Hi Patrick....I believe that JT65 is not allowed in the CW only portions
of 6M and 2M. So using 144.100MHz, the exact band edge, would not be
allowed either. I may be wrong on this. Why these legacy CW only bands
still exist is beyond me....
I still maintain that using the N0UK reflector(s) is the best way to
find really weak stations. I certainly am not going to spend two hours
on terrestrial JT65 if I can make a sched, work the guy in 5min, and go
back to MSK144. Everyone knows about PingJockey and the EME-1 pages,
but there is also a JT4/JT65 Terrestrial Link page that could be used
for folks trying to find that really long one terrestrially.
It is true that there are a very small number of stations that do not
have Internet access, mostly rovers way out in BFE. With cell phone
coverage the way that it is now, even most "way out" rovers can hit a
cell tower. Still, there is nothing wrong with having a "calling
frequency". We just all have to know what it is.
73 Marshall K5QE
On 1/6/2017 8:28 AM, Patrick Thomas wrote:
Is there much interest in running non meteor scatter digital modes in the next
contest ? [...]I did have JT65 and we were able to complete in less than 10
minutes.
I make it a point to operate terrestrial JT65 for at least a couple hours of
the contest. I'd certainly encourage others to do so... after all, it's made
for digging really quiet signals out of the muck. It's easily coordinated via
http://on4kst.org/ or http://www.chris.org/cgi-bin/jt65talk. Don't know why
it's not more popular, given all the EME nerds using JT65 through antenna
stacks and kilowatt amps between 144-1296 MHz.
You might want to also review replies to my thread "JT65 on 222 and above" of 28 Apr
2016, when I asked about calling frequencies. To summarize my viewpoint, although just randomly
squatting in the SSB segment is "okay," it's not optimal. JT65 can pull out signals
really close to the noise floor, so knob-spinning is not the best approach, and not everyone knows
or can reach the web chat sites (for example, remote rovers). Besides, it's a logical,
well-established practice to have a calling frequency, QRG, call it what you want, as a baseline
where you can park the radio.
Please discuss, but I think "standard calling frequency minus 24kHz" makes a
lot of sense, resulting in 144.176, 222.076, 432.076, etc. It's close to the standard
calling frequencies, thus easy for knob-spinners to find and compatible with equipment
tuned for that area. And it avoids stepping on SSB users (CW folks are more audible, and
can filter more easily).
WSJT software suggest 144.489 on 2m for reasons which escape me, maybe WSPR
legacy. 144.100 is pretty dead, so while the band plan seems to allow it, I
think 144.076 would be off the beaten path. As stated previously on 6m the
convention is 50.276.
I've been working on another JT65-related post so will have to get that out
today too, in this vein. :)
Patrick
KB8DGC
_______________________________________________
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
|