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

JT-9 and LotW

Expand Messages
  • kk5aa_fred
    It seems the ARRL is digging in its heels and refusing to recognize JT-9 as a acceptable mode. I have made several JT-9 contacts and would like LotW to at
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 26, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      It seems the ARRL is digging in its heels and refusing to recognize JT-9 as a acceptable mode. I have made several JT-9 contacts and would like LotW to at least admit I had the QSO.

      I have created a script to alter the mode from JT-9 to "data" before submitting them to LotW but I have had many of them kicked back as "No Match".

      So, what are we supposed to submit a JT-9 contact as?

      Fred - KK5AA
      EM25xh
    • Ed Wilson
      Fred, I use HRD Log and use the Modes Edit menu to upload as an ADIF of type DATA and have never had a JT9 contact bounced back. I believe that you can also
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 26, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Fred,

        I use HRD Log and use the Modes Edit menu to upload as an ADIF of type DATA and have never had a JT9 contact bounced back. I believe that you can also edit the .TQ8 (I believe that is the LOTW file on your local PC) to translate JT9 to DATA. If you are using another logging program, it might have similar capabilities. I spoke with the head LOTW guru at ARRL HQ a few months ago and I would not hold your breath on getting LOTW to recognize JT9. I have received a number of matches using DATA for my approximately 120 JT9 contacts.

        Ed, K0KC



        From: kk5aa_fred <poppafred@...>
        To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:31 PM
        Subject: [wsjtgroup] JT-9 and LotW

         
        It seems the ARRL is digging in its heels and refusing to recognize JT-9 as a acceptable mode. I have made several JT-9 contacts and would like LotW to at least admit I had the QSO.

        I have created a script to alter the mode from JT-9 to "data" before submitting them to LotW but I have had many of them kicked back as "No Match".

        So, what are we supposed to submit a JT-9 contact as?

        Fred - KK5AA
        EM25xh



      • Floyd Larck, KK3Q
        Same with QSPK contacts, even though it is a different mode (QPSK31 through QPSK125) they recognize it as DATA. You can map them within your LoTW account but
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 26, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          Same with QSPK contacts, even though it is a different mode (QPSK31 through QPSK125) they recognize it as DATA. You can map them within your LoTW account but they won’t be counted as JT9 L.

           

          Floyd, KK3Q

           

           

           

          From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kk5aa_fred
          Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:32 PM
          To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [wsjtgroup] JT-9 and LotW

           

           

          It seems the ARRL is digging in its heels and refusing to recognize JT-9 as a acceptable mode. I have made several JT-9 contacts and would like LotW to at least admit I had the QSO.

          I have created a script to alter the mode from JT-9 to "data" before submitting them to LotW but I have had many of them kicked back as "No Match".

          So, what are we supposed to submit a JT-9 contact as?

          Fred - KK5AA
          EM25xh

        • observer35
          Hello All, I am just wondering whether this problem is the or a reason why JT9 is slow in being used by the WSJT community? It is really hard to find users
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 26, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello All,


            I am just wondering whether this problem is the or a reason why JT9 is slow in being used by the WSJT community?
            It is really hard to find users outside a small group so far, while the mode is excellent, in mu=y opinion at least.

            73 Rein W6SZ


            -----Original Message-----
            >From: Ed Wilson <ed.wilson@...>
            >Sent: Feb 26, 2013 6:48 PM
            >To: kk5aa_fred <poppafred@...>, "wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com" <wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com>
            >Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] JT-9 and LotW
            >
            >Fred,
            >
            >I use HRD Log and use the Modes Edit menu to upload as an ADIF of type DATA and have never had a JT9 contact bounced back. I believe that you can also edit the .TQ8 (I believe that is the LOTW file on your local PC) to translate JT9 to DATA. If you are using another logging program, it might have similar capabilities. I spoke with the head LOTW guru at ARRL HQ a few months ago and I would not hold your breath on getting LOTW to recognize JT9. I have received a number of matches using DATA for my approximately 120 JT9 contacts.
            >
            >Ed, K0KC
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >________________________________
            > From: kk5aa_fred <poppafred@...>
            >To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
            >Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:31 PM
            >Subject: [wsjtgroup] JT-9 and LotW
            >
            >

            >It seems the ARRL is digging in its heels and refusing to recognize JT-9 as a acceptable mode. I have made several JT-9 contacts and would like LotW to at least admit I had the QSO.
            >
            >I have created a script to alter the mode from JT-9 to "data" before submitting them to LotW but I have had many of them kicked back as "No Match".
            >
            >So, what are we supposed to submit a JT-9 contact as?
            >
            >Fred - KK5AA
            >EM25xh
            >
            >
            >
          • Joe Subich, W4TV
            The LotW server does recognize JT9 QSOs as JT9. The issue is that tQSL - the program that is required to sign the QSOs does not accept JT9 as a valid mode -
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 24, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              The LotW server does recognize JT9 QSOs as JT9. The issue is that tQSL
              - the program that is required to "sign" the QSOs does not accept JT9 as
              a valid mode - thus the need to map them to DATA.

              The fix is quite easy - the following instructions are for Windows based
              systems:

              Using Windows Explorer navigate to:
              Users/<user name>/AppData/Roaming/TrustedQSL
              Find the file: config.xml
              Open (edit) the file with Notepad

              Near the bottom of the file you will find a <mode> </mode> section
              with many lines of the form:
              <mode group="DATA">JT4</mode>
              these define the "modes" tQSL will accept.

              Add a line that says: <mode group="DATA">JT9</mode>
              and save the file.

              The next time you run tQSL it will accept JT9 as a valid mode.

              Make sure your logging program exports any JT9-x modes as JT9 or you
              will need to map each submode to JT-9 by adding "Custom ADIF mode
              mappings" in the ADIF Modes tab of tQSL's File/Preferences.

              Note - these instructions work for manually signing JT9 QSOs by running
              tQSL 1.13 to sign an existing ADIF file. I have not tested the
              integration from any logging software.

              73,
              ... Joe, W4TV

              --- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, "kk5aa_fred" <poppafred@...> wrote:
              >
              > It seems the ARRL is digging in its heels and refusing to recognize JT-9 as a acceptable mode. I have made several JT-9 contacts and would like LotW to at least admit I had the QSO.
              >
              > I have created a script to alter the mode from JT-9 to "data" before submitting them to LotW but I have had many of them kicked back as "No Match".
              >
              > So, what are we supposed to submit a JT-9 contact as?
              >
              > Fred - KK5AA
              > EM25xh
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.