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: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Fully automated FT8 QSOs - a good idea for DXpeditions?  (Read 11701 times)
N5VYS
Member

Posts: 1279




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2018, 04:24:54 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".
I only have one, well at least for now?

Obie N5VYS
Logged
LA7DFA
Member

Posts: 75




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2018, 04:31:13 PM »

I am having fun DXing.  Despite being far north, and struggling with aurora and severe attenuation.
And I am proud of what I can do with some wires up in my tower.

Please do not tell me Im old fashioned, wanting a semi-fair battle.

I am not against remotes in your own DXCC, but Im against destroying DXCC, by allowing anyone to operate from home via P5, 3Y or rented monster stacks.
Logged
AE5X
Member

Posts: 1138




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2018, 04:48:16 PM »

but Im against destroying DXCC, by allowing anyone to operate from home via P5, 3Y or rented monster stacks.

How does that destroy DXCC?
Logged

VA3VF
Member

Posts: 1455




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2018, 05:04:07 PM »

Properly used remotes are not the problem. The problem are the remotes that do not identify with the callsign of where they are actually located. An American ham using a remote in the US, with his US callsign, no problem. An American ham using a remote in Italy, with an Italian callsign, no problem. An American ham using a remote in Italy but using his American callsign, now that's a problem.

And it's not only remote TX, a stand alone remote RX, separated from the TX by more than a reasonable distance is also a problem.

I posted the following in the Digital forum:

I don't like automatization, but the situations described are not my reason for it. If you take the operator out of the ham station, it's no longer a ham station, but an utility station.

The more I think about it, the more I hope for the following changes in future versions of WSJT-X and JTDX:

1) Remove call 1st;
2) Watchdog timer hard coded to 4 repeats max;
3) RR73 and 73 stops TX, always, regardless of whether you called or answered a CQ;
4) Unless you called CQ, the program should not TX on the current frequency, must move at least 100 Hz.

I commend SV5DKL for what he did. He is experimenting, and trying new things. He is also exercizing good judgement, by not publicizing all he was able to automate. We need more hams like him.
Logged
AE5X
Member

Posts: 1138




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2018, 05:56:52 PM »

What if a new mode were developed for the express purpose of automated QSOs...let's call it FT6. Very similar to FT8 but with a 10" turnaround time, full automation built in (no external QuickMacro needed), automatically responds to weakest callers first, tries to work everything it hears in the 2 kHz passband, as do all other stations operating this mode on the air at any given moment.

As propagation changes, these automated stations work the new ones now heard and, after 3 attempts, disregards those that have faded away.

Such a station is set up on Bouvet; you eventually work it.

Will it and should it count for DXCC? If it does, would permission be more easily obtained to put such an unmanned station on Scarborough or Kingman Reef given that ecological damage would be minimal compared to what a 10-man team would produce? Set up the station, leave and pick it up in a month or after 300,000 QSO's. Ecologically friendly and economical.

There's plenty of spectrum for such a mode. Those who don't want to participate don't have to; those that do can easily obtain DXCC on a mode strictly for automated contacts and therefore DXCC is not "destroyed" for those using traditional modes.
Logged

VA3VF
Member

Posts: 1455




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2018, 06:16:36 PM »

Quote
What if a new mode were developed for the express purpose of automated QSOs...let's call it FT6.

If the consensus reached is that this is hamradio, so be it.

Why be limited to places like Bouvet? Because it's hard to get there? Well, it's hard for me to spend more than a couple hours a week on the radio. If automation is good there, it's good at my QTH as well (not that I would adopt it).

Quote
Such a station is set up on Bouvet; you eventually work it.

Will it and should it count for DXCC? If it does, would permission be more easily obtained to put such an unmanned station on Scarborough or Kingman Reef given that ecological damage would be minimal compared to what a 10-man team would produce? Set up the station, leave and pick it up in a month or after 300,000 QSO's. Ecologically friendly and economical.

The human aspect is part of the journey. Following the rational above, why bother with a manned space program? Send robots only, cheaper and risk free.

Quote
There's plenty of spectrum for such a mode. Those who don't want to participate don't have to; those that do can easily obtain DXCC on a mode strictly for automated contacts and therefore DXCC is not "destroyed" for those using traditional modes.

