[Moon] RE: PJ4EME CW activity 17 june

Fri Jun 15 18:42:23 CEST 2007

Bernd,

if you start to quote Klaus, DJ5HG, articles for your purposes why do
you not quote or follow his conclusion that QSOs with the help of Deep
Search are NOT valid QSOs because of not sufficient information
transfer?
He even classifies such QSOs as QSO done by "doping"!
You do not need to explain anything to me (as I am too stupid to
understand 
anything about bits) but I would ask you to start a public discussion
with DJ5HG and explain and prove HIM why he is wrong if you think that
he is wrong.

73
Joe, CT1HZE

-----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:05:09 +0200
Subject: RE: [Moon] RE: PJ4EME CW activity  17 june
From: "DF2ZC" 
To: "'Moon-Net'" , 

Hello Joe, