Rick EA4M,

My understanding is that FT4 was developed to provide QSOs in half the time as FT8
especially for Digital Contesting. But, it makes more sense for SAT operating since
QSOs need to be quicker due to the several propagation issues that occur. Perhaps
agreed-upon freqs need to be implemented to promote sharing of the Bandpass without
too much interference.

GL/73,   Bob  K8BL


On Monday, August 23, 2021, 03:50:39 PM EDT, Ricardo Navarrete <[email protected]> wrote:


BTW I can't understand the use if FT4 in satellite even in HF.... I always thought that FTx modes where developed for extremely bad propagation conditions or for those who have a very poor setup to help them enjoying ham radio, I could accept FT4 in satellites to complete a extreme QSO under negative elevation in both sides but not to have a simple QSO in a good pass or with a normal setup.

It is just my opinion..

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 21:15 Humberto Gonz├ílez <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all, those suggestions are right, the aproach of a band plan can help a lot, nevertheless as others mentioned, all the actions we decide to do will be effective if we follow the rule of listen before TX, I do FT-4, and CW, and with a full duplex station there is no way you make interference and if you doit is intentional. 

Regarding the power, FT4 can run with less power than cw and ssb, I have made qso's with 0% of the power of the rig, but again,  if we abuse about the power of TX no matter the mode we used, we will hogged the sat power.

Respect, Improve our operating skills and a band plan will work very good.

73
Bert / XE1HG


De: Robert McGwier <[email protected]>
Enviado: lunes, 23 de agosto de 2021 06:53 p. m.
Para: Ray Soifer <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Asunto: [AMSAT-BB] Re: FT4 and CW on RS-44\
 
Hear hear!

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 12:30 PM Ray Soifer via AMSAT-BB <[email protected]> wrote:
For a great many years, operation with key down continuous power was strongly discouraged on the linear transponder sats precisely because such modes hogged the sat's power.  There is so much activity on the FT modes, however, that John is probably right that it's time to revisit that idea.  Not only should a digital band segment be identified as John suggests, but a simple means of holding down power output should be adopted.  Here's one idea.  Since CW has approximately a 50% duty cycle, why not take your CW power and cut it in half for use on FT4?

73 Ray W2RS




-----Original Message-----
From: Ricardo Navarrete <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Amsat BB <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Aug 23, 2021 8:53 am
Subject: [AMSAT-BB] Re: FT4 and CW on RS-44
's 
Hello John
th 
I'm totally agree with you, we were talking about that in our local sat group and we have to lay the foundations for proper transponder management before everyone become crazy.

Maybe a  general "band plan" for all the SATs will be a solution......

My two cents

Rick EA4M

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 17:48 <[email protected]> wrote:
FT4 activity on RS-44 has been increasing.  FT4 can be heard just about everywhere in the passband and this can create problems for SSB and CW users.  I have heard FT4 around 435668, 64x,639 and 620.  The HF bands are divided into mode segments so CW,SSB and Digital are not in the same areas.  On RS-44 there are no segments so it is all modes everywhere.  Several days ago I listened to WB9YIG trying to work N1DM around 435639, but every time N1DM would give his callsign a FT4 signal would be on top of him.  They finally gave up.  I doubt if it was intentional.  The FT4 computer was just doing what it was programmed to do.  The operator may have not even been listening (not a good idea on sats). Also keep in mind that a FT4 signal is key down continuous carrier, much more demanding on satellite power than SSB or to some extent CW. The beauty of FT4 is supposed to be that you don't need a strong signal to decode, so flea power should work well.
It would be good if all the FT4 operations would move to one area on the transponder. I suggest 435610-435620 because it is the least used area.  The top end has become very crowded lately due to some rovers operating in that area.  This has encouraged others to operate there as well.  Maybe some others have a better suggestion.
FT4 is not the only issue on RS-44.  CW activity has been increasing as well.  CW and SSB can co-exist, however, CW ops cannot be using CW filters and expect not to interfere with SSB stations.  Again we don't have a CW segment so using CW filters are not going to be appropriate.  Please use a SSB RX filter when operating CW and make sure you don't hear SSB in your passband before starting up.  Same for SSB stations.  Don't start up if you hear CW in your passband.  Just move to a clear spot.
If you are not computer conrtolled for doppler, you are going to be moving in the passband.  And you are likely going to slide into another QSO, especially now that RS-44 activity has increased. Please try to keep your position in the passband stable.  If your radio can be computer controlled, please take advantage of that so that you don't move.  You never have to send dits, whistle or blow into the mic when you are computer controlled.  And you won't be transmitting on top of somebody.
Just my opinion of course. 
73, John K8YSE 



-----------------------------------------------------------

Sent via AMSAT-BB(a)amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA.
Acceptable Use and Privacy Policies available at https://www.amsat.org/about-amsat/

View archives of this mailing list at
https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to amsat-bb-leave(a)amsat.org
Manage all of your AMSAT-NA mailing list preferences at https://mailman.amsat.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Sent via AMSAT-BB(a)amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA.
Acceptable Use and Privacy Policies available at https://www.amsat.org/about-amsat/

View archives of this mailing list at
https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to amsat-bb-leave(a)amsat.org
Manage all of your AMSAT-NA mailing list preferences at https://mailman.amsat.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Sent via AMSAT-BB(a)amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA.
Acceptable Use and Privacy Policies available at https://www.amsat.org/about-amsat/

View archives of this mailing list at
https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to amsat-bb-leave(a)amsat.org
Manage all of your AMSAT-NA mailing list preferences at https://mailman.amsat.org


--
Dr. Robert W McGwier, Ph.D.
Adjunct Faculty, Virginia Tech
ARDC Member of Board
N4HY: ARRL, TAPR, AMSAT, EARC
Sky: AAVSO, SkyHub, Auburn AS, Skyscrapers

-----------------------------------------------------------

Sent via AMSAT-BB(a)amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA.
Acceptable Use and Privacy Policies available at https://www.amsat.org/about-amsat/

View archives of this mailing list at
https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to amsat-bb-leave(a)amsat.org
Manage all of your AMSAT-NA mailing list preferences at https://mailman.amsat.org