[Moon] sked / Random

[Eddy Jespers]

For what it's worth :

I just completed my #379 after two years operational. Just was doing some 
echo testing, and Dario IW2FZR returned in random ... From all these QSO's, 
4 QSO's  where on sked, so 375 Random, so little over 1 % are on sked ...
Excuse me for all the QRZ ... my CW skills are lousy, just learning ... but 
it is always a happy feeling when a CW QSO is completed !!! R R R R R

Best 73's Eddy ON7UN
www.on7un.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Sundberg" <sm2cew at telia.com>
To: <moon at moonbounce.info>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:30 PM
Subject: [Moon] Here we go again..


> In his quest for acceptance of the extremely limited transfer of data in a
> JT65 Deep Search QSO, K1JT is endlessly suggesting that all CW operators
> are cheating when working EME skeds.
>
> This is his latest statement, sent via email to all the representatives of
> the IARU Region 1 meeting in Vienna next weekend:
>
>
> "JT65 QSOs require the transfer in each direction of a minimum of 16 bits
> of information.  Thus, even when the "Deep Search" decoder is
> used, JT65 QSOs transfer about five times more information than
> the most marginal scheduled QSOs using CW."
>
>
> I must say, this is nothing but an insult.
>
> He is saying that Deep Search transfers FIVE TIMES more info than a CW 
> QSO,
> where I COPY both calls, plus report, plus acknowledgement...???
>
> NOT SO!!!
>
> The standard, and fully accepted, EME procedure says that if I don't COPY
> the information, then it is not a valid QSO! Period.
>
> DJ5HG has recently published a very interesting document, explaining that
> if we fill the CALL3.TXT file with more calls, the DS decoder will ALWAYS
> produce false decodes. Confidence is zero.
>
> Klaus has also suggested quantative guidelines for digital QSO's, where
> confidence in the decode is not an issue. It is fully possible to produce 
> a
> software that would meet these criteria, thus matching digital QSO's with
> old accepted standards for analogue.
>
> see http://www.sm2cew.com/IARU_GeneralComment_DJ5HG.pdf
>
> Klaus ends his document by stating, that Deep Search would not conform to
> these basic guidelines because of the way it is constructed.
>
> Joe Taylors comment about this document is;  "Nothing in the DJ5HG 
> analysis
> is incorrect."
>
>
> Furthermore, Joe Taylors statement from April 2006 on Moon-Net:
>
> "Digital communication modes are different.  Their quantities of
> information transfer can be measured objectively.  The QSO guidelines
> for traditional modes are an obvious and reasonable starting point, but
> you and others have persuaded me that we could benefit from having more
> explicit guidelines for digital QSOs -- probably something quantitative,
> something capable of establishing with objectively high confidence that
> the quantitative guidelines have been met.
>
> I hope to work with DJ5HG, and perhaps others, to produce some
> recommendations which address this perceived need.
>
> Many thanks for your continuing interest!
>
> With best wishes,
> -- Joe, K1JT"
>
>
> It is TIME for Joe Taylor to stand up for his words, and not continously
> belittle the CW operators.
>
> 73 de Peter SM2CEW
> www.sm2cew.com
> http://blog.sm2cew.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon mailing list
> Moon at moonbounce.info
> http://www.moonbounce.info/mailman/listinfo/moon
>
> Please enter/update your standings: http://www.vhf-dx.net/top.html
>