re on the up. Now’s a good
>> time to get your fill of low-band DX! [In just a few years when
>> propagation is better and the FT8 frequencies become crowded,
>> auto-responding to the weakest callers first will make even more sense.]
>>
>>
>&
> On Apr 3, 2019, at 13:28, Gary Hinson wrote:
>
> [In just a few years when propagation is better and the FT8 frequencies
> become crowded, auto-responding to the weakest callers first will make even
> more sense.]
I’ve wanted this feature for a long time. Not necessarily the
g to the *weakest callers first* will make even more sense.]
>
>
>
> 73
> Gary ZL2iFB
>
>
>
> *From:* Tom Ramberg via wsjt-devel
> *Sent:* 04 April 2019 00:38
> *To:* WSJT software development
> *Cc:* Tom Ramberg
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone
Ramberg
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents
Hello Jari, I’m happy to see that we’ve made contact on my little
JW-expedition. These days it seems that SSB is closed from here, but a few FT8
signals are maiking it. As far as robots are concerned, I cannot do coding
. april 2019 kl. 02:18
Til: 'WSJT software development'
Emne: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents
Hi Jari,
I look forward to making contact with you some day. You’re definitely not the
only disabled DXer and, yes, you should be flattered that we can’t readily tell
as much
vidual perspectives. Tolerance and consideration towards others are a
necessary part of the hobby since we share so much – not least the airwaves.
73
Gary ZL2iFB
From: Jari A
Sent: 03 April 2019 09:46
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod
Hi Guys, this is OH2FQV / Jari
I'm handicap operator, within my physical limitations, main thing I do at
my day time is working on 20m FT8. I dont have much else to do. I spend
most of my hours with pc and radio. I may have 50 qso's per day, even more
if theres extra activity on the band.
I have
> On Mar 31, 2019, at 17:02, Jim Shorney wrote:
>
> The guy seems to be on the air making FT8 contacts just about every time I
> turn it on
Must be CO8LY (I think that’s his suffix). I see him on the air every time I
walk into the shack.
I suspect that the Antarctic station that was
On 3/31/19 at 1:02 PM, aa...@ambersoft.com (Dave AA6YQ) wrote:
+ that WSJT-X can also support unattended operation, but there
is a huge difference between allowing WSJT-X to handle the next
response to your CQ while you refresh your coffee, and allowing
an application to call CQ and make QSOs
ill! I agree 100%.
Bobby/N4AU
*From:* Bill Somerville
*Sent:* Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:53 AM
*To:* wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
*Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents
On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote:
All I have to say, and I've been saying f
A while back a Cuban surfaced on one of the Facebook groups describing a system
he was coding that sounded very much like a QSO robot. After some blow back
from other group members he backpedaled and claimed that was not at all what he
was doing. Still, I wonder. The guy seems to be on the
e.net
*Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents
On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote:
All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that
maybe developers will now think twice before releasing software such
as this as Open Source.
Carey,
Sorry guys - pandora's box has already been opened. I do not support
automatic, unattended robot QSOs (which are illegal in USA and some
other countries) but to ignore it as not happening is denying reality.
Stathis has demonstrated this some months ago and I am certain that
many are using his
On 3/31/2019 9:53 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
most Amateur Radio operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to
be worthwhile and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be
very annoying.
That depends on what you might be trying to accomplish. I certainly
would automate my
Hi Bill,
Thank you for the detailed discussion of the considerations that the dev
group has taken. And you're right: if I had thought a little bit more about
the licensing, I would have realized that you have used components (qt
etc?) that are under GPL or LGPL (or others) that require works using
+ AA6YQ comments below
Regulations aside, why did we become hams? If all you want is to collect QSO’s
without being actually involved, why spend the time and money on education and
equipment? Sorry, I vote against further animation of FT8 or any other
protocol. Some automation is helpful,
ge.net
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents
>
>> On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote:
>> All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that maybe
>> developers will now think twice before releasing software such a
development'
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents
Regulations aside, why did we become hams? If all you want is to collect QSO’s
without being actually involved, why spend the time and money on education and
equipment? Sorry, I vote against further animation
, but there is such a thing
as too much.
Just my $0.02.
__
Dan – K4SHQ
From: w2ctx [mailto:w2...@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 1:49 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents
How does the system know the frequency is not in use
How does the system know the frequency is not in use before transmitting?Sent
from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Original message From: Dave AA6YQ Date:
3/31/19 2:30 PM (GMT-05:00) To: 'WSJT software development'
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released
an Auto
+ AA6YQ comments below
Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental.
+ The experiment could be conducted without making it easy for users to setup
unattended 7x24 CQing and QSO completion. Think the FT8 "watering holes" are
packed now? Wait until there are several thousand
Bravo Bill! I agree 100%.
Bobby/N4AU
From: Bill Somerville
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:53 AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents
On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote:
All I have to say, and I've been saying
On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote:
All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that
maybe developers will now think twice before releasing software such
as this as Open Source.
Carey,
that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and the
complexity
All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that maybe
developers will now think twice before releasing software such as this as
Open Source.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 11:00 AM Jim Shorney wrote:
>
> That statement so totally proves that you missed the point of my comment.
>
>
>
That statement so totally proves that you missed the point of my comment.
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 11:01:54 +0200
Georg wrote:
> Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental.
>
> > Am 31.03.2019 um 00:08 schrieb Jim Shorney :
> >
> >
> > And this helps improve one's skill as an
I would like to remind everyone that our beloved hobby is NOT the Internet.
Whether a fully automated station is permitted or not permitted under the
respective country's regulation, removing the operator from control of a
transmission (auto-CQ, etc.) degrades the hobby.
Ask yourself this: Why
Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental.
> Am 31.03.2019 um 00:08 schrieb Jim Shorney :
>
>
> And this helps improve one's skill as an operator HOW?
>
> 73
>
> -Jim
> NU0C
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:53:39 -0700
> Al Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> I do not have a problem
And this helps improve one's skill as an operator HOW?
73
-Jim
NU0C
On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:53:39 -0700
Al Pawlowski wrote:
> I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged before it’s
> been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be "putting the cart
> before
"I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se."
Surely you can't be serious!
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:57 PM Al Pawlowski wrote:
> I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged before
> it’s been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be "putting the
> cart before
+ AA6YQ comments below
I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged before it’s
been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be "putting the cart
before the horse" to me.
Personally, I would not mind being able to tell my radio “Alexa, get me a bora
bora QSL” -
I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged before it’s
been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be "putting the cart
before the horse" to me.
Personally, I would not mind being able to tell my radio “Alexa, get me a bora
bora QSL” - maybe using “callsign/AI”.
31 matches
Mail list logo
