To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org,
        "600MRG@mailman.qth.net" <600MRG@mailman.qth.net>
References: <1542060256183.45653@kuleuven.be>
 <1670a157bca-1ec2-4867@webjas-vad028.srv.aolmail.net>
 <1542097021988.39835@kuleuven.be>
From: N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=paul@n1bug.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 xsFNBFqj1+0BEACggWlaH8oG/AiXSUG3CeQwZ1NrVEP4U7YsA9N9XEffjCDEsnTjHF2BJSgS
 2AicyomkmTGvghEHxrNFfFw07jwgJl97ae/VtNxpERPSE98mb4sPOMpJbwddioMazMDXwhKA
 wpg5fse+Ru8OrIT04KK919xL/pZuAP6pY6d2kVoizjJOfS71pHpiU6N6q3d9cl+w7d2LKhAE
 a3A1ZgDquPvn0WQlrN8K5D66xVrwTRhf1b5H4Ozl8/mMJzCeLG1ZIsDB3Pu2flwE81P8dCJA
 y1azwgY8pTEshVk4em/se9uRiZaDJr/qUSCf6hrV7AGa8g1jpAQDmdGpDNYMqyDqXen4jNi1
 8kNFVu1BMl2vjaI8skw/YPxIxlk/0ROHYhN6SuoDq1mt4AW4FryNa7k3A8dM8Bt7udBoTv0i
 uw4j9R/bmh2vl/QaHRUhDco0xn2z6geWvXkKqha++vzXDrEKUuqgB85SDZPs5W/phs9p0pz1
 xA61d1gn8FQJtpou5dQuAucqMo8eKQY5LUcbC+MH5pebH+M2wIuDCBmFPJHQDSPNepeaxJ4o
 G/HU1hrpzlgLiTTSKR8DcwtMQwYywnCTlm8MgL4jXuPzoGyKDMYyKIjC51G+3AAOJ6oXJAGR
 g0ehhCPtmnCGBaRlUIoUSpbgc4B+onqFKZmDiVm9CRNJhKIWrQARAQABzRZOMUJVRyA8cGF1
 bEBuMWJ1Zy5jb20+wsF9BBMBCAAnBQJao9ftAhsjBQkJZgGABQsJCAcCBhUICQoLAgQWAgMB
 Ah4BAheAAAoJECRS/J8srRGjPBsQAIh+Haz9gqrQJ0OlMI5xmQ0A5nsVWcatWF/Ea4mucNjL
 4n4jmW+Z4Ukn3OVss55chWwrOVMRNWU2d2zRc92ZF7yJhLCoJFV870bZfxNYwdJ3GEBLIu6/
 anmQYX0oXFx8UBsx5K6egNqbeflPA7zrLiQkWrz6JApECdiA1rHDjyJdS7PDxBCG9cKgr/5b
 r4Rn/JlUl9pRPnxlSwHXsV+J6JtFYtWI69MWIVD7Y7OY1wO9+684uOnzeDANzeIwpBDcSm6p
 0D5u0b1hfPl2TD0ozVs6P0NvxkMbimXUhRR1QD0FvydyxmZTLAo+XZDGR8GqWYrYrauoRZ1h
 3m23+bNT2T4AuoFnWekpsZu+sxIf0LKPtEZCa51O65jZ810ROpXg9Lx71gEoQD+kbjO69+kq
 9r7wjytDq/jyhpOGrGYV6kgcQrISY86t9YvkA9Of2HDzZLih3GwecW6fkeV1AO5w4RteE9nL
 zIs2siGw2YqavF6LpTH71Db7cUYyZWn5hkKpwfpLNnPEuqgZACovpH1WUHx+KMqqIL4rMVCH
 GcSLqnH2KF4cEDb6OeTbwuLfpGlN+I3j24eQnB2uz5rDa7/IBjsClLl8S/wdDTP8IikBGixX
 06v3k06tk/OF4UsfJ0cY/ASGP5+kjT4ASMZAIikwVMpKi5A5be77vecKNYlJQ2a6zsFNBFqj
 1+0BEACaujZXo3F17v7QTnub4DjjYvm+nr8J0uU5pPc1UMEz9eWjmtmITm15fx1hPKNtVW+I
 VlT+DG+ShNnYmO2M4CFBoc7PwkAOc70aDxfHz20kotvj1HhXG7oBiqPkN3TK4C7qWV1HUEPA
 V960qPdhsoCqmtkvNwj39w1T0ZR5qwwaqDogs9UwBib7zseQ3OXHG32xYYCMcxM35hgXGkkz
 R7wFL4ZnAPOeFb8LnWtZcrGpwXdsYkXuCxm+A+u9KlFY+w3ZCzZt1F9Ie+/PSZnFIUtbXt2i
 mfc+VkRwOLz5BDAeWuDL09TN81+gbrR3kXlymDcCbuduO/yHOQK085qzE3LuImdy+JNb7oDf
 1C/hvpRvtB02vVy33rzIXT8644SJzFY/mw/W39/BgHKCoL1FrBbfgf0UoIFw5M752i7jQwmv
 j5yFfnVAXIPpCuusMwWMGVpZcGV7QxJxh0HBEhYgOo9v3zKwzNIPm9V/LA67u/rj4a/MlCE0
 mpd6IHaePE1vXDaboPZHZdhAziru5/Jd7KQI0k+HmM/HRANPRNDZ4UeBpgj9PzS6hDN5GHlZ
 fRUbI8JAg9wSaQtEn0bjyaR7lw0yngZTvvjT1Qqt5zGwm1IAall2STes5xK0aS7p+UJJMVbf
 ydZ5VOnocvUkwYxbiqoyuVtGxi4tpWW9CRstYXMkAwARAQABwsFlBBgBCAAPBQJao9ftAhsM
 BQkJZgGAAAoJECRS/J8srRGjTDMP/18q7uhac/naxoFsOqhgXIlvaPgu6GX7s/QOh+bcSV1F
 y50lxo51P/C95H2TVME/CtCjk2xWQcNjWtXloMEsZpl7T3qWgJHvyZYkDtgh3M6UNY+zb08U
 K9E2+rR0AZ6zdMKio7Z1xA9BtbUpSZpvy2NgjoYVqo35NllUWMZJq0u+88PvE5WeCIqLipNI
 EZmUcG9UwolQbPkrRc42ReL+bFbuXGXDA5GbQ0RudXbugI8iUwaw3ftaKElIZtuHW0hw1VrU
 9tVHsxKyEoKgNNT1hr+dgRmvCHmA87Pi4R5cMV0ZkLVOYfPX1motedag7HmSNPi2PkYLts4z
 kyvPEJe2IvaPvjvK1ShRWWgje3uytrhfwyjUZcIuA76RWEfBbwT2Mbrn9O7LvrYtbTiTlsLo
 Zdk2uocuefBvPd2oI7mTn5eLy/VDy2JVnlb9vpZZhriXI4KtCcP6mYyuPxlxqj/30Kn1fU5b
 C4EpnKy6hW1CHM42DbwzT+ChjBpFbX9bfwT4qn6d42+T4mN5wkmfnBRHfcn8Wf1ezRSK3Ome
 Esa3ZDssj23CZHe11uec6Ln14qoB7JyRT9qM3Q99tzvAlmWFM3GrSsG94g4JponQjQWHmr8B
 eMYezwJHzSI7zWElJpzs/OuohstTYfYTy16FygUOEinc1K4ywjEklgRpXRtjKvqc
Message-ID: <17ffc391-e5a4-c5a6-e749-2ff93b90f8db@n1bug.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 06:42:02 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1542097021988.39835@kuleuven.be>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: LF: Re: SlowJT9 v0.9.02: Decode simultaneous
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Hi Rik, all,

