Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: SlowJT9: 1st QSO and 2nd bug found

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: SlowJT9: 1st QSO and 2nd bug found
From: DK7FC <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 18:09:04 +0100
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=2017; t=1541869745; bh=xGjLde4l/iipuq+WZVdWwzR3wg66v92qbWgUYlkASEo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=LqOhNiK48WUWkvRF3tXKjToFyvz7sOuNrO3h0OjTzRR72O/SlanouM/Ay5MDWBGf+ WDtq+eisjKyYMCesS/C8vZ/LEIEIjK+ljCDYVSXdKJO0SFu+b6evoFz92OcenboBBx zxcnR+IIfhCHX6WrT+/YLnzIy5JC4b02cBY3n1zyNehT20QsWRAUwi7hAPegStHcYN ojtsGY5MVos3953Hqc3fdkcorpYhDiAnmKmuFPZdIussbEsOzBdtNRxuyIsxDlku4Y BZIaatuncdH9Pejg6VCZThBm3zQXw7cLuM0B+PvlGdGiV4Svze/ocBg7pHXgdMi2Ga b3VW0Af0L2/PQ==
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>,<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv: Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
Hi Rik,

Am 10.11.2018 17:55, schrieb Rik Strobbe:

- Do JT9-2 and JT9-5 "in the real world" (with ionoshepric instabilies, drifting transmitter and receivers) have a significant advantage over JT9?

Certainly they will. The old versions also supported JT9-10 and JT9-30 which is useful for LF, but nor for MF of course.

- Is there sufficient interest of the LF/MF community to use thse modes?

I expect that any QSO mode (except CW!) will only rise activity for a short period, like a weekend, for maybe 2 or 3 time per season. Isn't that what we all observe since the last 10 years?

3. I haven't had any crash so far, but it is better to be safe than sorry. Maybe I can add a "don't show this message again" option.

Oh yes :-)
There is always a risk when you allow a software to drive your PA, beta version or not.

73, Stefan
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>