Igor,
I think that the Vojager probes communication links still work without any
HLR/VLR database technique at a distance of more than 100 astronomical
units and nobody makes complaints.
Am I missing something I yet don't know?
73
Nico / IV3NWV
___
development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Igor,
If you believe that DX-Spotting is equivalent to internet assisted sensitivity
enhancement, then there is no point in further discussion.
Apples and oranges, at the very least.
N0AN
Hasan
On Mon
; To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> IMO, it is very likely that an Internet dependant mode will not be
> acce
>Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
>Message-ID: < cedeed7f-9422-3e2c-b286-a3abc1508...@vkdxer.net >
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
>IMO, it is very likely that an Internet dependant mode will not be
>accepted f
Hi all,
No software in the WSJT family has ever depended on having an internet
"co-channel". No software in the WSJT family will ever do so.
I cannot imagine why anyone might have thought otherwise. I cannot
imagine why anyone might have thought the wsjt-devel email reflector
would be a
On 10/09/2018 8:05 AM, David Tiller wrote:
Your example of pskreporter and hamspots are not involved in and do
not facilitate QSOs - they only collect metadata of QSOs. Any attempt
to involve the internet with the completion of QSOs will probably be
rejected by the ham community.
If you want
From: "G8DQX (WSJT developers on SF)"
mailto:wsjtde...@gape.me.uk>>
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Message-ID:
mailto:cdad522e-acfc-16b7-53f2-766fbad16...@gape.me.uk>
and
hamspots.net at 24x7 operation.
.
73 Igor UA3DJY
>Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2018 01:32:20 +0100
>From: "G8DQX (WSJT developers on SF)" < wsjtde...@gape.me.uk >
>To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
>Messag
Amen, George. Ham radio is about _radio_, not the internet.
On Sep 8, 2018, at 19:13, George J Molnar
mailto:geo...@molnar.com>> wrote:
While it probably is a remote possibility that the WSJT-X team is contemplating
adding internet-based linkages, I want to agree with N2ADV and emphatically
Igor,
you forgot to mention that HLR & VLR technology is a *network* artefact,
generally to be found in mobile telecommunications networks. The
application to the Amateur Radio Service, where there are a large number
of stations but *no* over-arching network control is very unclear.
For a
] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Bravo, George!
Internet help with the decode? That's downright silly. If we are going to use
the internet to replace even a portion of the performance of rf, heck why
bother with rf at all, and we can have infinite sensitivity?
Hasan
On Sat
Bravo, George!
Internet help with the decode? That's downright silly. If we are going to
use the internet to replace even a portion of the performance of rf, heck
why bother with rf at all, and we can have infinite sensitivity?
Hasan
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018, 6:13 PM George J Molnar wrote:
>
While it probably is a remote possibility that the WSJT-X team is contemplating
adding internet-based linkages, I want to agree with N2ADV and emphatically say
“no!” to any ham radio communications protocol that relies on anything but ham
radio to work effectively.
Even in this day of
] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Hello Joe and all,
.
Most of questions raised on this subject can be solved via HLR/VLR database
server usage, where visitor location register can match to the specific HF band
where callsign, frequency, hash of the message being transmitted, protocol
Hello Joe and all,
.
Most of questions raised on this subject can be solved via HLR/VLR database
server usage, where visitor location register can match to the specific HF band
where callsign, frequency, hash of the message being transmitted, protocol and
code rate can be stored, callsign hash
: Nico Palermo
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 1:47:21 PM
To: WSJT software development
Cc: Игорь Ч
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Hello Take,
Rather, I suggest to form approved “working group” which defines the objective
and timeline under this community.
Fo
com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Nico Palermo
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 1:44:33 PM
To: WSJT software development
Cc: Игорь Ч
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Take,
we can indeed agree that transmitting a
Take,
we can indeed agree that transmitting an hash key could be better than to
send a full call sign.
Anyway when you transmit an hash key you miss the possibility for receivers
to go back to the original information unless they decode a complete
sequence of messages.
With FT8 or with all the
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Nico Palermo
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2018 9:00:12 AM
To: Игорь Ч; WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Probably
10
>
>
> ----------
> *From:* Nico Palermo
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 2, 2018 9:19:43 AM
> *To:* k...@arrl.net; WSJT software development
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
>
>
> Most applications of diversity reception
ftware development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Most applications of diversity reception are on the MF and low HF bands. I
believe that most fading on these bands is selective fading, where signals
traveling slightly different paths, the low-frequency equi
> Most applications of diversity reception are on the MF and low HF bands. I
> believe that most fading on these bands is selective fading, where signals
> traveling slightly different paths, the low-frequency equivalent of
> picket-fencing at VHF/UHF. It might be worth studying propagation on the
Hi Jim --
On 9/1/2018 5:31 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
On 9/1/2018 11:26 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
It's worth mentioning that for more than a decade MAP65, a sister
program of WSJT, WSPR, and WSJT-X, has provided a powerful and
uniquely effective form of diversity reception: polarization
diversity.
On 9/1/2018 11:26 AM, Joe Taylor wrote:
It's worth mentioning that for more than a decade MAP65, a sister
program of WSJT, WSPR, and WSJT-X, has provided a powerful and uniquely
effective form of diversity reception: polarization diversity. And yes,
the outputs of two receivers ARE simply be
Hi all,
On 9/1/2018 1:58 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
On 9/1/2018 3:14 AM, Iztok Saje wrote:
Instead of overcomplicating protocols, diversity reception shall be
considered.
