Topband: 1810.8 carrier found.

Jim Bennett w6jhb at
Mon Mar 31 13:38:40 EDT 2014


I've been a CW op for just about 50 years. Couple months ago I started messing around with WSJT-X and it's JT65 and JT9 protocols. I run an Elecraft KX3 and my antenna is an 88-foot long doublet, 45 feet up, fed with about 110 feet of 450 ohm ladder line. I have tried running QRP power with those two modes on several different HF bands, but without a whole lot of success. I have my station set up so that I can share my KAT500 and KPA500 amp with my K3. I've found that I get moderate success when running 30-40 watts on those two "low power" modes. I can also say that with the KX3 running barefoot (12 watts or less) to the very same antenna, using CW, my results are far, far better.

Of course there will be folks who swear by JT65 and JT9 and say they've worked Pluto with only 1 watt on HF. Perhaps, but I'd like to see that done on HF with a simple wire antenna.

What I DO notice as a major difference is that with CW, not everyone zero-beats a station calling CQ. Further, if it's a DX station running split, your transmitted signal is "free" to plop down wherever you please, just not on top of the CQ'er. But.... on JT9/JT65, I think a majority of folks have the box checked that sez "TX=RX" and this puts several stations right smack on top of each other calling the same CQ'ing station. This, perhaps, is why my puny 12 watts isn't cutting it - I'm being stomped on by the guys running 30, 40, or more watts to directional antennas.

I've also used PSK31 on and off just about ever since it came out. Although there are a lot of "Macro operators" on PSK31, I'm not one of them. When I use that mode, other than my rig and location, I actually TYPE in my conversation and treat it just like a regular, CW-type QSO. Can't do that on JT9/JT65. And that is why I'll probably abandon those two modes at my station. I enjoy a rag chew, and that simply isn't gonna happen on the JT-modes.

Anyway, to answer your question - no, I most certainly have NOT seen any distance gain (on HF) by using the JT-modes as compared to CW.

Jim / W6JHB

On   Monday, Mar 31, 2014, at  Monday, 9:35 AM, Mike Waters wrote:

> That's interesting, and brings to mind a question I've been wondering about
> for low-data-rate weak signal modes such as JT65, JT9 (which take 60
> seconds to send a CQ), and QRSS (24 hours?!).
> In the real world on 160, what would any of these modes really gain for an
> operator already skilled in CW?
> From reading posts about JT9 and JT65 on 160, the distance gain over
> ordinary CW is really nothing to write home about. Does anyone have any
> real-word experiences that say otherwise?
> 73, Mike
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Lee K7TJR <k7tjr at> wrote:
>>  ... the carrier on 1810.8 KHz has been found. ...  a ham running QRSS
>> where it takes 24 hours to send a CQ.  HuH?
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives -

More information about the Topband mailing list