate the logging process. I have even thought about the integrity
            >system and having the contesters simply submit a log summary sheet.
            >Still will need volunteers to go over the summary sheets to calculate
            >the winners.
            >
            >
            >What makes this contest super special is that no other commonly used
            >mode in ham radio can say it's inventor actively uses it. You won't
            >QSO with Sam Morse or Glenn Watson. The media person would have to
            >talk Joe into personally signing the grand prize certificate.
            >
            >
            >Here is a rough sketch of the point layout, based on output power…
            >
            >
            >50+ watts PEP = 0.25 points
            >
            >10-49 watts PEP = 0.50 points
            >
            >5-10 watts PEP = 0.75 points
            >
            >1-5 watts PEP = 1.0 points
            >
            >
            >One time awarded bonus points:
            >
            >Working K1JT = 200 bonus points <- assuming the media person can con
            >Joe into working the contest.
            >
            >Working all Continents = 150 bonus points
            >
            >Working a contest organizer (the volunteers) = 50 bonus points
            >
            >1-10 watt stations, 25 bonus points for each station worked over 12,
            >000 km from QTH
            >
            >1-10 watt stations, 25 bonus points for each Dxepedtion station worked
            >
            >
            >Prizes:
            >
            >World Wide, JT9, Grand Master (Grand Prize)
            >
            >World Wide, JT9 Master (Second Place)
            >
            >World Wide, JT9 Journeyman (Third Place)
            >
            >
            >Anyone with the skills wish to donate some time and effort to launch a
            >JT9 contest?
            >
            >--
            >
            >Jeff - KB6IBB
            >
            >
            >From: chas cartmel <[a:mailto:chas@...]chas@...>
            >Date: Sunday, August 18, 2013 2:58 AM
            >To: <[a:mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com>
            >Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] my only complaint
            >
            >
            >Ed
            >With you there. I am surprised that JT9 has not had more followers,
            >however I note that on looking at pskreporter hits many even the
            >majority perhaps, are using JT65-HF so do not have access to Joe’s
            >superb software. I did a check yesterday and posted results to the
            >group comparing JT65=HF to Joe’s software and while it decoded
            >signals when the clock was out of synch better it missed the weaker
            >signals which is where JT9 would be a big advantage.
            >
            >
            >73
            >Charlie
            >[a:http://www.G4EST.me.uk]www.G4EST.me.uk
            >
            >
            >From: [a:mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
            >[[a:mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]
            >On Behalf Of Ed
            >Sent: 18 August 2013 01:41
            >To: 'bill'; 'WSJT Group'
            >Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] my only complaint
            >
            >
            >Yes, I am making a stand of one to ignore JT65 and stick with JT9 !
            >
            >Ed K7AAT
            >
            >
            >From: [a:mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
            >[[a:mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com]
            >On Behalf Of bill
            >Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 2:46 PM
            >To: 'WSJT Group'
            >Subject: [wsjtgroup] my only complaint
            >
            >
            >so many JT65 sigs on 20 and very few JT9 on any band.
            >
            >Thanks Joe, -- An effective way to deal with predators is to taste
            >terrible. --------------------------- I have an unequaled gift.. of
            >squeezing BIG mistakes into LOST opportunities. W9OL-Bill H. in
            >Chicagoland webcams at [a:http://w9ol-towercam.webhop.org:8080]http://
            >w9ol-towercam.webhop.org:8080 My weatherpage at [a:http://home.comcast.
            >net/%7Ew9ol/WX/HH.htm]http://home.comcast.net/~w9ol/WX/HH.htm
            >
            >
            > Contests also reside in the fun category for my XYL and me...unless
            >one encounters a class M solar flare. :>)
            >
            >We listened for JT activity in the TARA Melee, which allows digital
            >modes besides RTTY. I decoded dozens of signals and did not encounter
            >a single contest QSO. Granted, the exchange does not encourage a high
            >rate, for that you'd run PSK, but I was surprised at the total lack of
            >activity. Yes, I did call CQ occasionally but got no replies.
            >
            >73,
            >
            >--
            >Jack, W6NF/VE4
            >Shelley, K7MKL/VE4
            >
          • Joe Taylor
            Hi Thomas, Thanks for your interest in WSJT-X. ... For what it s worth: the ARRL EME contest works extremely well using the JT65 protocol. JT65 has the same
            Message 5 of 22 , Sep 5, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Thomas,

              Thanks for your interest in WSJT-X.

              W4HM wrote:
              > With all due respect to your suggestion, as an avid CW and RTTY contester, a
              > contest involving the JT9 mode would be an unworkable catastrophe because of
              > the inherent latency in copying the other stations signals time wise. You
              > would just end up with everyone transmitting one on top of another with no
              > one printing received signals.

              For what it's worth: the ARRL EME contest works extremely well using the
              JT65 protocol. JT65 has the same timing and latencies as JT9.

              True, the maximum QSO rate is about 15 per hour, no great shakes by HF
              standards. But in most EME circumstances that's about as good as it
              gets, with any mode.

              That said, I'm pretty sure that a JT9 contest at HF would have plenty of
              other problems -- not least because signal levels can very over a vastly
              larger range than EME signals do.

              > ... Many find
              > WSJT-X clunky and as it's the only available software in existence for JT9,
              > the mode is under used.
              >
              > I personally find the undockable windows in WSJT-X very clunky and
              > unpleasent to use and tolerate it only because I love the JT9 mode so much.
              > It's especially cumbersome when I have other software windows open at the
              > same time.

              As far as I know, most users find the WSJT-X GUI to be somewhere between
              good and excellent. Whatever the truth of that statement might be,
              "clunky" is not a helpful description of whatever things you may dislike
              about it.

              Separately movable and resizable windows for the waterfall and main
              window offer maximum freedom in the way you set up your screen. We
              developers can hardly plan for detailed accommodation of every user's
              "other software windows open at the same time". However, I usually have
              such a situation, also -- and I don't find any "clunky" limitations to
              how I want to arrange things.

              If you have some good ideas about how to make WSJT-X better, please
              spell them out and share them with us. If you can program, feel free to
              contribute -- that's why all WSJT-related programs are open source. If
              you can't contribute in that way, feel free to make a thorough and
              thoughtful feature request.

              -- 73, Joe, K1JT
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.