Elecraft

Wayne's Story - "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs

Classic

List

Threaded

32 messages Options

Nr4c

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

I believe that half of US hams are Technician Class, so mostly VHF/UHF FM operators. Not a lot of DX or contesting there.

Sent from my iPhone
...nr4c. bill

> On Jul 13, 2020, at 4:03 AM, David Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Fine, but that demarcation is pretty arbitrary. You could just as easily go back to tube gear with crystal controlled transmitters and regenerative receivers., but I'd be a lot of money you don't. The gear you operate compares little in form, fit or function to anything those folks used back then. Your current radio almost certainly has a lot of digital signal processing already, and I'll bet you use a keyer instead of a hand key. Quite frankly, I can just as easily imagine somebody at his keyboard on the other end as I could if he was operating a paddle. Most DXing and almost all contesting is already somebody simply pounding on a function key on a keyboard.
>
> And like I said before, it is entirely possible to preserve the bulk of everything you mention and still use modern signal processing to make human connections more achievable. WSJT-X just doesn't happen to be that at this point, but that doesn't mean something else couldn't be.
>
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
>
>> On 7/13/2020 12:41 AM, Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP wrote:
>> For me, it's simple.
>>
>> When I make a CW contact, even if its total content is "ENN TU", I am connected to history, to Jack Phillips on the Titanic, to all of the military traffic men and airborne radio operators of WWII, to the operators on the merchant ships on the high seas and the Great Lakes, and to all the hams of the past, even Mr. Marconi, the first ham.
>>
>> I like hearing the propagation change with my own ears and struggling to capture an ESP-level call. I like the feel of the key and the sound of the code. I like the idea that there is another person like me at the other end with his or her hand on a key.
>>
>> I consider myself extremely lucky to have caught the bug at a young age and developed the skill needed to make CW as transparent to me as my mother tongue. I see how hard it is for those who begin to learn at middle age or older. They shouldn't give up -- it's worth it.
>>
>> 73,
>> Victor, 4X6GP
>> Rehovot, Israel
>> Formerly K2VCO
>> CWops no. 5
>> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
>> .
>>> On 13/07/2020 5:06, Wayne Burdick wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 12, 2020, at 6:57 PM, David Gilbert <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Think of it this way ... CW works fine as both a contest mode,

______________________________________________________________
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

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

In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2

Two great posts, Dave. Thanks!

73 Jim K9YC

On 7/13/2020 12:59 AM, David Gilbert wrote:

> Fine, but that demarcation is pretty arbitrary. You could just as
> easily go back to tube gear with crystal controlled transmitters and
> regenerative receivers., but I'd be a lot of money you don't. The gear
> you operate compares little in form, fit or function to anything those
> folks used back then. Your current radio almost certainly has a lot of
> digital signal processing already, and I'll bet you use a keyer instead
> of a hand key. Quite frankly, I can just as easily imagine somebody at
> his keyboard on the other end as I could if he was operating a paddle.
> Most DXing and almost all contesting is already somebody simply pounding
> on a function key on a keyboard.
>
> And like I said before, it is entirely possible to preserve the bulk of
> everything you mention and still use modern signal processing to make
> human connections more achievable. WSJT-X just doesn't happen to be
> that at this point, but that doesn't mean something else couldn't be.
>
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>

Nate Bargmann

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

In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2

* On 2020 13 Jul 02:47 -0500, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> No, those other posts didn't say that.

Perhaps not directly. Preferences can always be strongly implied.

I think it is inarguable that years back ARRL publications had a bias
toward antennas that favored DX. DX is fine and perhaps that did keep
more Novices in the ranks than would have otherwise stayed due to poor
antennas. However, a low dipole antenna for the low bands was often
derided as a "cloud warmer" without mention of why such an antenna might
be useful.

Perhaps it was the steady diet of Kurt N. Sterba in the now discontinued
World Radio magazine as a Novice and Tech in the mid-80s that taught me
that a low antenna on the low HF bands had a valuable use. I proved
this to myself right at 35 years ago when I became active on the Novice
bands and wanted to work the Kansas Slow Speed CW Net (QKS-SS). The
vertical I had due to previously being convinced that I needed a DX
antenna worked miserably for such close-in work as checking into a
section net. I strung up a dipole that was almost too low and I was
rewarded with very strong signals from within a few hundred miles on
80m. Working the section net was easy with that antenna.

It wasn't until the quasi-military term Near Vertical Incident Skywave
(NVIS) entered the amateur radio vernacular in the early '90s that
"cloud warmers" became acceptable in literature printed in Newington.
Denizens of low band section nets knew the secret decades before.

