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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Will/How will the future Tech change the way we QRP ?  (Read 3795 times)
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« on: November 10, 2011, 03:10:51 PM »

I think one change is, we will gain the option to voice transmitted cw and receive it in voice or type by decoder?

Do commit, but not only on my post, but how you see future?
Logged
N7NBB
Member

Posts: 381


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2011, 07:05:55 AM »

I think one change is, we will gain the option to voice transmitted cw and receive it in voice or type by decoder?


I think it's much easier to use my KEY for CW than to try and SAY (vocally) "da di da dit   da da di dah" .. but whatever floats your boat.... Voice CW ? isn't that what the PHONE MODES are are for ? "VOICE"?   Roll Eyes



Logged
AB2RC
Member

Posts: 126


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2011, 07:28:49 AM »

I think one change is, we will gain the option to voice transmitted cw and receive it in voice or type by decoder?

Do commit, but not only on my post, but how you see future?

Great idea, probably not all that difficult to actually implement.
The decoder part is already available, all one would need to do is pipe the text output thru a text reader.

The other end (sending) would involve a speech recognition program, and pipe the output into a cw-keyboard 

The tech is already available, only need to string the various parts together.

Taken a bit farther, the same could be done for any text digital mode also.

Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5978




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2011, 07:41:47 AM »

A creative but ridiculous thought.
Logged
AD6KA
Member

Posts: 2237




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2011, 10:48:50 AM »

So your saying your setup would be:

Transmitted:
Speech recognition software (i.e. Dragon Speak)  ->
Text sent to computer CW program ->
Rig in CW XMIT ->
Transmitted CW

Received:
Rig set to CW RCV->
CW reception software (like CW Get) ->
Text sent to text reader software ->
Listen to plain speech

I would like to see someone try this just for the sake of
S**ts & Grins, but it sounds a bit silly and roundabout.

And of course as with any computer CW reader, the
sent CW has to be about perfect, if not computer generated
itself for good copy.

Let us know if you try this,
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2011, 02:11:57 PM »

I think one change is, we will gain the option to voice transmitted cw and receive it in voice or type by decoder?

Do commit, but not only on my post, but how you see future?

Great idea, probably not all that difficult to actually implement.
The decoder part is already available, all one would need to do is pipe the text output thru a text reader.

The other end (sending) would involve a speech recognition program, and pipe the output into a cw-keyboard 

The tech is already available, only need to string the various parts together.

Taken a bit farther, the same could be done for any text digital mode also.


***Come up to the cw forum and have your say !
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2011, 02:18:01 PM »

So your saying your setup would be:

Transmitted:
Speech recognition software (i.e. Dragon Speak)  ->
Text sent to computer CW program ->
Rig in CW XMIT ->
Transmitted CW

Received:
Rig set to CW RCV->
CW reception software (like CW Get) ->
Text sent to text reader software ->
Listen to plain speech

I would like to see someone try this just for the sake of
S**ts & Grins, but it sounds a bit silly and roundabout.

And of course as with any computer CW reader, the
sent CW has to be about perfect, if not computer generated
itself for good copy.

Let us know if you try this,
It will be easy in the future to operate Voice CW, your transmitting cw, you gain the ability for worldwide QRP DX and CW beginners can transmit  at speeds over 10 WPM, think about it.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 01:32:41 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
WD5GWY
Member

Posts: 392




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2011, 07:20:25 PM »

One problem I see, would be the use of Q codes in the Voice to CW conversion.
 A lot of amateurs in other countries do not speak English or are very limited with
using English, so working them on CW with the Q codes helps a lot. But, it might
present a problem if you are speaking into a mike and software is translating your
speech into something they can understand, using the Q code system.
  I doubt that 50 wpm will happen that way! Why not just use a key for CW and
a microphone for voice mode?? It is more natural and easier to use.
james
WD5GWY
Oh, and I have worked World Wide DX qrp on CW in the past using an HW-8
and a straight key. No fancy computer stuff involved!!
Logged
ONAIR
Member

Posts: 1738




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2011, 11:38:28 AM »

I think one change is, we will gain the option to voice transmitted cw and receive it in voice or type by decoder? 

Do commit, but not only on my post, but how you see future?
    Do you mean actually humming the code on phone?  In other words, the phone ops will be humming..    Bee ba Bee ba, Bee Bee ba Bee?
Logged
AD6KA
Member

Posts: 2237




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2011, 11:41:36 AM »

Still sounds like a parlor trick to me.
Interesting but of no real value.

What? You think your "Phone via CW" signal will propagate
and "get through" better that a regular phone signal?

I think not. Too much drop out from the need
for perfect CW sent from both ends, and QRM, QSB, etc.
It MIGHT work for a little while if there were no (none)
other signals around, but there are almost always other
signals close by.
The greatest computer on Earth, our brain, removes
them from the passband.


And an op using Dragon Speak through his
computer CW program is NOT "Sending CW at 50 wpm".


But hey,what do I know.
Try it, then write it up for QST magazine.
They are always looking for articles geared toward those
with Cracker Jack Box Tickets
.

73, Ken AD6KA
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2011, 03:07:12 PM »

Still sounds like a parlor trick to me.
Interesting but of no real value.

What? You think your "Phone via CW" signal will propagate
and "get through" better that a regular phone signal?

I think not. Too much drop out from the need
for perfect CW sent from both ends, and QRM, QSB, etc.
It MIGHT work for a little while if there were no (none)
other signals around, but there are almost always other
signals close by.
The greatest computer on Earth, our brain, removes
them from the passband.


And an op using Dragon Speak through his
computer CW program is NOT "Sending CW at 50 wpm".


But hey,what do I know.
Try it, then write it up for QST magazine.
They are always looking for articles geared toward those
with Cracker Jack Box Tickets
.

73, Ken AD6KA
The only deference is, your sending CW by voice and not your hand, RX decoding is unchanged , you use your ear, or whatever depending on the CW speed.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 03:10:45 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2011, 03:30:53 PM »

Still sounds like a parlor trick to me.
Interesting but of no real value.

What? You think your "Phone via CW" signal will propagate
and "get through" better that a regular phone signal?

I think not. Too much drop out from the need
for perfect CW sent from both ends, and QRM, QSB, etc.
It MIGHT work for a little while if there were no (none)
other signals around, but there are almost always other
signals close by.
The greatest computer on Earth, our brain, removes
them from the passband.


And an op using Dragon Speak through his
computer CW program is NOT "Sending CW at 50 wpm".


But hey,what do I know.
Try it, then write it up for QST magazine.
They are always looking for articles geared toward those
with Cracker Jack Box Tickets
.

73, Ken AD6KA
The only deference is, your sending CW by voice and not your hand, RX decoding is unchanged , you use your ear, or whatever depending on the CW speed and your ability. The new tech is how you voice is formed into CW.
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2011, 10:21:42 AM »

One problem I see, would be the use of Q codes in the Voice to CW conversion.
 A lot of amateurs in other countries do not speak English or are very limited with
using English, so working them on CW with the Q codes helps a lot. But, it might
present a problem if you are speaking into a mike and software is translating your
speech into something they can understand, using the Q code system.
  I doubt that 50 wpm will happen that way! Why not just use a key for CW and
a microphone for voice mode?? It is more natural and easier to use.
james
WD5GWY
Oh, and I have worked World Wide DX qrp on CW in the past using an HW-8
and a straight key. No fancy computer stuff involved!!

[/quote I think you would say the word Qsy Break and so on .
Logged
AD6KA
Member

Posts: 2237




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2011, 07:27:37 PM »

Quote
The only deference is, your sending CW by voice and not your hand,

Yeah,  we all understood that from your first post.

I said:
Quote
an op using Dragon Speak through his computer CW
 program is NOT "Sending CW at 50 wpm".
TECHNICALLY true, the signals are being created.
BUT if you ask 99% of hams how one sends CW,
they will say "Key, Paddie, or Bug".

Your mileage may vary.
Or it's just a matter of semantics, dropping of the CW
requirement causing how people conceive the mode,
old fart syndrome, too much Vitamin L in the 60's, whatever...

Quote
RX decoding is unchanged , you use your ear,
or whatever depending on the CW speed.

I guess "Whatever" in this sentence means a
CW computer decode program. How well those
decoders work depends on a hell of a lot more
than CW "speed"! Other signals in the passband,
QSB, QRN, QRM, and of course #1: How well the
CW is being sent. Even if it IS computer generated,
propagation and the other factors play a big part, too.

Ever try using one of those CW Decoders in a contest?
Or when the band is crowded, or on 40m with
the heterodynes from the SWL Broadcast stations?

(It HAS gotten better since they moved them up to 7200 kc,
showing my age!)
Anyway, they don't work well at all,
IF AT ALL, under those conditions.

But by all means, set it up and try it. (Would
only really work under ideal, uncrowded conditions, methinks)
Let us know truthfully how well  it works.
(Post on YouTube?)


What CW speed works best?
How fast is the TEXT T throughput?
How about "text throughput rate" versus
"Decoded CW message throughout rate?" (Interesting, that one)
Since it's NOT a "handshake mode" like
AMTOR FEC, or PACTOR, you have no
way of correcting errors except to ask for a
repeat on the next transmission.

Good luck with your project.
I still think it's a parlor trick but would
be interested in hearing and seeing the results.
GL & 73, Ken  AD6KA

« Last Edit: November 14, 2011, 07:31:55 PM by AD6KA » Logged
W7ETA
Member

Posts: 2528




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2011, 06:18:39 AM »

I experience the future every day I wake up.

Whenever I see speculation about the future I remember that not one sci fi writer forecasted that when man landed on the moon it would be broadcast LIVE on TV!!

73
Bob
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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!