VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

[VHFcontesting] Fwd: Re: WSJT versions for January VHF Contest?

To: "vhfcontesting@contesting.com" <VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Fwd: Re: WSJT versions for January VHF Contest?
From: Keith Morehouse <w9rm@calmesapartners.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:55:58 -0700
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------

The FSK441 standard of west TX 1st is also valid with MSK144.

Jay W9RM
DM58 CO

Keith J Morehouse
via Moto G

On Jan 4, 2017 3:46 PM, "Mark Spencer" <mark@alignedsolutions.com> wrote:

> As a related question what is the current wisdom / custom re selecting
> which sequence to run ?
>
> I'm typically to the North and or West of most other stations and when
> running FSK441 would usually run first.
>
> The one time I made a serious effort to run FSK441 on two bands at the
> same time while roving it made sense to me to run both bands on the same
> sequence.   I figured having both receivers running at the same time would
> help mitigate any de sense issues.
>
>
> Any comments would be appreciated.
>
> 73
> Mark S
> VE7AFZ
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 4, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Tom <k8tb@bosscher.org> wrote:
> >
> > One other question.  From what I understand, MSK144 takes the full 300
> HZ to 2700 Hz bandwidth. How far apart should the "slots" be? 3, 4 5 kHz?
> The reason is, if I have to listen to two station via the rocks, I can
> handle 3 kHz spacing. But as this mode catches on, and it going to go the
> the general population real soon noww, how do I handle a ham neighbor 20
> miles away running MSK144 at the same time? The 3 kHz spacing will be a
> problem for most rigs. 4 or 5 Khz would be doable on most.
> >
> > Tom K8TB, having fun with this Christmas present from Joe.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 1/2/2017 10:29 PM, Marshall-K5QE wrote:
> >> Hi Tom and everyone interested in this thread.....I think that it is
> clear that MSK has won the war.  Few, if any, will be using FSK441 in the
> future.  I would be in favor of moving the "calling frequency" back to
> 50.260MHz(or even lower).  I have the following problem:  The farther we
> get the meteor operations away from 50.125MHz, the worse the antennas
> work.  I would be perfectly happy to move the calling frequency down even
> farther. We have 6M EME around 50.200MHz, so we need to stay away from
> that, but we could use anything in the 50.220 to 50.240 range.  I don't
> know of anything using those frequencies.  That means that at least 7 guys
> will come on saying that their activities occur in that range....HI.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

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