Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [dxatlas] Blind Skimmer Option for Unassisted Categories

Expand Messages
  • ct1boh
    Bill There is nothing wrong with havind the dot and dash on the waterfall display. If the operator reads the code on the display fine, it was him and not the
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 22, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill

      There is nothing wrong with havind the dot and dash on the waterfall
      display.

      If the operator "reads" the code on the display fine, it was him and
      not the decoder (i.e. the machine).

      The waterfall display of skimmer should stay as it is now. It is the
      text of the CW from the decoders that must be removed in the Blind
      Skimmer.

      Also a faster way to tune the lines in the display, represented by the
      dots and dashes is a must. Using the mouse to click on the lines, it's
      not the most eficient way in a contest. I have suggested to Alex, that
      the arrow up/arrow down buttons in the keybord would be the ideal way
      to move the radio frequency into the next adjacent signal represented
      by the circles next to the line of each signal with the dashes and dots.

      73
      José CT1BOH

      --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "bill_w4zv" <w0zv@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "Alex, VE3NEA" <alshovk@> wrote:
      > >
      > > The Blind option has been requested by José CT1BOH and is currently
      > being
      > > developed.
      >
      > Great news Alex! I hope you can get it done a little before the CQ WW
      > CW at the end of November. Thanks for all your work with Skimmer and
      > I believe this will be a great option for those of us who like your
      > waterfall implementation but don't want the decoding. I assume you
      > will also find a way to disable the "dot and dash" display in addition
      > to the alphanumeric calls...all we really need are the encoder dots
      > and maybe some indication of signal strength.
      >
      > 73, Bill W4ZV
      >
    • Jarmo Blomster
      Hello Alex, ... I would like to examine the API you mention, can I find a description somewhere? 73 s oh8kva/jarmo
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 22, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Alex,

        2008/10/21 Alex, VE3NEA <alshovk@...>:

        > CW Skimmer has an open programming interface,

        I would like to examine the API you mention, can I find a description somewhere?

        73's oh8kva/jarmo
      • bill_w4zv
        ... Jose and Alex, after thinking about this, I agree. This should also make implementation of the Blind option easier. ... Yes, but move up/down only to the
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 22, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "ct1boh" <ct1boh@...> wrote:

          > There is nothing wrong with havind the dot and dash on the waterfall
          > display.
          >
          > If the operator "reads" the code on the display fine, it was him and
          > not the decoder (i.e. the machine).
          >
          > The waterfall display of skimmer should stay as it is now. It is the
          > text of the CW from the decoders that must be removed in the Blind
          > Skimmer.

          Jose and Alex, after thinking about this, I agree. This should also
          make implementation of the Blind option easier.

          > Also a faster way to tune the lines in the display, represented by the
          > dots and dashes is a must. Using the mouse to click on the lines, it's
          > not the most eficient way in a contest. I have suggested to Alex, that
          > the arrow up/arrow down buttons in the keybord would be the ideal way
          > to move the radio frequency into the next adjacent signal represented
          > by the circles next to the line of each signal with the dashes and dots.

          Yes, but move up/down only to the *yellow* dots. The white ones are
          often artifacts.

          Good suggestions Jose!

          73, Bill
        • Graham
          Hi Alex, thanks for the prompt replies. I successfully obtained XYL authorization (!) and have now registered before the UKP/US$ exchange rate gets any worse
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 22, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Alex, thanks for the prompt replies. I successfully obtained XYL
            authorization (!) and have now registered before the UKP/US$ exchange
            rate gets any worse for us on this side of the Atlantic =:-O

            Thanks also for the clarification on interfacing; I had an incorrect
            mental model of the way things work and it's great to hear that in
            fact the architecture is way better. I will raise a request in the
            HRD BBS forum.

            73 de Graham G3ZOD


            --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "Alex, VE3NEA" <alshovk@...>
            wrote:
            > All 1.xx upgrades are free for the registered users. Currently I
            have no
            > plans re. v.2.0.
            >
            > CW Skimmer has an open programming interface, the authors of other
            Ham
            > software can integrate their products with the Skimmer with little
            effort.
            > Please ask the author of HRD if he is interested in doing so.
            >
            > 73 Alex VE3NEA
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > Regarding future versions, what is the policy for existing
            registered
            > users? I.e. register now or wait for a future version before
            > registering to keep costs down? I had a look around
            > http://www.dxatlas.com/CwSkimmer/ but couldn't see any information
            on
            > this.
            >
            > Normally I wouldn't worry too much but the pricing, while
            undoubtably
            > worth it, is above my threshold for having a real think about this
            and
            > getting XYL authorization :-o
            >
            > Also, am I right in thinking that CW Skimmer isn't ever going to
            > integrate with Ham Radio Deluxe?
            >
            > Thanks,
            > Graham G3ZOD
          • Alex, VE3NEA
            Hi Jarmo, There are two aspects of integration with CW Skimmer: sharing the CAT control of the radio and receiving the decoded callsigns. CW Skimmer uses the
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 22, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Jarmo,

              There are two aspects of integration with CW Skimmer: sharing the CAT
              control of the radio and receiving the decoded callsigns. CW Skimmer uses
              the
              OmniRig engine for CAT control, this allows other programs to have
              simultaneous access to CAT with CW Skimmer. OmniRig is freeware, its
              specifications are provided at http://www.dxatlas.com/omnirig . The rest of
              interfacing is done via the Telnet protocol. CW Skimmer sends its callsign
              data via Telnet, but there is also a number of Telnet commands that allows
              the clients to read and set the operating frequency of the Skimmer, and to
              provide feedback on the status of the callsigns. These commands are
              described in the CW Skimmer Help file, under Telnet.

