Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Fully automated FT8 QSOs - a good idea for DXpeditions?  (Read 2770 times)
AE5X
Member

Posts: 1070




Ignore
« on: January 06, 2018, 06:58:43 AM »

SV5DKL explains a method of using QuickMacros to automate FT8 QSOs. Imagine a DXpedition setting up such a station in addition to their CW/SSB endeavors:

https://ae5x.blogspot.com/2018/01/video-fully-automated-ft8-qsos.html

Technology marches onward and I'm all for it.  Smiley
Logged

LA7DFA
Member

Posts: 53




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2018, 07:06:53 AM »

Automated and DX remotes (outside own country), should be forced to sign with special ID.
The DXCC award will become worthless if this continues.
Basically DX is difficult because of few operations.  When you have a remote in P5, everybody can be on top the honor roll...
Logged
VE3VEE
Member

Posts: 1277




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2018, 07:19:27 AM »

I'm all for automation.

Yesterday, I was sitting at the radio on 20m FT8. I saw 9G5ZS in Ghana. I called him (not on his freq). He didn't reply (to anyone). I kept calling, but then someone rang the door bell and I had to go downstairs to see who it was. I returned 5 minutes later only to see my 9G5ZS QSO completed. So yes, I'm all for automation.  Grin Grin Grin

Marvin VE3VEE
Logged
KD0PO
Member

Posts: 743




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2018, 07:26:17 AM »

I've made a pre-expedition donation to 3Y
please do a Pre-expedition LoTW upload for all bands and modes

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

thanks......

Ray
Logged
KB8GAE
Member

Posts: 236




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2018, 07:53:53 AM »

FT8 is capable of multi channel reception and possibly multi channel transmission if the software is modified.  QSO rates of 1,000 per hour may be possible. 

https://sourceforge.net/p/wsjt/mailman/message/36004630/

Fully automated QSO’s with rates of 1,000 per hour would certainly change Dxing.

Rich KB8GAE
Logged
NU1O
Member

Posts: 4344




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2018, 08:00:43 AM »

FT8 is capable of multi channel reception and possibly multi channel transmission if the software is modified.  QSO rates of 1,000 per hour may be possible. 

https://sourceforge.net/p/wsjt/mailman/message/36004630/

Fully automated QSO’s with rates of 1,000 per hour would certainly change Dxing.

Rich KB8GAE

I could do a year's worth of QSO's in about 6 to 10 hours at that rate.  I'm not so sure it's a good idea. 

73,

Chris  NU1O

Logged
KC0W
Member

Posts: 345




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2018, 08:48:25 AM »

  I recently watched the YouTube video from our Greek amateur friend on how he fully automated FT8. He appears to have overcome one of automated FT8's biggest challenges. That being a station getting "hung up" and sending the same thing over & over again without acknowledgment from the other station. Good or bad, the software for a fully automated FT8 DXpedition is here right now.

Modern advances in voice recognition have been amazing as well. I see "microphone-less" DXpeditions taking place within 5 years. Imagine reading on the DXpeditions webpage, "please speak clearly and use English phonetics so our robot can understand you". The technology to make this happen is here right now. Perfecting the software to pick out callsigns from the bedlam of SSB pileups is (probably) just about here.  

 The strides made in decoding accurate callsigns on CW skimmers has been amazing. Remember when skimmers first came online & constantly decoded garbage? I hear very few people complaining about W3LPL's skimmers now. People have been debating the virtues/hindrances regarding skimmer based CW DXpeditions for years. If a voice recognition DXpedition is just around the corner then a CW skimmer DXpedition is before the corner even starts.

 Personally I don't care what future SSB or FT8 DXpeditions may do since I have no interest in either mode. Although it would be interesting reading the results from a DX team who set up their automated CW/FT8 software & let 'er rip for a week or so..................Technology will change the future of amateur radio to be sure. Regardless, the use of Internet based HF remote stations will always SUCK!!!  Smiley


                                                                       Tom KC0W                                                            
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 09:02:14 AM by KC0W » Logged
AE5X
Member

Posts: 1070




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2018, 09:59:20 AM »

Regardless, the use of Internet based HF remote stations will always SUCK!!!  Smiley                                                 

I agree  Smiley
Logged

LA7DFA
Member

Posts: 53




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2018, 10:46:31 AM »

With the urban noise we have today, I fully support a remote receive station (not to far away from own QTH).

Personally I moved to a quiet location on the countryside, but not everyone can do that.
Logged
VE3VEE
Member

Posts: 1277




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2018, 11:37:15 AM »


Regardless, the use of Internet based HF remote stations will always SUCK!!!  Smiley
                                                  

I was QRT for 25+ years. When we were buying our house, I was not thinking if it would be a suitable location for ham radio. Then, when one day I decided to try to get back on the air, I found myself with s-9 local man-made noise.

