Boldly OT: 6 meter Sporadic-E season and the FT-8 microjuggernaut

[k6dgw]

"I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that for you."

73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 6/1/2018 2:43 PM, Charlie T wrote:

> My computer just kicked me out of the shack with some really scary threats
> if I even attempted to "pull the plug" while it was working toward DXCC
> (which I already have on 6M SSB) on 50 MHz.
>
> Seems I gave it a tad TOO much control over the station.
>
> Now I'm afraid to even go into the room while the band's open.  The damn
> thing has taken over and doing it all, including internet QSL's.
>
> Even the cats are hiding in the basement.
>
> Oh well, there's always Andy Griffith re-runs on the old-time TV channels.
>
> 73, Charlie k3ICH
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[kstover]

Just the opposite for me.
I make my living in front of a keyboards and four 27" monitors.
The absolute last thing I want to do when I get home or on the weekend is sit in front of the computer pounding function keys.
I do use a shack computer obviously but just for logging and such.
I miss the days when a DX contact wasn't a slam bam affair. You could actually have a conversation and maybe learn something.

I think it would be interesting for contest sponsors to ban technology for one year. No computer logging, no spotting networks, none of that stuff. Actually require a contact to last 2 minutes. I can hear the gagging now. If you can run SO2R without a computer doing the beam turning and radio switching and logging you are a FULL GROWN MAN AMONGST CHILDREN.

R. Kevin Stover    AC0H

ARRL, FISTS, SKCC, NAQCC.
One of the guys that made sneakernet irrelevant, in my little corner of the world.
“If it doesn’t work the first time you push the button it won’t work the 20th…Just stop.”

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of KENT TRIMBLE
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 5:51 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Boldly OT: 6 meter Sporadic-E season and the FT-8 microjuggernaut

What is being overlooked in all of this discussion is that the bulk of today's ham population makes its living at a keyboard.

When the bulk of an eight-hour work-day is spent in front of a monitor, it should come as no shock that an entire generation will prefer making QSOs with keyboard-keys rather than telegraph-keys. For them it requires less skill, less time, and less patience . . . precisely the kind of activities most sought by millennials.

Everything on this earth evolves, including amateur radio, and evolution has never been straight-forward.  It explores, imagines, and experiments.  It leaves behind a trail of bad ideas, weird adaptions, and dead-end cul-de-sacs.  At one time trilobites ruled the oceans.  The oceans did not change, but the trilobites went away.

My CW class on Saturday mornings has several IT guys who work for the State of Missouri.  They are fascinated by code ... not their kind of code ... Samuel F.B.'s kind of code.  They learned it mostly on their own and want to get better at it.  They bring in keying projects, they bring in paddle renditions, they bring in mini-programming accessories, they keep bugging us to schedule forays to the boonies so they can throw wires into trees and "play radio."  No one has yet told them such efforts take time, skill, and patience.  Apparently they don't care. Why?  Beats me.  Come Monday morning they're back in front of their monitors all day.

In Hiram Percy's house are many rooms.

73,

Kent Trimble, K9ZTV
Jefferson City, MO



______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[David Gilbert]

Wrong.

FT8 is indeed a sub-noise floor mode like JT65.  Don know where you got
the idea it isn't, but FT8 is actually an offshoot of JT65 except it
sacrifices a few db for the sake of faster exchanges.  The official FT8
documentation from K1JT, the creator of both, says that it is nominally
capable of -20 db decoding.  >Referenced to the noise floor<

And of course CW is faster ... just 20 db or so less effective for weak
signal reception.

Dave   AB7E

sent from my home computer where I can look up stuff first so I don't
post erroneous claims



On 6/1/2018 2:03 PM, Josh Fiden wrote:

> FT8 is *not* a "sub-noise floor" mode like JT65. You can complete faster on CW. It's great that there's so much activity, but far too many crap overdriven signals calling relentlessly.
>
> 73
> Josh W6XU
>
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Brown-10]

On 6/1/2018 4:38 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> And of course CW is faster ... just 20 db or so less effective for weak
> signal reception.

I think the number is more like 6-10 dB, depending on the skill of the
operator.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Wes Stewart-2]

If you knew the code you could work that signal on CW.  Quicker too.

