Jan, I am not absolutely certain, but I believe JT65HF, which is what is being
talked about here, doesn't do a deep search or nobody uses it if it does.
Again, not absolutely certain about it, since I have never used the facility if
it exists in the HF version. That is another point that should be brought
up..... The version of JT65 being used on the HF bands is tailored for that
use. Someone made a comment that it wasn't made for HF, but in fact it
is....... JT65 comes in flavors tailored to the bands it will be utilized.
Mike AB7ZU
Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka
On Sep 19, 2012, at 6:22, Jan Babinec <om2xw@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just to underline Tom's comments, see the following paper
>
> http://www.sm2cew.com/Digital%20communications%20using%20minimal%20transfer.pdf
>
> 73 Jan OM2XW
>
>> From: w8ji@w8ji.com
>> To: topband@contesting.com
>> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:33:28 -0400
>> Subject: Re: Topband: The use of digital modes on 160 metres
>>
>>>> The simple fact is that digimodes, thanks especially to K1JT and his
>>>> excellent software, are a game changer. DX is now workable on 6m via EME
>>>> (I'm not suggesting topband via the moon, in case anyone was wondering!)
>>>> but also via terrestrial paths when conditions are marginal - JT65 (and
>>>> its
>>>> HF variant) can integrate and pull out signals that are well below
>>>> ambient
>>>> noise levels.
>>
>> So can a good CW operator.
>>
>>>> I can see the same happening on 160. How would you feel if you have built
>>>> and 4-square and got 200+ countries, only to find someone with a bit of
>>>> bent wire doing the same thing?
>>
>> A bit of bent wire can easily work 200+ countries on 160 on CW. Probably
>> more so than on "digital" modes at the present time.
>>
>> But, on the flip side, how excited will
>>>> the
>>>> latter operator be when he finds he can work DX on a band which
>>>> previously
>>>> he had found impossible because he doesn't have room for that 4-square?
>>
>> ....or doesn't have patience or CW skill.
>>
>>>> It's early days yet, but as the digimodes software improves further (and
>>>> it's really down to the processing power of PCs at the end of the day)
>>>> and
>>>> other matters like bandplanning get resolved, these are the dilemmas we
>>>> will increasingly be facing. Maybe we will need two versions of 160m
>>>> DXCC -
>>>> one of which specifically states "SSB and CW only" or somesuch!
>>
>> That's a good suggestion. It really should be one award for the case where a
>> human operator copies the signal, a man and his radio, and another
>> certificate where a machine actually copies the signal, a man reading the
>> text decoded and printed on a machine.
>>
>> This fits with the trend to make rewards in life increasingly less dependent
>> on human effort, patience, and skill, and those who prefer to do it with
>> human involvement. There should be two clear classes.
>>
>> But that isn't the primary issue for me. The issue for me is technical, and
>> surrounds how we plan growth when some groups simply go off on their own and
>> ignore bandplans and the IARU.
>>
>> 73 Tom
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>
> _______________________________________________
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|