Topics

Issue? with FT4 responses from LotW

Bob
 

Hi,

I was excited to see that FT4  support is in the latest tQSL (2.4.7 with configuration 11.8).  However I am confused why FT4 would be handled differently than FT8?

A valid FT8 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT8 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file: 
<MODE:3>FT8
<APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA
 
A valid  FT4 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT4 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file: 
<MODE:4>MFSK
<SUBMODE:3>FT4
<APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA
 
My question is why the difference?  Why is a submode required for FT4 but not FT8?

The reason that I care is this apparently causes HRD version 6.5.0.207 to stop processing the ADI file it receives.  This only happened once tQSL configuration was updated and FT4 started showing up as a submode of MFSK.

73, Bob, WB4SON

Wes Attaway (N5WA)
 

Good question.  I thought FT8 and etc were counted as “digital”.  Is FT4 some kind of new special mode?

 

The explanations I have seen describe it as a new digital mode (less bandwidth, better sensitivity, etc, but still a digital mode).

 

   -------------------

Wes Attaway (N5WA)

(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA

Computer/Cellphone Forensics

   -------------------


From: ARRL-LoTW@groups.io [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@groups.io] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 11:48 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@groups.io
Subject: [ARRL-LoTW] Issue? with FT4 responses from LotW

 

Hi,

I was excited to see that FT4  support is in the latest tQSL (2.4.7 with configuration 11.8).  However I am confused why FT4 would be handled differently than FT8?

A valid FT8 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT8 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file: 

<MODE:3>FT8

<APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA

 

A valid  FT4 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT4 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file: 

<MODE:4>MFSK

<SUBMODE:3>FT4

<APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA

 

My question is why the difference?  Why is a submode required for FT4 but not FT8?

The reason that I care is this apparently causes HRD version 6.5.0.207 to stop processing the ADI file it receives.  This only happened once tQSL configuration was updated and FT4 started showing up as a submode of MFSK.

73, Bob, WB4SON

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

FT8 *should* have also been approved by ADIF as
<MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT8 as is the case with FT4.
However, the ADIF group have been extremely lax in
applying the correct standard to "MODE" (modulation
type) vs. "SUBMODE" (encoding/protocol).

In reality there are a very limited number of distinct
"MODES" (types of modulation): CW, AM (including USB, LSB,
ISM, VSB, SSB with carrier, etc.), FM (including PM and
other "angle" modulation), FSK, PSK, and PULSE (PWM, PPM,
PDM, etc.). MFSK (1 of n tones) is a bit of a gray area
that could be included with FSK (1 of 2 tones) but the
ADIF group have chosen to list it separately (along with
n of m tone modulation).

At some point in time, ADIF need to go back through the
mode/submode listing and properly sort current "Modes"
into the correct mode/submode taxonomy.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2019-05-24 12:48 PM, Bob wrote:
Hi,
I was excited to see that FT4  support is in the latest tQSL (2.4.7 with configuration 11.8).  However I am confused why FT4 would be handled differently than FT8?
A valid FT8 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT8 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file:
<MODE:3>FT8
<APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA
A valid  FT4 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT4 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file:
<MODE:4>MFSK
<SUBMODE:3>FT4
<APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA
My question is why the difference?  Why is a submode required for FT4 but not FT8?
The reason that I care is this apparently causes HRD version 6.5.0.207 to stop processing the ADI file it receives.  This only happened once tQSL configuration was updated and FT4 started showing up as a submode of MFSK.
73, Bob, WB4SON

Charles Gallo
 

What do you do when you realize that almost all FM today is really PWM?

--
73 de KG2V
Charlie

On May 24, 2019, at 3:19 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists@...> wrote:


FT8 *should* have also been approved by ADIF as
<MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT8 as is the case with FT4.
However, the ADIF group have been extremely lax in
applying the correct standard to "MODE" (modulation
type) vs. "SUBMODE" (encoding/protocol).

In reality there are a very limited number of distinct
"MODES" (types of modulation): CW, AM (including USB, LSB,
ISM, VSB, SSB with carrier, etc.), FM (including PM and
other "angle" modulation), FSK, PSK, and PULSE (PWM, PPM,
PDM, etc.). MFSK (1 of n tones) is a bit of a gray area
that could be included with FSK (1 of 2 tones) but the
ADIF group have chosen to list it separately (along with
n of m tone modulation).

