[CQ-Contest] Mode-X

[David Gilbert]

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 
techniques using FEC, LPDC, and Costas Arrays could be incorporated in a 
way that didn't look digital at all, and virtually no different than ... 
for example ... CW.

AB1J may have been right that I confused the issue by including mention 
of CW, but all it tells me is that  nobody is really thinking very 
seriously about this stuff anyway if they can't tell the difference.  
Thousands of hams have flocked to FT8 because of its superior weak 
signal performance in spite of its needlessly rigid format, but almost 
nobody in the contesting world is willing to even consider applying 
those same processing techniques to a mode more favorable to 
contesting.    I find that kind of sad, but I'm through flogging this 
horse.  You will hear no more from me on it.

Over and out,
Dave   AB7E


On 2/21/2022 8:11 AM, Bruce Horn wrote:
> The point is that CW is not defined by what the operator hears from the speaker or headphone. It's defined by the RF emission type. In the case of CW it's a single transmitted RF frequency that is turned on and off in a defined manner in order to encode information. "Back in the day" passive components were used to shape the RF envelope to reduce keying bandwidth (key clicks), while modern radios use digital signal processing techniques to do so. However, the bottom line is that it's a continuous carrier that's turned on and off.
>
> For the new suggested mode, the question is would contest sponsors consider it to be CW?
>
> 73 de Bruce, WA7BNM   (bhorn at hornucopia.com)

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Gilbert" <ab7echo at gmail.com>
> To: "cq-contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 10:49:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Mode-X
>
> 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, like you
> are doing now.
>
> By the way what you are describing is basically FT8 carried to an
> extreme ... and what I have been proposing is the result of me trying to
> arrive at something that is different enough from FT8 that it would be a
> desirable contesting mode.
>
> Dave   AB7E
>
>
> On 2/20/2022 8:56 PM, Igor Sokolov wrote:
>> It sounds like a universal digital mode that can be translated into
>> CW, RTTY, PHONE or even Video at the RX end. It can also carry machine
>> commands to initiate remote printer and print instant QSL cards,
>> automatically generate and send spot to all the spotting networks.
>> Spots themselves can carry a code that will tune radios with proper
>> software to the required frequency and initiate exchange with the
>> originator. GREAT! And what do we need radio for? With the recent
>> allowance of self spotting and extensive use of Internet in contests
>> by ARRL, all contesting should slide into internet and abandon ancient
>> radio waves media.   Sounds like there is no place in this scenario
>> for human being. END OF HOBBY!
>>
>> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>