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

Re: [wsjtgroup] Comments on the JT65A and Olivia contests

Expand Messages
  • Joe Taylor
    Hi Andy and all, ... At the risk of stating the obvious: JT65 was designed for EME and EME contests -- another mode that most people would consider tough . In
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Andy and all,

      Andrew O'Brien (K3UK) wrote:

      > Both Olivia and JT65A contests were considered "tough". Activity was,
      > according to early reports, higher in the JT65A mode .
      >
      > Several JT65A WSJT users had difficulty handing a "pile-up " (There
      > are some advanced features within WSJT where you can decode several
      > signals at once, but perhaps people do not know this).
      > ...
      > As for the comments that the contest was "tough", that was expected.
      > The experimental contests take a lot of patience.
      >
      > JT65A as implemented in WSJT is not at all designed for conventional
      > contesting. Today's results are helpful for analyzing how contests
      > with JT65A could be conducted in the future (if at all!).

      At the risk of stating the obvious: JT65 was designed for EME and EME
      contests -- another mode that most people would consider "tough".

      In the EME contest world, a sustained QSO rate of 8-10 per hour (which
      is possible with JT65) is very good. Somewhere around 200 users had
      great fun with JT65 in the recent ARRL EME contest, in many cases
      working well over 100 stations.

      JT65 was intended for use with extremely weak signals -- cases where CW
      (or other, faster digimodes) will fail.

      To me, the only interesting HF contest using JT65 would be one in which,
      say, the maximum permitted power would be 1 Watt.

      -- 73, Joe, K1JT
    • Joe Taylor
      Hi Robert, I ll reply to the list, since it appears that your message was intended to go there. A 5 W limit would be fine. It has the advantage that it s the
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Robert,

        I'll reply to the list, since it appears that your message was intended
        to go there.

        A 5 W limit would be fine. It has the advantage that it's the same as
        the usual limit for "QRP class" in other contests.

        The important thing, in my opinion, is that an HF JT65 contest should be
        a QRP (or QRPP) event. JT65 is supposed to be used with *weak* signals.

        -- 73, Joe, K1JT

        TF3TTY wrote:
        > Hi all.
        >
        > Make it 5 watts, Because most radios has 5 watts minimum power when the knob
        > is turned all the way down…
        >
        > Reading 1 watt on a meter is also not very good.
        >
        > 73’s robert tf3tty
        >
        > _____
        >
        > From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        > Of Joe Taylor
        > Sent: 2. janúar 2008 14:35
        > To: Andrew O'Brien; DIGITALRADIO; WSJT
        > Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Comments on the JT65A and Olivia contests
        >
        > Hi Andy and all,
        >
        > Andrew O'Brien (K3UK) wrote:
        >
        >> Both Olivia and JT65A contests were considered "tough". Activity was,
        >> according to early reports, higher in the JT65A mode .
        >>
        >> Several JT65A WSJT users had difficulty handing a "pile-up " (There
        >> are some advanced features within WSJT where you can decode several
        >> signals at once, but perhaps people do not know this).
        >> ...
        >> As for the comments that the contest was "tough", that was expected.
        >> The experimental contests take a lot of patience.
        >>
        >> JT65A as implemented in WSJT is not at all designed for conventional
        >> contesting. Today's results are helpful for analyzing how contests
        >> with JT65A could be conducted in the future (if at all!).
        >
        > At the risk of stating the obvious: JT65 was designed for EME and EME
        > contests -- another mode that most people would consider "tough".
        >
        > In the EME contest world, a sustained QSO rate of 8-10 per hour (which
        > is possible with JT65) is very good. Somewhere around 200 users had
        > great fun with JT65 in the recent ARRL EME contest, in many cases
        > working well over 100 stations.
        >
        > JT65 was intended for use with extremely weak signals -- cases where CW
        > (or other, faster digimodes) will fail.
        >
        > To me, the only interesting HF contest using JT65 would be one in which,
        > say, the maximum permitted power would be 1 Watt.
        >
        > -- 73, Joe, K1JT
      • Dave hartzell
        Yes, lets do it again QRP (1-5 watts)! I only had RX capability on Jan 1, but I saw WSJT activity with my ft-817 and a whip antenna! 73, Dave n0tgd
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 3, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, lets do it again QRP (1-5 watts)!

          I only had RX capability on Jan 1, but I saw WSJT activity with my
          ft-817 and a whip antenna!

          73,

          Dave
          n0tgd


          On Jan 3, 2008 1:00 PM, Joe Taylor <joe@...> wrote:

          > A 5 W limit would be fine. It has the advantage that it's the same as
          > the usual limit for "QRP class" in other contests.
        • agm54uk
          Hi All Where are the advanced features within WSJT (JT65A) where you can decode several signals at once, I have looked but could not find. This feature would
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 13, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi All

            Where are the advanced features within WSJT (JT65A) where you can
            decode several signals at once, I have looked but could not find.

            This feature would be very useful If I could find it !!.

            Andy
            G8RZA


            --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, Joe Taylor <joe@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Andy and all,
            >
            > Andrew O'Brien (K3UK) wrote:
            >
            > > Both Olivia and JT65A contests were considered "tough".
            Activity was,
            > > according to early reports, higher in the JT65A mode .
            > >
            > > Several JT65A WSJT users had difficulty handing a "pile-up "
            (There
            > > are some advanced features within WSJT where you can decode
            several
            > > signals at once, but perhaps people do not know this).
            > > ...
            > > As for the comments that the contest was "tough", that was
            expected.
            > > The experimental contests take a lot of patience.
            > >
            > > JT65A as implemented in WSJT is not at all designed for
            conventional
            > > contesting. Today's results are helpful for analyzing how contests
            > > with JT65A could be conducted in the future (if at all!).
            >
            > At the risk of stating the obvious: JT65 was designed for EME and
            EME
            > contests -- another mode that most people would consider "tough".
            >
            > In the EME contest world, a sustained QSO rate of 8-10 per hour
            (which
            > is possible with JT65) is very good. Somewhere around 200 users
            had
            > great fun with JT65 in the recent ARRL EME contest, in many cases
            > working well over 100 stations.
            >
            > JT65 was intended for use with extremely weak signals -- cases
            where CW
            > (or other, faster digimodes) will fail.
            >
            > To me, the only interesting HF contest using JT65 would be one in
            which,
            > say, the maximum permitted power would be 1 Watt.
            >
            > -- 73, Joe, K1JT
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.