[GreenKeys] Re: SELCAL - auto start proposed

[Bob Camp]

Hi

No problem with 60 wpm. It's just something we need to work out 
*before* we get the net set up. If half of us are thinking 100 wpm and 
the other half are thinking 60 wpm that will be a bit of a problem once 
we get going.

	Enjoy!

		Bob Camp
		KB8TQ



On Apr 18, 2004, at 8:21 PM, John Burch wrote:

> Why not 60 WPM?  Many of us still have the gear....  (pun intended)
>
> 73 de John
> ..
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Camp" <ham@cq.nu>
>
>> You can count me in as well.
>>
>> How do we address the sort of thing that pretty much killed both the
>> VHF and HF nets I used to run on? Everything was ok as long as 60 wpm 
>> 5
>> level code was king. 100 wpm (as in model 28's) started to make people
>> itchy. As soon as 300 baud and ASCII came along you started to get 
>> lots
>> of junk printouts .... made things a bit of a mess.
>>
>> A couple of possible options:
>>
>> 1) Just define it from the start as 100 wpm five level and that's the
>> way it's going to be. Model 33's will have to be happy sitting on the
>> side lines or run eight level to five level converters.
>> 2) Go with 110 baud ASCII and do five level to eight level conversion.
>> 3) Go with something truly weird and convert to what ever you need
>> (like run PSK modulation ....)
>>
>> My vote would be for five level code at 100 wpm with 170 shift FSK as
>> the modulation. That way we can run the good old stuff if we want to.
>> I'd be happy if the group decided on 60 wpm to let the 15's and 19's
>> participate. I only have 28's at this point ....
>>
>> As far as SELCAL goes I would suggest a a slight departure from the
>> past. I would *enable* the ability to use a solid state gizmo to read
>> off the SELCAL and then fire up the model 28 using a solid state 
>> relay.
>> Receive operation would be more like a VHF net in that respect. More 
>> or
>> less send the magic words three or more times then follow with CR and
>> LTRS combo's to let give the receiving machines time to get up to
>> speed. The only need to send it all would be at the start of a QSO.
>> It's a little bit more of a delay than a "normal" hf net but a lot 
>> less
>> wear and tear on the machines.
>>
>> I have a novel proposal as far as bands are concerned - modern HF 
>> seems
>> to be hung up on adaptive link stuff. There's no reason why we can't 
>> do
>> more or less the same thing. Receivers aren't the big deal they once
>> where. Why not do something like define the band based on the time of
>> day. If it's mid day the net is on 20 meters. If it's early evening
>> it's on 40 and it's on 80 at night. Poor mans ALE ... We'd need a
>> definition of who's morning noon and night we were talking about but
>> that's pretty easy. Heck put it all in a spread sheet and post it. The
>> only odd part would be deciding when to shift a QSO in progress.
>>
>> One thing we do need - a net control who's willing and able to send 
>> the
>> daily bulletin. That's what defines on frequency and proves that you
>> can or can't bring up the machine correctly.
>>
>> Take Care!
>>
>> Bob Camp
>> KB8TQ
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GreenKeys mailing list
> GreenKeys@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/greenkeys
>