At some point in time, ADIF need to go back through the
mode/submode listing and properly sort current "Modes"
into the correct mode/submode taxonomy.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-05-24 12:48 PM, Bob wrote:
Hi,
I was excited to see that FT4 support is in the latest tQSL (2.4.7 with configuration 11.8). However I am confused why FT4 would be handled differently than FT8?
A valid FT8 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT8 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file:
<MODE:3>FT8
<APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA
A valid FT4 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT4 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file:
<MODE:4>MFSK
<SUBMODE:3>FT4
<APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA
My question is why the difference? Why is a submode required for FT4 but not FT8?
The reason that I care is this apparently causes HRD version 6.5.0.207 to stop processing the ADI file it receives. This only happened once tQSL configuration was updated and FT4 started showing up as a submode of MFSK.
73, Bob, WB4SON

Dave AA6YQ
 

For the record, the objective of introducing SUBMODE into the ADIF specification was to reduce the time required to "approve" a new mode. Specifically, adding a new SUBMODE to an existing MODE was intended to be "automatic", eliminating the normal 2-week approval process for new modes.

Unfortunately, technical debates around "what is a submode of what?" have prevented this strategy from working as intended. Perhaps after all of the existing MODEs and SUBMODEs are properly sorted, as Joe W4TV suggests below, the scheme will operate as intended.

Note that the representation for a mode specified by ADIF has no impact on how logging applications present or store QSO information. The ADIF representation only governs the format used when applications exchange information, like when a logging applications submits QSOs to LoTW, or when LoTW reports confirmation information to a logging application.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

-----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-LoTW@groups.io [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@groups.io] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 3:19 PM
To: ARRL-LoTW@groups.io
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] Issue? with FT4 responses from LotW


FT8 *should* have also been approved by ADIF as
<MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT8 as is the case with FT4.
However, the ADIF group have been extremely lax in applying the correct standard to "MODE" (modulation
type) vs. "SUBMODE" (encoding/protocol).

In reality there are a very limited number of distinct "MODES" (types of modulation): CW, AM (including USB, LSB, ISM, VSB, SSB with carrier, etc.), FM (including PM and other "angle" modulation), FSK, PSK, and PULSE (PWM, PPM, PDM, etc.). MFSK (1 of n tones) is a bit of a gray area that could be included with FSK (1 of 2 tones) but the ADIF group have chosen to list it separately (along with n of m tone modulation).

At some point in time, ADIF need to go back through the mode/submode listing and properly sort current "Modes"
into the correct mode/submode taxonomy.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-05-24 12:48 PM, Bob wrote:
Hi,

I was excited to see that FT4 support is in the latest tQSL (2.4.7 with configuration 11.8). However I am confused why FT4 would be handled differently than FT8?

A valid FT8 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT8 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file:
<MODE:3>FT8
<APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA

A valid FT4 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT4 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file:
<MODE:4>MFSK
<SUBMODE:3>FT4
<APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA

My question is why the difference? Why is a submode required for FT4 but not FT8?

The reason that I care is this apparently causes HRD version 6.5.0.207 to stop processing the ADI file it receives. This only happened once tQSL configuration was updated and FT4 started showing up as a submode of MFSK.

73, Bob, WB4SON






---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

What do you do when you realize that almost all FM today is really PWM?

+ I rest my case.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

The RF is indistinguishable from FM and lacks pulse characteristics
(due to filtering in the transmit chain).

This is no different from the fact that the majority of FSK and MFSK
is really USB with a subcarrier (AFSK). The RF is indistinguishable
from true FSK/MFSK if handled correctly in the transmit chain - thus
the mode is correctly described by the RF "envelope".

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2019-05-24 3:31 PM, Charles Gallo wrote:
What do you do when you realize that almost all FM today is really PWM?
--
73 de KG2V
Charlie

On May 24, 2019, at 3:19 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists@...> wrote:


FT8 *should* have also been approved by ADIF as
<MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT8 as is the case with FT4.
However, the ADIF group have been extremely lax in
applying the correct standard to "MODE" (modulation
type) vs. "SUBMODE" (encoding/protocol).

In reality there are a very limited number of distinct
"MODES" (types of modulation): CW, AM (including USB, LSB,
ISM, VSB, SSB with carrier, etc.), FM (including PM and
other "angle" modulation), FSK, PSK, and PULSE (PWM, PPM,
PDM, etc.). MFSK (1 of n tones) is a bit of a gray area
that could be included with FSK (1 of 2 tones) but the
ADIF group have chosen to list it separately (along with
n of m tone modulation).

At some point in time, ADIF need to go back through the
mode/submode listing and properly sort current "Modes"
into the correct mode/submode taxonomy.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-05-24 12:48 PM, Bob wrote:
Hi,
I was excited to see that FT4 support is in the latest tQSL (2.4.7 with configuration 11.8). However I am confused why FT4 would be handled differently than FT8?
A valid FT8 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT8 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file:
<MODE:3>FT8
<APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA
A valid FT4 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT4 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file:
<MODE:4>MFSK
<SUBMODE:3>FT4
<APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA
My question is why the difference? Why is a submode required for FT4 but not FT8?
The reason that I care is this apparently causes HRD version 6.5.0.207 to stop processing the ADI file it receives. This only happened once tQSL configuration was updated and FT4 started showing up as a submode of MFSK.
73, Bob, WB4SON

Bob Beatty
 

The inconsistency is what I was concerned about, and that inconsistency clearly has led to logging issues in at least one program (as in it won't process a download).  That isn't a tQSL/LotW problem, but the decision to use the submode, unlike FT8, has resulted in problems -- unintended consequence of good intentions.

73, Bob, WB4SON



On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:55 PM Joe Subich, W4TV <lists@...> wrote:

The RF is indistinguishable from FM and lacks pulse characteristics
(due to filtering in the transmit chain).

This is no different from the fact that the majority of FSK and MFSK
is really USB with a subcarrier (AFSK).  The RF is indistinguishable
from true FSK/MFSK if handled correctly in the transmit chain - thus
the mode is correctly described by the RF "envelope".

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-05-24 3:31 PM, Charles Gallo wrote:
> What do you do when you realize that almost all FM today is really PWM?
>
> --
> 73 de KG2V
> Charlie
>
>> On May 24, 2019, at 3:19 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> FT8 *should* have also been approved by ADIF as
>> <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT8 as is the case with FT4.
>> However, the ADIF group have been extremely lax in
>> applying the correct standard to "MODE" (modulation
>> type) vs. "SUBMODE" (encoding/protocol).
>>
>> In reality there are a very limited number of distinct
>> "MODES" (types of modulation): CW, AM (including USB, LSB,
>> ISM, VSB, SSB with carrier, etc.), FM (including PM and
>> other "angle" modulation), FSK, PSK, and PULSE (PWM, PPM,
>> PDM, etc.).  MFSK (1 of n tones) is a bit of a gray area
>> that could be included with FSK (1 of 2 tones) but the
>> ADIF group have chosen to list it separately (along with
>> n of m tone modulation).
>>
>> At some point in time, ADIF need to go back through the
>> mode/submode listing and properly sort current "Modes"
>> into the correct mode/submode taxonomy.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>    ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>>> On 2019-05-24 12:48 PM, Bob wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I was excited to see that FT4  support is in the latest tQSL (2.4.7 with configuration 11.8).  However I am confused why FT4 would be handled differently than FT8?
>>> A valid FT8 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT8 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file:
>>> <MODE:3>FT8
>>> <APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA
>>> A valid  FT4 QSO (one that shows as confirming a FT4 QSO in LotW) will return the following in the ADI file:
>>> <MODE:4>MFSK
>>> <SUBMODE:3>FT4
>>> <APP_LoTW_MODEGROUP:4>DATA
>>> My question is why the difference?  Why is a submode required for FT4 but not FT8?
>>> The reason that I care is this apparently causes HRD version 6.5.0.207 to stop processing the ADI file it receives.  This only happened once tQSL configuration was updated and FT4 started showing up as a submode of MFSK.
>>> 73, Bob, WB4SON
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>