On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 06:02 am, Hans Summers wrote:
Just program a short beacon message, like JT9, JT65, etc. So a FT8 beacon.?I'm not sure how useful that is...
It's useful because there are
vastly more people receiving/reporting the FT8 signals and therefore giving a more realistic picture of the prevailing propagation on PSKR and other sites.? Fast or not, if the beacon's signal's received, it's reported.? That's all that matters.
You're learning nothing about that when only two people in North America are using some moribund mode...like JT9 has become and JT65 is very rapidly becoming.? Even WSPR use seems to be declining.
The complaints I've read elsewhere about a FT8 U3S don't make any sense...especially when coming from these disruptive idiots using 1000W on a mode intended for QRPp in the first place.?
There's no -- ZERO -- obligation for a QSO if CQ wasn't called in the first place, ever, in any mode by any means.? This is experimental use of a digital mode and there's nothing wrong with that.? If you use JT65 in beacon mode (which I do), I don't see the difference with FT8.
FT8 for a U3S beacon makes absolutely perfect sense to me.? If I'm missing something here, please explain it to me.
TrueBlue