[CQ-Contest] Contesting and the FT8 Revolution
Henry Pollock - K4TMC
kilo4tmc at gmail.com
Sat Jul 3 17:25:31 EDT 2021
As a 69-year-old phone contester with limited time to devote to researching
all of the other aspects of the ever-changing ham radio hobby, I was
intrigued by the possibility of using the weak signal capabilities of FT8
to convert data to audible CW and voice.
About the same time this subject was being discussed here, I came across
another tidbit on a totally non-contest group about the Barrett 4050 which
uses a digital system to enhance HF weak signal voice communications. The
YouTube video example was very impressive. I now wonder if the Barrett
digital system is using something like FT8.
So, I am happy that this discussion has continued here.
Henry - K4TMC
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 2:11 PM Jeff Clarke <ku8e at ku8e.com> wrote:
> Again for the umpteenth time... Why are people talking about this
> subject on a CONTESTING reflector? Neither FT8 or FT4 are contesting
> modes. I guess this is more proof that FT8 has totally taken over ham
> radio? I guess people are really bored and can't help themselves? Hello
> Mr Moderator can you please tell people to stop!
> On 7/2/2021 09:01 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> > 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 that
> > synchronous operation has advantages. My postulation does NOT involve
> > adhering to the FT8 or FT4 protocol as you seem to suggest below. I
> > proposed a mode similar to FT4 except wider bandwidth (which dose NOT
> > necessarily degrade S/N as you claim) and a different set of other
> > parameters ... plus conversion to CW instead of fixed text blocks
> > simply to make it more adaptable to common contesting practice.
> > I don't care what you say ... it can be done, but it's going to take
> > somebody to work it up from scratch instead of trying to port FT8 or
> > FT4 to a different user interface. Just about everything you said
> > below is wrong simply because you're stuck in that mental trap.
> > I will say again since nobody seems to get it ... FT8 and FT4 as
> > implemented by WSJT-X are not some new invention that locks all other
> > similar efforts into the same set of boundary conditions that K1JT
> > chose. K1JT made very clever use of modern signal processing to
> > create FT8, FT4, and other similar modes but he chose a VERY
> > restrictive set of boundary conditions in order to implement his own
> > particular vision. Those same modern signal processing techniques
> > could be implemented with different boundary conditions to give ham
> > radio (and in particular contesting) a much cleaner and more usable
> > interface. Go read K1JT's descriptions of what he did and what
> > techniques he used, and if you then do a bit of searching you will
> > find lots of technical discussions of those same methods applied in
> > different ways to other tasks. WSJT-X is unique, but the the science
> > behind it is not.
> > I know that I am flogging a dead horse here, but it frustrates the
> > hell out of me to see the opportunity that is being squandered simply
> > because the guy that came up with the first popular manifestation of
> > modern signal processing had such a limited vision of what it should be.
> > Dave AB7E
> > On 7/2/2021 10:39 AM, Bill Coleman wrote:
> >>> On Jun 21, 2021, at 2:59 PM, David Gilbert <ab7echo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Everything you just said there is the fault of WSJT-X as a user
> >>> interface ... not FT8 or FT4 as a mode. They are NOT the same
> >>> thing. WSJT-X is simply the narrow and restrictive vehicle by which
> >>> we have been exposed to the exceptional weak signal capability of
> >>> modern digital processing (forward error correcting, Costas array
> >>> processing, etc). We'd all be having a LOT more fun with a more
> >>> open ended interface ... possibly with these parameters:
> >>> 1. wider individual signal bandwidth, such as maybe 200 Hz instead
> >>> of 83 Hz.
> >> A wider bandwidth would potentially decrease the sensitivity of the mod
> >>> 2. fully tunable over the typical digital sub band (like RTTY does)
> >> There’s absolutely nothing stopping you from running FT8 or FT4
> >> anywhere in the digital sub-bands. You may not have many QSOs there,
> >> but it is possible.
> >>> 3. Asynchronous in time ... i.e., not locked to a discrete and
> >>> specific clock window
> >> This requirement is fundamentally incompatible to the way that FT8 or
> >> FT4 work. The fixed transmission / reception windows are clearly a
> >> part of the mode.
> >>> 4. shorter blocks of data with continuous feed of the blocks
> >> Shorter blocks? The blocks today only convey 77 bits (BITS!) of
> >> information. That’s right, it takes nominally 15 (or 7.5) seconds to
> >> transmit 77 bits (BITS!) of information.
> >> And continuous blocks don’t work either.
> >>> 5. sent via text blocks on the transmit end ... exactly as DVRs and
> >>> contest loggers do now
> >> Remember the 77 bits (BITS!) mentioned earlier? Each transmitted
> >> block has a certain structure, and typically contains the two
> >> callsigns (caller and callee) and a little bit of additional text.
> >> There’s no much room for sending any random text, because there’s
> >> only a few bits available to on each sent block.
> >>> 6. displayed as text or converted to audible CW (or even digital
> >>> voice) on the receive end
> >> Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
> >> Web: http://boringhamradiopart.blogspot.com
> >> Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
> >> -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest