[Moon] [Moon-Net] Future of EME looks excellent!

Stephen Hanselman eme at kc4sw.com
Sun Oct 23 00:50:02 CEST 2016


Well said, thank you!

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 Oct 22, 2016, at 04:47, DW Harms PA2DW <qtc at kpnmail.nl> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> Of course I am risking more stirring up, but I think it cannot be worse than it already is. And perhaps my noble meant input helps getting a better perspective, as all arrows are now only pointing towards Sweden and things get rougher by the day….
>  
> I can see the point Lars makes as I have seen/heard many QSO’s being made that are not 100% correct. At the big ear PI9CAM we see and hear just about everything, but also as operator in contests I have seen people hearing things that were not really there…
> And if we then even start to exchange info about a running QSO on internet, we go over the edge…  And believe me, I have seen people doing that. Probably with the best intentions, but we all know that if you bring the cat near the bacon it will surely eat it… Mankind is no better…
> But that is not exclusively the case for JT-QSO’s. On the contrary! If JT is used in a sensible way, I think it is even less forgiving than CW or SSB. A computer simply cannot fake what it detects and in this light I highly value the suggestion that W2HRO made, about exchanging QSO data without influence of the ever evil mankind. Can we ask Joe K1JT to look into that?
>  
> But when it comes to ‘deep search’ (DS), it becomes difficult as the computer now needs help from the operator to interpret if what it detects is actually correct. The computer helps by adding a question mark after DS detections in case it is unsure, so the operator can take notice and HAS to take proper action. However sometimes I have seen the DS did not add a question mark behind evident false decodes and then things become vague. I know by studying the theory of JT and various discussions with Jan PA3FXB, that this has to do with the stochastic proportions of the noise which differ on HF and VHF/SHF…
> Due to that ,my personal opinion is that DS is crossing a line. So in case my QSO was only possible by the use of DS I add that in the log and I will try and again to work the station concerned, without DS on a next occasion. So for the ones involved: now you know why I keep calling ;)
> And perhaps DS is the main reason why people are getting upset about ‘fairness’ etc. Because I don’t hear any of the stations that object against JT, complain about FSK441 (MS) which most of them use frequently.
>  
> Lets hope we try and understand each other with the best intentions and lets try to stay away from shouting and swearing. So from now on; no more bad words but only exchange of the fun we had! And I did have fun today on 23cm EME, with my 2.4 m dish and 400W working 19 stations, 70% on CW random and even having small pile-ups. The best one was probably KL6M on random CW. That kind of QSO’s still have a golden shine in my logbook J
> So I think the future of EME looks brilliant friends!
>  
> Best 73 to all,
>  
> Dick PA2DW
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
> 


More information about the Moon mailing list