[ADXA] Congrats to Joel and Steve, and 6M

[Dennis Schaefer]

Thanks Rory and Pat,

I heard a moderate amount of activity on FT4 during the contest but seldom hear it any other time.  I called CQ and was immediately answered by K1JT.  It does move along fast compared to FT8.  FT8 seems blazing fast compared to JT65b, which was big on HF for awhile.  I can still see the advantage of JT65 for very weak signals but at 4 or 5 minutes per QSO, it has limited applicability.   I should check around other frequencies just to see what is going on.  My impression is that PSK31 is much reduced as well.  I used to occasionally enjoy PSK31 and then everybody started sending only their canned messages.  I have no desire to know what version of operating system your computer is using, and a lot of people seemed to include that.  

Obviously FT4 doesn’t have the S/N capability of FT8, so maybe it’s not the best for DX, but is certainly fast for stateside E-skip conditions when signals are strong.

Pat, I heard you a couple of times but things were so hectic I don’t think we ever had a QSO. 

Dennis

> On Jun 19, 2020, at 8:34 AM, patw5vy at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> I found FT4 to be pretty effective at times during the VHF Contest.  The last hour I was on Rich Mtn, EM24, I made 39 FT4 QSOs.  That’s not a great rate but not bad for a Rover.  I had tried to get a run going on SSB but just couldn’t make it work.  Did S&P SSB for a while before moving to FT4.  After using FT4 for a while going back to FT8 really is like watching paint dry!  I worked K1JT on FT4!
>  
> 73,
> Pat, W5VY
>  
> From: adxa-bounces at mailman.qth.net <adxa-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Rory Bowers
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 8:07 AM
> To: Dennis Schaefer <dennisw5rz at gmail.com>
> Cc: adxa <adxa at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [ADXA] Congrats to Joel and Steve, and 6M
>  
> I agree Dennis... major accomplishments!  I don't see a problem with spreading out FT8 on 6M.  I have yet to copy one station using FT4 on 6.  The mode is simply not effective on 6 so nobody is using it.  Why not take advantage of the additional spectrum when the band is very busy like it has been recently.  I feel the same about 20M FT8.  The spectrum between 14.077 and 14.080 is virtually unused.  In the most recent release of WSJT-X Joe suggested in his release notes that we should try 14.071 on a trial basis.  I thought this was a bad idea, the PSK guys are already there (14.070 - 14.073) and putting FT8 in the mix would cause major interference problems between incompatible modes.  I think some serious thought needs to be given to spectrum use to make it easier for all of us to make good contacts without worrying about QRM.
> 73 Dennis!
> Rory, K5CKS
>  
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 6:29 AM Dennis Schaefer <dennisw5rz at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, 6 meters is letting people meet some major milestones!  Congratulations to Joel and Steve for big accomplishments.   That takes a lot of work and a lot of listening and station effectiveness.  
> 
> I probably copied  100 JA stations yesterday but couldn’t work anything with my pipsqueak station.  Signals were as good as -7 but typically -18 to -10.   Sometimes decoded a dozen in a sequence.   I don’t think my FT-991 would hold up at 100 watts output on FT8 so I usually run it at 40 or 50 watts.  I’m sure with a couple more elements and a few more watts, I could have worked some.  
> 
> I suspect the trend will eventually be to spread FT8 out between 313 and 323.  FT4 is right in the middle, though, so maybe FT8 covering 313 to 326 and FT4 above that.  I’m sure it will be evolving.
> 
> No JA’s heard on CW.  I probably didn’t have enough S/N to copy them on SSB, but CW would have been possible.
> 73,
> Dennis
> ______________________________________________________________
> ADXA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/adxa
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ADXA at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/adxa/attachments/20200619/7312e0fe/attachment.html>