              73 Alex VE3NEA



              ----- Original Message -----
              > Hello Alex,
              >> CW Skimmer has an open programming interface,
              >
              > I would like to examine the API you mention, can I find a description
              > somewhere?
              >
              > 73's oh8kva/jarmo
              >
            • Jarmo Blomster
              Ok Alex, I ll look it there, thanks.
              Message 6 of 19 , Oct 22, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Ok Alex,

                I'll look it there, thanks.
              • Graham
                Oops ... CW Skimmer and HRD work fine together once you know how to do the wiring (I need to make less assumptions and spend more time reading manuals /
                Message 7 of 19 , Oct 22, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Oops ... CW Skimmer and HRD work fine together once you know how to do
                  the "wiring" (I need to make less assumptions and spend more time
                  reading manuals / searching!):

                  http://forums.ham-radio.ch/showpost.php?p=63620&postcount=7

                  73 de Graham G3ZOD


                  --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "Graham" <grahamg3zod@...> wrote:
                  > Also, am I right in thinking that CW Skimmer isn't ever going to
                  > integrate with Ham Radio Deluxe?
                • rt_tclay
                  You know you can already use version 1.2 blind . Just close the callsign spot window, and resize the column where callsign labels appear to its minimum width.
                  Message 8 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    You know you can already use version 1.2 "blind". Just close the
                    callsign spot window, and resize the column where callsign labels
                    appear to its minimum width. Just put the mouse on the left edge of
                    that column and click/drag. Then there is nothing identifying the
                    callsigns.

                    There is still the decoder at the very bottom, but I don't think that
                    is really much use. Writelog has had a cw decoder for years and no
                    one complained about that. I suppose you could put a piece of tape
                    over that line if it really bothers you :)

                    Tor
                    N4OGW

                    --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "bill_w4zv" <w0zv@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "ct1boh" <ct1boh@> wrote:
                    >
                    > > There is nothing wrong with havind the dot and dash on the
                    waterfall
                    > > display.
                    > >
                    > > If the operator "reads" the code on the display fine, it was him
                    and
                    > > not the decoder (i.e. the machine).
                    > >
                    > > The waterfall display of skimmer should stay as it is now. It is
                    the
                    > > text of the CW from the decoders that must be removed in the
                    Blind
                    > > Skimmer.
                    >
                    > Jose and Alex, after thinking about this, I agree. This should also
                    > make implementation of the Blind option easier.
                    >
                    > > Also a faster way to tune the lines in the display, represented
                    by the
                    > > dots and dashes is a must. Using the mouse to click on the lines,
                    it's
                    > > not the most eficient way in a contest. I have suggested to Alex,
                    that
                    > > the arrow up/arrow down buttons in the keybord would be the ideal
                    way
                    > > to move the radio frequency into the next adjacent signal
                    represented
                    > > by the circles next to the line of each signal with the dashes
                    and dots.
                    >
                    > Yes, but move up/down only to the *yellow* dots. The white ones are
                    > often artifacts.
                    >
                    > Good suggestions Jose!
                    >
                    > 73, Bill
                    >
                  • rt_tclay
                    ... And further- you can hide the decoder at the bottom under the Windows task bar. Then it is completely blind... Being able to turn off all decoding would
                    Message 9 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "rt_tclay" <rt_clay@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > You know you can already use version 1.2 "blind". Just close the
                      > callsign spot window, and resize the column where callsign labels
                      > appear to its minimum width. Just put the mouse on the left edge of
                      > that column and click/drag. Then there is nothing identifying the
                      > callsigns.
                      >
                      > There is still the decoder at the very bottom, but I don't think that
                      >

                      And further- you can hide the decoder at the bottom under the Windows
                      task bar. Then it is completely blind...

                      Being able to turn off all decoding would probably speed it up
                      considerably however.

                      Tor
                      N4OGW
                    • bill_w4zv
                      ... Maybe not minimum ...you still need the dots to be able to click on to send your receiver there. I m sure Alex will come up with something a little more
                      Message 10 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "rt_tclay" <rt_clay@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > You know you can already use version 1.2 "blind". Just close the
                        > callsign spot window, and resize the column where callsign labels
                        > appear to its minimum width.

                        Maybe not "minimum"...you still need the dots to be able to click on
                        to send your receiver there. I'm sure Alex will come up with
                        something a little more elegant which has no possibility of
                        disqualification for the unassisted category.

