Digital Modes

215 readers

1 users here now

A place to discuss all things digital. Any focus from M17 to AMTOR. This may run parallel to other communities, All questions and posts welcome.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

JS8Call hardware suggestions (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What would everyone suggest as far as hardware to start using JS8Call/FT8?

I think I have just enough room for a 40m inverted V (a dipole might be a little tricky since I don’t have trees in the yard).

I don’t have any transceiver yet, so completely open on that front!

Thanks!

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've got an inverted V fan dipole on my roof that's tuned for 20/40, with the peak maybe 25 feet up. It works just fine, even though there's quite a bit of QRM in my neighborhood. The noise floor is S7-S9 across most bands.

I had solely been using a QRP labs QDX (fun kit btw!) and had quite a bit of success within the US, with contacts as far as FL from my QTH in CA. I recently got a FT-897 and have been enjoying the extra power. Had a nice QSO to Argentina (FF92) the other night using JS8 with 25W from CM98. I still leave the QDX on during the day when I'm working to keep an eye on the bands; I feel better about the idea of burning it out than I do a more expensive radio.

I spend much more time on JS8 than FT8, just because it's human interaction instead of computer to computer. FT8 is a great way to get a lot more contacts from a larger number of stations and locations though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do you really want to run JS8call? JS8Call and the Fundamental Problem with EmComm in Amateur Radio: Why I stopped using JS8 and why I think you should too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you spell it out a bit? I read through the linked sources (that I had access to) and couldn't determine a clear link between the software's developer and J6/OathKeepers/Redoubt movement other than the mode is used by those fringe elements. The "Supports" link is just to the JS8 user manual and the other links don't have clear ties to Jordan or JS8. Admittedly, I'm not a member of the js8call groups.io group, so I wasn't able to read through that source to see if a tie was more clearly established.

I'm all for not supporting those who are trying move the US to christofascism, but avoiding the most popular free-form digital chat mode because of an alleged link is a stretch. It would be nice to have an "allow list" for who you're willing to accept messages for, or allowed recipients, but to me, the protocol is still plenty useful without having message forwarding enabled.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That manual is written by Jordan, but the key point is not the manual, it's the software and protocol.

JS8Call has a few bits it can devote to "special" group calls that save a lot of bandwidth, and saving bandwidth improves how much you can send in a single cycle, improving both communication speed AND fidelity. But there are only a few of them because they are limited by the protocol design, so Jordan necessarily has to be selective. He chose to devote one of those to a group with christofascist and insurrection ties. That is an implied endorsement, or special assistance rendered to that group that turns off a LOT of hams. It's quite literally baked in to the software. If that doesn't bother you, fine, but I hope you can see why many of us would rather just stay clear of something like that.

The relaying is also a problem. Though most people don't automatically relay, it's worth being aware that if you turn that feature on, you could be carrying water for AMRRON. It could also be illegal at a point. Without the network features of JS8Call, it doesn't actually bring a while lot of fancy features beyond existing digimodes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond and explain a bit more to connect the dots for me. I didn't notice the built-in @AMRRON group name nestled in the rest of the special purpose groups. I definitely don't appreciate their inclusion, since it is tacit approval of the group, as you alluded to.

Yeah, the FCC document definitely made the potential to leave relaying enabled iffy. I really wish I was a better coder, or I'd fork the code, remove the @AMRRON group and pop up a prompt of whether to allow a relayed message, or only allow to/from trusted parties.