[Lowfer] Opera (and more)

[jrusgrove at comcast.net]

JD

Reception is not dependant on being connected to the internet. Why the author of the software 
doesn't include a 'switch' to disconnect from the internet as in WSPR is beyond me. Since we didn't 
commission and pay for the software development we're at his mercy. Perhaps with some prodding he 
might consider adding this 'feature' since it is currently in the beta stage of development.

> At the risk of being a curmudgeon

Every e mail list should have a Mal! ;~)

Jay




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JD" <listread at lwca.org>
To: "Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, &amp;UK) and MedFer bands" <lowfer at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Lowfer] Opera (and more)


>>>>Newest version of Opera at....
>
> Can you use it at all without an Internet connection?  It would be helpful
> to know before I go stuffing any more software onto my marginally adequate
> little notebook for field use.
>
> I often kid that WSPR stands for "Web Surfing Passing as Radio," but so far
> as I can tell, at least it doesn't force spotting on you.  The Internet is
> an option that's just not going to be available at my monitoring post for
> the foreseeable future, so that's one reason I'd kind of hope more stations
> will be using standalone, communication-oriented modes in future..."generic"
> WSJT, for instance, instead of WSPR.
>
> The other reason is that one big justification given for 600m ham operation
> is its potential for groundwave communication.  I would personally define
> communication as an exchange of self-contained messages of arbitrary length
> and content...not simply highly formatted propagation reports.  At the risk
> of being a curmudgeon, I really do get the impression some software packages
> have more elements of online social networking than than radio operation
> behind them.
>
> I've finally been forced to join the late 20th century with regard to
> demodulating and decoding a wider range of digital modes lately, but I must
> admit, I like to start with a track record of proven results then build from
> there rather than opt for the latest novelty.  MFSK modes may be able to
> achieve worthwhile results, but they are proliferating too rapidly for an
> old geezer to keep up with who's sending what--or to know if my software is
> even capable of whatever specific variant is being sent at a specific
> instance.  By the time I click a few buttons to see what works, the sending
> station has switched to another mode anyway.
>
> On the other hand, I like to fantasize that more stations might someday
> further explore modes that are becoming more 'standardized,' like PSK31 and
> its other speeds, with a focus on real-world communication below the AM BCB.
> Before having to dig into digimodes myself, I thought PSK31 sounded like
> just another sort of trendy deal, but I've since developed an appreciation
> for it.  Even with the strongest Amtor/Navtex transmissions, I seldom get
> more than low-90% decoding accuracy.  But Ralph's PSK31 segments as WD2XSH/7
> have always given me 100% perfect copy thus far, even during a few moderate
> fades.
>
> Sorry for the rant, and I certainly don't mean to put down _any_ hobby
> activity anyone enjoys for its own sake, but I've been curious lately where
> folks feel the emphasis really lies for future 600 m operation.
>
> John
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html