FT8 TEST on air "DXpedition Mode" on 6 and 7 March !

Amazing how so many licensed hams argue about the silliest of things with a "My way or the highway" attitude.
Too many have this self proclaimed expertise they wish to foist on all around them.
It is no mystery why the hobby has it's issues when fellow hams can barely communicate beyond their rigs & mic.

That said, IT'S A HOBBY!
I don't get paid to rag chew, beta test, chase the rare one or stay up late for a meteor storm.

It's supposed to be fun; it is to me with my QRP 100 watts and a couple slopers.

 

I can't imagine ANY contesters who'd even THINK about doing this. Who's going to police it?


OK, Back to the original post........ I may try to take part in the test. I'm wondering though, if I install this beta version of WSJT-X will it peacefully coexist with my already working version or will it over-write anything?

 

FT8 was fun at first. After a bunch of contacts (about 600) I got bored with it. Just too automated. Back to PSK and RTTY for digital.

 

..... stay tuned ! still a few hours at th FT-8 DX test 73

 

All configured and ready!

 

Kinda like saying you visited a country because you changed planes in an airport there.

 

Guess that applies to any QSO in the "call sign RST TU" format, found in any mode or contest. Not invented by FT8, and not to be blamed on FT8.

73 de Frode LA6VQ

 

I'm glad a DX-pedition will be able to make 500 contacts per hour, it increases everyone's chance to work a new one.

 

I agree with you Dave. 100%

I started using FT8 in November 2017. In the last three plus months I have made thousands of contacts. The Most distant contact was Australia. The closest contact was about 25 miles away in the next town. Both contacts were made using 10 watts on an inverted V antenna that is 30 feet off the ground. The thing that stands out in my mind is that the contact in Australia was no more difficult to make than the contact in the next town. FT8 was the first and only digital mode I have tried. My first contact with it was Russia. That was my first Russia contact in any mode. I was extremely excited about FT8.

Fast forward three and a half months.

FT8 takes no skill at all. You put the radio on the correct frequency, run WSJT-X, tick a couple of check boxes and enable transmit. The only skill involved is clicking on the station calling CQ that you want to contact. You can even skip that step by calling CQ yourself with the Contact First check box ticked.

I am totally and completely BORED with FT8.

I have thought about learning to copy the FT8 signals by ear and whistling a response into the MIC. But, I am not good at multitasking. I would find it difficult to listen, whistle, keep track of the 15 second time intervals and write in my log book all at the same time. That would eliminate the computer which really is doing all the work.

Of course I am just kidding about all this copy by ear and whistle a response stuff, but, you are entirely correct when you say " having two computers slam at each other in almost full automation for hours on end until the log book fills is just not amateur radio - it's logbook automation." That is all it is. It is nothing more and nothing less. The only skill involved is connecting the sound card interface and installing the WSJT-X program. Even a 70 year old can do that. I did. If I can do it, a 12 year old can do it with his eyes closed. But then the 12 year old would be bored with it in a lot less time than three and a half months.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against digital communications. The digital modes all have their place in ham radio. You like contesting and I loathe contesting. Contesting just does nothing for me. Maybe that is because I have no chance of ever winning a contest. But, just because I don't like contesting doesn't mean there is no place in ham radio for contesting. I know that you are not saying that FT8 has no place in ham radio. I think what you are saying is that FT8 requires no real skill. I must agree with you. When I made contact with Japan last week, I had no sense of accomplishment. Maybe my computer did, but I didn't. After all, all I did was watch.

If I have to use FT8 to get Bouvet Island, with a version of WSJT-X that enables the "Fox" to make contact with 500 "Hounds" at one time, I seriously have to question the validity of the contact. After all it is just the Fox's computer slamming 500 Hound's computers at one time just to bust the pile-up. This latest "release candidate" equates to hunting rabbits with an atom bomb. You can't miss. There is no skill involved when what you are using is a weapon of mass destruction.

 

I am not sure about that. It does increase everyone's computer's chance of working a new one. But, I guess you can kick back and watch the fun even if you don't get to do anything but click on Enable Transmit.

 

Why would anyone would post anything negative about FT8? Joe is to be commended for the development of FT8. It is extraordinarily efficient and fascinating to see contacts made with hams all over the world with meager equipment and antennas. Since nobody put a gun to anyones head to either load it on their computer or tune it in on their radio, what's all the P and M about? -- Larry W8ER

 

Wouldn't it be a hoot to run multi-signal FT8 robots on Echolink! Take the "inefficiency" of propagation completely out of the picture. 24x7 "QSO"s. Side benefits are that repeaters would finally see some activity, and Technicians wouldn't have to be given more HF privileges to get a "taste" of "amateur radio"! Heck, make it even more "efficient" by using it for computer-to-computer Echolink via the internet! DXCC in an 5 minutes ! We'll show all those crusty old farts how it should be done. Seriously, what are they thinking doing it the hard way, slugging it out one contact at time, spending years to get DXCC using ancient modes, when I can work DXCC 100 times a day from my laptop sitting in MacDonalds!

 

"Working"? How much "work" is it, really?

I get it that the mode was developed to be "efficient". Presumably the developers approached this as a technical problem: how to make working DX more efficient. So you come up with a mode that works well with poor signal to noise ratio, that exchanges only the bare minimum of information, and takes the operator (the most inefficient component of the system) out of the loop as much as possible. Having done that, the next logical step is to have many channels running simultaneously.

It's a clever solution to the technical problem. It's "efficient". It's a high yield production process. So if someone's concern is to fill the log as quickly as possible, then by all means go for it. But the proponents of this approach need to recognize that not everyone will think it's the greatest thing. Not everyone sees it as equivalent to other methods.


I like INefficient. It's more fun, more challenging, and gives me something to occupy my spare time. Up to a point, anyway. I'll use a keyer and paddle instead of a straight key (unless i'm in the mood to use a straight key). I'll use a modern transceiver instead of a coherer and a spark gap. Etc.