Elecraft

Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"

Classic

List

Threaded

6 messages Options

bhtoub

Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"

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: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Drew AF2Z
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:57 AM
To: [hidden email]
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: [hidden email]
>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
>> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 7:40 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> 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.

DC-3

Re: Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"

I used to use it but it was a bit of a pain and they send you span
everyday. I now use Chrome Remote which works great for FT8. Very stable.

Richard

K6VV

On 7/13/2020 9:24 AM, [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Drew AF2Z
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:57 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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: [hidden email]
>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 7:40 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> 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:[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]

Josh Fiden

Re: Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"

In reply to this post by bhtoub

I use TeamViewer to run FT8 but over a local network. Works great for that.

73
Josh W6XU

Sent from my mobile device

> On Jul 13, 2020, at 9:26 AM, [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Drew AF2Z
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:57 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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: [hidden email]
>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 7:40 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> 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:[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]

Rick Bates, NK7I

Remote station ops

In reply to this post by bhtoub

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, [hidden email] wrote:

Lyn WØLEN

Re: Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"

In reply to this post by bhtoub

Brian -

I use a combination of Teamviewer and Zoom when I am "Elmering" some of our
local group on the various digital modes.

It's a great combination!

73
Lyn, W0LEN

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 11:24 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Elecraft] Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The
Stairs"

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: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Drew AF2Z
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:57 AM
To: [hidden email]
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

______________________________________________________________
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]

Lou W0FK

Re: Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"

In reply to this post by bhtoub

I've used both Teamviewer and TightVNC, using my laptop to log onto my main
PC. I prefer Teamviewer because the screen real estate is larger, and I can
easily switch between my 2 monitors on the PC I log into. I've not used it
off my house's network.

The only issue I've found is that I need to make sure I don't play with the
audio settings on the laptop after I've logged in, as it also affects the
audio settings on the main PC. I mute the laptop audio first and then log
on. Otherwise, I have to open the sound control (Windows 10) and change the
speaker setting to get reset transmit drive levels.

Also remember to set a personal password under options and allow "easy
access" to your main PC. Otherwise you'll need to enter the main PC's
randomly generated password, which is kinda hard if you're not in front of
it.

73, Lou W0FK

--
Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/
______________________________________________________________
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]