Hmmm
Joe is right, when you are trying to listen in on the whole FT8 band.. the
noise to signal ratio goes NUTZ.
So, if you are REALLY trying to make a contact... and understanding that we
NEVER transmit on top of someone intentionally, WHO wouldn't move to the
calling stations's freq? That's where HE can hear a clear channel to him! That
would put YOUR signal in a good spot to be heard. Pileups and dxpeditions
excluded.
WHY do we insist on cutting our options to pitifully less than we built the
station for to begin with?
Narrow bandpass, only a few signals get in, only a few get decoded, and a quick
sure fire Q is in the log.
done deal. open the bandpass to listen for CQs, then close it back up again
to make the contact.
oh wait.. operator must be present.. BANG! there goes that issue.... oh
wait... operator is part of the contact... BANG! there goes that problem.. Oh
wait, while you are at the radio.. focus on propagation and the length of time
it takes to make a contact... I average less than a minute per contact... BANG!
there goes the "watching paint dry, grass grow" issue.
now.. can we go back to getting on the air?
Have a great day,
Dale - WC7S in Wy
"Actions speak louder than words"
________________________________
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<http://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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|