This is an interesting discussion related to FT8.
In 1973 (a whole 45 years ago!) when I worked for Boeing Electronic
Products in Seattle, they had a commericial (not ham radio) meteor
scatter station. An ASR-33 at the master station in Seattle would send
what amounted to "CQ" to a system of slave receivers connected to rain
gauge sensors (they do get a bit of rain in Seattle :-) around the
Pacific Northwest. If a particular rain gauge sensor picked up pings
from meteor trials, it would immediately transmit its data back,
presumably while the trial was still hot. If the trail went cold, the
slave would get another chance the next time a meteor came. So this
ASR-33 would just print data as it came in at random times. There may
have been a DEC PDP-11 involved (there were no microprocessors at the
time unless you count pocket calculators, and the HP35 wasn't
programmable).
I don't know much FT8, but this legacy system sounds a lot like
FT8. Automatic QSO'ing, like the floating FT8 station out of
Hawaii. Waiting for the teletype to fire up every few minutes
while it earned "worked all rain gauges" was more like watching paint
dry than having "fun". They did need to have an "operator" at the
master station to change the paper in the teletype once in a while.
Rick N6RK
On 3/31/2018 9:09 AM, Grant Saviers wrote:
Yep, automatic TTY networks go back a lot more than 50 years. Certainly
with the Model 19 in the 1940s and probably before that.
The ASR-33 and its "stunt box" are a true marvel of low cost mechanical
engineering. Send WRU, asking "who are you?" And the automatic answer
back - "HERE IS" a character stream (older TTYs in baudot, USASCII for
ASR33) sent in response from a broken off tabs on a drum, up to 20
characters (more than FT8 - hi). Plus the A is ASR means a remote TTY
(later a computer) on the TTY network could command the paper tape in
the reader to be sent without any humans around. Or an electrical
switch could be triggered - like to turn on your amp.
The ASR33 wasn't the first TTY to offer such capability, the Model 28
and many before it enabled very large TTY networks to operate unattended
at the remotes. I worked on the computer end of one as a summer job in
the 1960's. A lot of those "telephone" lines leased for TTY use were DC
circuits end to end and could have surprisingly high voltages present to
overcome the line resistance.
https://www.smecc.org/teleprinters/28stuntbox001.pdf
Another example besides punched cards where mechanical widgets performed
pretty complex tasks we have forgotten or now think were invented with
computers.
A fun place to see such stuff in Seattle
http://www.museumofcommunications.org/ ; Plus Paul Allen's Living
Computer Museum http://www.livingcomputers.org/ ; (older computers
restored and working)
And the best computer museum is in MountainView CA The Computer
History Museum computerhistory.org Main exhibit "Revolution, the
First 2000 Years of Computing"
Grant KZ1W
On 3/30/2018 17:15 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
When was the last time a mechanical RTTY machine responded back
without it's human pushing the green keys?
Mechanical RTTY machines have had answerback (WRU) capability for more
than 50 years:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33>
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 3/30/2018 2:21 PM, Anthony Scandurra wrote:
"Maybe someday there will be unmanned solar-powered stations on
remote DX
entities."
This was actually proposed at the 2017 IDXC in Visalia by a
well-known and
prolific DXpeditioner. I was the only person in the room who stood
up with
a dissenting opinion about it. However, I did have several people
come up
to me after the presentation was over to tell me they agreed with me.
Reducing the human element ruins the accomplishment, in my opinion. I
think many others agree with that sentiment.
I am all for technological advancement, but, for instance, when SSB
supplanted AM, the human element was not reduced.
Digital mode proponents will say that there is still a human element
to the
process (despite what some naysayers have proclaimed), and I agree.
However, the REDUCTION of the human element reduces the FUN part of it.
One can argue that you cannot copy RTTY without electronic means,
either.
That does not fully compare with how the JT modes work. The JT modes,
more
than any others, reduce the human's role in the QSO. When was the last
time a mechanical RTTY machine responded back without it's human pushing
the green keys?
73, Tony K4QE
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Brian Pease <bpease2@myfairpoint.net>
wrote:
When 90% of band activity is taking place in ~1% of the available
bandwidth, it gets one's attention, doesn't it.
Personally, I have always considered DXpedition, and especially
contest,
CW exchanges to be a bit silly, with nearly everyone getting a 5NN
signal
report. With today's technology I think eventually a computer will be
able sort out a CW pileup nearly as well as a human, and do it 24/7
while
perhaps giving more accurate signal reports. Maybe someday there
will be
unmanned solar-powered stations on remote DX entities. It is certainly
much easier than self-driving cars, which should be sorted out in a few
years.
On 3/30/2018 1:02 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
My thoughts on FT8:
- How is it actually a Q from our normal perspective? The
comments
Jeff made on the fact that 2 operators (on both sides of the circuit)
could
see evidence of each other for 20 minutes before the "computers"
finally
made the connection - is proof that the operator is not making the
QSO.
- There is a floating robot in the Pacific making FT8 QSOs
with
people right now - unattended.
- 3Z9DX has stated that they will leave an FT8 station
going 24/7
(which means unattended) on T31.
- Are these what we want to count as QSOs? What about in
contests
- FT8 is already infiltrating VHF contests. Should they be considered
valid
contest Qs - while you sleep?
- I agree with Jeff and others that for people that that
consider
topband a PTA to operate and/or are not CW operators - 160M looks
like the
perfect place to drop a robot and go concentrate on something
else. But
isn't this a slippery slope? What about 10M/12M since the sunspots
are
low.
Or 80M because the static crashes in the tropics are terrible - etc.
Before
you know it the whole DXpedition is an FT8 robot while the "crew" is
lounging about the pool with the XYL/YLs.
- If we continue to facilitate such nonsense, they we deserve
what
we get in my opinion. If we decide that the band counter is so
important
we
don't care how we have to get it, then its time to look in the mirror
folks.
- On the other hand, maybe some people are happier with the
computer doing the heavy lifting of digging out the QSO. Personally,
count
me out of that list.
Ed N1UR
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|