Why do I use a K3 when over 90% of my operating time is spent on 75m
nets these days? The QRM fighting features such as high and low cut
with appropriate filtering and something about its receiver where I
don't experience the fading other operators using other radios mention
frequently. Perhaps it is my low doublet antenna that is overall a 3/4
wave on 75/80m that helps.

> I don't know why some hams insist on fabricating controversy where there is
> none. It seems like the bulk of our American society is determined to be as
> tribal as possible. Sorry times we live in.

There is a reason for that which is not apropos for this list. Suffice
it to say that this has been the case for nearly the entirety of the
existence of amateur radio and likely in other endeavors for centuries.
A look at QST from the earliest decades show a bias toward traffic
handling and as the shortwave spectrum was discovered slowly turned
toward DXing. In later decades Emmcomm has assumed a greater stature
while paradoxically traffic handling has almost been forgotten.

Fact is that people will always have a bias toward their own interests.

73, Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819

______________________________________________________________
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]

Lyn WØLEN

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

In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2

Dave -

The current release of JS8Call (v. 2.2.0) bears little resemblance to versions a year or more back. I think the many changes since then have made it much less "rigid" and much more useful.

In addition to plain old everyday ragchewing for example, it has the capability to auto-relay messages, store and forward messages, send to designated groups, interface with APRS and SMS messaging, etc. All functions that are not even remotely possible with FT8 or CW, for that matter. And do so at multiple speed levels that extend up into the 20+ wpm realm. All this can be done normally at very low power levels.

73
Lyn, W0LEN

-----Original Message-----
From: David Gilbert [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 8:57 PM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"

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.
>> _________________

Drew AF2Z

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

In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2

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]

Lyn WØLEN

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

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.

Grant Youngman-2

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

That’s definitely true. Although I do have a gripe (is it FT4?) with the software that has arbitrarily plopped its users down in what was just a few months ago the home of mostly CW QRP activity on some bands. There does seem to be a need for coordination.

Of course, I’m also old enough to remember, when SSB was beginning its surge because of the growing availability of good commercial gear. At the time, SSB was mostly relegated to the lower 25 KHz of most phone bands. AM ops would jump on anyone branching out from the then “SSB ghetto”. Times change and nothing changes .. it just morphs into new groups co-opting spectrum from someone else :-) Still …

Grant NQ5T

> On Jul 13, 2020, at 11:40 AM, Lyn Norstad <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> That's one of the great things about Amateur Radio. There is literally something for everyone.
>
> 73
> Lyn, W0LEN
>
>

______________________________________________________________
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

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

In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2

Just as one can go from an electric or petroleum powered vehicle back to
cart and horse (the common factor being wheels), doesn't mean that the
history to get from there to here must be ignored (or honored).

It doesn't matter the mode, ties into history will still exist and can
be honored (or ignored), even if elements are destroyed (statues or old
unused modes). And ham radio excels at exploring modes and methods.
FT8 (and RTTY before that) is merely a stopping point on the line of
history, something 'better' will come along (always has, always will, a
constant) to fill the (momentary) needs.

The primary advantage (to some) of CW or phone is that it's human brain
effort and skill, via the radio technology, that gives a sense of
accomplishment (pride) while for some including the ties to history, the
paths taken to get here. For others, a complete technological contact
with minimal effort, is what they seek and the world of ham radio allows
that too.

All modes are valid and equal; just as casual, contest or rapid fire DX
appeals to some, it suits the needs and purpose of the operator; to
ENJOY what is available.

My satisfaction comes from using different modes (lately FT8 while it's
popular AND CW and phone) to prove access to all parts of the planet
(DXing) with a station that I assembled and built from what I could
afford or manage to do the best (sometimes easiest) I can manage. My
'competition' is me, my motivation is always to do better. I confine it
with other limits too (budget, space used) because I don't want numerous
towers or a super station and because that would affect my other
enjoyable concerns (the view for one).

My preference is for a complete, simple station but that also means a
group of single point failures exists (one of my choices).

If another has different ideals, there is room for that too, it's a
personal set of choices.