I am still thinking about this. :)

I can see some advantages both ways.

If we assume that there will be significant non-scheduled activity
(people calling CQ using more than one of the JT9 submodes), then
being able to decode all three simultaneously would be an advantage.
We can watch the band for all activity and work people on any of the
three modes.

However so far my experience has been that on 2200m QSOs only happen
by prearranged schedule, not by CQ. Most of the 630m trans-Atlantic
QSOs were the result of activity coordinated via these email lists.
If this is the pattern of activity we can expect, maybe it becomes a
bit less important having the ability to decode all modes at the
same time? In cases where we are coordinating the activity in
advance, we can also choose the mode in advance.

The original JT9-2 and -5 specification has some advantages. One is
that it could preserve compatibility with other software and
devices. There could be some valid reasons for wanting to be able to
transmit with the popular U3S and receive with SlowJT9. One would be
as I proposed the other day, beaconing on alternating modes to
collect evidence on the relative success rates. Another would be as
2E0ILY and myself did last year, beaconing just one JT9 mode to see
if it offered QSO capability between particular stations.

Doesn't fully utilizing the time slot also suggest the possibility
for being able to decode at a s lightly lower level? Maybe it's not
enough to worry about, but at JT9-5 the difference in time utilized
is substantial.

There may be some (lucky ones who are able to make it work) who want
to continue using the old JT software which had these submodes in it.

I am not urging you to do anything. I am just offering some thoughts
about the choices.

