ARRL Handbook w/free JT-65 and JT-69

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 3 years ago
  • Answered
  • (Edited)
I've never quite understood a rationale to buy a new ARRL Handbook annually. I think the Handbook and Antenna book are both must-haves in a ham's library. I do, however believe the state of the art does evolve over time, which is why I do have the 2012 Handbook and Antenna book. But the thrust of my question here is, esp during solar min, what's the deal with JT-6x? I realize there have been multiple conversations about how does one accomplish this or that on the 6000 series. My question is more basic, although not so basic as to be "what's the deal with digital" (I think I have that) but if the JT's are sub noise floor I imagine there are band specific 'calling' frequencies, correct? Are QSOs held or is this very much like orbiting repeaters and rare dx whereby a QSO is "599 TU"? How does this compare to, say, Olivia being FEC or non FEC psk modes?

Do JT-65 and JT-69 warrant their own book  or is it something that a few quick googles could resolve?
Photo of Walt - KZ1F

Walt - KZ1F

  • 3040 Posts
  • 645 Reply Likes

Posted 3 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Jon - KF2E

Jon - KF2E

  • 689 Posts
  • 230 Reply Likes
Given a quo consisting of contact/signal report/73 is 5 minutes minimum, you rarely see much more. For a longer qso you need to go to jt65 which is not sub noise floor. Their are sub bands for jt65 and jt9 but not really calling frequencies from what I have observed.

Jon...kf2e
Photo of Bob G   W1GLV

Bob G W1GLV

  • 830 Posts
  • 148 Reply Likes
14.076.000 is the sort of the calling frequency for JT-65 with a bandwith of 3.0K
Photo of Kevin

Kevin

  • 931 Posts
  • 271 Reply Likes
Anything you need to know about JT modes are googleable. The first place to start is the developer's webpage <-- link. You can also find WSJT-X here, one of the most popular JT clients.

All JT that I'm aware of is a call, a response, an exchange of signal reports and a 73. There is very little room to customize a message. I'm only familiar with JT-65 and JT-9 on HF. In a very short time I've worked WAS and DXCC endorsements with these modes on 40 and 20 meters. It's almost like shooting fish in a barrel. If you also use JTAlert-X it is like shooting glowing fish in a barrel. I enjoy shooting fish in barrels so I enjoy the mode.

WSJT-X controls the Flex via OmniRig. It comes pre-programmed with the appropriate WSJT frequencies. I believe the typical setup (20 meters for example 14.076 MHz) is a 5 KHz subband. JT-65 is run in the lower 2.5 KHz while JT-9 is in the upper 2.5 KHz. Similar to PSK-31 (fldigi) you poke the spectrum to set up where you transmit. Almost like a skimmer the program decodes everything it hears. If you want to answer you doubleclick and follow along with the canned messages.

Additional books are unnecessary I think. I purchase ARRL books kind of often (handbook, antenna book and operating manual every year or so) but consider it more of a donation to ARRL rather than keeping up to date.

Hope to catch you on JT-x.

73,
Kevin K4VD
(Edited)
Photo of Bob G   W1GLV

Bob G W1GLV

  • 830 Posts
  • 148 Reply Likes
I made a JT65 contact in Sydney, australia with 1 watt using a Flex-6500 transceiver on 20M. This was when the propogation was much better then it is now. A lot of fun.
Photo of Walt - KZ1F

Walt - KZ1F

  • 3040 Posts
  • 645 Reply Likes
I did, actually, order the set. I, mostly, didn't know if there was a universe of accumulated knowledge and operational wisdom that may now have been incorporated between two covers.

Given ARRL's advancement of Amateur Radio operators concerns, spectrum defense, restrictive covenants, etc I concluded there are worse things I could do with $60. Speaking of restrictive covenants, how's that stand in the senate at this point? This session of congress is quickly winding down. (not to change the subject on my own thread).
Photo of EA4GLI - 8P9EH - Salvador

EA4GLI - 8P9EH - Salvador

  • 1788 Posts
  • 550 Reply Likes
I find wspr, jt9, jt65 and ros all very interesting modes. Even rx only and doing auto online reporting to pskreporter, wsprnet, etc... is quite a bit of fun. You can schedule different bands for different times of the day and hop from band to band. It can run in the background and you can start collecting information that you can then analyze.
On wspr you can define how often you TX and you can even try different antennas on the same band, or different radios on the same antenna and see which one does a better job. It's really interesting for the ham nerd in all of us.
Good to support arrl but you can find tons online, and really interesting threads on this forum that are specific to the modes and our Flex radios.
Photo of Peter K1PGV

Peter K1PGV, Elmer

  • 553 Posts
  • 323 Reply Likes
Just to provide another perspective: I've fooled around with the JT modes numerous times. And while it's pretty easy to get a "QSO" I don't personally have much love for these modes. I find the structure overly confining, and I find the "oncer per minute" timing really, really, boring. With these modes, I feel like my ham activity is reduced to the role of a monkey: pushing the next button once each minute. I could never master the patience to get WAS or DXCC with these modes.

Now, if we can change the code to just make QSOs all by itself in the background while I do something else, I'd be in favor. All we'd have to do is eliminate the need to push the "next" button. I'm not sure that'd be ham radio, but... (yes, I joke here).

I recommend playing with it, it's easy to set up. See if you're zen enough to make more than a few test QSOs. I actually admire the folks who have the multi-minute attention span necessary to focus on a five minute canned exchange of call sign and signal level.

Peter
K1PGV
Photo of Walt - KZ1F

Walt - KZ1F

  • 3040 Posts
  • 645 Reply Likes
Thanks Peter! Yeah, that is the kind of editorial I was looking for, verse, choosing which slice or what-have-you. I did grin at your 'just make QSOs all by itself' comment.  I think that same sentiment applies equally to cw skimmer and what, ultimately, will happen where someone will write software to completely take over the role of operator and run the contest by itself. This is the ultimate value I see in having multiple panadapters so programatically decisions can be made whether to work the multiplier or get the new Q. Just as with computer chess programs at some point they will score better than a grand master. IBM's Watson is already co-writing songs. So the issue of "I'm not really sure that constitutes Ham Radio" is a really valid one.
Photo of Kevin

Kevin

  • 931 Posts
  • 271 Reply Likes
I sit at my desk listening to one of The Dresden Files audio books, downloading the next book, reading John's most excellent Flex API primer (this is a champion's work), checking the Flex community, nibbling on lunch and working DX on JT-x 20 meters nearly simultaneously and not wondering if any of it is valid.

I'm sure it constitutes Ham Radio.

On a side note, The future isn't that scary. https://www.ibm.com/watson/music/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brrIaUlCEow
(Edited)
Photo of Peter K1PGV

Peter K1PGV, Elmer

  • 553 Posts
  • 323 Reply Likes
Let me hasten to emphasize that my comment about whether "that'd be ham radio" was specifically in the context of having a theoretical JT-xx program make QSOs without human intervention.

JT-xx QSOs today are very obviously ham radio,

Peter
K1PGV
Photo of KY6LA - Howard

KY6LA - Howard, Elmer

  • 3794 Posts
  • 1642 Reply Likes
@Walt. Several people have Been ther Done that in CW contests already. In fact I think it's banned now

I did it myself once just to taunt my buddy N6KI. IRRC the computer did 89 Q's over several hours The hardest part was the Basic Script to parse the Skimmmer correctly. Everything else was easy. I am sure a professional programmer like you could write much more effective code in a modern language.
Photo of Walt - KZ1F

Walt - KZ1F

  • 3040 Posts
  • 645 Reply Likes
I understood that Peter. Similarly, I do t believe use of cw skimmer is ham radio either. It's far more impressive as a software design exercise.
No disparaging intended, Howard, but yes I can. As I recall N1MM is written in basic. Co sider the following, there are 3 stations on this band I haven't worked there are n stations have worked on this band present on these other bands, whether you choose graph theory or Lp, software can make that decision in real time it's but a small step for it to make the Q and log entry for you. However, should I do that I won't be able to tell a soul.
(Edited)
Photo of Ria - N2RJ

Ria - N2RJ, Elmer

  • 2317 Posts
  • 962 Reply Likes
Part of the problem with automated QSOs is that fully automated stations are confined to specific sub-bands. So one must have a control operator. 

Once per minute, I grant you is long BUT remember that these modes were not meant for bands with good propagation. Instead they were intended to facilitate communications over difficult paths with low power and limited antennas - moonbounce being the primary application. 
Photo of Peter K1PGV

Peter K1PGV, Elmer

  • 553 Posts
  • 323 Reply Likes
>so one must have a control operator present.

Oh, I'd be in the same room. Or, the same house. Or, you know, at the very least, in the same neighborhood. For some value of "neighborhood." ;-)

The easy automation of JT QSOs is entirely possible because of how limited they usually are. It's funny, because they don't HAVE to be that way. But that's how they mostly seem to work out.

Peter
K1PGV
Photo of Walt - KZ1F

Walt - KZ1F

  • 3040 Posts
  • 645 Reply Likes
And that is one major reason I wouldn't tell a soul I was running a fully automated contest station. I didn't mean it specifically, rather CW.

@Ria, I am not sure your premise is correct. I suspect you are referring to beacons. They are different animals. Back in the late 70s early 80's there was a fully automated 2mtr to hf bridge in Robinson, NJ. There were automated ax.25 stations both on vhf and hf in the late 80s.
(Edited)
Photo of Ria - N2RJ

Ria - N2RJ, Elmer

  • 2317 Posts
  • 962 Reply Likes
Beacon stations are defined separately under the rules. I'm talking about the FCC definition for automatically controlled stations:

97.3(a)(6) Automatic control. The use of devices and procedures for control of a station when it is transmitting so that compliance with the FCC Rules is achieved without the control operator being present at a control point.

