LF: Slow JT9 modes...

[N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com>]

On 09/05/2018 10:31 AM, Rik Strobbe wrote:
> Another alternative would be to revive the longer JT9 modes
> (JT9-2 or even JT9-5). JT9-2 would allow a QSO in +/- 10 minutes,
> about 3dB advantage over JT9-1. To get the same I would need to
> pump up the power from 350 to 700W or increase the antenna height
> from 14m to 20m. JT9-5 will even be about 7dB better compared to
> JT9-1, but there might be issues with doppler effect and/or
> multipath propagation. Does anyone have a WSJT-X version that
> supports these modes? Or even better: could we convnice the WSJT
> team to include at least JT9-2 in the newest version of WSJT-X?

Hello Rik and all LFers,

I wish we could convince the developers to bring back JT9-2, JT9-5
and JT9-10 at least! I would even like to see JT9-30 supported. I
believe these slow modes would allow for many more 137 kHz QSOs over
long distances. At least some of these sub-modes should be useful on
475 kHz also. Unfortunately it seems these and WSPR15 have been
completely abandoned.

Maybe if enough people would ask the developers? It's worth a try,
but I doubt it. They are too busy with 'mainstream' modes for HF use
now to care about LF and MF.

I have been trying for almost a year to get WSJT-X 0.95 to run under
Windows 10 but it keeps crashing. Unfortunately I do not have a PC
with an older version of Windows I can try. I do not know if Windows
10 is the problem or whether 0.95 was simply never stable. I also
don't know if the 0.95 I have is an 'official' release or something
modified from source by a third party. It has *only* the JT9 modes,
which makes me wonder. I cannot find any solid information about
this old version, nor can I find any other old versions which have
the slow JT9 modes. Even if I could get 0.95 to stay running, QSO
partners would be limited. I know that others have tried and failed
with this version.

As I see it we are in bad shape for long distance QSO modes on LF.
EbNaut may eventually prove to be a solution for those who can
afford stations capable of handling it... but not much help for the
rest of us.

I guess we are stuck with DFCW. Old school still works but I would
like some other alternatives.

73,
Paul N1BUG