A NEW FT8 with QSO and Rag Chew capabilities called FT8CALL

I am originator of this thread.

I see many various comments about the new mode. (FT8CALL)

Let me get back to the fact that FT8CALL is a timely and wonderful evolution of technology that now enables Ham operators to have far better chance of working DX now have a QSO AT -24dB below the noise floor

That is great full stop...!

We should be all thankful that Ham operators take time out and put in effort (Time and money) to create free and highly effective new digital mode.

Like most Hams, we desire to work DX and for me it does not matter the mode (RTTY BPSK31, CW, SSB, Thro Micro and even Olivia) none of those work as well as FT8CALL).

One can have all the contests one likes, but if the mode you are using is not able to work DX what the use?. (Unless of course you have stack antennas).

I worked today DX and had QSO with several Hams using 5 watts using a 1/4 vertical and yes a 10 wpm. I could not do this with Olivia, RTTY, CW, or the others as his signal was -23dB...

So what is the difference if you if love a particular mode but can not communicate any real distance (DX)?

FT8CALL and FT8 can work DX with ease and now have a QSO...(FT8CALL)


If we were at the peak of the sun spot cycle, most of us would be on 10 Meters SSB, and I am willing to bet the digital modes would not be that popular.

C U on the bands...NN2X

 

YOU like to work DX. YOU don't care about the mode. Remember...that is you. You can't speak for all hams. I've worked RTTY into Bulgaria...PSK31 into Europe several times... I don't measure my fun in distance. Many hams don't. We just have fun. How you have fun may be different than others. What's important is that we all share and not encroach on others and impede their enjoyment

 

Downloaded the software tonight will give it a spin around the block to see how it works running a few tests now to see that all is well with the hardware and software so far no problems.

I am more interested in commending this young man for his talent than I am worrying about get off my lawn xxxxxx frequency.

 

I think some are missing the point about how FT8-based modes blast out things around them. It's useless to say the bandwidth used by FT8 modes is small, when others nearby basically have to avoid having it in their waterfall at all, or it will seriously impact all signals they are trying to RX.

If someone plops an FT8 signal in the middle of a PSK area, it's like farting in an elevator.

It is not a friendly mode -- 5w or 500w, because it blows-out signals anywhere near it. I also think there should be a different area for it -- away from other digital modes.

 

N02Y, 14.074 is, or was Olivia/Contestia(& variants) watering hole. It was used often by Olivia ops, NETS going there often. Then FT8 came and "took" that frequency, this forced Olivia users further down to borderline PSK frequencies. Then the contest mode in FT8 came, forcing Olivia users to "move over" into PSK frequencies. I don't know why JT had to go down to 73/74, now that JT65/JT9 is almost dead. It is definatly not following the Gentalmans agreement (which actually was for the AM portion of 80 and 40m). RTTY, IMHO, has lots of room, and very seldom used other than during contests. Maybe FT8Call can find a place at the upper part of the RTTY slice?

I like PSK, Olivia and MFSK and other digital modes, and I don't like high power FT8 operations near those frequencies due to harmonics and AGC forcing other weak signals(psk etc) down due to high power FT8 ops.

 

Whatever you choose wil be a controversial object. It is quite hard to select a frequency of our choice. JT was smart enough to default the frequencies for their submodes in its own app since long time ago, maklng easier to the newbie to find another stations quickly. Other digital modes, like LB9YH has shown us, was there before and little by little they were moving down in frequency. RTTY was there before and should be respected, imho.

FT8 is the real winner today. JT65 is taking less users day by day, and JT9 is almost inexistent (and this submode is by far the best for weak signals, just behind WSPR). So, why not to use JT9 frequencies for FT8call? At least, I think will not hurt very much (do not blame me, please; it just another proposal), and RTTY users will be happy.

I really like FT8call. It takes de advantages of true FT8 algorythm and the traditonal CW QSO exhange, just not only report for DXrs.

73, Rafael
EA4BPN

 

Just to flesh out your suggestion for the dev:

80m: 3.572
20m: 14.078
15m: 21.078

 

Yes...That is my point as well!!!!!

 

Thanks again for summarizing suggestions. The next version will likely see an adjustment to some of these frequencies (I've already changed some in the code). FYI, this is exactly why this isn't a general release, yet. I classify the frequency suggestion issue as another bug. I'm sure we can find a compromise.

Anyway...Thanks for the discussion y'all. Please feel free to discuss any of the other aspects of the software now.

 

Just a note... I'm in Korea, and some JA ops are talking right over the top of FT8 Call just to make a point, this week. Just by listening, they're transmitting SSB right over the top of FT8Call. Frequency allocations are different in Asia, and it seems to hit right were a favored JA SSB area is.

 

You do excellent work, are a true pioneer, and thank-you for being open to suggestions.

 

Thanks. I appreciate your kindness.

I am just standing on the shoulder of giants...the takeoff angle is better up here.

 

ok...will the macro KA1BSZ/VT/USA work on your program. Back in the day,when I'd sign on cw /vt, there would be an instant pile up,like adding 5 kw to your signal.

 

If you use spaces instead of strokes because KA1BSZ/VT/USA is not a valid callsign.

Here's how I would do it:

 

another freq suggestion..14.068.00; 7.068.00; 21.068.00; 10.140.00; 18.108.00;3.5068.00.