I haven't done a lot of FT8 operating but I am curious about something. The
higher you go in bands, the more likely that there is jitter and drift in
the signal. At 24 GHz I have some drift in my signal, perhaps a few hundred
Hz up and down depending on conditions. At 47 GHz I not only have drift but
jitter to deal with. Signal sounds "wobbly" over a 20-30 Hz range. How do
those affect FT8?
73, Zack W9SZ
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:17 PM John Young via VHFcontesting <
vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
>
> I dont do just FM, I work W4IY multi op PH and Digital every June......
>
> I dont like being on FT8 but when the sporadic e is gone, running is
> fruitless and we have worked everything on the band scope across the bands
> FT8 is the place to go to slowly add QSO's and multi's while waiting for
> the next opening or fresh local meat to show up. As many have said, and I
> agree, FT8 is a useful tool. Being able to QSY on FT8 (we didn't do that,
> but saw a few who did) would make it more useful.
>
> What frustrated and shocked me was how many were not leaving 6m FT8 when
> the cloud appeared at various times and locations making contacts at almost
> any point on the continent possible at one time or another on PH & CW. I
> was horrified in the last 2 hrs when normally 6m is loaded with PH and CW,
> but despite some really good openings it seemed like everyone stuck to or
> migrated to running on FT8 chasing a few more grids. It ended up being a
> self fulfilling prophecy, everyone jammed in there so the bands died and it
> was foolish to be anywhere else, Baa, Baa, Moo Moo, follow the herd.
>
> I see the problem as one of luring people off of FT8 and onto PH & CW.
>
> I suggest holding FT8 to one point on all bands below 902. Let the points
> grow from 902 up to get more activity, even if it is FT8 up there. Double
> the QSO points for PH and CW on all bands to make it worth the "risk" of
> not following the herd to 6m FT8 and parking there all contest long. It
> will be harder to win without the upper bands, which would motivate more to
> add them and use them.
>
> 73
> John
> KM4KMU
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 JamesDuffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net> wrote:
> The results writeup for the January 2019 VHF Contest are now on line:
>
> <
> https://contests.arrl.org/ContestResults/2019/Jan-VHF-2019-FinalFullResults.pdf
> >
>
> The digital modes, in particular FT8, played a major role in the January
> contest, increasing the logs submitted significantly. But the overall QSOs
> made in the contest remained the same. So, those additional digital QSOs
> came from the higher bands. I think this is not good. Please read my
> comments on this in the writeup and think about what it means for the
> future of VHF contesting, if you like that future, and what can be done to
> address the continued erosion of the bands above 144MHz in contesting.
>
> Thanks for all who participated in the January contest. - Duffey KK6MC
>
>
> James Duffey KK6MC
> Cedar Crest NM
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|