Are we hamradio operators or utility station owners? I don't think this 'new' hobby would attract me.
Logged
LA7DFA
Member

Posts: 75




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2018, 06:17:18 PM »

I have nothing against automation or remotes per se, but identify it, and have a way to separate it from the classic QSOs.
Actually I find JT65 and FT8 to be exellent tools, to study propagations and make DX contacts.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 06:19:56 PM by LA7DFA » Logged
WO7R
Member

Posts: 2850




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2018, 06:35:33 PM »

Quote
How does that destroy DXCC?

There is a class of DXer who opposes anything that makes it easier.

I understand the quandary.  I am one station away from 5BWAZ.  The main problem at this point is not the difficulty of the QSO per se.  It is finding someone in zone 21 on 80 meters on a clear channel.  From the US West Coast, that is actually fairly hard.  I cleared zone 22 only because I made a couple of friends in India who were willing to sit on JT65 frequencies for many days at twilight before two of us finally got good enough conditions to snag a very marginal QSO.  Zone 21 will be no picnic, but I doubt it will be this tough.

Now suppose in two years I discovered that a machine, sitting somewhere in zone 22, on 80, that allowed one to attempt QSOs, by the hour, for days, and eventually succeed.  Worse, it could be done mostly unattended.

Would I feel cheated?  I actually would not, but I get why some do.  It's all in how you define what a QSO is and how important it is for DXing to be as much like (say) golf as possible.  I think the latter is a fool's errand and always was, but many DXers do feel that way.
Logged
WO7R
Member

Posts: 2850




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2018, 06:39:22 PM »

Quote
I have nothing against automation or remotes per se, but identify it, and have a way to separate it from the classic QSOs.

There is a said history of this sort of thing.  When Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's home run record in the 1960s, the game had changed slightly; the US baseball season was a few games longer.  Maris hit his last home run, the one that actually broke the record, during those extra games.

Some purists lobbied for, and got, an asterisk put after the record.  To this day, that asterisk incident still creates bad feelings among those who care.  At least one book was written about it long after the fact.  I personally think it was a bad idea.  And baseball is fare more comparable than "eras" in DXing ever will be.

None the less, I can respect the feelings, even as I disagree.
Logged
VE3VEE
Member

Posts: 1483




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2018, 02:07:51 AM »


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


I do respect your opinion that for you personally remotes are "100% fake". 30 years ago, I was as much against the use of computers in ham radio. I felt ham radio + computers was no longer the same ham radio. Technology changes, people change. You would be surprised how many hams have enabled their remote access to their stations to be able to use their TCVR from their work, from their car, from their vacation, etc. It's so simple. You just buy some network equipment from for example RemoteRig.com, plug it in, configure it, and enjoy. The RemoteRig's support forum has 2,500 members. Assuming there are users who never needed to register to the support forum, plus there are users of other platforms, there must be currently tens of thousands of ham radio stations with their remote access enabled.  



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.


Yes, you are absolutely correct. Other than the building of antennas and setting up our radio stations, we have also other issues to overcome. It's not just ham radio. It's ham radio + networking.

Marvin VE3VEE
Logged
WO7R
Member

Posts: 2850




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2018, 06:01:50 AM »

I should point out that, FWIW, the actual originators (it's a team) of the WSJT-X group specifically left out full automation in the code they wrote.

That a third party has been able to bypass this is, in its own way, a bit incredible, but at least we should be clear that this sort of thing was deliberately left off by the original development team, which obviously knows how to automate things.

The automation that exists is there largely for practical reasons (a 15 second window on FT8).  Even now, there is no "autosequence" for JT65 and the other modes.  The same amount of "autocomplete" could be done, but in JT65 in particular , the 12 seconds between exchanges is ample for the operator to actually respond each time.  And, by no coincidence at all, such is still required.  Could JT65 be automated, too?  Perhaps.  But it still bears pointing out that it has not been and, AFAICT, is deliberately not present.
Logged
WO7R
Member

Posts: 2850




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2018, 06:11:16 AM »

Quote
1) Remove call 1st;
2) Watchdog timer hard coded to 4 repeats max;
3) RR73 and 73 stops TX, always, regardless of whether you called or answered a CQ;
4) Unless you called CQ, the program should not TX on the current frequency, must move at least 100 Hz.

There are many improvements possible and even needed, but these would, sorry to say, be ineffective.