Wes  N7WS.

On 6/1/2018 2:07 PM, John Stengrevics wrote:
> I worked D41CV on 6 meter FT8 a couple of weeks ago.  He was running 15 watts and was -18dB here.  If that’s not sub-noise floor, I don’t know what is.
>
> 73,
>
> John
> WA1EAZ

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Bill Frantz]

In celebration of my 74th birthday, I'll try not to seem to be
an old curmudgeon.

There are several issues that might be affecting the number of
CW signals heard. One is the relative lack of CW skills in the
general ham population. I'm a poster child for that lack of
skill. I passed the 5 WPM test when I got my extra. Did that
mean I could play in the 15 to 40 WPM world we see on the bands?
Of course not.

I've been trying to improve my CW. I started by chasing some of
the big DXpeditions. I got so I could recognize my CQ, call
sign, and TU, which let know whether to press the AE6JV key or
the 5NN TU key. My vocabulary expanded to recognize things like
CQ EU etc. and avoid being a complete boor. I also started
running contests in S&P mode, learning how to decode call signs
and exchanges, usually only after many repeats. Now I even try
checking into the weekly Elecraft net. Thanks for putting up
with me Kevin.

I still like the digital modes. I fell in love with PSK31 after
operating it a Field Day. It was a lot like computer chatting,
which I had done as a part of my job in my last job before retirement.

Another is the kind of QSO operators want to have. I was quite
surprised when one of the younger members of our club -- in his
30s -- said he liked contesting because he didn't have to listen
to old men talking about their medical problems. He is a good
contester and regularly outscores me in contests. This kind of
operator will be quite happy with FT8, or canned exchanges in CW
and digital modes. I've met many of them on PSK, even when I try
to indicate I'm up for a bit of a chat.

I got to really like the automatic features when I was in the
depths of side effects from my cancer treatment. I could sit
back in my chair and make contacts without having ot expend a
lot of the energy I didn't have.

I do think the advertised 20-24 dB below the noise floor is a
bit of crock, but not entirely wrong. If I understand the
situation correctly, the noise is measured in a 3KHz band width
while the signal is 50 Hz wide. That factor of 60 should be
responsible for 17.8 dB of the advertised noise immunity of the
mode. The other 2 to 6 dB is a real advantage over CW with the
tightest K3 DSP bandwidth. (APF can do better, but dies when
other signals, like DQRM, are near the desired signal.)

When I was operating portable with a barefoot KX3 in New
Hampshire a month ago using FT8, I had real problems getting all
that juicy DX in EU to answer me. Finding an open space in the
band was hard. Finally I tried finding an open transmit window
and calling CQ. The DX came to me, and I contacted a few ATNOs.
I had to move frequently as other stations started transmitting
in the same window I was using. It's always worth pausing to see
if you still have the window. Here full break in CW has a real
advantage. SSB has some of the same advantage because
transmissions aren't synchronized, as they are in FT8.

To try to answer Wayne's question, perhaps setting up schedules
using the Internet would help. Also calling CQ can help a lot. I
was asked to test how 15M was holding up in preparation for
Field Day. I found the band dead until I tried calling CQ. I
didn't make many contacts, but calling CQ brought stations out
of the woodwork including some DX.

I agree with Jim's comments about LotW. My truly spectacular
LotW success was with the 5 FT8 out of state 6M DX contacts I
made last new years eve. All are LotW confirmed. Out of 88 FT8
contacts logged in this last trip to New Hampshire, 55 or 62.5%
have been confirmed with LotW. Compare that with the CQ WPX CW
contest last weekend. I logged 255 QSOs and have 80 LotW
confirmations 31.4%). Of course, the WPX contest was quite
recent, and more confirmations should trickle in. It is also
almost certain that I blew copying some of the calls which would
push down the number of confirmations.

