Re: [Elecraft] Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"
I've used both Teamviewer and TightVNC, using my laptop to log onto my main PC. I prefer Teamviewer because the screen real estate is larger, and I can easily switch between my 2 monitors on the PC I log into. I've not used it off my house's network. The only issue I've found is that I need to make sure I don't play with the audio settings on the laptop after I've logged in, as it also affects the audio settings on the main PC. I mute the laptop audio first and then log on. Otherwise, I have to open the sound control (Windows 10) and change the speaker setting to get reset transmit drive levels. Also remember to set a personal password under options and allow "easy access" to your main PC. Otherwise you'll need to enter the main PC's randomly generated password, which is kinda hard if you're not in front of it. 73, Lou W0FK -- Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.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
Re: [Elecraft] Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"
Brian - I use a combination of Teamviewer and Zoom when I am "Elmering" some of our local group on the various digital modes. It's a great combination! 73 Lyn, W0LEN -Original Message- From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of bht...@juno.com Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 11:24 AM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: [Elecraft] Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs" 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. >> >> Th
Re: [Elecraft] Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"
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
Re: [Elecraft] Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"
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, 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,
[Elecraft] Fw: Re: FT8 - was "On Second Thought, I'll Take The Stairs"
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