1) This will simply result in a lot of useless, extra retransmissions.  It will literally be a QRM machine to take it away.
2) It is downright trivial to overcome the watchdog timer.  Any outside, 3rd party process that can overcome today's limit can overcome tomorrow's.
3) The problem with this is when the DX station doesn't hear it and then comes back to you with their R-03 or whatever R-xx it was.  If you are disabled, and don't get there in time, you waste another 30 seconds.  In what sense is this helpful?
4) There might be merit in this, though it appears that 100 Hz is probably a larger than necessary movement.  It might also cause more QRM than it solves when the band is crowded.  Then there is the question of consecutive QSOs.  A "CQ" is not a necessary part of the sequence.  The "CQer" may have last done so five QSOs ago.  Or more.  Nor is it a given which message sequence is performed given the ability to skip TX1.  How are you sure who "owns" the frequency anyway?

The other thing to understand is that whatever we propose can be undone by whatever third party tricks enabled this fully automated mode to start with.  After all, as I just pointed out, the behavior was not desired by the development team anyway.  So, we are already talking about a group that has reversed some key design decisions.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 06:13:40 AM by WO7R » Logged
WO7R
Member

Posts: 2850




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2018, 06:24:31 AM »

Quote
It's ham radio + networking.

Already, to an extent that I think is still under-appreciated, we are already there.

It was perhaps a novelty when VK0EK (and, actually, at least one earlier expedition by the same group) began giving near real time uploads of QSOs.  Yet, at Visalia a while back, the VK0EK team leader was telling us all how big time DXpeds have been evolving towards this model for some years now.

It's not just him.  Based on my limited exposure to colleagues involved in such things, it is becoming an expectation of big time DXpeds.  How close to real time is subject to debate and what the team can deploy, but can any of us deny that DQRM and other crap tends to be defeated by those DXpeditions that are more able to do more rapid uploads than those that take days or weeks to do so?

And, to the extent it is true (and I have certainly observed it, as have some who actually go to these places), who on earth is going to be opposed to that?  Cutting down on craziness, or even insurance QSOs, can hardly be considered a bad thing.

It is certainly true that for anyone spending north of 100,000 dollars to activate something expensive and remote, the relatively small cost of a BGAN terminal is very affordable and allows near real time uploads.  And, both we and even they will demand it.
Logged
VA3VF
Member

Posts: 1455




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2018, 06:42:31 AM »

Quote
I should point out that, FWIW, the actual originators (it's a team) of the WSJT-X group specifically left out full automation in the code they wrote.

All modes can theoretically be automated by a good programmer, provided the source code is available, or if really determined and proficient, from scratch. The difference here, is that in the case of FT8, it's easily done with the use of simple macros. May still not be accessible to all hams, but much easier than having to be a programmer.


Quote
That a third party has been able to bypass this is, in its own way, a bit incredible, but at least we should be clear that this sort of thing was deliberately left off by the original development team, which obviously knows how to automate things.

The way it was shown so far, all it took were macros.

Quote
The automation that exists is there largely for practical reasons (a 15 second window on FT8).  Even now, there is no "autosequence" for JT65 and the other modes.  The same amount of "autocomplete" could be done, but in JT65 in particular , the 12 seconds between exchanges is ample for the operator to actually respond each time.  And, by no coincidence at all, such is still required.  Could JT65 be automated, too?  Perhaps.  But it still bears pointing out that it has not been and, AFAICT, is deliberately not present.

This why I did not mention Auto Seq.  Its removal would prevent a lot of hams from enjoying the mode. Most hams, myself included, do not have the dexterity to do all the 'clicking' in the 2 to 3 seconds between cycles. But clicking Enable Tx again after each contact is not that taxing, even for a slow operator.
Logged
VA3VF
Member

Posts: 1455




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2018, 06:50:00 AM »

Quote
It's ham radio + networking.

And, to the extent it is true (and I have certainly observed it, as have some who actually go to these places), who on earth is going to be opposed to that?  Cutting down on craziness, or even insurance QSOs, can hardly be considered a bad thing.

It is certainly true that for anyone spending north of 100,000 dollars to activate something expensive and remote, the relatively small cost of a BGAN terminal is very affordable and allows near real time uploads.  And, both we and even they will demand it.

Agree completely! Note that the 'act of hamming' remains intact in this type of DXped setup. In my view this is not automation, as far as a taking the ham out of hamradio.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 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!