I had a few options:

1. I could move, but with a school age kid and a working XYL and limited funds it was not practical.
2. I could go again to a ham radio hibernation for another ten or so years, but that would not be fun.
3. I could try to set up a station outside the city and either go there occasionally to play with the radio there or even try to set it up for remote access via the Internet. Hmm, this seemed like a complicated stuff that would require a lot of research on my part, but it seemed doable, so that's what I did.

I'm still not clear why would someone dislike this. Could anyone explain? It's my own station built with my own sweat and blood, what's wrong with that? It's exactly just like anyone's station, but a bit more complicated because it involved the addition of a network equipment. It's much more convenient to have that radio and antennas behind the house. If something goes wrong, you can immediately attend to it. If something goes wrong with my station, It may take me days or weeks till I'm able to do something about it.  Grin

Marvin VE3VEE
Logged
K0YQ
Member

Posts: 1312




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2018, 12:43:39 PM »

I just read that the 3Y0Z team plunked down $500K for the ship ride.  It's rapidly getting to the point where DXpeds to the weird cold boat places are not fiscally practical. 

Wonder what it would cost to put together some kind of self-contained FT8 remote radio/computer pod that a fishing vessel / tour ship could drop off, set up, turn on, and pick back up in a few months/weeks?  Logistical challenges aside seems somewhat feasible from a technology standpoint.  I imagine the day's not too distant when this might be the only way to activate some of these places.

Asbestos suit on so flame away.
Logged
KC0W
Member

Posts: 345




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2018, 12:50:57 PM »


Regardless, the use of Internet based HF remote stations will always SUCK!!!  Smiley
                                                  


I'm still not clear why would someone dislike this. Could anyone explain? It's my own station built with my own sweat and blood, what's wrong with that? It's exactly just like anyone's station,

Marvin VE3VEE


The reason why INTERNET based HF operating sucks is because it's not real ham radio, period. It's 100% fake.

 Ever work the Haitian station HH2AA? You're not working someone in Haiti. You're working a guy in New York with an antenna & Internet connection in Haiti. Maybe some Remote Station operators can give us their exact signal flow from their computer to the transmitting antenna? Please be sure to list which satellite(s) your signal hitched a ride on as well. Real ham radio is (and always will be) radio, coax, antenna. Those using point to point to span hundreds/thousands of feet are semi-fake operating.  Smiley Radio? Check. Antenna? Check. Coax..........Ummmmmmmm.            

 I've been on the receiving end of plenty of signals originating from Remote Stations. Personally it's an exercise in frustration due to the latency of the remote stations signal. "But wait" say the hoards of remote operators who swear up & down their signal has almost zero latency. Sorry, I don't buy it for a second.

 The ARRL made a complete joke out of DXCC by allowing (yet again) INTERNET based remote operating. Can the remote station guys get a signal on the air if their Internet connection is down? Nope, I didn't think so.

 Oh well, to each their own. If someone is happy looking past the point of using the almighty Internet to get a signal on the air more power to them. It will always account for an "assisted" (and fake) QSO in my book.

Sorry to derail this thread. Back to discussing automated FT8.

                                                                        Tom KC0W
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 12:53:52 PM by KC0W » Logged
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 3110


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2018, 12:57:22 PM »

Pure and unadulterated Bravo Sierra!
Logged
AE5X
Member

Posts: 1070




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2018, 02:37:26 PM »

I'm still not clear why would someone dislike this. Could anyone explain?

I think the reason a lot of DXers don't like remote operation is because it makes it possible for someone who hasn't "paid his dues" to work gobs of DX from (for example) an apartment or a location with mediocre antennas. This then puts them on par with stations that long-time DXers spent years building - sweating and sacrificing along the way to get 5B-DXCC, WAZ, or whatever. Now the little guy, remoting into a super station to work Bouvet and all the others, appears equal in status to the Big DXer, at least where the numbers are concerned. This "cheapens" the accomplishment of the Big DXer (in his eyes).

In a nutshell, the people who don't like remote DXing are those who measure themselves against others. Those who have no such qualms about "remoters" measure their accomplishments internally, not relative to others.

I'm in the latter group and have even thrown away most of my QSL cards. Of the many thousands over the decades, I now have 15 that I spared from the recycle bin. Only two of them are "rare".
Logged

VE3VEE
Member

Posts: 1277




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2018, 03:01:12 PM »

John,

Thanks for clarifying it for me. What you are saying makes sense.

Marvin VE3VEE
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!