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

Some thoughts about the results of using JT9-5 and -10 on 80m

Expand Messages
  • Steinar Aanesland
    Hi all As you know , I have been doing some test with JT9-5 and -10 lately and some of you gave me reports like: you have a strong and clear signal the
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 5, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all

      As you know , I have been doing some test with JT9-5 and -10 lately and
      some of you gave me reports like: "you have a strong and clear signal
      the waterfall , but I am not able to copy".

      The "bad copy explanation" has always been doppler shift or phase
      distortion, but to see what actually happened I decided to used
      SBSpectrum ( a great software form peter Martinez G3PLX) on some known
      stations.

      Here is the result. All in CW , PITCH 600Hz and filter 50Hz:

      2230UTC:
      https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16381257/3330kHz_CHU_2230UTC.jpg
      1350UTC:
      https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16381257/3330kHz_CHU_1350UTC.jpg
      CHU is the call sign of a shortwave time signal radio station. Canada
      (wikipedia).

      2250UTC
      https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16381257/77.5kHz_DCF77_2250UTC.jpg
      DCF77 is a longwave time signal and standard-frequency radio
      station.Germany (wikipedia).

      2320UTC:
      https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16381257/3985kHz_HRT_Radio_Croatia_2320UTC.jpg
      1230UTC:
      https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16381257/3985kHz_HRT_Radio_Croatia_1230UTC.jpg
      "Voice of Croatia" (wikipedia).

      2300UTC:
      https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16381257/810kHz_BBC_2300UTC.jpg
      1445UTC:
      https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16381257/810kHz_BBC_1445UTC.jpg
      BBC Radio Scotland is BBC Scotland's. (wikipedia).

      1515UTC:
      https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16381257/10000kHz_Time_signal_1515UTC.jpg
      1530UTC:
      https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16381257/5000kHz_Time_signal_1530UTC.jpg
      WWV. Frequency and time signals on 2.5, 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz.(wikipedia).

      When I then compare these results with clean JT9 signals, it obvious
      that this will not work.

      https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16381257/Jt9-2.jpg
      https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16381257/Jt9-5.jpg
      https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16381257/Jt9-10.jpg

      JT9-5 and -10 signals seems to be completely destroyed on 80m. Yes, I
      know that Joe k1jt has put some sophisticated mathematical stuff in this
      mode, but I not think they will survive. Maybe Jt9-2 have a chance.

      A last comment. Some of you will probably think "why do all this fuss, I
      told you so". Yes, in private emails some of you did, but please don't
      start to flame me. I'm just a curious person who loves understanding
      things. I know is not a scientifically correct method. Yes, this is
      nothing more than a time "snapshot". I have to do it over and over again
      to draw a definitive conclusion, but it gives me at least an indication
      of why things went wrong.

      Best regards from Norway
      --
      LA5VNA Steinar
      loc:JO59jq
      Mal and spam filtering: STRONG
      José Ros software not supported
    • ku4a
      I thought I had heard that JT9 was designed to be used at 1.8 MHz and lower frequencies. I know some of the guys have been playing with it on 10 MHz just to
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 6, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I thought I had heard that JT9 was designed to be used at 1.8 MHz and lower frequencies. I know some of the guys have been playing with it on 10 MHz just to get their sea legs. But JT9 isn't expected to be of much use above 160 meters.

        KU4A
      • Steinar Aanesland
        Hi Yes , you have right , but it came as a surprise to me that the signal on 80m was so messed up. It is probably because I am living up under the aurora belt.
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 7, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi

          Yes , you have right , but it came as a surprise to me that the signal
          on 80m was so messed up. It is probably because I am living up under the
          aurora belt. I think many modes will struggle under such conditions ,
          not only jt9-10 ;)


          LA5VNA Steinar
          loc:JO59jq
          Mal and spam filtering: STRONG
          José Ros software not supported



          Den 06.12.2012 21:06, skrev ku4a:
          > I thought I had heard that JT9 was designed to be used at 1.8 MHz and lower frequencies. I know some of the guys have been playing with it on 10 MHz just to get their sea legs. But JT9 isn't expected to be of much use above 160 meters.
          >
          > KU4A
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
          > wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > WSJTGroup HomePage http://www.meteorscatter.org/
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • rein0zn@ix.netcom.com
          Hi Steinar, It appears from here that you are at least one of the users of JT9-5/10/30. I like to check a few things with you. -1 if I am in jt9-1 and switch
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Steinar,

            It appears from here that you are at least one of the users of JT9-5/10/30.
            I like to check a few things with you.

            -1 if I am in jt9-1 and switch to JT9-5 I can't get the send commend ( com port )
            If I reload the software and select JT9-(xxx), I do get the send commend.

            -2 if you switch mode, do you take into consideration that the received or monitored audio freq shifts?

            1000 to 1600 Hz in JT9-1 gets 1000 to 1100 Hz in JT-5

            73 Rein W6SZ



            -----Original Message-----
            >From: Steinar Aanesland <saanes@...>
            >Sent: Dec 7, 2012 11:50 AM
            >To: * Digitalradio <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>, wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, WSJTX@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Re: Some thoughts about the results of using JT9-5 and -10 on 80m
            >
            >Hi
            >
            >Yes , you have right , but it came as a surprise to me that the signal
            >on 80m was so messed up. It is probably because I am living up under the
            >aurora belt. I think many modes will struggle under such conditions ,
            >not only jt9-10 ;)
            >
            >
            >LA5VNA Steinar
            >loc:JO59jq
            >Mal and spam filtering: STRONG
            >José Ros software not supported
            >
            >
            >
            >Den 06.12.2012 21:06, skrev ku4a:
            >> I thought I had heard that JT9 was designed to be used at 1.8 MHz and lower frequencies. I know some of the guys have been playing with it on 10 MHz just to get their sea legs. But JT9 isn't expected to be of much use above 160 meters.
            >>
            >> KU4A
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >> ------------------------------------
            >>
            >> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
            >> wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >>
            >> WSJTGroup HomePage http://www.meteorscatter.org/
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            >------------------------------------
            >
            >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
            >wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >WSJTGroup HomePage http://www.meteorscatter.org/
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.