"Didn't someone create a FT8 contest reflector? It would be nice to take
all these comments over there. Seems like FT8 is monopolizing the
contest reflector just like it is on the air. "
There is a reflector to discuss general FT8/Digital things. However, this
does seem to be on topic for this forum, it is discussion about a contest
and its rules. At least in my opinion.
73,
Mike ND9G
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:54 AM Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com> wrote:
> Didn't someone create a FT8 contest reflector? It would be nice to take
> all these comments over there. Seems like FT8 is monopolizing the
> contest reflector just like it is on the air.
>
> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting FT8
> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't the
> future of ham radio.
>
> BTW I do operate some FT8 because I'm working on a the digital DXCC.
> (because there is hardly any RTTY activity outside of contests) Now that
> I've reached 100 countries I'm starting to get bored with it.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 8/7/2019 04:31 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
> > Then why don't the WW-Digi rules simply state that such operation
> > (multiple QSOs on the same band using Fox/Hound mode) is not allowed.
> > Most contesters are NOT going to be aware of, or maybe not even care
> > about, any splatter caused by their own operations. Most FT8/4
> > operators have no easy means of monitoring their own transmit quality,
> > and that should be obvious from watching the spectrum display at
> > almost any time of day or night.
> >
> > Expecting participants in the contest to understand that they
> > shouldn't use Fox/Hound based upon the webinar doesn't make much
> > sense. You'd be lucky if a third of the participants in the contest
> > even watched the webinar. They're going to (hopefully) go by the
> > written rules, which currently do not specifically outlaw multiple
> > simultaneous signals, and that means that people familiar with
> > Fox/Hound mode are going to be inclined to use it. You specifically
> > say below that multiple parallel QSOs WOULD be OK if they didn't use
> > Fox/Hound to achieve it ... so why don't your rules simply say that?
> >
> > I disagree that Fox/Hound is the only way to transmit multiple signals
> > at the same time. I'm pretty certain I could do it with multiple rigs
> > and running multiple instances of WSJT-X (which WSJT-X allows) on the
> > same computer. All it would require is different com ports and rig
> > assignments for each instance of WSJT-X, and the outputs would be
> > independent and therefore clean barring any nonlinear combining of RF
> > past the rigs.
> >
> > I just don't understand why you don't write the rules to clearly
> > prohibit that which you don't want to happen. It's like you're
> > posting a DO NOT ENTER sign on the back door of the building.
> >
> > 73,
> > Dave AB7E
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/6/2019 8:48 PM, Ed Muns wrote:
> >> This is an example of the DXpedition "Fox and Hound" mode where the
> >> DXpedition station is the Fox and transmits 2-5 distinct audio
> >> frequencies within his TX passband using a single suppressed carrier
> >> at the radio dial frequency.
> >>
> >> The WW Digi rules are written to allow multiple parallel QSOs. This
> >> is appropriate for this narrow-band multi-channel signal technology.
> >> As of today, the only technique I'm aware of for achieving this is
> >> the Fox and Hound mode described above. However, in a multiple-Fox
> >> scenario like contesting, this method of parallel QSOs is unacceptable.
> >>
> >> The reason is that two or more audio signals are effectively
> >> transmitting a Two-Tone (or Multi-Tone) IMD test on the band. The
> >> narrow, vertical-skirt FT signals are thereby turned into wide,
> >> flared-skirt signals that will QRM neighboring QSOs on both sides.
> >> In the DXpedition scenario with just one Fox, that IMD can be
> >> contained in a small area of the pass band, say 400-500 Hz, while all
> >> the DXers (Hounds) calling in can spread out in the rest of the
> >> passband.
> >>
> >> In a contest scenario where there will be many Foxes, all trying to
> >> increase their QSO rate, the FT sub-band will be wall-to-wall IMD
> >> QRM. This is a flagrant betrayal of the exceptional signal design in
> >> the basic FT GFSK signal. Not to mention unsportsmanlike operating in
> >> general.
> >>
> >> Therefore, the pertinent WW Digi rule is:
> >>
> >> XII.A.5. Poor signal quality that interferes with other stations’
> >> ability to operate. This includes, but is not limited to: signals
> >> with excessive bandwidth (e.g., splatter, clicks, IMD), harmonics on
> >> other bands, and excessive audio levels.
> >>
> >> One purpose of this rule is to rule out the current Fox and Hound
> >> method in WW Digi, among other signal quality issues like overdriving
> >> the TX audio. It is easy to spot parallel QSOs in a log and any such
> >> cases will be reviewed with SDR recordings. Don't use the current Fox
> >> and Hound implementation in this or any other contest. Some of the
> >> software packages don't allow Fox and Hound mode when the contest
> >> mode is selected, to help participants follow the rules.
> >>
> >> The WWROF webinar the past Sunday, replayed Monday evening NA time,
> >> explained this with spectrum images of clean and ugly FT signals.
> >> The presentation PDF is linked from the WW Digi home page, and the
> >> webinar video recording will be linked there and on the WWROF webinar
> >> archive page later this week.
> >>
> >> Ed W0YK
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of
> >> David Gilbert
> >> Sent: 06 August, 2019 12:10
> >> To: 'CQ-Contest@contesting. com' <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
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|