73 Bill AE6JV

On 6/1/18 at 8:46 AM, [hidden email] (Wayne Burdick) wrote:

>At first I thought it was my receiver. Or my antenna farm,
>limited in scale by a pre-nuptial clause. Or noise caused by
>the zomboid army of switching power supplies oozing inexorably
>into my personal space.
>
>Nope.
>It turns out the dearth of CW and SSB signals on 6 meters at
>the height of 2018 Spring Sporadic-E season can be traced to
>one factor: the 24-hour intravenous rave that is FT-8.
>
>Yeah, I get the whole
>sub-noise-floor-and-not-automated-(wink)-QSO thing. But I’d
>like to figure out how those of us who enjoy the occasional
>gear-grinding manual-transmission contact can find each other
>on this brave new highway. Ideas?
>
>Wayne
>N6KR

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        | Airline peanut bag: "Produced  | Periwinkle
[phone]      | in a facility that processes   | 16345
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | peanuts and other nuts." - Duh | Los Gatos,
CA 95032

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[David Gilbert]

Can you explain that?  I've done intelligibility tests and anything more
than a db or so below the noise level is almost impossible to copy. 
Speed of course has an impact, so I'm talking speeds in the range of
20-25 WPM.  It might be different at much slower speeds.

73,
Dave   AB7E




On 6/1/2018 4:52 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

> On 6/1/2018 4:38 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>> And of course CW is faster ... just 20 db or so less effective for
>> weak signal reception.
>
> I think the number is more like 6-10 dB, depending on the skill of the
> operator.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[David Gilbert]

Ahh .. I see.   We're not talking comparable bandwidths here.  My bad.

73,
Dave   AB7E


On 6/1/2018 7:27 PM, David Gilbert wrote:

>
> Can you explain that?  I've done intelligibility tests and anything
> more than a db or so below the noise level is almost impossible to
> copy.  Speed of course has an impact, so I'm talking speeds in the
> range of 20-25 WPM.  It might be different at much slower speeds.
>
> 73,
> Dave   AB7E
>
>
>
>
> On 6/1/2018 4:52 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> On 6/1/2018 4:38 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>> And of course CW is faster ... just 20 db or so less effective for
>>> weak signal reception.
>>
>> I think the number is more like 6-10 dB, depending on the skill of
>> the operator.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Neil Zampella]

Considering that FT8 is done with 8-tone frequency-shift keying (8-FSK)
at 12000/1920 = 6.25 baud.   I'd like to know how you can get that tone
in CW?

As far as the S/N threshold of the various WSJT-X  modes (from the
protocol specs in the WSJT-X user guide):
FT8          : -21
JT4A         : -23
JT9A        : -27
JT65        : -25
QRA64A : -26
WSPR     : -31

More protocol information can be found in section 17:
https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/wsjtx-doc/wsjtx-main-1.9.1.html


Neil, KN3ILZ


On 6/1/2018 9:19 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:

> If you knew the code you could work that signal on CW.  Quicker too.
>
> Wes  N7WS.
>
> On 6/1/2018 2:07 PM, John Stengrevics wrote:
>> I worked D41CV on 6 meter FT8 a couple of weeks ago.  He was running
>> 15 watts and was -18dB here.  If that’s not sub-noise floor, I don’t
>> know what is.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> John
>> WA1EAZ
>
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Josh Fiden]

Referenced to the noise floor at what bandwidth? If you're claiming FT8
can copy sigs 20 dB below what you can copy on CW, that's nonsense and
not even true for JT65. Anecdotal info from hardcore 6m guys (translate:
real world results) say they're not working anything they couldn't copy
on CW. It's a PITA with everyone crammed in a few kHz and a couple bad
sigs wipe it out. In practice, it might be a few dB better than copy by
ear with a narrow filter if you're decent at ESP level copy.

That said, I've been using JT65 on 6m EME for several years and love it.
I'm not at all a luddite about this. Just trying to be realistic.

I sure hope the whole June VHF contest doesn't ignore CW & SSB, and try
to squeeze onto 313 !

YMMV

73,
Josh W6XU

On 6/1/2018 4:38 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> that it is nominally capable of -20 db decoding.  >Referenced to the
> noise floor<

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Brown-10]

If the signal to noise ratio is good enough the FT8 tones are clearly
audible.

The S/N numbers for WSJT modes are referenced to a 2.8 kHz bandwidth. An
FT8 signal sounds like a wobbly carrier. Obviously, when trying to copy
a weak CW signal we're more likely to choose 250-400 Hz bandwidth.

