[Moon] Deep Search IS cheating
Peter Blair
g3ltf at btinternet.com
Sat Aug 23 09:10:21 CEST 2014
“...And paralleled on 20 meters in real time, see W6PO's et.al. log book entries”
Of course they were ...and as you say over there ... “ As California goes, so goes the nation” ( sorry, not just the nation, the world)
Stephen, you forgot to mention the phone calls, we were all on the phone to each other as well, werent we? (a bit like sorting out decodes on a logger really)
73 Peter G3LTF
From: Stephen Hanselman
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 6:08 AM
To: Chuck Smallhouse
Cc: moon at moonbounce.info
Subject: Re: [Moon] Deep Search IS cheating
That's not quite the story he told me, I worked near him for a couple of years. I was at CTC which was the little brother of Eimac, we were both Varian subsidiaries. CTC was called the little blue cancer inside of Eimac. His amps are up in Oregon at another buddies house and his 1296 stuff is sitting out in my shack along with his copy of the Eimac EME notes.
Depending on where you are the Eimac radio group, at least the hams that are left, get together on 3750 Saturday mornings at 0630 PDT.
Hell of a guy, I do miss talking to him.
73's
Stephen Hanselman, KC4SW
Datagate Systems, LLC
3107 North Deer Run Road #24
Carson City, Nevada, 89701
(775) 882-5117 office
(775) 720-6020 mobile
s.hanselman at datagatesystems.com
www.datagatesystems.com
a Service Disabled, Veteran Owned Small Business
DISCLAIMER:
This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me and permanently delete the original and all copies and printouts of this e-mail and any attachments.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 22, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Chuck Smallhouse <w7cs at theriver.com> wrote:
Not true, Yes a small percentage were scheduled in advance on the 20M net, but only for some initial contacts and NEVER in parallel on 20M. No scheduling was done, and I don't recall it being permitted, for EME contests.
Yes I did have a "active stations" sheet that was periodically updated by KB8RQ. But with increased activity, it became multiple sheets and almost impossible to scan through them, in the heat of someone calling, with positive results. No I wasn't as efficient as a computer, searching for possible call letter combinations.
With my quite limited CW skills when I first started trying EME, it could be an aid. I often heard a full call sign very Q5, early on but it wouldn't register in my brain, and it would just go in one ear and out the other, and onto the operating room floor !! Of course with good experienced CW ops, like W5UN and others this wasn't a problem. Gradually over time as the result of the needed high consentration needed to copy these weak CW signals, well into the noise and often with great QSB, my CW ability increased enough, for me to pass the 20 WPM code test.
BTW, Bob Sutherland, W6PO, was a very good friend, and my 2M EME mentor. I think that he was quite pleased when I became active on EME, as that got all the requested W6 QSOs off of his back. At that time we were the only two W6 hams, that were active on 2M EME.
W7CS
At 05:55 PM 8/22/2014, Stephen Hanselman wrote:
You all understand that if we go back to the beginning of EME not only were the contacts CW they were scheduled in advance and paralleled on 20 meters in real time, see W6PO's et.al. log book entries
So there....
By the way un-subscribe me from this list I'm tired of the BullShit from a few
73's
Stephen Hanselman, KC4SW
Datagate Systems, LLC
<x-apple-data-detectors://0/0>3107 North Deer Run Road #24
<x-apple-data-detectors://0/0>Carson City, Nevada, 89701
<tel:(775)%20882-5117>(775) 882-5117 office
<tel:(775)%20720-6020>(775) 720-6020 mobile
<mailto:s.hanselman at datagatesystems.com>s.hanselman at datagatesystems.com
www.datagatesystems.com
a Service Disabled, Veteran Owned Small Business
DISCLAIMER:
This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me and permanently delete the original and all copies and printouts of this e-mail and any attachments.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 22, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Leif Asbrink <<mailto:leif at sm5bsz.com>leif at sm5bsz.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I do not read many of the postings in this discussion because
mostly the technical level is very low - or non-existent.
