I've gone through this stuff in detail with someone who knows far more about digital signal processing than either of us, and everything I said is possible with the exception that I will acknowledge
The answer to your question ... for the umpteenth time ... is that a mode SIMILAR to FT8 or FT4 but with a different interface and some different parameters could and should be an excellent contestin
I've corresponded directly with Joe Taylor a few times in the recent past on this subject, and I have the deepest respect for his credentials (yes, I'm fully aware that he is a Nobel Prize laureate)
As best I can tell, the Barrett 4050 uses digital signal processing only on the receive end. Instead, modes like FT8 and FT4 use various forward error correction techniques to pre-encode the transmi
In my opinion, there isn't anything at all wrong with digital modes. There is LOTS wrong with mixing digital modes and other modes in the same contest, though. 73, Dave AB7E There has to be limits
Depending upon the band and the quirks of propagation, 200 miles can indeed be significant. I live about 200 miles south-southeast of Phoenix, Arizona where the bulk of the membership of the contes
I suspect that the distance is scored from midpoint of your grid to the midpoint of the grid you work. If the logging software handles the contest, you (and it) would know immediately what the point
I wonder if logging programs will now highlight self-spots with a different color in the band map. That would potentially make the situation you describe even worse, since those spots would probably
The signal processing techniques utilized in FT8 could have been used to enhance the signal-to-noise of normal CW in a way that would have been virtually transparent to the operator. It's truly a s
When I say it is being "held hostage", I don't mean legally or physically. I mean that just about everyone ... including you, it seems ... thinks that the protocol used in WSJT-X is the only or best
Wrong. FT8 has nothing to do with CW, but the signal processing behind it could be used to significantly enhance CW. Think RTTY with MUCH better S/N and an audible output instead of text on the scr
Here's how: CW transmission from a keyboard macro (just like almost ALL contest exchanges use) but pre-encoded with FEC, LPDC, etc and sent in short bursts (maybe 5 seconds?) with a bandwidth on the
I would have thought the potential benefit would be clear. It would be a mode almost identical to CW except with a significant improvement in signal-to-noise ratio (roughly 6 to 8 db, I suspect) and
I know how FT8 works (I've studied Joe's papers and researched the principles) and I would have no intention of making anything else work like FT8 does. It's simply too restrictive, particularly for
FT8 is terrific for what it was intended. I've made a couple thousand contacts with it on every band from 160m to 6m. It happens to be a really crummy contesting mode, though. Think of things this
Unless you're using a rig made 30 years ago, any CW signal you receive has already been sliced, diced, unsliced and undiced a LOT more than you apparently realize. Nobody, including you, "hears" RF
Thanks for the comment, Ken. I only suggested a CW output to point out that adding FT8-type signal processing techniques could be done in a manner that would be almost transparent to the operator. Y
I never suggested any of those things, and they are all totally superfluous to my proposal. It is an old and completely bogus debating technique to extrapolate somebody's position to the ridiculous,
As AB1J pointed out, a better contest mode using FT8-type signal processing techniques isn't required have anything to do with CW. I merely included that in my posts to show that digital processing t
Does FOC official scoring check the signal report? Some contests don't bother. Just asking ... I don't know either way. 73, Dave AB7E 73, de Hans, KĜHB Just a Boy and his Radio __________________