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

1516RE: [wsjtgroup] FSK441 "squelch"

Expand Messages
  • Russ K2TXB
    Nov 22, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Catharinus, your comments about the (limited) usability of such a system are
      also the reasons why I am not interested. Such a scheme might be cute, but
      I think it would miss too much to be very useful.

      73, Russ K2TXB

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Catharinus PE1AHX in JO21OS [mailto:pe1ahx@...]
      > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 8:45 AM
      > To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] FSK441 "squelch"
      > Russ,
      > I think your comments are thoughtful, thanks!. Maybe I was
      > jumping the gun
      > a little being into I.T. myself - seeing how things can (and do)
      > develop. But based on your remarks I will assume a positive view but do
      > want to point out a few hurdles.
      > It could be useful IF the used database is correct and complete
      > and IF the
      > program decodes properly. I (and all of EU) use the old FSK441
      > (on 144MHz)
      > without error correction. Often partial callsigns are decoded and very
      > often bursts need to/can only be decoded by right-mouseclick. I
      > find that
      > a human operator can often "determine" the callsign heard based on DF,
      > strength, QTF and a few characters placed in the proper location.
      > This is
      > not enough to "know" but to make an educated guess. Of course, if the
      > number of operators goes up this method becomes even less reliable. For
      > now I am not sure if software can provide similar functionality (based on
      > FSK441A - FSK441C may be different). Software can however alert you for
      > known strings and you do not have to be quite as active
      > monitoring received
      > info in person.
      > However, what will happen with newly active stations which are not in the
      > database yet? Most of us will be more interested in those than
      > in the ones
      > we already worked... I suppose such a database could/should use dynamic
      > updates similar to our antivirus programs?
      > 73
      > Catharinus PE1AHX
      > At 20:17 21-11-2004 -0500, you wrote:
      > >Hello Catharinus. I agree with your sentiments that we do not
      > want or need
      > >any hint of automatic computer QSO's. It is not what most of us
      > want to do,
      > >and would not be good for our 'image' if the software we use could do it.
      > >
      > >But I don't believe that is what Mark was proposing. He was
      > looking for a
      > >program assist to help when monitoring the HSMS calling frequencies for
      > >valid signals. If the program recognizes a call sign then it would alert
      > >the operator (by a voice announcement or other means), that a
      > call had been
      > >decoded and then the operator would investigate and decide
      > whether to call
      > >the station, or simply continue monitoring.
      > >
      > >It could also be used when calling cq, so if you got a call, it
      > would alert
      > >you to look at the screen, see who it is and respond. There is
      > no hint of
      > >automatic operation implied in this. Personally I don't see this as
      > >terribly useful so I would not ask Joe, K1JT, to implement it; but on the
      > >other hand I don't see it as threatening in any way.
      > >
      > >Very 73, Russ K2TXB
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic