|
I think there are two answers to this one, but i'll ask all the same!
Any chance of FT8 mode being included in the U3 firmware.
I know the room in the ATMEGA is tight!? (PI mode anybody still use it???)
I understand this mode is a quick version of JT65 (15 second slots)!
The idea behind this is that it would be possible to fit in another tx mode within a frame.
I'm sure most will have 15 seconds spare, before calibration starts?!
thoughts anybody???
Dean G7EOB
|
Hi Dean
I already coded FT8 in my U3, next version v3.13, last week. I have not yet had a chance to test it. v3.13 also contains JT4 and RTTY modes.?
73 Hans G0UPL
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Dean Smith <g7eob1@...> wrote: I think there are two answers to this one, but i'll ask all the same!
Any chance of FT8 mode being included in the U3 firmware.
I know the room in the ATMEGA is tight!? (PI mode anybody still use it???)
I understand this mode is a quick version of JT65 (15 second slots)!
The idea behind this is that it would be possible to fit in another tx mode within a frame.
I'm sure most will have 15 seconds spare, before calibration starts?!
thoughts anybody???
Dean G7EOB
|
Just program a short beacon message, like JT9, JT65, etc. So a FT8 beacon.?I'm not sure how useful that is...
73 Hans G0UPL
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Michael Lloyd <mikell@...> wrote: Wouldn't you would have to integrate rig control for the U3 into the laptop if you were going to use FT8?
|
No, no , please no. FT8 is a 'QSO' mode and letting loose FT8 beacons in the FT8 sub-band is, in my view, pointless and counter-productive and not at all in line with the ethos of the mode. I find it hard enough to make any FT8 contacts now as the sub-band on 40/20m is so crowded (however FT8 on 6m in the Sp-E season was excellent).
73 Simon G0FCU.
On 6 December 2017 at 14:01, Hans Summers <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...
73 Hans G0UPL
|
Any chance of FT8 mode being included in the U3 firmware.
Dean, This seems to be becoming a popular "QSO" mode. Is there really any interest in making it yet another beacon mode? The WSPR sub-band is the place for that. 73 Alan G4ZFQ
|
That's why I asked about (and deleted) rig control... I've only seen FT8 used to make QSO's. And yes, it's not easy
|
Dean,
PI4 is being used with good results and just my opinion,should replace CW beacons altogether.Not many people are aware of this mode and how useful it is.
Software is almost too simple to use -
Of course GPS is required.FT8 would be interesting if it were to replace modes not so used in the U3S now.I have tried Opera recently and found NO ONE is there anymore.I fear that FT8 will end the same way soon as another mode emerges,but would like to see FT8 replace JT9 for selfish reasons :) JT9 also pushed to the wayside so I see a use for a FT8 beacon just because everyone is there to receive it now.Just check the decrease of modes used/not used,FT8 is winning,for now.
PI4 INFO-
|
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 06:24 am, James Zelazny jr wrote:
but would like to see FT8 replace JT9 for selfish reasons
Error,I meant replace Opera with FT8. Jim
|
Hans,
?Have you looked at going to say an ESP32 device? They would certainly eliminate any constraints for a long time on memory, cpu, I/O, etc.? I don't know what price break you get on the Atmel devices and how much you could get on the ESP32.?
73, Michael
KM4OLT
|
Hi,
I second Simon's opinion: FT-8 is a highly interactive mode with seconds to interact and was never intended as a beacon mode. Beside that the QSO runs in automatic mode. No chance to implement this in the U3s. And the crocodiles are coming into the FT-8 pond, so no chance for a 200 mW signal.
73 de Hajo
|
Hmmm.
That's a tricky one.? I wonder if transmitting a beacon using a mode designed for 'rapid' QSOs is something we should even consider doing?
Thanks
David? G0MRF
|
But how intrusive would an FT8 beacon be with such low power? Everytimne a new mode comes out,all rush to it while other modes are left for dead.
See JT9 activity or Opera...slowly going away.
I find JT65 horribly intrusive on 30m...these guys do not care where they are QSO`ing. Directly over WSPR in most cases.
RTTY even worse.
The shocking part is I hear JT65 with no antenna connected...how much power do you need?
I sometimes wonder if most users even acknowledge activity on the waterfall before transmitting?
WSJT-X at least prevents TX out of frequency...too much junk software spreading around out there in my opinion.
Jim
|
Great !? I've been hoping it would be added.? Will v3.13 be available soon?
From: Hans Summers <hans.summers@...> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] FT8 for U3? Hi Dean
I already coded FT8 in my U3, next version v3.13, last week. I have not yet had a chance to test it. v3.13 also contains JT4 and RTTY modes.?
73 Hans G0UPL
|
Come to think of it...this is QRP Labs and about the U3S kit.Lets remember what QRP is ...
