Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

[Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ]

Folks - this thread is now closed.

In general, please complain about on-air operating issues, other hams, QRM etc.
on other lists and -not- on the Elecraft list. This is a little to OT for our
core readership.

73,

Eric
List Moderator
elecraft.com

On 1/13/2015 9:17 AM, Wes (N7WS) wrote:
> Well, if it's audible, then why not use CW?  Much faster, even with slow
> keying, and they are human-to-human contacts.  The bragging I've heard is of
> the type, "I worked VK0H with 100 mW into a wet string antenna laying on the
> ground.  Who needs QRO?"

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Edward R Cole]

When Harry first posted
 >On 1/5/2015 5:50 PM, Harry Yingst via Elecraft wrote:
 > JT65 is indeed audible and has a very distinct sound.

I was tempted to reply when first posted but decided it wasn't worth
bothering since it was obviously from someone who totally did not
understand.  But now it has been repeated, so you asked for this (and
I am replying politely):

If you stand next to a horn being played, does it make a sound?...if
you are a thousand miles away from the horn does it still make a
sound?  Yes to both questions.  But can you hear the sound when you
are a thousand miles away?  Not by ear.

Is CW audible in a radio receiver tuned to receive it?  Yes - If the
signal is strong enough.  If you cannot hear the CW signal can you
copy the CW message...nope.

JT-65 can be heard by a receiver set up in CW or SSB and properly
tuned...if the signal is strong enough.  If the signal is not strong
enough to be heard, the JT65 signal can still be decoded (quite
easily) though you will hear nothing in the receiver.  This is at a
signal level from about -20 to -28 dB SNR as received with a 2.5-KHz
bw SSB receiver.

To state this a little differently, JT-65 can be decoded down to
about 8-dB below the signal level that CW is not longer
audible.  JT-65 and CW are equally audible if the same signal strength.

73, Ed - KL7UW
PS: if you do not like computers why are you using one to post
e-mail?  If you prefer CW, then by all means use CW.  JT-65 is simply
an alternative mode which works better with extremely weak
signals.  Human intervention is required for either mode.  To say
JT-65 use is not human-to human is insulting the user.

-------------------------
From: "Wes (N7WS)" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Well, if it's audible, then why not use CW?  Much faster, even with
slow keying,
and they are human-to-human contacts.  The bragging I've heard is of the type,
"I worked VK0H with 100 mW into a wet string antenna laying on the
ground.  Who
needs QRO?"
==snip
X.



73, Ed - KL7UW
http://www.kl7uw.com
     "Kits made by KL7UW"
Dubus Mag business:
     [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[vk2rq]

Of course, it is arguable to what extent JT-65 represents a “true QSO” — the following articles make for some interesting reading, and show that the situation is not altogether back and white:
http://www.sm2cew.com/jt65.html <http://www.sm2cew.com/jt65.html>

73, Matt VK2RQ
 

> On 14 Jan 2015, at 6:39 am, Edward R Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> When Harry first posted
> >On 1/5/2015 5:50 PM, Harry Yingst via Elecraft wrote:
> > JT65 is indeed audible and has a very distinct sound.
>
> I was tempted to reply when first posted but decided it wasn't worth bothering since it was obviously from someone who totally did not understand.  But now it has been repeated, so you asked for this (and I am replying politely):
>
> If you stand next to a horn being played, does it make a sound?...if you are a thousand miles away from the horn does it still make a sound?  Yes to both questions.  But can you hear the sound when you are a thousand miles away?  Not by ear.
>
> Is CW audible in a radio receiver tuned to receive it?  Yes - If the signal is strong enough.  If you cannot hear the CW signal can you copy the CW message...nope.
>
> JT-65 can be heard by a receiver set up in CW or SSB and properly tuned...if the signal is strong enough.  If the signal is not strong enough to be heard, the JT65 signal can still be decoded (quite easily) though you will hear nothing in the receiver.  This is at a signal level from about -20 to -28 dB SNR as received with a 2.5-KHz bw SSB receiver.
>
> To state this a little differently, JT-65 can be decoded down to about 8-dB below the signal level that CW is not longer audible.  JT-65 and CW are equally audible if the same signal strength.
>
> 73, Ed - KL7UW
> PS: if you do not like computers why are you using one to post e-mail?  If you prefer CW, then by all means use CW.  JT-65 is simply an alternative mode which works better with extremely weak signals.  Human intervention is required for either mode.  To say JT-65 use is not human-to human is insulting the user.
>
> -------------------------
> From: "Wes (N7WS)" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Well, if it's audible, then why not use CW?  Much faster, even with slow keying,
> and they are human-to-human contacts.  The bragging I've heard is of the type,
> "I worked VK0H with 100 mW into a wet string antenna laying on the ground.  Who
> needs QRO?"
> ==snip
> X.
>
>
>
> 73, Ed - KL7UW
> http://www.kl7uw.com
>    "Kits made by KL7UW"
> Dubus Mag business:
>    [hidden email]
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ]

Folks - This thread is closed - as per my post earlier this morning. Please, no
more postings on this topic.

Eric
Elecraft List Moderator - really!
elecraft.com

On 1/13/2015 11:56 AM, Matt VK2RQ wrote:
> Of course, it is arguable to what extent JT-65 represents a “true QSO” — the following articles make for some interesting reading, and show that the situation is not altogether back and white:
> http://www.sm2cew.com/jt65.html <http://www.sm2cew.com/jt65.html>
>
> 73, Matt VK2RQ
>  

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]