And it may give something like TL8ES ou VU4A : FT8 robot running while op is
visiting the country or at the beach...
73, Dimitri F4DSK
Le 5 déc. 2024 à 21:46, à 21:46, Jeff Blaine <keepwalking188@ac0c.com> a écrit:
>And remember the rate of FT8 vs. RTTY in a dxpediton setting. Depending
>
>on the pileup and RTTY op skill, dxpediton RTTY rates can be
>miserable.
>FT8 is the silver bullet for the signal level as Jim mentions plus the
>rate improvement. A win-win from a dxpedition cost per QSO standpoint
>in a digital mode!
>
>73/jeff/ac0c
>alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>www.ac0c.com
>
>On 12/5/2024 2:38 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> It's great that they're doing this, but the importance of FT8 is that
>
>> it allows us to work 10 dB deeper into the noise that CW with great
>> ops on both ends. On this planet, where the electronic noise has
>> increased by a lot more than that over the last 20 years, that's a
>> VERY BIG DEAL. And it's why AA7JV, a great DXpeditioner, great CW op,
>
>> and great engineer, and realizing that on multi-week expeditions,
>160M
>> opening tended to occur on only one or two nights, developed his
>> system to allow simultaneous operation CW and FT8 operation on 160M.
>>
>> While I've always been primarily a CW op, and have been avoiding SSB
>> for several years, I've been using WSJT modes for nearly 15 years for
>
>> small signal work, mostly on 6M, but also on 160M to work EU from my
>> QTH in NorCal, and on 60M, where the allocation is for a half-dozen
>> SSB channels and power is limited to 100W EIRP. I just worked DX
>> entity #102 on that band, loading an 80M dipole.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>> On 12/4/2024 7:57 AM, Doug Renwick wrote:
>>> The following was posted on the 9L5A Web page at:
>>> https://9l5a.wordpress.com/
>>>
>>> Apart from that, the days follow one another with more than 10,000
>QSOs
>>> per day with an almost perfect balance between CW, SSB and FT8. It
>looks
>>> so surprising compared to other expeditions that some criticize us
>for
>>> doing too much CW and SSB; this is a shame! We had announced for a
>long
>>> time that we would prioritize “human” modes, otherwise we would not
>have
>>> planned 15 operators. It would for sure be much easier to leave 6
>>> stations
>>> running in FT8 and enjoy long nights of sleep, the beach and 31°
>water,
>>> we would already have exceeded 100,000 QSOs. But this is not the
>vision
>>> we have of radio in general and especially an expedition. Given the
>size
>>> of the pileups, there is obviously (and fortunately) a large
>majority
>>> who must think like us.
>>>
>>>
>>> Doug
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
|