73,
Paul N1BUG


On 11/13/18 3:17 AM, Rik Strobbe wrote:
> Hello Jim, all,
> 
> 
> my plan was that SlowJT9 will decode all JT9 submodes and show
> them on the same decoder window. The user can see for each
> decoding what the submode is (the M parameter in the decoder
> window will show 1, 2 or 5). If the user double-clicks on any
> call, SlowJT9 will change the TX submode to that of the received
> station (you double-clicked on) and you are ready for a QSO.
> 
> No hastle with 2 or 3 instances ...
> 
> But, as said before, this might be difficult with the initial
> JT9-2 and JT9-5 transmission durations (49 sec for JT9-1, 109 sec
> for JT9-2 and 290 sec for JT9-5) decoding for all submodes will
> happen at (almost) the same moment. On a moderate PC during the a
> single JT9 decoding the CPU usage peaks to 40-50%. What will
> happen if 3 instances of the JT9 decoder are invoced at the same
> time?
> 
> An alternative would be to decode the 3 submodes one by one (in
> series). But I noticed that on a busy band one JT9 decoding can
> take several seconds, so 3 decodings can take so much time that
> it exceeds the 10 seconds "response time" (between the end of
> transmission an start of the next cycle), preventing the user
> from responding in time.
> 
> 
> With the current JT9-2 and JT9-5 transmission times in SlowJT9
> (49 sec for JT9-1, 98 sec for JT9-2 and 245 sec for JT9-5) there
> is alway at least 10 seconds difference between any (JT9-1, JT9-2
> or JT9-5) decoding, what should be no problem unless a very slow
> PC is used.
> 
> 
> So at this moment I am seeking advice about how to proceed. My
> aim to to create a tool that is useful for DX communication on
> 472kHz and 136kHz, so "your wish is my command" (but keep it
> realistic).
> 
> 
> 73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T
> 
> 
> ________________________________ Van:
> owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org> namens James Hollander
> <mrsocion@aol.com> Verzonden: maandag 12 november 2018 23:40 Aan:
> rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; 600MRG@mailman.qth.net Onderwerp:
> LF: SlowJT9 v0.9.02: Decode simultaneous
> 
> Rik, all,        So, as I understand it, on some ordinary night a
> MF station would/could run at least two software instances of
> JT9—one instance set to decode 2 minute slow JT9, and the other
> instance decoding 1 minute JT9 concurrently.
> 
> The 1st  s/w instance is set for slow JT9.   If the station you
> want to call or have respond to a CQ is low-SNR like a QRP,
> transcontinental, or transoceanic station, then you activate your
> transmission using the slow JT9 software instance.   If low-SNR
> stations comprise the only intended reception, then slow JT9 is
> all you use and forget the 2nd s/w instance.   You get deep-SNR
> receptions and QSOs that regular JT9 can’t deliver.
> 
> The 2nd s/w instance is set for regular JT9. Suppose the station
> you want to call or have respond to a CQ is likely above, say,
> the 50% decode probability, at least SNR -27 dB most of the time.
> Then you activate your transmission on-the-fly instead with
> regular JT9 using that 2nd s/w instance.  That way, you either
> get a reply after 1 minute or have the chance to repeat your
> transmission.
> 
> The nimble operator uses the 1st  or 2nd  s/w instance that’s
> simultaneously running as conditions and as sought-after stations
> warrant.  No need to change TX frequency.  The DX may be on some
> other frequency than you, but that’s fine.  You call them with
> slow JT9 or regular JT9 as you decide on-the-fly without changing
> your frequency and they will see you on their PC display if they
> can.
> 
> Other stations may be running either slow JT9 or regular JT9 at
> any given time, and that’s fine too because you can receive them
> either way.  You’ll see stations TXing slow JT9 on one decoder
> window and stations TXing regular JT9 on the other decoder
> window. If a station sends slow JT9 for a while and then regular
> JT9 for a while, you’ll see that station go from one decoder
> window to the other.
> 
> If a station is already running regular JT9 diversity with two RX
> antennas and two regular JT9 decoders connected to SDR sub-RXs,
> you just add two more decoders for slow JT9 diversity as well.
> Depending on your PC, use a PC powerful enough to run the s/w
> instances concurrently.
> 
> Feel free to clarify if I’m missing anything important.  Very
> interesting!  73, Jim H  W5EST
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Rik Strobbe
> <rik.strobbe@kuleuven.be> To: rsgb_lf_group
> <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; rsgb_lf_group
> <rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk> Sent: Mon, Nov 12, 2018 4:05
> pm Subject: Re: LF: SlowJT9 v0.9.02
> 
> Hi Paul, it seems that we will have to make a choice: - either
> the old JT9-2 and JT9-5 standard and only decoding one mode at a
> time - or keeping the current JT9-2 and JT9-5 parameters and keep
> the option open to decode all JT9 submodes simultanious. I tend
> to go for the second option, but everyone is welcome to convince
> me otherwise. 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T