                        73, Bill
                      • rt_tclay
                        I don t understand...I just click on a signal in the waterfall display. It tunes the receiver there. You don t have to click on a dot. Yes, sometimes I have to
                        Message 11 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I don't understand...I just click on a signal in the waterfall
                          display. It tunes the receiver there. You don't have to click on a
                          dot. Yes, sometimes I have to touch up the tuning with the radio knob,
                          but with a little practice you get very close.

                          Also, the dots still do show up, so you can click on those if you
                          want. The minimum resize width is not zero, but seems to be just
                          enough to keep the dots.

                          Try it, just resizing the column eliminates all the text display but
                          the dots are kept.

                          Tor
                          N4OGW

                          --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "bill_w4zv" <w0zv@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "rt_tclay" <rt_clay@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > You know you can already use version 1.2 "blind". Just close the
                          > > callsign spot window, and resize the column where callsign labels
                          > > appear to its minimum width.
                          >
                          > Maybe not "minimum"...you still need the dots to be able to click on
                          > to send your receiver there. I'm sure Alex will come up with
                          > something a little more elegant which has no possibility of
                          > disqualification for the unassisted category.
                          >
                          > 73, Bill
                          >
                        • rt_tclay
                          It can also be argued that clicking on dots in the present version of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the assisted class. Why?
                          Message 12 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            It can also be argued that "clicking on dots" in the present version
                            of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the
                            "assisted" class. Why? Because the color of the dots indicates
                            something about whether Skimmer has decoded and/or verified a call.

                            So an "unassisted" mode would need to remove any coloring from the dots.

                            I don't see anything wrong with just having the waterfall going, with
                            dots and text hidden.

                            It would be however possible to distinguish between a carrier and a
                            real cw signal based on statistics (signal variability) and not text
                            decoding.

                            Tor
                            N4OGW
                          • rt_tclay
                            It can also be argued that clicking on dots in the present version of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the assisted class. Why?
                            Message 13 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              It can also be argued that "clicking on dots" in the present version
                              of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the
                              "assisted" class. Why? Because the color of the dots indicates
                              something about whether Skimmer has decoded and/or verified a call.

                              So an "unassisted" mode would need to remove any coloring from the dots.

                              I don't see anything wrong with just having the waterfall going, with
                              dots and text hidden.

                              It would be however possible to distinguish between a carrier and a
                              real cw signal based on statistics (signal variability) and not text
                              decoding.

                              Tor
                              N4OGW
                            • Dave Baxter
                              Just an observation on this thread. With Skimmer in Blind mode, I don t see much difference then, compared to if you had Spectran (or any other spectrum
                              Message 14 of 19 , Oct 31, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Just an observation on this thread.

                                With Skimmer in "Blind" mode, I don't see much difference then, compared
                                to if you had Spectran (or any other spectrum waterfall display program)
                                showing, other than you can click on a signal to tune the radio.

                                Some would no doubt say that feature was "an assistance" too (click to
                                tune) There again, I'm not a contesting type these days (been there,
                                done that etc).. And I'm sure the purists would say that having any
                                sort of bandspread spectrum/waterfall display showing adjacent stations
                                was an unfair advantage.

                                As an aside, I just wish the contesters would keep the beacon
                                allocations clear +- 100Hz or so of a weekend. Here in the UK, 20m in
                                particular often has overseas CW, RTTY, even SSB stations working right
                                next to (within 10Hz) or on top of the beacons. If you listen with mk1
                                ear-ole, it's plain to see (hear) that they cannot even hear other
                                people calling them, so they probably cant hear the beacons.

                                The quality of some contest signals has to be questioned too, if it's
                                not sat directly on top of 14.100, the splatter or sproggies get you,
                                often from something 10's of kHz away! I'm fairly happy the RX is OK
                                (TS870s with attenuation and AIP on etc) as it's not just some of the
                                "big" signals that are bad, many of the less than S9 signals are
                                appalling too!

                                Still, even under those conditions, Faros (subject change) seems to do a
                                remarkable job detecting the presence of a distance beacon that I can't
                                even hear through the mayhem. OK so Faros seems to work OK, that is
                                when the big signals don't depress the radio's AGC too much. I have the
                                rig screwed down to 100Hz bandwidth, and even then it's a problem at
                                times.

                                Each to their own..

                                73.

                                Dave G0WBX.



                                > __________
                                > 1f. Re: Blind Skimmer Option for Unassisted Categories
                                > Posted by: "rt_tclay" rt_clay@... rt_tclay
                                > Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:10 am ((PDT))
                                >
                                > It can also be argued that "clicking on dots" in the present version
                                > of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the
                                > "assisted" class. Why? Because the color of the dots indicates
                                > something about whether Skimmer has decoded and/or verified a call.
                                >
                                > So an "unassisted" mode would need to remove any coloring
                                > from the dots.
                                >
                                > I don't see anything wrong with just having the waterfall going, with
                                > dots and text hidden.
                                >
                                > It would be however possible to distinguish between a carrier and a
                                > real cw signal based on statistics (signal variability) and not text
                                > decoding.
                                >
                                > Tor
                                > N4OGW
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.