73, Jim K9YC

On 6/1/2018 8:13 PM, Neil Zampella wrote:

> Considering that FT8 is done with 8-tone frequency-shift keying (8-FSK)
> at 12000/1920 = 6.25 baud.   I'd like to know how you can get that tone
> in CW?
>
> As far as the S/N threshold of the various WSJT-X  modes (from the
> protocol specs in the WSJT-X user guide):
> FT8          : -21
> JT4A         : -23
> JT9A        : -27
> JT65        : -25
> QRA64A : -26
> WSPR     : -31

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[David Gilbert]

As I said, I wasn't taking into account the differences in bandwidth, so
my comment wasn't accurate.

Dave   AB7E


On 6/1/2018 11:28 PM, Josh Fiden wrote:

> Referenced to the noise floor at what bandwidth? If you're claiming
> FT8 can copy sigs 20 dB below what you can copy on CW, that's nonsense
> and not even true for JT65. Anecdotal info from hardcore 6m guys
> (translate: real world results) say they're not working anything they
> couldn't copy on CW. It's a PITA with everyone crammed in a few kHz
> and a couple bad sigs wipe it out. In practice, it might be a few dB
> better than copy by ear with a narrow filter if you're decent at ESP
> level copy.
>
> That said, I've been using JT65 on 6m EME for several years and love
> it. I'm not at all a luddite about this. Just trying to be realistic.
>
> I sure hope the whole June VHF contest doesn't ignore CW & SSB, and
> try to squeeze onto 313 !
>
> YMMV
>
> 73,
> Josh W6XU
>
> On 6/1/2018 4:38 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>> that it is nominally capable of -20 db decoding.  >Referenced to the
>> noise floor<
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Edward R Cole]

I really ought not step into this discussion.  Obviously the Elecraft
Reflector is a mainstay of CW ops.

I've been using digital modes one eme since 2003.  Back then the
introductory program was JT44 which was supplanted by JT65 within a
couple years.  Then many variants were done to address conditions on
certain bands or certain prop modes.  WSJT was formed as the folder
holding most of the new formats plus JT65.  MAP65 came out with
ability to display 100-KHz of a band showing all signals and even
decoding all of them to display activity over the sub-band.  Kind of
like a P3 on steroids.

The two digit negative signal strength numbers  show SNR based on a
bw of 2.5 KHz.  -18 is about the lowest level signal one is able to
hear.  If one were using a 500-Hz CW filter the same signal SNR would
be -11, or with 100-Hz super narrow bandpass the SNR = -4 dB which a
good CW op should be able to copy (perhaps with a little difficulty).

It all started on 2m-eme, and for years mainly was about eme.  The
"old guard" on eme grumbled and said it would never last.  Today
there are maybe a couple dozen CW-only eme ops on 2m in the world;
99% have gone digital.

FT8 (as I understand was created by Joe Taylor - K1JT for HF users in
mind).  It started when a few tried JT65 on HF, then discovered
WSPR.  Now FT8 is gaining in popularity on HF.

Whole world is moving on.  K3 and KX3 are SDR's.  Everyone on this
list used a computer to read it.
"The times, they are changing"!

73, Ed - KL7UW
   http://www.kl7uw.com
Dubus-NA Business mail:
   [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Scott-2]

Wayne,

I'll give answering your question a try.  Hopefully I won't piss off
everyone... and it won't be too long.

0).  First, monitor beacons or participate in the RBN for band openings
and then call CQ on open bands.  Heck, call CQ on "closed" bands... one
never knows.  I suspect there are more band openings than most would
admit or even know about and maybe we need more hams willing to set up
beacons.  I once copied a SSB qso of ON4UN and a stateside ham on 15m
when all the prop computer programs said 15m was closed.

1).  CW ops should make MORE use of the computer... especially for
calling CQ.  Once a reply is heard switch to "manual" cw mode (this is
nothing new) AND adjust speed to station answering your CQ.  Nothing
worse than an experienced cw op who won't bother to "talk" to a slow
sending station... nothing.  It just sends the inexperienced cwop to
digital and/or ssb where someone will likely answer no matter the "speed".

