CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] FT8 vs FT4 in the Contest

To: "k9yc@arrl.net" <k9yc@arrl.net>, "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] FT8 vs FT4 in the Contest
From: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 01:18:49 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Apparently most of the contesters on this weekend didn't either

Ed. N1UR

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
On Sep 2, 2019 10:12 AM, Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
On 9/1/2019 2:54 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
> I am reading with interest the discussion about the digi contest.  Many 
> people were repeating that FT8 was used more than FT4 to "pick up the 
> casuals".

It doesn't appear that you've read K1JT's documentation on WSJT-X, which
includes about a dozen different protocols for different propagation and
different operating activities.

https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/wsjtx-doc/wsjtx-main-2.1.0.html

73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
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

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