[Elecraft] Remote station ops

Mon Jul 13 13:58:10 EDT 2020

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, 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 rick.nk7i at gmail.com