Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: WSJT-X 1.8.0  (Read 3080 times)
K0UA
Member

Posts: 440




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2017, 04:56:55 PM »

Wow.. I saw a weird signal on 50.313 this weekend, so punched in the frequency to Google, and discovered FT8. Installed WSJT-X 1.8.0 and was surprised that it picked up all my previous WSJT settings and worked "out of the box". No other config required.

Lots of contacts and what a great mode! Even has an auto sequence option. Logged a bunch of contacts and imported them directly to HRD Log.

Nice work.

It is pretty cool isn't it? Smiley
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 14243




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2017, 04:58:11 PM »

I tried downloading WSJT-x 1.8.0 from the WSJT site twice today. It downloads but Norton immediately deletes it saying that it contains "malicious code". Anyone else run across that with Win10 & Norton Internet Security?  I've been running 1.7 for some time now with no difficulty.
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 2539


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2017, 11:57:24 PM »

I tried downloading WSJT-x 1.8.0 from the WSJT site twice today. It downloads but Norton immediately deletes it saying that it contains "malicious code". Anyone else run across that with Win10 & Norton Internet Security?  I've been running 1.7 for some time now with no difficulty.

Norton is notorious for false positives.
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 2539


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2017, 11:59:08 PM »

My suggestion is to leave the QSOs in the WSJT-X ADIF file for now. Once the online logbooks and software have added the mode, upload/export the QSOs.
I do the same.

My question is: If upload to LoTW a FT8 QSO with the mode mapped as "DATA" and the other station uploads two weeks later with the correct mode "FT8", do we get a match?

Yes.
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 2539


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #34 on: July 17, 2017, 12:07:34 AM »

My suggestion is to leave the QSOs in the WSJT-X ADIF file for now. Once the online logbooks and software have added the mode, upload/export the QSOs.
I do the same.

My question is: If upload to LoTW a FT8 QSO with the mode mapped as "DATA" and the other station uploads two weeks later with the correct mode "FT8", do we get a match?

73 Costas SV1XV


I don't believe so. I think you have to upload the QSOs again as FT8, at least to count for the FT8 mode credit.

At present, LoTW does not accept QSOs with a mode of FT8. Such QSOs must be "mapped" to DATA by TQSL in order to be uploaded to LoTW.

At some point in the future, LoTW will accept QSOs with a mode of FT8; then, it will no longer be necessary to have TQSL map FT8 QSOs to DATA.

The only ARRL award for which an FT8 endorsement could be introduced is "Worked All States" (WAS). If the ARRL introduces an FT8 WAS endorsement, then getting an FT8 confirmation for a particular state will require an "exact mode match", meaning that both you and your QSO partner have uploaded your QSO with a mode of FT8.

Thus after LoTW begins accepting FT8 QSOs, and if the ARRL introduces an FT8 endorsement for WAS, it would then be polite to re-upload your FT8 QSOs to LoTW after configuring TQSL to not map them to DATA. This will give any of your QSO partners pursuing the WAS FT8 endorsement the ability to get an exact mode match. You'd also want to re-upload if you yourself are pursuing the WAS FT8 endorsement.
Logged
VE3FMC
Member

Posts: 13




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: July 17, 2017, 04:32:07 AM »

LOTW & EQSL now accept the mode FT8, I uploaded to both this morning with the mode listed as FT8.

Now one thing I have found with this mode is this. I seem to think it is not as robust as JT9 or JT65. I wonder if this is due to the speed of the mode. But I just can not work stations that have lower signals coming into my station. I have no problems working those with JT65 or JT9.

Anyone else notice this or is it just me?
Logged
VA3VF
Member

Posts: 407




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: July 17, 2017, 04:36:15 AM »

Now one thing I have found with this mode is this. I seem to think it is not as robust as JT9 or JT65. I wonder if this is due to the speed of the mode. But I just can not work stations that have lower signals coming into my station. I have no problems working those with JT65 or JT9.

Anyone else notice this or is it just me?

My impression is that FT8 is 4-6 db worse than JT65. The other situation that is puzzling some people, is that very strong signals do not always decode. If you go into TX more than 2-3 seconds after the start of the 15 s cycle, that cycle is lost.

73 de Vince, VA3VF
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 04:52:51 AM by VA3VF » Logged
ND6M
Member

Posts: 423




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: July 17, 2017, 06:16:07 AM »

I tried downloading WSJT-x 1.8.0 from the WSJT site twice today. It downloads but Norton immediately deletes it saying that it contains "malicious code"....

it's not really a "false" positive. the d/l file doesn't meet established Norton criteria.

Norton does that because it is new and doesn't have a record of numerous downloads yet. (reputation)

My Norton gave me the same message, I restored the .exe file and told Norton to ignore the alert.

