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

1518RE: [wsjtgroup] FSK441 "squelch"

Expand Messages
  • Russ K2TXB
    Nov 22, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Randy. Of course you are right that meteor scatter is a lot easier on six meters.  But I'm not sure that makes a big difference to the squelch idea (or to the difficulties thereof).  Like you, I have left my system running for a day and come back to find pages of decoded calls and partial calls.  While the so called 'squelch' probably would have alerted me if the call matched one in my database, the partial calls would fail.  Much of the time, when we first see a decode, it is a partial call and we often figure out who it is by a complicated recognition task that we perform with our brain power.  The computer program we use cannot possibly bring to bear all of the related pieces of information and intuitive judgment that we use for this process - thus it will fail to notify us in many instances, and notify us wrongly in other cases.  And, of course, decoding of a new call that is not in the database would fail.
      Another issue, and one that I suspect is shared by many, is that I do not have any speakers attached to the computer that I use for FSK441.  And besides that, I have all sounds disabled in software so that normal windows sounds and alerts are not broadcast on the air when I am transmitting.  So the computer would be incapable of alerting me unless I rigged up a special circuit to ring a bell (or whatever) via a parallel or other port connection - and wrote the software to control it.
      However, I do view the idea as non-threatening and if others think it is worth while and can convince Joe to implement it, I certainly have no objections.
      73, Russ K2TXB
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Randy Tipton [mailto:wa5ufh@...]
      Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 12:46 PM
      To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] FSK441 "squelch"

      Russ I believe you’re correct for two meters but for six meters it is not uncommon for me to leave the program in monitor on the call frequency and come back to several decoded pings from stations calling cq. (often times many decoded pings from a single station calling)  When stations like N5SIX are portable it is common to have a screen full of decoded text but I have never experienced this on two meters. So it seems to be possible that what might be a good feature for one band isn’t for another? I guess what I am saying is 50MHz scatter is easier than any other VHF band but that is not the subject however what “might be cute” on two meters may be useful for those who monitor 50MHz. Would I use such a feature, probably not because if I am where I cannot hear the audio from the radio I am not close to the computer anyway.


      Boy am I glad the rain has slowed down here in South Texas. Everyone have a Happy Thanksgiving Day.






      -----Original Message-----
      From: Russ K2TXB [mailto:k2txb@...]
      Monday, November 22, 2004 10:17 AM
      To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] FSK441 "squelch"


      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

      To unsubscribe, send an email to:

      Activity Periods http://www.ykc.com/wa5ufh/
      NAHSMS Contest Page http://www.ykc.com/wa5ufh/Rally/NAHSMS.htm

      To unsubscribe, send an email to:

      Activity Periods http://www.ykc.com/wa5ufh/
      NAHSMS Contest Page http://www.ykc.com/wa5ufh/Rally/NAHSMS.htm

    • Show all 15 messages in this topic