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

Mon Jul 13 12:30:30 EDT 2020

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, bhtoub at juno.com wrote:
> Has anyone tried TeamViewer using the mode FT8? Was in QST a couple
> months ago. Just another facet of this great hobby.
>
> 73,
> Brian K1DIH
>
>
> That's one of the great things about Amateur Radio.  There is literally
> something for everyone.
>
> 73
> Lyn, W0LEN
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Drew AF2Z
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:57 AM
> To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The
> Stairs"
>
> Please- *nobody* is asking JT to save CW by giving us an extra 6-8 dB
> SNR. I hope that is not the next Goldilocks mode in the pipeline. I
> assume proponents of such a cobbled up "user interface" would feel
> perfectly justified in "sharing" even more CW frequency space? No thanks.
>
> 73,
> Drew
> AF2Z
>
>
>
> On 07/12/20 20:57, David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> Not quite.  I'm aware of JS8 and tried it more than a year ago, but it
>> still has much of the rigidity of the WSJT-X user interface and isn't
> as
>> basic as I think would be desirable.
>>
>> Think of it this way ... CW works fine as both a contest mode, DXing
>> mode, and conversational mode.  Underlaying CW with a well configured
>> digital signal processing scheme like that which is under FT8, except
>> with a different user interface than either WSJT-X or JS8,  could be
>> equally versatile but with maybe 6-8 db better S/N ... possibly by an
>> even greater margin if the decoding allowed errors instead of being all
>> or nothing.
>>
>> I'm not saying text-to-CW is the only way to reap the benefit of modern
>> digital signal processing ... only using it as an example.
>>
>> People only interested in a contact will probably always prefer
>> WSJT-X/FT8 because it does that very well, but both contesting and rag
>> chewing could really use a different (simpler) structure while still
>> utilizing the superior weak signal peformance of modern digital signal
>> processing.  I guarantee that it is possible to do so.
>>
>> 73,
>> Dave   AB7E
>>
>>
>> On 7/12/2020 6:18 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
>>> Enter JS8Call.
>>>
>>> All the technology of FT8, plus all of the conversationality of CW,
>>> RTTY and SSB rolled into one.
>>>
>>> If you haven't tried it, you really should.  It's developer, Jordan
>>> Sherer (KN4CRD) has done a terrific job with it and I am honored to
>>> have been a part of the beta team almost since day one.
>>>
>>> http://js8call.com/
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Lyn, W0LEN
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>>> [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 7:40 PM
>>> To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>>> Subject: [Elecraft] FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The
> Stairs"
>>>
>>> Well, the fact is that the coding and processing behind modes like FT8
>>> doesn't have to be as rigid as is implemented in WSJT-X.  It only
>>> requires that information be sent and received in time frames, and
> those
>>> time frames are simply a function of three variables ... bandwidth,
>>> rate, and number of characters in the message frame.  It would be
>>> possible to change any of those, such as widening the bandwidth to
>>> increase the number of characters for the same time frame.
>>>
>>> It would also be possible to send text but have it converted to CW on
>>> the other end.  Or even to key CW that gets converted to text before
>>> transmission ... i.e., CW to CW except with significantly better S/N
>>> performance.  If the user was willing to live with a narrow bandwidth
>>> single conversation format, clock synchronization isn't even really
>>> needed.   And if we were willing to live with a single conversation
>>> format, there would be no point in cramming everyone into 2.4 KHz and
> we
>>> could spread out like we do for every other mode.
>>>
>>> I'm no expert, but I think that the coding could have enough error
>>> checking to allow busted message frames to be printed (or converted to
>>> CW) ... although of course with errors.  The extra error processing
>>> would reduce the character count, though, all other things being
> equal.
>>> The point is that the digital signal processing behind FT8 is
> extremely
>>> powerful and could be adapted to other user formats with a lot more
>>> flexibility than we have with FT8.  The hams who just dismiss FT8 out
> of
>>> hand really don't understand the broader weak signal applicability of
> it.
>>> 73,
>>> Dave   AB7E
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/12/2020 4:53 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:
>>>> Yeah, great, reliable at or below the noise floor, but if all you're
>>>> doing is meeting the somewhat arbitrary minimum that defines a QSO,
>>>> what's the point?
>>>>
>>>> I mean seriously, can you even ask about the weather?  Just say "hi?"
>>>>
>>>> Meh.
>>>>
>>>> I'm fine with typing, but I want a real live person typing back, and
>>>> if we can type back and forth for an hour, that's great.
>>>>
>>>> 73 -- Lynn
>>>>
>>>> On 7/12/20 2:33 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
>>>>> The argument for digital modes like FT8 is that they're reliable at
>>>>> or below the noise floor, making it possible to work lots of DX even
>>>>> if solar conditions are very poor. Simplicity of protocol is a side
>>>>> effect of this design.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to bhtoub at juno.com
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to vetterestorer at gmail.com