MIME-version: 1.0
Message-id: <508D92BE.2040500@broadpark.no>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 21:17:02 +0100
From: Steinar Aanesland <saanes@broadpark.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010
 Thunderbird/16.0.1
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References:
 <CAHAQVWO7X9AKEtFPnCY+coRQhUGSdSbsdjRnJyof223u1KWSbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <508D86B7.1030001@princeton.edu>
 <CAHAQVWO93Et4m+A=_JFZsT4jCoxO7wJzzfG7J4mGq8AK5YCgYA@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to:
 <CAHAQVWO93Et4m+A=_JFZsT4jCoxO7wJzzfG7J4mGq8AK5YCgYA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: LF: JT9 buggy issues
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Roger , I think the latest ver is r2698
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.exe

Here is from Joe, K1JT earlier today

----


"Many thanks for all the early feedback on WSJT-X, both on- and off-list.

A number of users have reported that PTT is not being properly released
when as transmission is finished.  I have not yet found a computer that
exhibits this problem... and needless to say, it did not arise for any
of us who made the first on-the-air tests.  For this reason, running
this bug down has not been easy.

If you have experienced this problem, please try replacing the wsjtx.exe
that you got with the download with one I have posted at
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.exe

Depending on the nature of the problem, this one might issue an error
message when it fails to turn off the PTT successfully.  Or it might
solve your problem, as it did for W7IUV.

One important note went out to the first testers, but was not in my more
open announcement.  This early program version may not properly
re-initialize all parameters when you change between JT9 submodes.  To
be sure, it's probably best to restart the program after changing modes.
 This will be fixed soon!

I see that despite these early teething problems, a number of QSOs are
being made tonight with JT9.  I look forward to hearing summaries of
your experiences!

    -- 73, Joe, K1JT


























LA5VNA Steinar
loc:JO59jq
Mal and spam filtering: STRONG
www.opera.no

Den 28.10.2012 20:58, skrev Roger Lapthorn:
> Joe,
> 
> Can you confirm the latest version is 01r2695.exe please?
> 
> 73s
> Roger G3XBM
> 
> On 28 October 2012 19:25, Joe Taylor <joe@princeton.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>>
>>  After about 1 minute or so, the program just closes itself and disappears
>>> from the PC screen.
>>>
>>
>> Please open a command-prompt window and start the program from there. For
>> example,
>>
>> C:\> cd \wsjtx
>> C:\> wsjtx
>>
>> When the program dies, send me any error message left in the
>> command-prompt window.
>>
>>
>>  I am using a SignalLink VOX controlled sound card interface that I use for
>>> WSPR. Also, when I reload the program I have to reload my callsign, grid
>>> etc.every time.
>>>
>>
>> This makes it sound like you may have ignored the installation advice in
>> the Quick-Start Guide: "Under Vista or Windows 7 be sure to install WSJT-X
>> into its own directory (the suggested default is c:\wsjtx) rather than
>> C:\Program Files\wsjtx."  Please confirm.
>>
>>
>>  Although I very much hope to use the mode for QSOs please do not
>>> underestimate the value of a weak signal beaconing function with an
>>> internet database. This has proved extremely valuable on WSPR as people
>>> sometimes leave a RX and PC running to monitor when they are busy and not
>>> available for QSOs. There will be far more people able to receive and
>>> report than TX on MF/LF. This is especially true on 136kHz.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I understand these points, and beacons have their place.  WSPR would
>> not be there if I did not believe this.
>>
>> The question in my mind is the degree to which beacon-like features should
>> be mixed with a mode designed for making QSOs.  If beaconing behavior is
>> desired, why not use WSPR?  If it's important to have, say, 10 dB better
>> sensitivity than WSPR, then maybe a "slow WSPR" mode should be developed
>> and used, rather than JT9.
>>
>>         -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>>
>>
> 
>