QRP operation is not 20,30.40.50+ watts like QSO modes are usually abused.When I say abused I mean 30+ watts on 20/30m or any other band that will work fine @ 1 watt.After all,what fun is it any other way? May as well make a phone call and get the same thrill of it.I know I can setup FT8 right now,pump in 30 watts and make QSO`s all day long on 20/30m...but I find that boring and too easy.I can do the same thing with PSK63...just add power :)
My point is simple.Using the "QRP" Labs for an FT8 beacon will never interfere with QSO`s since it is such low power.Those of us using the QRP kits have no real choice but to move where the receiving stations are.Again,JT9/JT65 and all the rest are abandoned soon as a new mode comes out.What good is running a QRP beacon if there are no receiving stations to spot it? All I have to do is look on PSKREPORTER and run through the modes to see who is actually there.So far,looking grim except for FT8.Sort of forces QRP enthusiasts to also migrate to where the most population is right?
Not sure about anyone else,but finding spots from a 20mw signal feels pretty good.
However...why not more operators utilized 2/6/10/70cm bands and drop 50 watts into that? Sounds much more challenging in my opinion and achievement.
MSK144 was doing really well for some time...but now looks it too has dimmed out.
Just my opinion and nothing more.
Jim
|
Good point Jim, I agree 100%.
From: James Zelazny jr <wtfbsyt@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] FT8 for U3?
Come to think of it...this is QRP Labs and about the U3S kit.Lets remember what QRP is ...
QRP operation is not 20,30.40.50+ watts like QSO modes are usually abused.When I say abused I mean 30+ watts on 20/30m or any other band that will work fine @ 1 watt.After all,what fun is it any other way? May as well make a phone call and get the same thrill of it.I know I can setup FT8 right now,pump in 30 watts and make QSO`s all day long on 20/30m...but I find that boring and too easy.I can do the same thing with PSK63...just add power :)
My point is simple.Using the "QRP" Labs for an FT8 beacon will never interfere with QSO`s since it is such low power.Those of us using the QRP kits have no real choice but to move where the receiving stations are.Again,JT9/JT65 and all the rest are abandoned soon as a new mode comes out.What good is running a QRP beacon if there are no receiving stations to spot it? All I have to do is look on PSKREPORTER and run through the modes to see who is actually there.So far,looking grim except for FT8.Sort of forces QRP enthusiasts to also migrate to where the most population is right?
Not sure about anyone else,but finding spots from a 20mw signal feels pretty good.
However...why not more operators utilized 2/6/10/70cm bands and drop 50 watts into that? Sounds much more challenging in my opinion and achievement.
MSK144 was doing really well for some time...but now looks it too has dimmed out.
Just my opinion and nothing more.
Jim
|
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.
|
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:55 am, James Zelazny jr wrote:
What good is running a QRP beacon if there are no receiving stations to spot it? All I have to do is look on PSKREPORTER and run through the modes to see who is actually there.So far,looking grim except for FT8.
Precisely my point! The more coverage you have, the more it represents the prevailing propagation.? Likewise the faster reporting.
|
Not sure what your saying.The quote was from my post saying ,why not have FT8 beacon for U3S?
JT9 has fewer spotters as does many other modes that came and gone...so yes,FT8 in the U3S is a good idea since there are more people listening there.
I run my U3S using Opera2 on 40m...not because it is a good idea but because the mode does not require a GPS for timing and the only mode for non GPS.
But there is only a handful of spotters using it.
FT8 shows lots of stations making it a bit more usable for QRP.
I personally think there are enough QSO modes available to now they are consuming the bandwidth with a splattering free for all mess.
QRP folks do not have a chance anymore below 1 watt...sad stuff.
Jim
|
Jim-
What nights and band/freq are you on ?Opera2? Would like to try to spot you. 73
Ernie KC4SIT Sent from my iPhone
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Dec 7, 2017, at 10:12 PM, James Zelazny jr < wtfbsyt@...> wrote: Not sure what your saying.The quote was from my post saying ,why not have FT8 beacon for U3S?
JT9 has fewer spotters as does many other modes that came and gone...so yes,FT8 in the U3S is a good idea since there are more people listening there.
I run my U3S using Opera2 on 40m...not because it is a good idea but because the mode does not require a GPS for timing and the only mode for non GPS.
But there is only a handful of spotters using it.
FT8 shows lots of stations making it a bit more usable for QRP.
I personally think there are enough QSO modes available to now they are consuming the bandwidth with a splattering free for all mess.
QRP folks do not have a chance anymore below 1 watt...sad stuff.
Jim
|
Hi Ernie,
I'm not sure what times Jim uses Opera, but I'm on 40-meters now, transmitting a beacon periodically.
From: Ernie Hollingsworth <kc4sit@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] FT8 for U3?
Jim-
What nights and band/freq are you on ?Opera2? Would like to try to spot you. 73
Ernie KC4SIT Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2017, at 10:12 PM, James Zelazny jr < wtfbsyt@...> wrote: Not sure what your saying.The quote was from my post saying ,why not have FT8 beacon for U3S?
JT9 has fewer spotters as does many other modes that came and gone...so yes,FT8 in the U3S is a good idea since there are more people listening there.
I run my U3S using Opera2 on 40m...not because it is a good idea but because the mode does not require a GPS for timing and the only mode for non GPS.
But there is only a handful of spotters using it.
FT8 shows lots of stations making it a bit more usable for QRP.
I personally think there are enough QSO modes available to now they are consuming the bandwidth with a splattering free for all mess.
QRP folks do not have a chance anymore below 1 watt...sad stuff.
Jim
|
Michael Monteith
Hajo Dezelski
Jeff KP3FT
TrueBlue