There is however one point that I think needs to be considered
when the CW cheat-sheet is compared to deep search.
With the limited lists of today, knowing 3 characters might be enough
to pick a station from the CW cheat sheet. I suspect people do not
really do that because once one has found a candidate one can
listen a little longer and then the sensitivity is much better
because one "knows" what to expect. Based on that one has "heard"
the full call sign.
To understand the fundamental difference, assume that the cheat sheet
as well as the call3.txt database contains all the 2(?) million
call signs issued worldwide. JT65 would not be affected, but
the cheat sheet for CW would be totally useless.
The deep search in JT65 would not be affected. The more different
call signs that are compared to the received data the better.
Ideally the received data should be compared to all possible
messages. The matches should form something like a Gaussian
distribution. If there is one single message that shows a
significantly better match than any other message and provides a
data point that is unlikely to belong to the Gaussian distribution
a detect made.
When the call3.txt list is limited like it is today, the number of
points on the Gaussian distribution is not very large. That may
add some uncertainty in the exact form of the tail of the curve
and make it a bit uncertain how far out a match has to be to be '
considered a detect.
In the past, maybe 7 years ago and earlier, detects were based on
the absolute value of the match. That caused false detects sometimes
because the entire Gaussian may shift a little with different
received signals (when they contain interference that is not white
noise.) I do not remember any details, but I am sure Joe could tell
if someone would be interested.
I personally think that neither call3.txt nor the CW "cheat sheet"
is cheating. I consider both as legitimate tools to improve sensitivity.
I do however consider the usage of scheds as cheating. Both in CW
and in JT65. I have solid experience of cheating in CW before the
JT era. I was the only station with full polarization control.
I always heard all stations having a single yagi and 500W or more.
There was a sched list on the Internet every month and I used it
to find stations I never worked before. (Newcomers who only
used scheds.) I would listen and after maybe 2 periods I would
know that the sched partner is QRT. That happened now and then.
I would call the interesting station KH6ABC de SM5BSZ SM5BSZ
SM5BSZ. The result was always (except once with a VK station)
that the interesting station would send the call of his sched partner
and then OOO OOO OOO. I would continue sending mostly my own call
and the other station would continue OOO to his sched partner.
After 10 minutes I would quit.
It is OBVIOUS that most sched QSOs are based on "someone is on
the frequency so it must be my sched partner" I know for
sure that I produced a strong signal with the correct polarization.
The sched station just did not care to listen (or did not know CW)
I have done this test about 10 times and 1 in 10 for not cheating
is a very discouraging result. I actually think the integrity
of JT65 contacts is better provided that there is no parallel
Internet communication.
I think, contrary to use lists, that basing the identification
on the presence of a signal on the correct frequency is cheating.
Random contacts are fine CW as well as digital as I see it.
That does not mean that I consider a DXCC with JT65 anywhere
as valuable as one with CW only.
The big stations can produce SSB that is easily heard by most
stations. Mixed mode JT65/SSB should be more common. Mixed mode
JT65/CW is of course technically more feasible, but all JT65
operators do not know CW...
Personally I find JT65 boring. The format is too restricted
and it only allows collecting new stations like collecting stamps.
In the CW era, breaking the rules cleverly, was what made
operation exciting!
73
Leif / SM5BSZ
_______________________________________________
Moon mailing list
<mailto:Moon at moonbounce.info>Moon at moonbounce.info
http://lists.moonbounce.info/listinfo/moon
_______________________________________________
Moon mailing list
Moon at moonbounce.info
http://lists.moonbounce.info/listinfo/moon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Moon mailing list
Moon at moonbounce.info
http://lists.moonbounce.info/listinfo/moon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.moonbounce.info/pipermail/moon/attachments/20140823/b4c746ef/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Moon
mailing list