We operate 10GHz EME, mainly WSJT but occasionally CW at the moment, so
this is only one viewpoint.
All that is possible in some cases, and all that is needed, is an
exchange of Callsigns/Signal reports to prove a contact has been made.
All contacts are about the same distance. The mode used is a secondary
There are a wide variety of issues when considering EME from 6m to
24GHz+: signal strength, mode, libration, timing/skeds etc, so
requirements will be different for each.
Given the difficulty in putting together large stations, some form of
hierarchy in points in terms of bandwidth may be useful - eg SSB - CW -
Data. Do this by having separate sections if you like, but make it easy
to submit logs. All I want is to maximise the activity/chance of QSOs.
For most stations, it is not about winning. It is about having the
opportunity to have QSOs. You will get more entries if you keep the
Whether CW or Digimode, I value the signal strength exchange. Signal
reports are a vital part of the contact, both for interest, and knowing
at what rate to proceed. Trying to strip everything out of the exchange
to give the absolute minimum QSO time does not seem to me what EME is
about. It would be a very retrograde step if all contacts degenerated
into an exchange of 599 regardless, as on the HF bands.
It is useful to have both the signal report and Grid in Digimodes, as
they come "free" in WSJT. It also gives a hard copy of the exchange.
If CW exchanges don't have the Grid, that need not be a problem. ARRL
can work out the Grids/Country multipliers afterwards if necessary, when
the entries are received. It does not matter if I am not sure of the
score when sending the entry in.
The ARRL EME contest is a focus for worldwide activity. Two sessions per
band per year doesn't seem excessive, and is good for activity.
We have found the ARRL EME entry format a bit uncertain. It would help
if they specified more of the variables, eg time window for a contact,
what is actually required in the exchange, and that the location can be
sent in with the entry.
Julian, G3YGF, obo G4RFR
On 08/12/2022 01:22, Marshall-K5QE via Moon-net wrote:
> Hello to all EME ops that are serious about changing the EME contest
> for the better. Recent discussions on Moon-Net have exposed two big
> problems with the exchange of the contest and the scoring. These
> are: A)the multiplier is NOT part of the exchange and B)scoring and
> submitting a log is MUCH more difficult than it should be(See A).
> Two reasonable proposals have been made to fix the EME contest
> scoring. The first is by Jay-N1AV and the second is by myself,
> Marshall-K5QE. I am going to post these two ideas and ask that the
> community come to some conclusion, which can then be formally proposed
> to the ARRL Contest group.
> PROPOSAL 1:
> NOTE: I have slightly edited Jay's email, but the gist of the idea is
> completely his. Here is Jay's proposal: I would support a movement to
> change the rules from a state / country multiplier to a GRID
> multiplier. There, I said it. GRIDS. Here is why:
> A)Every other VHF contest uses grids as the multiplier. For the
> participant, no operation software changes needed, no logging software
> changes needed, and it is easier to log and submit. We want more,
> not less, ops to take part. We have already seen on moonet active
> EMEs who are not getting on or not submitting scores due to the work
> involved to post process logs. Going with grids is native to current
> digital software. It is part of the exchange and the culture of VHF
> B)Using grids multipliers would increase scores. Who cares if the DX
> is in France or Germany, or a station is in North or South Carolina as
> the grid borders both areas. The actual grid is the tangible
> multiplier, not the unknown state that participants need to come up
> with.... New grid - all the VHF logging software TELLS you this.
> C)It will also INCREASE activity on the bands. This is what we want,
> MORE participation. Right now, there are 4 active EME ops on 1296 in
> multiple grids in Arizona. Currently in the EME contest if someone
> works 1 of us, they have worked AZ and they are off looking for other
> multipliers. The other 3 guys get pushed aside or missed. This
> happened in this last contest. Moving to grids, you now have 2-4
> multipliers all calling and all a priority to work!
> D)The second big point is that going to grids would ALSO ENCOURAGE EME
> ROVER operation (what a time to be alive!). Some of us were able to
> take advantage of Wyatt, AC0RA who setup and roved in two different
> states this last EME contest. But 99% of the folks out there didn't
> know he was in a new state when they saw his signal from weekend to
> weekend. They just thought "dupe" and moved on. If we used grids,
> there would be an immediate flag as a NEW grid with the current
> digital mode software. Using states as the multiplier it is unknown
> data. With the advent of the folding dishes in the past several years
> there is a much higher chance of these rovers going out and activating
> 2, 3, 4 grids off the moon during the contest. How exciting would
> that be! Pile up city for these rovers and MORE activity!
> Jay's Discussion: I have only been serious about EME contesting for 5
> years since I moved out here to AZ and got the stations online. I
> played with it back in Maine in the 90s. I have never understood using
> a state as a multiplier as it is not part of the exchange. I don't
> have software that tells me where I stand with my contest score as
> I participate. All my scoring software is grid based. State based
> multipliers are HF contest thinking. VHF contests have always been
> about grids and that works well.
> There - my three cents. Not sorry - but maybe it is time to change
> things up.
> - Jay N1AV
> PROPOSAL 2:
> Hello to all EME ops. I want to make a formal proposal for the
> EME contest exchange. The problem here is that the multiplier is
> NOT part of the exchange. This seems to me to be a poor way to
> run a railroad. I certainly do not pay any attention to HF
> contests, but I can't recall an HF contest where the multiplier is
> NOT part of the exchange, there may be one out there somewhere,
> but that is their problem....
> I would like to see the log entries be <DATE & TIME> <BAND> <HIS
> CALL> <MY CALL> and <STATE>(not necessarily in that order). As
> someone pointed out, if STATE is the multiplier, then grid cannot
> not used, because it is not unique(a single grid often covers more
> than one state). The numeric "signal reports" are of little
> value, since they are not compared to anything. Currently, they
> just have to be there. Why have these things at all??
> This would require the WSJT programmers to make up a new "skin",
> but it would be very close to what is now used for Field Day, so
> it should not be terribly difficult.
> Some discussion concerning <STATE> is in order. Obviously, for
> me, the <STATE> would be <TX>. For the Canadians, it would be
> their province(ON, SK, etc.). Then for the others, we could have:
> The <STATE> to be the numeric DXCC code as already defined by
> ARRL. So, all German stations would send <230>, the Falkland
> Islands would send <141>, while the South Orkney Islands would
> send <238>, and the South Sandwich Islands would send <240>.
> Since these identifiers are *UNIQUE*, it would make logging and
> scoring much easier. There are actually 5 different DXCC entities
> that have the VP8 callsign and this idea would make the actual
> <STATE> clear to everyone. There are several other examples of
> this problem(where the same call sign prefix covers more than one
> DXCC entity).
> These changes are relatively small and simple. We have almost a
> year to get this done.....
> Your comments and ideas??
> Marshall's Discussion: When I first thought up my idea, I thought
> it was a good one that would solve all the problems. Well, it
> would, but Jay's idea would do that as well. His idea does not
> require ANY changes in software, scoring, log entries, and so on,
> because we all know how to do that now. For that reason, I would
> recommend his method over mine.
> To all EME ops, please think about these two ideas and let's reach
> some kind of consensus. If I understood Bart's(W9JJ) last letter,
> that is what we are going to need to get any kind of movement on
> this problem.
> 73 Marshall K5QE
> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are athttp://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
My issue is not to use the TS2000, it's a great piece of equipment but it's
big and heavy for the small waterproof enclosure in my garden.
I wanted to know if anyone used any small 144/432 equipment with 2W is more
than enough at the output.
Regarding your query:
In my TS2000, I have 144 separate RX and TX and also 432 have separate Rx
and TX, others I added an IF output with which I measure lunar noise and use
with the SDR for MAP65.
TS2000 is a great team!
De: Paul Smith <nd4x(a)hotmail.com>
Enviado el: lunes, 30 de enero de 2023 17:59
Asunto: EME TS-2000
I saw your post on Moon-Net.
I am using a "West Mountain Radio Rigblaster Advantage" with my TS-2000X for
For EME, are you using a separate Transmit coax and a separate Receive coax?
If so, how do you have them connected to the single VHF port on the TS2000
for each band?
Paul - ND4X
All of this JT65 vs Q65 discussion raised a question...seems like the Delta
44 is the preferred sound card but win 10 compatibility is an issue.
I'm wondering if anyone has done any testing on external audio interfaces
(USB interconnect) and what have you found to be the best for EME use
particularly JT65B. I do not use MAP 65 so just the SSB bandwidth is all I
OK I made some correction on the setting of Q65A for 144Mhz thanks to Joe &
Lance input. Now if I go to JT65B I probably will have to re adjust the
settings for the wide graph & also the settings for JT65B or do I????? or I
could download WSJTX again & put in in another folder & call it WSJTX/Q65A.
Your suggestions will be appreciated.
I am very much puzzled that we have not heard from European stations,
especially big guns that work only JT65b. Older hardware used by some of
the larger stations is certainly part of the issue, but I think it goes
beyond that. 23cm has 9 times the signal spreading that 2 meters has so
when looking at JT65 shorthand signals they will be smeared out over a
wider range of frequencies making them harder to see on the waterfall. This
puts JT65 at a disadvantage on 23cm. A good example of the spreading
problem is when working CW on aurora on 2 meters. A very narrow filter
simply would not work in that case because much of the signal would be
outside of the bandwidth of a narrow filter. If it was simply that people
are resistant to change, then this would apply at 23cm as well. There is
another thing about 23cm too. On 23cm most users have far more signal
margin than we do on 2 meters. Indeed far more of them can work each other
on SSB than the handful of us on 2 meters. The differences between bands go
on. On 23cm circular polarization is transmitted so they don't have to
worry about decode timing and switching TX polarity in time for the next
transmission in case it becomes obvious you were not copied. This means
that slower computers would not be such a handicap on 23cm since the
beginning of the transmission would not change even if you change the
message a few seconds into your transmission. There are good ways and
questionable ways to compare JT65b and Q65 60a on 2 meter EME. 1) You can't
go by the level of the synce tone on the waterfall. Q65 has a weaker sync
tone by design. 2) You can't really go by db level to tell if you are
copying weaker signals or not. The db calibration is not really that
accurate or repeatable when comparing anything to anything. 3) You can't go
by recordings because you don't have any signal level reference. 4) You
can't go by simulations because conditions will be different on 2 meter
EME. 5) You can't go by how it works on other bands for reasons previously
pointed out in the case of 23cm. 6) You can't even compare one mode on
Map65 and the other mode on WSJTX because WSJTX will consistently beat
Map65 for sensitivity in either mode and nearly all the time. I run them
both side by side. In short, if you haven't been comparing on 2 meter EME
who you can work on each mode and how consistently you can work them, then
you really just don't know for sure which mode is better for 2 meter EME.
Serge - You probably need to work that 200 watt station a few more times on
both modes. There is easily 6db of QSB present from one hour to another. An
interesting test might be to have two instances of WSJTX running with one
on JT65b and the other on Q65 then ask the other station to alternate every
other transmission between the two modes while calling CQ. You can move
your array off the moon far enough that you lose copy on one mode or the
other or more likely both. Once you have 5 or 10 transmissions from each
mode at nearly the same time it should become clear as to how they compare.
Also if your Windows 7 driver is working sufficiently on your Delta44
sound card in your Windows 7 computer, then you can install the latest
WSJTX and Map65 and that should work the same. That driver only interfaces
with the sound card and not the digital software. The latest WSJTX and
Map65 are compatible with Windows 7. It might be a mistake for you to use
Map65 exclusively on either mode.
Lance - I never call a station I can't copy unless I am in a sked. I think
if I did that on HF I would likely be black-listed.
I have tried Q65 many times before and since there was significant Q65
activity today, I ran some experiments. One station was decoded at -25 and
-27db but there were many more transmissions that were not decoded at all.
No -30, -32 or -35s. They just weren't there. I later copied him fine ( a
lot more decodes) on JT65b at between -25 and -30db on WSJTX. I asked if
anyone was copying sub -30db on Q65 and WQ5S reported the same station at
-31db. At that specific time slot I copied the same station at -25db. I
think the sub -30db decodes on Q65 are more likely a result of something
going wrong, like a noise burst rather than an indication of great
sensitivity. Usually my decodes are only 2 or 3db better than his. To be
sure if you can't or won't or don't know how to manage call3.txt then you
should focus on Q65. I have never worked the wrong set of call letters due
to a false decode. If I think KB8RQ called me and I try to call him he will
simply not answer. The opposition to call3.txt is simply sour grapes and
has no basis in technical reality. In fact if you want to call out a
potential cheat, then maybe putting a known call in the DX station field to
make AP work for you during a Q65 sked might be a small cheat, but
certainly thousands of calls in a call3.txt database does not single out
anyone. IMHO the opinion that Q65 is superior due to a lack of needed
call3.txt database is invalid. I start with a full call3.txt file and add
to it as people join the chat on the EME logger. That way when I call CQ, I
have the full sensitivity that will get decodes down to -30db on WSJTX. I
frequently work stations that are only copied on WSJTX but not on Map65.
This is true for both Map65 and WSJTX. Once in a blue moon the reverse is
also true. Today when I had that station at -25db and -27db on Q65, he
simply was not present on Map65.
I have seen and participated in a situation where someone is calling a new
station endlessly on JT65b. I would suggest that if you can see that the
new station is struggling to use JT65b properly then suggest a sked on Q65
120a. It will likely be a much faster QSO especially if he lacks an LNA,
has noise, or did not know he should populate his call3.txt and keep it up
to date. Or maybe he knows how to use FT8 but needs to learn the finer
points of EME.
There are stations using old hardware that prevent them from trying Q65. I
think this group can help them painlessly update their capabilities but
they will need to reach out to us for that help.
I now use a fast computer so the late decodes of Q65 are less of a problem,
but I still have to make a quick decision about what polarity to transmit.
I think I get 2 seconds to make that decision and change. I very much like
the shorthand messages of JT65b. I can usually log a contact half way
through the other stations 73. It's important to learn to visually decode
shorthand signals via the waterfall. Often that works when the decoder
fails. If I could see clear first hand evidence that Q65 is better than
JT65b on 2 meter EME by working stations on Q65 that I can not work on
JT65b, I would probably use Q65 more. If Q65 were 3db better, I would know
it right away and you likely would be hard pressed to get me to switch back
to JT65b on 2 meter EME.
And of course everything Joe said is correct. I just disagree with him
about call3.txt being a problem.
Earl Shaffer, WB9UWA
My EME array photos
Detailed array photos
I recently installed Log4OM to log my digi qso’s from WSJT-x.
It works but it doesnot take the mode Q65 correctly.
Can some one guide me, to solve this?
Thanks in advance,
Verstuurd vanaf: myMail voor iOS
if you've anything to contribute this month, please send to me at the usual
john at g4bao.com.
Full articles for Scatterpoint to Roger
editor at microwavers.org
FYI I also intercept that email address
73 and thanks
I have a question for those that know in insides of MAP65.
I use a SDRPlay Duo and a PC software mixer to get the four channel
audio for MAP65.
This works but I would like to cut out the audio stages by using Linrad
and Franco Venturi's srdplay3 option and the UDP connection.
The SDRPlay3 option in linrad works well, but there is a limitation with
the Duo that the initial sample rate when using two rxs is 2M.
Decimation can get down to 125K or 65.5K in linrad but not get to 96000
required for MAP65.
There is a second sample rate option of 95238 I was wondering if I could
create a special version of MAP65 that replaces the 95238 with 125K.
It could well be that the difference in sample rate is too great and the
calculations in MAP65 would be too far away to work.
To save me wasting any time trying this can anyone explain why this is
not a good idea and could not work.
If it may possibly work I can start to get the current code compiled
before making changes. This could take longer than the actual changes.
I have manged to get to 96000 using resamplers in GNURadio (With a lot
of help from Franco) and could continue with this to get a UDP
connection to MAP65 but this solution currently has no noise blanking
and Linrad noise blanking is reported to be excellent. I have also used
David Warwicks RSPduoEME program but would prefer the flexibility of
linrad with its noise blankers and phasing options.
Any guidance much appreciated.
I dont know what your EME setup is, but I am sure it is very frustrating
to have " seen" and decoded ONLY a single EME with all your efforts. That
would indicate that your challenge is more than just the difference between
the 2 digital modes. Shoot me an email about the specifics of your station
and maybe able to help.
You mention you prefer JT65 over Q65, because you cant see the Q65
signals. Actually that is a benefit and in the simplest terms allows you
to decode weaker signals, if set up correctly.
The visual sync tone to the left of the JT-65 signals uses a db or 2 of
the transmitted signal. Thats huge !!!!!!! So to create that visual
tone, we waste signal and it actually then makes it more difficult to
decode the calls.
I understand the perception that if you cant see it, you cant decode
it. In actuality Q65 decodes better, and weaker signals, if set up
correctly. Open up your F Total so it looks at a wider bandwidth, if you
are unsure of the exact frequency and let it average. Many of us are GPS
locked, so combined with activating doppler correction, the station is
always exactly on Frequency, without looking at the waterfalls. One of
the things I enjoy watching is WSJT-X Q65 mode decode a signal I didn't see
at -28dbs. I too only see very large Stations on the Waterfalls, but that
is not an issue.
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 19:46:46 -0600
From: David <doccpu(a)cox.net>
Subject: [Moon-Net] Q65 vs JT65b on 2 meter EME
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
While I have been trying to hear signals off the moon for almost a year
now, I have only heard dl7apv. So the idea of Q65 to me is daunting as
there is no way to just look at a waterfall and see a sig unless its
very strong. If you cant see it maybe only MAP65 could find it. Tho map
65 now has to be set for 15, 30, or 60 in a, b, c, or d modes. For
little guys like me the discussion is mute because if you cant see it
you cant receive it.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 4:53 AM <moon-net-request(a)mailman.pe1itr.com> wrote:
> Send Moon-net mailing list submissions to
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Moon-net digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re: Meanwell Power Supplies (Gary Sutcliffe)
> 2. Q65 vs JT65b on 2 meter EME (David)
> 3. 8.5W @ 10GHz power amplifier (SQ5KTM)
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 17:08:35 -0600
> From: Gary Sutcliffe <w9xt(a)unifiedmicro.com>
> To: moon-net(a)mailman.pe1itr.com
> Subject: Re: [Moon-Net] Meanwell Power Supplies
> Message-ID: <b803dd05-faf0-8718-fe85-265ba2b8a5eb(a)unifiedmicro.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> I have repaired a few switching supplies with bulging caps. Ideally you
> can get the same part, but often times that part has been discontinued.
> If you must substitute a different cap, make sure you replace it with a
> voltage rating at or above the failed one. Also match the ripple current
> and ESR specs as close as possible to the original one. If you don't,
> the repair may not last long and the failure mode might be more exciting
> (smoke/fire/explosions) than no output and a bulging cap.
> Good luck!
> Gary, W9XT
> On 1/27/2023 12:00 PM, Mary Brown via Moon-net wrote:
> > Look for bulged electrolytic capacitors on the board and change them.
> > That cures 90% of switch mode power supply issues!
> > On 1/27/2023 11:52 AM, Stephen Hanselman via Moon-net wrote:
> >> Dave,
> >> While this is not common I can understand the reason. ?When I had my
> >> company one of my customers wanted us to repair switching ?slot?
> >> supplies from several different vendors. We found two that didn?t
> >> support repairs (meanwell wasn?t one of them) and two that quoted
> >> repair prices that were a significant portion of the new price.
> >> The biggest problem today is that there are no ?real? technicians
> >> anymore. Component level fixers are very rare and switchers are
> >> notoriously hard to fix(i cheerfully detest them). ?So the philosophy
> >> of only fixing things that are in warranty makes sense. ?I suspect
> >> that their idea of fixing things is to change boards till it works.
> >> Steve, KC4SW
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>> On Jan 27, 2023, at 08:38, David Kerl via Moon-net
> >>> <moon-net(a)mailman.pe1itr.com> wrote:
> >>> ?
> >>> Hello All,
> >>> I have a Meanwell power supply that needs repair. I have contacted
> >>> the company in California and was told they only repair power
> >>> supplies that are under warranty. (Nice product support Meanwell. And
> >>> yes, that is sarcasm.)
> >>> Is there a company in the US that repairs these supplies? I hate to
> >>> waste it.
> >>> Dave
> >>> N9HF
> >>> el99
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
> >>> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are athttp://
> > _______________________________________________
> > Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 19:46:46 -0600
> From: David <doccpu(a)cox.net>
> To: moon-net(a)mailman.pe1itr.com
> Subject: [Moon-Net] Q65 vs JT65b on 2 meter EME
> Message-ID: <5665cdde-1857-dd73-2bd2-af4c7794dabc(a)cox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> While I have been trying to hear signals off the moon for almost a year
> now, I have only heard dl7apv. So the idea of Q65 to me is daunting as
> there is no way to just look at a waterfall and see a sig unless its
> very strong. If you cant see it maybe only MAP65 could find it. Tho map
> 65 now has to be set for 15, 30, or 60 in a, b, c, or d modes. For
> little guys like me the discussion is mute because if you cant see it
> you cant receive it.
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2023 18:08:32 +0100
> From: SQ5KTM <sq5ktm(a)gmail.com>
> To: moon-net(a)mailman.pe1itr.com
> Subject: [Moon-Net] 8.5W @ 10GHz power amplifier
> Message-ID: <4B1355D3-64BD-43A6-BF58-D8D1325AFD1C(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> I?m not going to finish my 3cm project, so I decided to sell my 8.5W @
> 10GHz power amplifier. SMA IN - SMA OUT.
> Please contact me via email if interested.
> Price: 399 Euro plus shipping costs.