Friday, 18 December 2015

Beaconing with JT modes

We all know WSPR by now I guess. But lately there are some website server issues with http://wsprnet.org. The problem is that the sites server holds all the database data. So if the site cannot be accessed you cannot send and/or receive WSPR reports and not view any either. Looking on other wspr analyzing sites won't help as they all depend and extract data from wsprnet.org. G3XBM Roger is a heavy WSPR user that really depends on it as it is one of the few things he can do with the hobby. Roger has had a stroke and has problems with his voice, besides that he gets easily exhausted. Well, lately Roger posted he might look at other opportunities and software to continue beaconing 6m, 10m and LF. I had the idea just to experiment and use WSJT-X for beaconing, just send BCN PE4BAS JO33 or so. Trying to transmit that proved it didn't work. So I end up transmitting B PE4BAS JO33. I did 2 runs with about 2W output. On JT65 and on JT9. The runaway watchdog makes shure you do 6x 1 minute transmissions before it shuts TX off. The only problem is it won't start again, no automatic sequence like in WSPR. Don't know if it is possible to overrule this with another piece of software? Or to program it in one of the experimental versions? Who knows?

Run 1 6x JT65 on 80m (green spotted me wrong on 160)

Run 2 6x JT9 on 80m



I know WSJT-X is not made for beaconing but for 2-way QSO's. But since there are many all over the world just monitoring it might be interesting to add a beacon possebility as well. Just my idea for the sake of experimental radio/propagation research.






10 comments:

  1. Hoi Bas, Goed idee en best wel interessant om daar eens mee te experimenteren. Goed weekend. 73 Hans, PE1BVQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hallo Hans, wel opletten dat je geen andere stations tot last bent. 73, Bas

      Delete
  2. Hi Bas, WSJT-X is implemented mainly for qso's and the band is too narrow for including beacons I suppose. The solution is on WSPR servers.
    73 de SV1GRN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Panagiotis, you're right. I mainly wrote about this to start a discussion. JT9 in my eyes is suitable for beaconing. WSPR is superior but without access to the servers in is not usable. 73, Bas

      Delete
  3. After dabbling in JT-65 and JT-9 for about 2 months now I believe a method beaconing is taking place. I've noticed a number of stations calling CQ, receiving replies and then never responding to any of them - and then calling CQ again repeatedly for over an hour. I can think of three possibilities:
    1) that the CQing station has a very high noise level and can't copy *any* replies (unlikely)
    2) The CQing station's software is calling CQ without the operator being aware of it
    3) the station is calling CQ simply to see where he is being copied via http://hamspots.net/jt/ or other online sources

    73,

    John AE5X

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello John, WSJT-X allows altering the text. You don't need to send CQ. As you can see I used B. I think even withouth the B, just TXing "PE4BAS JO33" would be enough. I didn't get any replies so I guess it was clear to everyone! But what you noticed on the bands I noticed too. Could be they are beaconing, could be they don't really want to make the QSO? I don't know...By the way from what I read is that those experimental versions of WSJT-X are decoding JT65 better as the stable version. 73, Bas

      Delete
  4. Good article, Bas. WSPR has such utility as a beacon and antenna assessment mode (noting it is not legally a beacon mode) to any ham that it should really have a protected allocation within the bands. Simply creating a new mode and trying to stuff it in amongst the general noise has caused QRM problems. Last night, for example, SSB was being used over ongoing WSPR transmissions. RTTY is more commonly the culprit.

    WSPR, freeing us of operator bias, is perhaps the most important development in amateur radio for a long time. Simply because people have "never heard" of WSPR, or because they think it's a mode of no interest to them, doesn't mean it can be stamped upon at will, and without consequence.

    I have tried arguing my point to the RSGB, whose less-than-informed representative, who appeared to be a non-WSPR user, asserted that interference can be avoided by "QSYing". One reason I left that society! IARU only accept input via the national societies, which means the argument gets nowhere.

    WSPRers should get together to tackle these issues, because if we don't, it's likely the mode will drown in QRM over time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think WSPR has much interference from deliberate QRM. RTTY/CW does sometimes and rarely some other digimodes. But SSB is hardly doing harm. Of course that is no excuse for telling someone just go QSY. It is not a possible solution and I can understand the ignorance let people leave national societies like RSGB. 73, Bas

      Delete
  5. Hallo Bas, interessante blogpost. Ik wilde al eerder reageren maar we zaten in de Efteling een paar dagen. Ik gebruik al JT9 en soms JT65 als baken, gewoon in de free msg met PC4T/B 1W Ik denk dat er genoeg ruimte is in het JT9 spectrum vooralsnog. Met JT65 is het te druk geworden. Het is natuurlijk wel zo dat voor baken stations toegewezen ruimte is op de banden en alleen met toestemming van Agentschap Telecom. Het zou best kunnen zijn dat we dit niet mogen doen officieel. De mode leent zich wel goed voor baken stations. WSPRnet.org ligt er tegenwoordig vaak uit of is heel traag. Dat maakt WSPR zinloos als er geen goed net is. Ze moeten denk ik eens groot onderhoud verrichten aan de servers. 73 Paul PC4T

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hallo Paul, ik denk dat je geen PC4T/B moet gaan zenden. Juist dan word je als baken gezien en moet je voldoen aan allerlei regels volgens mij. Er zijn ook al ballonnen uitegrust met JT9 bakenzenders, dus waarom ook niet. Ik denk dat het al voldoende is om bij PE4BAS JO33 uit te zenden. Misschien als het kan met de toevoeging 1W er achter? Het is te proberen. Inderdaad is JT65 niet echt geschikt al heb je daar wel het meeste kans om gehoord te worden omdat het zo populair is. Maar het is ook een chaos aan het worden op JT65A. Als ik bijvoorbeeld 80m bekijk zie ik 1 brij van signalen. Het is een wonder dat er nog wat gedecodeerd word. 73, Bas

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for your comment. Bedankt voor je reactie. 73, Bas