VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] JT65 Mode - QSOs valid?

To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] JT65 Mode - QSOs valid?
From: Bill Dzurilla <billdz.geo@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:27:19 -0800 (PST)
List-post: <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Well, thousands of hams are enjoying QSOs and
receiving awards for QSOs via JT65B and other WSJT
modes, so it seems that most folks accept them as
valid.  Joe has brought eme (moonbounce) within easy
reach of hams (like myself) who had never before
dreamed it possible.

As KR7O pointed out, just don't click on Deep Search
if it bothers you (it indeed does produce some false
decodes), but don't miss out on the WSJT fun because
of a few critics.

73, Bill NZ5N

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:07:34 -0800
From: "Tim Coad" <timcoad@gmail.com>
Subject: [VHFcontesting] JT65 Mode - QSOs valid?
To: VHFcontesting@contesting.com
Message-ID:

<e4a9cb580801131707g17f89b71od9ffb3dbe94479ed@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I have read some pretty convincing articles that the
validity of
contacts made with the JT65 "deep search" mode are
pretty iffy. Such as
 this
article: http://www.sm2cew.com/jt65.html.

But I have not read a rebuttal to the specific points
he makes.  His
 article
in my mind makes me not to want to pursue this mode
until I hear more
details.

Any one here familiar with these criticisms?

Tim - NU6S


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>