Diversity reception has been around for nearly a century, and depends on
the very complex computing engine located between the
On 9/1/2018 3:14 AM, Iztok Saje wrote:
Instead of overcomplicating protocols, diversity reception shall be
considered.
Diversity reception has been around for nearly a century, and depends on
the very complex computing engine located between the ears of the
operator. My guess is that any
I’m
misunderstanding.
Jim S.
N2ADV
From: Игорь Ч via wsjt-devel [mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 6:33 PM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Игорь Ч
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Hello Joe
Hello!
Commenting contribution by Take, Igor etc:
Instead of overcomplicating protocols, diversity reception shall be considered.
Instead of variable bit rate, we can get up to 5 dB by combining repeated
frames.
We can often see several repetitions of same frame. Each repetition has
AM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Hi, Take. Greetings from Italy :-)
A variable transmission rate would be appreciable indeed but we often forget
that the main purpose of the WSJT-X modes was that of allowing some reliable
amateur c
>
> Probably we can add more flexibility if some information will be passed
> over Internet, for instance free text messages and GRID, it will spare more
> bits toward sensitivity on the radio interface.
Ok, Igor, but then I would prefer to call the new modes "Weak Internet
Communications".
73
e JA5AEA
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
> ------
> *From:* Nico Palermo
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2018 7:04:31 AM
> *To:* WSJT software development
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0
Hello Joe,
.
It was excellent example with the WSPR QSO, just thought we can get additional
FT8 gain if some messages at QSO will be transmitted as 'hash hash' / 'call
hash' / 'hash call' instead of callsigns.
.
Yes, there is a trade off between the sensitivity and protocol flexibility.
indows 10
From: Nico Palermo
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 7:04:31 AM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Furthermore there is no need to improve a protocol just to cope with energy
limits when a really va
indows 10
From: Nico Palermo
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 7:04:31 AM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Furthermore there is no need to improve a protocol just to cope with energy
limits when a really va
Furthermore there is no need to improve a protocol just to cope with energy
limits when a really variable medium, as the ionosphere is in the HFs, is
the limit itself. Of course we could think to a new mode in which a 2-way
QSO between two antipodal points on earth would require 50 mWatts instead
Hi Igor,
Earlier this month you made suggestions for a possible new protocol for
minimal weak-signal QSOs. I have been away on vacation since that time,
so have not had a chance to respond.
Of course there are many possible ways to make design trade-offs
involving message size, duration of
AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
I'd just leave it to the WSJT-X team, and only the WSJT-X team.
Neil, KN3ILZ
On 8/9/2018 4:08 PM, Andras Bato wrote:
George is quite right!
Leave it to t
-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
*Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
I'd just leave it to the WSJT-X team, and only the WSJT-X team.
Neil, KN3ILZ
On 8/9/2018 4:08 PM, Andras Bato wrote:
George is quite right!
Leave it to the dev team -and to Igor!
It well worth to test wha
-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
I'd just leave it to the WSJT-X team, and only the WSJT-X team.
Neil, KN3ILZ
On 8/9/2018 4:08 PM, Andras Bato wrote:
George is quite right!
Leave it to the dev team -and to Igor!
It well worth to test what does JTDX dev t
I'd just leave it to the WSJT-X team, and only the WSJT-X team.
Neil, KN3ILZ
On 8/9/2018 4:08 PM, Andras Bato wrote:
George is quite right!
Leave it to the dev team -and to Igor!
It well worth to test what does JTDX dev team do.
gl de ha6nn
Andras
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:10 PM, George J
George is quite right!
Leave it to the dev team -and to Igor!
It well worth to test what does JTDX dev team do.
gl de ha6nn
Andras
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:10 PM, George J Molnar wrote:
> I think he is lamenting the “loss of sensitivity” with FT8 compared to
> JT65 now that the former has come
that the suggestion leaves out provisions for the various
contests that the updated protocol will cover.
Neil, KN3ILZ
On 8/8/2018 11:03 AM, Wolfgang wrote:
Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol Neil, you have
to read before you snap back!
Igor wrote, that we miss the sensivity
> On Aug 8, 2018, at 9:03 AM, Wolfgang wrote:
>
> So, we have -21 db in FT8 and in JT65 of around -27db
> (92% decoded at -27db, 58% at -28db and 17% at -29db)
FYI, several times in the last two or three weeks, I have decoded very weak
ones at -24. At least that’s the report the program
Title: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0 possible new mode/protocol
Neil, you have to read before you snap back!
Igor wrote, that we miss the sensivity of JT65 in FT8 !
So, we have -21 db in FT8 and in JT65 of around -27db
(92% decoded at -27db, 58% at -28db and 17% at -29db)
And the new
I think he is lamenting the “loss of sensitivity” with FT8 compared to JT65 now
that the former has come to dominate. Not sure his math works out, so will
leave that to the dev team. Imagine they are keenly interested in performance,
too.
George J Molnar
Virginia, USA
> On Aug 8, 2018, at
Frankly, I don't see where you're getting the idea that JT65
sensitivity is missing?
It is still much more sensitive than FT8, and will be for the
foreseeable future, as are the other WSJT-X modes. JT9A is at -27,
JT65A is at -25, and QRA64A is at -26. FT8 is -21 .. all this is
based
46 matches
Mail list logo
