Jeff Blaine wrote:
"So if there are multiple streams per instance, the occupied BW is still
pretty minimal. "
But it isn't really. The noise floor is raised greatly when the multiple
signals are ran. When it is a single station like a DXepedition, all is
fine it is not interfering with anyone.
But when you are trying to listen to many other signals the possible
weak signals are reduced greatly because of the tremendous noise floor
raising due to the IMD caused by the multiple streams.
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/7/2019 8:05 AM, Jeff Blaine wrote:
Is this really an issue? The FTx bandwidth is a fraction of most
modes. So if there are multiple streams per instance, the occupied BW
is still pretty minimal. And contest results are going to be compared
to like - meaning CW scores and SSB scores - currently limited to one
signal per band per time.
I'm not a FTx fanboy, but it seems this is a lot of worry about
something that is unlikely to occupy a net bandwidth even remotely
close to what a serious CW contest has.
Maybe I'm missing the point of worry?
73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com
On 8/7/19 7:16 PM, Gordon LaPoint wrote:
MSHV is a program that can answer multiple FT8 calls at the same
time, as can WSJT-X in Fox mode.
Gordon - N1MGO
On 8/6/2019 17:19 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
Well, I've read the contest rules several times, and they don't
specifically make the same "one signal per band" limitation for
single op that they do for multiop. I agree that it is assumed, but
again ... the rules don't specifically rule it out and we all know
from past experience that loopholes tend to be exploited.
And I am absolutely certain that these were three separate QSOs with
three different stations. I should have taken a screenshot. The
contacts were within the same 15 second window, with different
stations, and with different signal reports. And as I said, it
happened again a short while later with two completely different
stations. These were not images, and they were not the staggered
transmissions that we can do while overlapping more than one contact.
I'm pretty sure you can run multiple instances of WSJT-X as long as
you specify different rigs for each. If you check out 5T5PA's page
at QRZ.com you can clearly see that he is a pretty smart guy and
that he has multiple rigs. Probably the simplest way would be to
use three instances of WSJT-X driving the same sound card and
talking to three rigs via different com ports.
Regarding DXCC eligibility, what I saw did not appear to be any more
automated than normal FT8 contacts. They didn't need to be. If he
called CQ on three different frequencies, WSJT-X handles everything
from that point on if he clicked the "Call 1st" box. He would still
have to manually enable the next CQ's, but that wouldn't be
difficult to quickly do three times.
I think it's all kind of clever, but I wouldn't want to see it in
the contest.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 8/6/2019 1:17 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
Dave - is this actually REALLY quickly synchronized separate
transmissions to 3 different stations? Or are there 3 simultaneous
transmissions occurring at exactly the same time? If it’s the
former, its certainly serial single op worthy - I do this all the
time while contesting - just not as fast as a computer. If it’s
the later, then it would be "more than one signal at a time". That
would violate current rules in all categories I believe. Even
Multi-Op stations can only have one signal at a time on a distinct
band. Of course I am assuming that a "signal" is the roughly 50hz
of individual beeps and not the 3khz of computer managed
bandwidth. All definitions to be finalized with this new breed of
contest category. Illustrating how non-human controlled it really is.
Interestingly, and on a different subject, whether 5T5PA is
actually compliant with the new DXCC rules making such contacts
ineligible for DXCC is another topic. I believe that the next
contact cannot be made without a human engagement. So was it
semi-automatic or automatic fire? And is that engagement needed as
part of a "stack build" or real time - the initial DXCC language
was not too clear.
Ed N1UR
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 3:10 PM
To: 'CQ-Contest@contesting. com'
Subject: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
Although it is certainly implied, the rules listed on the WW-Digi
website do not specifically prohibit using more than one signal at
the same time ON THE SAME BAND for the single op category. They
say that transmission can only be on one band at a time, but they
don't say you can't make multiple transmissions at the same time on
the same band.
The reason I bring this up is that I just witnessed 5T5PA making
three separate FT8 transmissions on 20m to three different stations
all within the same fifteen second window. A short time later I saw
two separate transmissions from him to two different stations (and
different stations than the previous three), again all within the
same fifteen second window. Each simultaneous transmission was
spaced exactly 60 Hz apart, and the software cleanly decoded all
signals as if they were from different callsigns. 5T5PA expertly
managed all the QSOs cleanly.
Interestingly enough, even though I've worked 5T5PA before, JTAlert
only labeled one of the three as a dupe.
I can think of more than a couple of ways 5T5PA could be doing
this, and for casual operation I see no problem with it. For a
DXpedition, it might even make a lot of sense. I don't remember it
being against FCC/other laws, but I could be wrong about that. In
any case, it seems to me that it could open up the possibility for
some controversy in a contest.
Or maybe I'm just crying wolf here ...
73,
Dave AB7E
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|