I use TeamViewer to run FT8 but over a local network. Works great for that.
73 Josh W6XU Sent from my mobile device > On Jul 13, 2020, at 9:26 AM, bht...@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-boun...@mailman.qth.net > [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Drew AF2Z > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:57 AM > To: elecraft@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-boun...@mailman.qth.net >>> [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David Gilbert >>> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 7:40 PM >>> To: elecraft@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@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 bht...@juno.com > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@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 j...@voodoolab.com ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@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 arch...@mail-archive.com