Rick NK7I

On 7/13/2020 12:59 AM, David Gilbert wrote:

>
> Fine, but that demarcation is pretty arbitrary. You could just as
> easily go back to tube gear with crystal controlled transmitters and
> regenerative receivers., but I'd be a lot of money you don't. The gear
> you operate compares little in form, fit or function to anything those
> folks used back then. Your current radio almost certainly has a lot
> of digital signal processing already, and I'll bet you use a keyer
> instead of a hand key. Quite frankly, I can just as easily imagine
> somebody at his keyboard on the other end as I could if he was
> operating a paddle. Most DXing and almost all contesting is already
> somebody simply pounding on a function key on a keyboard.

David Gilbert-2

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

In reply to this post by Drew AF2Z

Oh give me a break. On any given day or night the CW frequencies are
dead as a wombat except for FT8.

And I never proposed "saving" CW anyway. Just the opposite ... I
proposed modifying FT8 so that it had the flexibility of CW.

Dave AB7E

On 7/13/2020 7:57 AM, Drew AF2Z wrote:
> 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
>

______________________________________________________________
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 Rhodes-2

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

In reply to this post by Vic Rosenthal

Connecting to history and making history are not the same thing. Doing
things the same way they were done a hundred years ago may make a
"connection" for you. But hams are supposed to innovate, invent and
increase the knowledge. So you buy or build equipment with way more ability
than to send simple CW, so you can do simple CW? Yes, CW is great stuff,
but it sure isn't innovative, nor does in increase the knowledge of
communication. As a group we should encourage others to explore new
communications systems, not denigrate them as "not REAL HAM RADIO". Some of
you people should be ashamed of yourselves for your attitudes. We do not
want Amateur Radio to die with our generation, so we should encourage new
folks to do new things, not talk down to them because they don't choose to
spend 99% of their operating time pounding brass. They don't give you
static about taking up bandwidth with your ancient operating mode, why
hassle them because they can make Qs below the noise level. Oh yes, my DXCC
certificate says "Mixed" on it. I quit counting when I got that.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 03:25 Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Actually, I'm building a regenerative receiver now. I have to use JFETs
> because I got rid of all my tube stuff due to lack of room. But of
> course I will continue to benefit from the DSP in my K3, and its keyer
> (although I have a bug that I use once in a while).
>
> But those things don't take away the connection to history, they make it
> better. The point for me isn't to use the same gear as they did in 1912,
> but to enter the Morse space as they did. If I can do it with equipment
> that is more stable and effective, so much the better.
>
> After all, a modern sailboat is very much more sophisticated than an old
> one, but sailing is still sailing.
>
> 73,
> Victor, 4X6GP
> Rehovot, Israel
> Formerly K2VCO
> CWops no. 5
> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
> .
> On 13/07/2020 10:59, David Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > Fine, but that demarcation is pretty arbitrary. You could just as
> > easily go back to tube gear with crystal controlled transmitters and
> > regenerative receivers., but I'd be a lot of money you don't. The gear
> > you operate compares little in form, fit or function to anything those
> > folks used back then. Your current radio almost certainly has a lot of
> > digital signal processing already, and I'll bet you use a keyer instead
> > of a hand key. Quite frankly, I can just as easily imagine somebody at
> > his keyboard on the other end as I could if he was operating a paddle.
> > Most DXing and almost all contesting is already somebody simply pounding
> > on a function key on a keyboard.
> >
> > And like I said before, it is entirely possible to preserve the bulk of
> > everything you mention and still use modern signal processing to make
> > human connections more achievable. WSJT-X just doesn't happen to be
> > that at this point, but that doesn't mean something else couldn't be.
> >
> > Dave AB7E
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/13/2020 12:41 AM, Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP wrote:
> >> For me, it's simple.
> >>
> >> When I make a CW contact, even if its total content is "ENN TU", I am
> >> connected to history, to Jack Phillips on the Titanic, to all of the
> >> military traffic men and airborne radio operators of WWII, to the
> >> operators on the merchant ships on the high seas and the Great Lakes,
> >> and to all the hams of the past, even Mr. Marconi, the first ham.
> >>
> >> I like hearing the propagation change with my own ears and struggling
> >> to capture an ESP-level call. I like the feel of the key and the sound
> >> of the code. I like the idea that there is another person like me at
> >> the other end with his or her hand on a key.
> >>
> >> I consider myself extremely lucky to have caught the bug at a young
> >> age and developed the skill needed to make CW as transparent to me as
> >> my mother tongue. I see how hard it is for those who begin to learn at
> >> middle age or older. They shouldn't give up -- it's worth it.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Victor, 4X6GP
> >> Rehovot, Israel
> >> Formerly K2VCO
> >> CWops no. 5
> >> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
> >> .
> >> On 13/07/2020 5:06, Wayne Burdick wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Jul 12, 2020, at 6:57 PM, David Gilbert <[hidden email]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Except that (a) you don't have to know CW, and (b) you don't need a
> >>> key. There goes 73% of its charm :)
> >>>
> >>> 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]
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

Vic Rosenthal

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

I didn't notice myself "denigrating" anything or "talking down" to
anyone. I explained why I like CW, even though other modes have their
own advantages.

