Not to allow thread hijacking (now renamed at least);
One of my goals is to allow each component of the station to be
manageable by a computer, in part for the purposes of operation when I
travel. Once that goal has been met (99% successful, a couple things
are 'better' with eyes on), using TeamViewer (and Skype for phone modes)
is simple.
I've done this for years, successfully but it requires solid 3G or
better at the remote end, which is often a far greater challenge.
Rick NK7I
On 7/13/2020 9:24 AM, bht...@juno.com wrote:
Has anyone tried TeamViewer using the mode FT8? Was in QST a couple
months ago. Just another facet of this great hobby.
73,
Brian K1DIH
That's one of the great things about Amateur Radio. There is literally
something for everyone.
73
Lyn, W0LEN
-----Original Message-----
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Drew AF2Z
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:57 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The
Stairs"
Please- *nobody* is asking JT to save CW by giving us an extra 6-8 dB
SNR. I hope that is not the next Goldilocks mode in the pipeline. I
assume proponents of such a cobbled up "user interface" would feel
perfectly justified in "sharing" even more CW frequency space? No thanks.
73,
Drew
AF2Z
On 07/12/20 20:57, David Gilbert wrote:
Not quite. I'm aware of JS8 and tried it more than a year ago, but it
still has much of the rigidity of the WSJT-X user interface and isn't
as
basic as I think would be desirable.
Think of it this way ... CW works fine as both a contest mode, DXing
mode, and conversational mode. Underlaying CW with a well configured
digital signal processing scheme like that which is under FT8, except
with a different user interface than either WSJT-X or JS8, could be
equally versatile but with maybe 6-8 db better S/N ... possibly by an
even greater margin if the decoding allowed errors instead of being all
or nothing.
I'm not saying text-to-CW is the only way to reap the benefit of modern
digital signal processing ... only using it as an example.
People only interested in a contact will probably always prefer
WSJT-X/FT8 because it does that very well, but both contesting and rag
chewing could really use a different (simpler) structure while still
utilizing the superior weak signal peformance of modern digital signal
processing. I guarantee that it is possible to do so.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 7/12/2020 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
On 7/12/2020 4:53 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:
Yeah, great, reliable at or below the noise floor, but if all you're
doing is meeting the somewhat arbitrary minimum that defines a QSO,
what's the point?
I mean seriously, can you even ask about the weather? Just say "hi?"
Meh.
I'm fine with typing, but I want a real live person typing back, and
if we can type back and forth for an hour, that's great.
73 -- Lynn
On 7/12/20 2:33 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
The argument for digital modes like FT8 is that they're reliable at
or below the noise floor, making it possible to work lots of DX even
if solar conditions are very poor. Simplicity of protocol is a side
effect of this design.
______________________________________________________________
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 bht...@juno.com
______________________________________________________________
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 rick.n...@gmail.com
______________________________________________________________
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