2)   CW ops need to not be prejudiced against keyboard sent code,
especially at slower speeds or even someone using cw decoding sw.  I
think younger hams might actually do more if there wasn't such "stink"
put on ops using a keyboard and decoding sw.  Besides you do want to get
younger hams interested in ham radio and especially CW... right?  And as
time goes on those young or even old keyboard cw warriors may or may not
learn to send with a paddle or a key but you've got to get them
interested in CW first.  For some, it's an age vs. memory issue
especially hams who started late in life.

3)  Now to beat up the computer geeks.  Someone could set up a twitter
or gab account and advertise it to the ham community at large via
reflectors and use the account specifically for reporting band openings.
  Then you could get notified on the ubiquitous smart phone and who
knows maybe there is or will be soon a rig remote control app for your
phone.

4)  Digital mode software can be a bear to configure.  Clearly there
should be just one or two "tabs" max to get it working quickly and all
the other program integration configuration is icing on the cake.
Complexity in a basic "getting it working" configuration is not good.
And how about making the program/app window and fonts larger for crying
out loud... I don't see as well as I used to and with the proliferation
of large monitors these programs are a pain to even see anymore.  While
this may increase digital ops I also believe that at some point even
some digital ops will want to try and learn cw.

5)  Finally, I've noticed that a lot of younger millenials like "old
school" stuff from LP 33 records to radio.  IF you can get them
interested in Ham radio (a shameless plug for expanded tech privileges)
there's a good chance they'll eventually want to learn cw one way or
another.  The point is, more hams equals more chances for someone to
answer your cw CQ.

I doubt any of that helps much except maybe paragraph 3, but there it
is... thanks for letting me give it a shot.

Scott
AD5HS

On 6/1/2018 10:46 AM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
...<snip>...

> Yeah, I get the whole sub-noise-floor-and-not-automated-(wink)-QSO thing. But I’d like to figure out how those of us who enjoy the occasional gear-grinding manual-transmission contact can find each other on this brave new highway. Ideas?
>
> Wayne
> N6KR
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT-3]

Take a look at wsprnet.org.

No twitter, nothing funky, just a map showing stations that are
transmitting and who hears them.

73 -- Lynn

On 6/2/2018 10:28 AM, Scott wrote:
> 3)  Now to beat up the computer geeks.  Someone could set up a twitter
> or gab account and advertise it to the ham community at large via
> reflectors and use the account specifically for reporting band openings.
>   Then you could get notified on the ubiquitous smart phone and who
> knows maybe there is or will be soon a rig remote control app for your
> phone.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[rich hurd WC3T]

Hi Scott,

Five times "yes" - one for each of the points you raise.  I am a huge
proponent of "if everybody's listening, nobody's going to make a QSO."
I'm on the southern end of my fifties and I'm realizing now that although I
really love Morse Code, I seriously doubt that I'll be able to be as
productive as quickly as I can with things like computer assisted code
translation.

Heck, Wayne and company must have thought so too, or they wouldn't have
spent time implementing a decoder in their firmware, right?

Doesn't stop me from wanting to do it.  I just unboxed a Vibroplex single
lever paddle I bought on the Zed and I'm trying to make my way through
"Just Learn Morse Code" and LCWO.    And yes, I know all about CW Academy
but I don't have the spare time to do it justice, so I am working on
alternative means.

Thanks for a refreshing, reassuring note of support.

