Re QSY'ng... On Sunday I stated sending "AFZ/R QSY.125" when I switched from FT8 to analog. To keep things legal I subsequently sent my full call. I seemed like a good idea at the time (: 73 Mark S V
Nice post. Re the Rover situation. At this point I am going continue to work with the current WSJT-x system, but in my view / opinion it would be nice if: 1) All messages to and from Rovers included
Well.. I have at times wondered why at least while using FT8 one or more of the "extra bits" couldn't be used in conjunction with NA contest mode being selected to indicate that a call has "/R" appen
How about asking the ARRL and other contest organizers to make the use of the "/R" suffix for Rovers optional ? As a rover I could see myself calling CQ with a "/R" suffix and not bothering to send "
I found the network of stations listening on 50 MHz FT8 to be quite helpful when visiting remote locations earlier this year during the work week. Even if there was no one around for a Qso, my CQ's o
Am now monitoring 144.174 FT8 and have configured WSJT-x to feed spots to the PSK reporter. Am beaming approx 134 degrees and will leave this running until at least Monday. 73 Mark S VE7AFZ mark@alig
Hi: I'm pondering some more back country visits in BC during contests this summer and am pondering using FT8 on 50 MHz dial frequencies other than 50.313 during contests. On the plus side having a qu
Thanks Steve. Despite subscribing to the WSJT yahoo group I had forgotten about that suggestion. I also think it has a lot of merit, but there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm from most of the VHF
Ditto. I was also at the conference and have used 144.174 for FT8 in VE7Land. 144.174 seems to me to be a reasonable choice for the PNW, South Western BC and neighbouring areas. If someone wants to p
In Canada the band plan shows 144.275 thru 144.300 as being exclusively for beacons. A USB dial frequency of 144.274 is likely to result in RF above 144.275 At least in my part of BC / VE7land contes
This is very promising. (Support for 6 character grids will also be nice and this seems to be included in the plan for version 2.0) To somewhat recap the comments I made on the WSJT-X development lis
Hi Sean. In my (quite limited) experience I have typically used 144 MHz SSB to coordinate contacts on 1296 MHz. During my last attempt at long haul 1296 contacts I found a 50 watt 144 MHz radio and a
I ran analog only in the September contest from my Rover / back pack portable station (although I only operated on Saturday.) I don't really have enough data to draw any conclusions about the impact
Hi: In so far as path losses on typical non enhanced tropo paths of say 350 miles could be over 200 dB at 144 MHz I'm thinking it might make sense for us not to all use the same 3Khz wide SSB channel
Thanks John. This is helpful and useful information. 73 Mark S VE7AFZ mark@alignedsolutions.com 604 762 4099 _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@c
If anyone would like to test the new functionally with me over the air please let me know. (I'd be happy to test via HF for those who are out of practical VHF range to CN89 / Vancouver BC (I have don
Hi. At the home station I find it is worthwhile to use a four port splitter to split the IF output from my 144 to 28 MHz Rx converter between multiple receivers. One of the ports from the splitter fe
Hi Patrick: I do almost all my roving with radios with "Native" coverage of the relevant bands from 50 thru 1296 MHz. (I do have a transverter / IF radio combination for 222 Mhz that I have taken rov
Bill nice post and you have more or less summed up my current thoughts re roving and transvetrers. I'll just mention that in my experience I have found it is helpful to have radios dedicated to 50 (a
Hi Steve. I've had a variety of "interesting" battery voltage related issues over the years with newer vehicles. Partially due to those "interesting" issues I run all most all my roving radios from b