Topband: Straws in the Wind ....A 160m Dx'ing Sea Change is Upon us!

Sat Mar 31 12:09:49 EDT 2018

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 at 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
>