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 1:28 PM Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wayne,
>
> I'll give answering your question a try.  Hopefully I won't piss off
> everyone... and it won't be too long.
>
> 0).  First, monitor beacons or participate in the RBN for band openings
> and then call CQ on open bands.  Heck, call CQ on "closed" bands... one
> never knows.  I suspect there are more band openings than most would
> admit or even know about and maybe we need more hams willing to set up
> beacons.  I once copied a SSB qso of ON4UN and a stateside ham on 15m
> when all the prop computer programs said 15m was closed.
>
> 1).  CW ops should make MORE use of the computer... especially for
> calling CQ.  Once a reply is heard switch to "manual" cw mode (this is
> nothing new) AND adjust speed to station answering your CQ.  Nothing
> worse than an experienced cw op who won't bother to "talk" to a slow
> sending station... nothing.  It just sends the inexperienced cwop to
> digital and/or ssb where someone will likely answer no matter the "speed".
>
> 2)   CW ops need to not be prejudiced against keyboard sent code,
> especially at slower speeds or even someone using cw decoding sw.  I
> think younger hams might actually do more if there wasn't such "stink"
> put on ops using a keyboard and decoding sw.  Besides you do want to get
> younger hams interested in ham radio and especially CW... right?  And as
> time goes on those young or even old keyboard cw warriors may or may not
> learn to send with a paddle or a key but you've got to get them
> interested in CW first.  For some, it's an age vs. memory issue
> especially hams who started late in life.
>
> 3)  Now to beat up the computer geeks.  Someone could set up a twitter
> or gab account and advertise it to the ham community at large via
> reflectors and use the account specifically for reporting band openings.
>   Then you could get notified on the ubiquitous smart phone and who
> knows maybe there is or will be soon a rig remote control app for your
> phone.
>
> 4)  Digital mode software can be a bear to configure.  Clearly there
> should be just one or two "tabs" max to get it working quickly and all
> the other program integration configuration is icing on the cake.
> Complexity in a basic "getting it working" configuration is not good.
> And how about making the program/app window and fonts larger for crying
> out loud... I don't see as well as I used to and with the proliferation
> of large monitors these programs are a pain to even see anymore.  While
> this may increase digital ops I also believe that at some point even
> some digital ops will want to try and learn cw.
>
> 5)  Finally, I've noticed that a lot of younger millenials like "old
> school" stuff from LP 33 records to radio.  IF you can get them
> interested in Ham radio (a shameless plug for expanded tech privileges)
> there's a good chance they'll eventually want to learn cw one way or
> another.  The point is, more hams equals more chances for someone to
> answer your cw CQ.
>
> I doubt any of that helps much except maybe paragraph 3, but there it
> is... thanks for letting me give it a shot.
>
> Scott
> AD5HS
>
> On 6/1/2018 10:46 AM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
> ...<snip>...
>
> > Yeah, I get the whole sub-noise-floor-and-not-automated-(wink)-QSO
> thing. But I’d like to figure out how those of us who enjoy the occasional
> gear-grinding manual-transmission contact can find each other on this brave
> new highway. Ideas?
> >
> > Wayne
> > N6KR
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

--
72,
Rich Hurd / WC3T / DMR: 3142737
PA Army MARS, Northampton County RACES, EPA-ARRL Public Information Officer
for Scouting
Latitude: 40.761621 Longitude: -75.288988  (40°45.68' N 75°17.33' W) Grid:
*FN20is*
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Scott-2]

Hi Lynn,

True and a very nice map it is indeed.  The issue I was trying to point
out and not doing a very good job is that with gab or twitter the band
opening data could be "pushed out" to subscribers in near real time,
something needed for quick openings on 6m.  Besides who doesn't own a
smart phone?  I suspect a large percentage of hams do and if they want
basic band opening data that surely is one way to "get it out" quickly
unless there is some huge server delay.   There may be something already
out on the internet that does something like this I'm just not aware of it.

I could be wrong, but a quick look around WSPRnet.org did not show me
anyway to get data except for me going there and digging it out.
Nothing wrong with that, just not what I thought Wayne was looking for.
I had thought I might help out WSPRnet in the near future as the idea of
running a low power beacon has peaked my interest of late.

All the best and 73.

Scott
AD5HS

On 6/2/2018 1:07 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:

> Take a look at wsprnet.org.
>
> No twitter, nothing funky, just a map showing stations that are
> transmitting and who hears them.
>
> 73 -- Lynn
>
> On 6/2/2018 10:28 AM, Scott wrote:
>> 3)  Now to beat up the computer geeks.  Someone could set up a twitter
>> or gab account and advertise it to the ham community at large via
>> reflectors and use the account specifically for reporting band
>> openings.   Then you could get notified on the ubiquitous smart phone
>> and who knows maybe there is or will be soon a rig remote control app
>> for your phone.

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[NK7Z]

I have a Perl script that scrapes my DX cluster, and announces when a
band is open...  If you want it, email me DIRECT, NOT ON THE LIST, and I
can send it to you.  It uses no more resources than any other cluster
client, so it can work on many clusters.  The script has more comments
than actual code, so it is readable.  