It installed with no issues.
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 14243




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: July 17, 2017, 08:13:40 AM »

Thanks, I found the same thing this morning in the Norton on-line documentation. I told Norton to ignore it and it installed and is running fine.
Logged
SV1XV
Member

Posts: 122


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #39 on: July 17, 2017, 08:52:11 AM »

LOTW... now accept the mode FT8, I uploaded to both this morning with the mode listed as FT8.
How did you do it? I understand that we cannot sign FT8 QSOs until a new configuration file for TQSL is released, at least without the DATA workaround.

Logged
VA3VF
Member

Posts: 407




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: July 17, 2017, 09:08:21 AM »

LOTW... now accept the mode FT8, I uploaded to both this morning with the mode listed as FT8.
How did you do it? I understand that we cannot sign FT8 QSOs until a new configuration file for TQSL is released, at least without the DATA workaround.

I refreshed the LOTW page a number of times, and still do not see any mention of this change.
Logged
K0UA
Member

Posts: 440




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: July 17, 2017, 09:28:24 AM »

LOTW & EQSL now accept the mode FT8, I uploaded to both this morning with the mode listed as FT8.

Now one thing I have found with this mode is this. I seem to think it is not as robust as JT9 or JT65. I wonder if this is due to the speed of the mode. But I just can not work stations that have lower signals coming into my station. I have no problems working those with JT65 or JT9.

Anyone else notice this or is it just me?

Yes, by design FT8 is only good down to -20 while JT 65 is good to at least -24, and JT9 to at least -26.   Like everything in life, you have to tradeoff.  You give up a few db in weak signal for 4x the speed of the qso. TANSTAAFL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch


How were you able to upload to LOTW?  Did you convert the FT8 QSO's to "data" ?  As I don't seen a newer version of T-QSL available so these FT8 QSO' cannot be signed as they are not valid modes in the eyes of Tqsl.   Or am I missing something?
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 14243




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: July 17, 2017, 11:59:13 AM »

Thanks, I found the same thing this morning in the Norton on-line documentation. I told Norton to ignore it and it installed and is running fine.

An Update: After a few minutes of monitoring, Norton Firewall gave me an alert that an unauthorized program (WSJT) was attempting to access the firewall. I assume that was WSJT-X attempting to upload to PSK Reporter. I selected to allow it through the firewall and not to give me any future notification. It has been working all morning now with no issues. Lots of FT-8 activity on 6M this morning.

Logged
K6HOM
Member

Posts: 15




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: July 17, 2017, 03:04:08 PM »

I have a question for those that have been using FT-8.  Do you find that you need more output watts to make QSOs over the same approximate distances than for JT-65 or JT-9?

I have been successfully using JT-65 and JT-9 for three years.  Perhaps I am doing something incorrectly, but it seems that FT-8 generally requires 25% to 50% more power to make contacts to the same general geographic areas.  With the other two digital modes, 10-12W on 20M was plenty to work N. America from the West Coast.  Seems like FT-8 needs in excess of 20W to do the same.  I am using an Icom IC-7600 connected to a microham microKeyer II and I have properly adjusted the MKII output so that I stay within proper ALC range.

Thanks for your comments,

Rick, K6HOM
Logged
K0UA
Member

Posts: 440




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: July 17, 2017, 03:19:27 PM »

I have a question for those that have been using FT-8.  Do you find that you need more output watts to make QSOs over the same approximate distances than for JT-65 or JT-9?

I have been successfully using JT-65 and JT-9 for three years.  Perhaps I am doing something incorrectly, but it seems that FT-8 generally requires 25% to 50% more power to make contacts to the same general geographic areas.  With the other two digital modes, 10-12W on 20M was plenty to work N. America from the West Coast.  Seems like FT-8 needs in excess of 20W to do the same.  I am using an Icom IC-7600 connected to a microham microKeyer II and I have properly adjusted the MKII output so that I stay within proper ALC range.

Thanks for your comments,

Rick, K6HOM


Wouldn't that observation line up with the 4  (jt65) to 6 (jt9)  db of difference in the modes?

One thing I have noticed is the rig stays a bit cooler running FT8 so I increase the power to run 40 to 50 watts.  Still no ALC indication, and the rig stays cool as a cucumber in your salad.

Speaking of mis adjusted rigs, I was working the RTTY contest well up the band from 14.076 and I heard a jt65 signal that wiped out 20 or 30 khz with garbage.  It was difficult to find his center frequency.  I didn't try to decode him, as it would have just made me angry to know who he was.  I just wondered how anyone could put that much energy across such a wide bandwidth.  I have seen some trashy wide signals before but that one took the cake.   Also all these pinheads that are using vox with their microphone still connected.  Man, so many curse words, dogs barking, TV running in the background.  Jeez, guys, think before you hook things up.  And who is the pinhead that sends CQ in CW after every transmission?
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!