1516RE: [wsjtgroup] FSK441 "squelch"
- Nov 22, 2004Catharinus, 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: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] FSK441 "squelch"
> 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?
> 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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>