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

Re; ISCAT vs JT6

Expand Messages
  • Keith Morehouse
    ... I m not even sure if this person is on the NA WSJT reflector, but, what is with the insistence of using either ISCAT -or- JT6M for weak short burst
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 7, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Somebody said:

      > I have tried ISCAT on MS and find it is no better or worse than JT6M for
      > most qso’s – which have not exceeded 1800 kms. I pass no comment on whether
      > is it or not better than JT6M – how can you judge – if the rocks aren’t
      > there then you can’t compare. I haven’t had ANY qso’s over 1800 kms on ISCAT
      > so again reserve judgement.

      and:

      > The main gripe I have about ISACT, on MS, is that it doesn’t work well on
      > weak short bursts ( that also may contain a bit of Doppler) – whereas , as
      > above JT6M does – for me

      and:

      > These short weak bursts that can be decoded by
      > skilled use of JT6M are the backbone of MS as described above. If the
      > digital programme being used only give full decodes and therefore requires
      > long bursts – then there is no fun in it for me - as others have also
      > indicated.

      I'm not even sure if this person is on the NA WSJT reflector, but, what is with
      the insistence of using either ISCAT -or- JT6M for "weak short burst" (their
      words) meteor scatter ? ? ? Neither mode is DESIGNED for that - both modes are
      designed for constant low-level signals, near (or just in) the noise. If you're
      working meteors, use FSK441.

      JT6M certainly can be used for meteor scatter on 6M when the bursts are too long
      to be effectively decoded by FSK441, but that's not JT6M's primary purpose in
      life.

      Jay W9RM


      Keith J. Morehouse
      RF Specialists Inc
      PO Box 849
      Hampshire IL 60140
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.