You will need to change things to match your directory structure, and a
few other items as well, but once working it is actually pretty
reliable.  

The script scrapes my DX Cluster, and when if is sees "trigger number"
of DX stations spotting US stations from zones 3, 4, or 5, for selected
bands, it increments a counter for each zone and band.

Once a "time period" it checks the increment counters to see what the
count is for a selected zone, and band, and if the count is larger than
a programmable trigger, if so, it announces that whatever band exceeded
the trigger is open using an MP3 file.  

It actually works quite well.  I am in the process of changing it to not
look at zone, but grid squares to better localize it.

Anyway, if you want a copy you are welcome to it, but please send email
to me NOT TO THE LIST.  

I am out of town now, so it will be a few days before I respond.  If you
improve the script, please return it to me as well...

--
Thanks and 73's,
Dave (NK7Z)
http://www.nk7z.net 

On Sat, 2018-06-02 at 12:28 -0500, Scott wrote:

> Wayne,
>
> I'll give answering your question a try.  Hopefully I won't piss off
> everyone... and it won't be too long.
>
> 0).  First, monitor beacons or participate in the RBN for band openings
> and then call CQ on open bands.  Heck, call CQ on "closed" bands... one
> never knows.  I suspect there are more band openings than most would
> admit or even know about and maybe we need more hams willing to set up
> beacons.  I once copied a SSB qso of ON4UN and a stateside ham on 15m
> when all the prop computer programs said 15m was closed.
>
> 1).  CW ops should make MORE use of the computer... especially for
> calling CQ.  Once a reply is heard switch to "manual" cw mode (this is
> nothing new) AND adjust speed to station answering your CQ.  Nothing
> worse than an experienced cw op who won't bother to "talk" to a slow
> sending station... nothing.  It just sends the inexperienced cwop to
> digital and/or ssb where someone will likely answer no matter the "speed".
>
> 2)   CW ops need to not be prejudiced against keyboard sent code,
> especially at slower speeds or even someone using cw decoding sw.  I
> think younger hams might actually do more if there wasn't such "stink"
> put on ops using a keyboard and decoding sw.  Besides you do want to get
> younger hams interested in ham radio and especially CW... right?  And as
> time goes on those young or even old keyboard cw warriors may or may not
> learn to send with a paddle or a key but you've got to get them
> interested in CW first.  For some, it's an age vs. memory issue
> especially hams who started late in life.
>
> 3)  Now to beat up the computer geeks.  Someone could set up a twitter
> or gab account and advertise it to the ham community at large via
> reflectors and use the account specifically for reporting band openings.
>   Then you could get notified on the ubiquitous smart phone and who
> knows maybe there is or will be soon a rig remote control app for your
> phone.
>
> 4)  Digital mode software can be a bear to configure.  Clearly there
> should be just one or two "tabs" max to get it working quickly and all
> the other program integration configuration is icing on the cake.
> Complexity in a basic "getting it working" configuration is not good.
> And how about making the program/app window and fonts larger for crying
> out loud... I don't see as well as I used to and with the proliferation
> of large monitors these programs are a pain to even see anymore.  While
> this may increase digital ops I also believe that at some point even
> some digital ops will want to try and learn cw.
>
> 5)  Finally, I've noticed that a lot of younger millenials like "old
> school" stuff from LP 33 records to radio.  IF you can get them
> interested in Ham radio (a shameless plug for expanded tech privileges)
> there's a good chance they'll eventually want to learn cw one way or
> another.  The point is, more hams equals more chances for someone to
> answer your cw CQ.
>
> I doubt any of that helps much except maybe paragraph 3, but there it
> is... thanks for letting me give it a shot.
>
> Scott
> AD5HS
>
> On 6/1/2018 10:46 AM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
> ...<snip>...
>
> > Yeah, I get the whole sub-noise-floor-and-not-automated-(wink)-QSO thing. But I’d like to figure out how those of us who enjoy the occasional gear-grinding manual-transmission contact can find each other on this brave new highway. Ideas?
> >
> > Wayne
> > N6KR
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]