Callsign
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59

Thread: JT9

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-assoc
ad: l-rl
ad: l-WarrenG
ad: l-Waters
ad: l-tentec
ad: l-innov
ad: l-gcopper
ad: l-Heil

Contribute
to QRZ

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    U-Tapao
    Posts
    1,561

    Smile JT9

    Hello,

    Does anyone have experience using JT9, the new digital mode. Just curious if it will become a popular mode worth using.
    Hotel Alpha Oscar..

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Floresville Texas
    Posts
    1,579

    Default

    It's a great mode. Very similar to JT65 HF only more robust in the noise of the lower bands and much narrower bandwidth.

    JT9 has really taken off in popularity the past week or so since Laurie, VK3AMA released WSJTX Alert (JTX ALERT). It functions just like JT65 Alert and both can be downloaded at the same time from http://ham-apps.com/.

    Right now the most popular frequencies are 14.078 and 21.078 and 10.130 (or thereabouts). The JT9 GUI has the most popular frequencies already configured, so you only need to click on the band and it will change your radio frequency for you if you have your rig set up for CAT control.

    Download JT9 at http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjt.html Scroll down to WSJTX and download the latest version.

    You're going to like it. I predict it will surpass JT65 HF in popularity quite soon, and maybe make it obsolete.

    Have fun !
    73, Randy K5RCD south Texas
    ARRL VE

  3. #3

    Default

    I love it. The only downside I've run into is when someone is running to much power but that isn't the program's fault as much as the someone that hasn't realized that 5 watts is about all you need. I've JT9 contacts with Ham's who are running 1 watt or less. I am going to build or I may just buy an attenuator so I can drop my power output below 5 watts

    There isn't much reason to continue to use JT-65 other than there are still many more users running JT-65 so there can be slim pickings sometimes when running JT9.

    For those interested in digital modes definately follow the link above, in Randy's post, an d/l the program.

    Rob
    W8MRL
    DXCC ,WAS and Triple Play Award - barefoot

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    U-Tapao
    Posts
    1,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by W8MRL View Post
    I love it. The only downside I've run into is when someone is running to much power but that isn't the program's fault as much as the someone that hasn't realized that 5 watts is about all you need. I've JT9 contacts with Ham's who are running 1 watt or less. I am going to build or I may just buy an attenuator so I can drop my power output below 5 watts

    There isn't much reason to continue to use JT-65 other than there are still many more users running JT-65 so there can be slim pickings sometimes when running JT9.

    For those interested in digital modes definately follow the link above, in Randy's post, an d/l the program.

    Rob
    W8MRL
    Rob, why do you say JT65 may be obsolete, I mean what specifically makes JT9 better exactly. I’m still reading up on it.

    Thanks.

    David.
    Hotel Alpha Oscar..

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WH2HAO View Post
    Rob, why do you say JT65 may be obsolete, I mean what specifically makes JT9 better exactly. I’m still reading up on it.

    Thanks.

    David.
    Well, I didn't say JT-65 was obsolete. It's still a popular mode.

    JT9 works very well in noisy conditions and weak signal decoding. According to the author it's about 2 dB more sensitive and uses less than 10% of the bandwidth of JT-65.

    Rob
    W8MRL
    DXCC ,WAS and Triple Play Award - barefoot

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by W8MRL View Post
    I love it. The only downside I've run into is when someone is running to much power but that isn't the program's fault as much as the someone that hasn't realized that 5 watts is about all you need.
    Here we go again with another power argument. If JT9 is so efficient, then why are you running 5 whole watts? Shouldn't a few microwatts be enough for anyone?
    Check out my Tower Install Blog: http://w6uv.com

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by W6UV View Post
    Shouldn't a few microwatts be enough for anyone?
    It often is. I've never worked as much QRP before using the likes of JT65, JT9 and WSPR.

    Most rigs I've known natively only go down to 5 or maybe 1W.

    But 5W is hardly "all you need".
    vy 73, de frank, k2ncc

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by W6UV View Post
    Here we go again with another power argument. If JT9 is so efficient, then why are you running 5 whole watts? Shouldn't a few microwatts be enough for anyone?
    As I said in my original post, I'm looking at an attenuator to cut my output further.

    What do you mean by "another power argument"? I only commented because I dislike an overloaded waterfall caused by someone either very close or running more than minimal power. Maybe you enjoy an overloaded waterfall, but it's not my preference. Why are you being such a curmugeon? Has this been a bad day?
    DXCC ,WAS and Triple Play Award - barefoot

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Lothian, MD
    Posts
    367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by W8MRL View Post
    As I said in my original post, I'm looking at an attenuator to cut my output further.

    What do you mean by "another power argument"? I only commented because I dislike an overloaded waterfall caused by someone either very close or running more than minimal power. Maybe you enjoy an overloaded waterfall, but it's not my preference. Why are you being such a curmugeon? Has this been a bad day?
    Why blame power for your "overloaded waterfall" when the most common culprit is poor AGC and/or RF Input setting management? Why blame the other operator if you are unwilling to tweak the rig for the optimum balance of settings?

    Power is a relatively minor player in JT9 (and JT65) propagation. The difference between 5 and 100 watts is only 13dBm, or about 2 S-units. Propagation path variables can result in an impact that exceeds 20dBm, or in other words equivalent to the difference between 10 and 1000 watts. JT9 (and JT65) is NOT a QRP mode, it is a weak-signal mode...there is a difference.

    All of that being said, oftentimes you 5 watts (or much less) is indeed all you need. However, at least when using JT65, there have been times where 100 watts was what was NEEDED to complete the QSO over the path I attempted. That doesn't make me a bad operator as long as my signal is kept clean.


    73

    Dave
    K3DCW

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K3DCW View Post
    That doesn't make me a bad operator as long as my signal is kept clean.
    So true. I could use 1W to get a -02 report from a station 8000 miles away and get a -22 report with 100W 800 miles away. Or vice versa.
    vy 73, de frank, k2ncc

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •