I was trying to remember JS8CALL -- thanks for the reminder.
The best thing about this hobby is that there are so many options and so
many different things you can do.
David, in my off-list message, I was thinking of JS8CALL.
73 -- Lynn
On 7/12/20 6:18 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
Enter JS8Call.
All the technology of FT8, plus all of the conversationality of CW, RTTY and
SSB rolled into one.
If you haven't tried it, you really should. It's developer, Jordan Sherer
(KN4CRD) has done a terrific job with it and I am honored to have been a part
of the beta team almost since day one.
http://js8call.com/
73
Lyn, W0LEN
-----Original Message-----
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 7:40 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"
Well, the fact is that the coding and processing behind modes like FT8
doesn't have to be as rigid as is implemented in WSJT-X. It only
requires that information be sent and received in time frames, and those
time frames are simply a function of three variables ... bandwidth,
rate, and number of characters in the message frame. It would be
possible to change any of those, such as widening the bandwidth to
increase the number of characters for the same time frame.
It would also be possible to send text but have it converted to CW on
the other end. Or even to key CW that gets converted to text before
transmission ... i.e., CW to CW except with significantly better S/N
performance. If the user was willing to live with a narrow bandwidth
single conversation format, clock synchronization isn't even really
needed. And if we were willing to live with a single conversation
format, there would be no point in cramming everyone into 2.4 KHz and we
could spread out like we do for every other mode.
I'm no expert, but I think that the coding could have enough error
checking to allow busted message frames to be printed (or converted to
CW) ... although of course with errors. The extra error processing
would reduce the character count, though, all other things being equal.
The point is that the digital signal processing behind FT8 is extremely
powerful and could be adapted to other user formats with a lot more
flexibility than we have with FT8. The hams who just dismiss FT8 out of
hand really don't understand the broader weak signal applicability of it.
73,
Dave AB7E
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