Versus a beacon station, which is automatically controlled but also engages in one way transmissions:

9) Beacon. An amateur station transmitting communications for the purposes of observation of propagation and reception or other related experimental activities.
Photo of Walt - KZ1F

Walt - KZ1F

  • 3040 Posts
  • 645 Reply Likes
Thank you Ria, but I've read part 97.
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P

  • 4239 Posts
  • 1352 Reply Likes
The issue of fully automated stations arose with traffic handling stations running AMTOR and versions of HF Packet the began to arise in the 80's and 90's with automated BBS type operations. (Anyone remember the dialup days of Fidonet, etc. before there was public access to the internet?). Some of these stations were running 24/7 on multiple bands with no local control operators and stomping all over people. So rules were set up to limit them to specific sub-bands.

I haven't done HF packet in decades, so I have lost touch with current operation status on these and subsequent developments in the art.
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P

  • 4239 Posts
  • 1352 Reply Likes
The issue of fully automated stations arose with traffic handling stations running AMTOR and versions of HF Packet the began to arise in the 80's and 90's with automated BBS type operations. (Anyone remember the dialup days of Fidonet, etc. before there was public access to the internet?). Some of these stations were running 24/7 on multiple bands with no local control operators and stomping all over people. So rules were set up to limit them to specific sub-bands.

I haven't done HF packet in decades, so I have lost touch with current operation status on these and subsequent developments in the art.
Photo of Ria - N2RJ

Ria - N2RJ, Elmer

  • 2317 Posts
  • 962 Reply Likes
I use them for collecting grid squares on VHF. 

They were originally designed for moonbounce. People just ended up using them on the HF bands. They are convenient to add log entries with and build up grid squares, countries, states and other stuff for awards. You can easily do JT65 or JT9 with a remote desktop type of app, easy remote solution. Audio is not necessary. 

I worked into Europe with it on 6m when there was not a peep on ssb or cw. 
Photo of Ned K1NJ

Ned K1NJ

  • 322 Posts
  • 83 Reply Likes
     I do the same thing.  Operators using these modes also tend to be unchallenged by
computers and are likely to use LOTW, so a handful of QSOs might turn into a handful
of QSLs the next day.  Chasing grid squares is a pain using paper cards.  SSB just doesn't
make it sometimes in low (S+N)/N situations and increasingly many are not comfortable
using CW.  The JT modes work nicely to fill this sort of gap.  PSK Reporter is a neat tool
to use (https://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html) to see what is happening or about to happen
when the band may seem dead.  We can squeeze just a little bit more out of the E-skip phenomenon we love so much on 6m by using tools like these.

Ned,  K1NJ
 
Photo of W7NGA

W7NGA

  • 452 Posts
  • 190 Reply Likes
chasing grid squares? what's next .. Worked-All-Starbucks? geez ... I am open-minded and realize that ham radio affords great diversity in interests but this strikes me as mind-numbingly lame. 
Photo of Ned K1NJ

Ned K1NJ

  • 319 Posts
  • 83 Reply Likes
    The "grid squares" concept was created for VHF-Microwave awards.  They
are of uniform size, i. e. there are more in Texas than in Rhode Island.  100 grid
squares qualifies for a "VUCC" (VHF- UHF Century Club) award. This is difficult
on frequencies usually limited to "line-of-sight" propagation.  I think the hope was
also to encourage participation in weak-signal work.  I'm in MA.  I heard FL on
2 meters once and only once with no contact resulting.  I surely wish that more operators had been active that day.  When I first got my license, there were
VHF/UHF specialists that thought  that HF was too easy.  They were, at the time,
pushing low noise receiving technology and had monstrous antennas.
    Anything that encourages participation, increases skill levels, and helps us
push the limits is a good thing.

Ned,  K1NJ
Photo of EA4GLI - 8P9EH - Salvador

EA4GLI - 8P9EH - Salvador

  • 1788 Posts
  • 550 Reply Likes
You don't have your Worked All Starbucks (WAS) cert?? And you call yourself an Amateur Radio OP? LOL

Joking apart, and as I mentioned before, I find JT really cool. It is interesting to see what your antenna can do out of the trasverter port with mWatts.
Photo of Walt - KZ1F

Walt - KZ1F

  • 3040 Posts
  • 645 Reply Likes
When I ordered the 6500 it was still a year away from shipping so I ordered a 1500, which was shipping. working ssb was pointless, barring masocistic tendencies, but I was thrilled with the success of digital on 5 watts into a gap titan. That was 4 years back in the solar cycle so I am not sure what that would look like now.
(Edited)
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P

  • 4239 Posts
  • 1352 Reply Likes
I sometimes (but not often) wish I had not sold my 1500. It was indeed a wonderful QRP and Digital rig. But my shack is too small to keep one connected as a permanent WSPR or RBN rig.

I may be returning to JT95/JT9 this winter on 160 to try for Alaska and Hawaii for my last 2 states for WAS on 160. I have gotten the lower 48 on CW and SSB. But I hardly ever even HEAR those two states on 160, even with a shielded magnetic receiving loop.... it is almost time to put my inverted-L back up. Probably making it a 80/160 dual band this time.