Regarding "increasing knowledge" and "innovating," I suspect that 90% of
the guys pointing and clicking their way to DXCC with K1JT's code
couldn't explain how it works.

73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
CWops no. 5
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
.
On 13/07/2020 23:11, Jim Rhodes wrote:

> Connecting to history and making history are not the same thing. Doing
> things the same way they were done a hundred years ago may make a
> "connection" for you. But hams are supposed to innovate, invent and
> increase the knowledge. So you buy or build equipment with way more
> ability than to send simple CW, so you can do simple CW? Yes, CW is
> great stuff, but it sure isn't innovative, nor does in increase the
> knowledge of communication. As a group we should encourage others to
> explore new communications systems, not denigrate them as "not REAL HAM
> RADIO". Some of you people should be ashamed of yourselves for your
> attitudes. We do not want Amateur Radio to die with our generation, so
> we should encourage new folks to do new things, not talk down to them
> because they don't choose to spend 99% of their operating time pounding
> brass. They don't give you static about taking up bandwidth with your
> ancient operating mode, why hassle them because they can make Qs below
> the noise level. Oh yes, my DXCC certificate says "Mixed" on it. I quit
> counting when I got that.
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 03:25 Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Actually, I'm building a regenerative receiver now. I have to use JFETs
> because I got rid of all my tube stuff due to lack of room. But of
> course I will continue to benefit from the DSP in my K3, and its keyer
> (although I have a bug that I use once in a while).
>
> But those things don't take away the connection to history, they
> make it
> better. The point for me isn't to use the same gear as they did in
> 1912,
> but to enter the Morse space as they did. If I can do it with equipment
> that is more stable and effective, so much the better.
>
> After all, a modern sailboat is very much more sophisticated than an
> old
> one, but sailing is still sailing.
>
> 73,
> Victor, 4X6GP
> Rehovot, Israel
> Formerly K2VCO
> CWops no. 5
> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/

K0RKH

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

I still say, “appliance operator “

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 13, 2020, at 3:36 PM, Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I didn't notice myself "denigrating" anything or "talking down" to anyone. I explained why I like CW, even though other modes have their own advantages.
>
> Regarding "increasing knowledge" and "innovating," I suspect that 90% of the guys pointing and clicking their way to DXCC with K1JT's code couldn't explain how it works.
>
> 73,
> Victor, 4X6GP
> Rehovot, Israel
> Formerly K2VCO
> CWops no. 5
> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
> .
>> On 13/07/2020 23:11, Jim Rhodes wrote:
>> Connecting to history and making history are not the same thing. Doing things the same way they were done a hundred years ago may make a "connection" for you. But hams are supposed to innovate, invent and increase the knowledge. So you buy or build equipment with way more ability than to send simple CW, so you can do simple CW? Yes, CW is great stuff, but it sure isn't innovative, nor does in increase the knowledge of communication. As a group we should encourage others to explore new communications systems, not denigrate them as "not REAL HAM RADIO". Some of you people should be ashamed of yourselves for your attitudes. We do not want Amateur Radio to die with our generation, so we should encourage new folks to do new things, not talk down to them because they don't choose to spend 99% of their operating time pounding brass. They don't give you static about taking up bandwidth with your ancient operating mode, why hassle them because they can make Qs below the noise level. Oh yes, my DXCC certificate says "Mixed" on it. I quit counting when I got that.
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 03:25 Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>> Actually, I'm building a regenerative receiver now. I have to use JFETs
>> because I got rid of all my tube stuff due to lack of room. But of
>> course I will continue to benefit from the DSP in my K3, and its keyer
>> (although I have a bug that I use once in a while).
>> But those things don't take away the connection to history, they
>> make it
>> better. The point for me isn't to use the same gear as they did in
>> 1912,
>> but to enter the Morse space as they did. If I can do it with equipment
>> that is more stable and effective, so much the better.
>> After all, a modern sailboat is very much more sophisticated than an
>> old
>> one, but sailing is still sailing.
>> 73,
>> Victor, 4X6GP
>> Rehovot, Israel
>> Formerly K2VCO
>> CWops no. 5
>> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]