Re: DM95

James Duffey

I would think that FT4 would be better than FT8 with respect to meteor scatter. The time interval is half, so the odds of a meteor ping are halved too I think. 

James Duffey KK6MC
Cedar Crest NM

On Sep 13, 2019, at 10:44, Keith Morehouse <w9rm@...> wrote:

FT8 officially sucks as a mode when there is meteor scatter mixed in.  Just a single big ping of scatter within FT8's 15 sec receive window will likely prevent a decode on a weak signal.

I suspect FT4 would suffer the same.. maybe worse.


Keith Morehouse
via MotoG

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 10:38 AM Ed <n5jeh@...> wrote:

No just shorter requirement for a exchange. A  short ping on FT8 is useless but a contact can be made with msk with nothing but short pings. Takes a lot of time however


Ed N5jeh


Sent from Mail for Windows 10





From: Steve London
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [nmvhf] DM95


Why ? Are you saying that the only mechanism that could support a QSO is meteor

scatter ?



Steve, N2IC


On 09/13/2019 10:20 AM, Ed wrote:

> MSK  144 would work better for that distance with no other propagation to help.

> Just MHO


> Sent from Mail <> for Windows 10


> *ED  N5JEH   DM65RD*


> *From: *Arne N7KA <mailto:N7KA@...>

> *Sent: *Friday, September 13, 2019 8:52 AM

> *To: *NMVHF <>

> *Subject: *[nmvhf] DM95


> I copied N5KS on 6M FT8 yesterday with good sigs -8 to -14.  I am trying to work

> him for new 6M grid and sent him  an email about looking this way and into

> Olathe during the contest this weeked.   He is in Amarillo.  N5EPA might have a

> good chance, possibly W7QQ.


> Arne N7KA






Join to automatically receive all group messages.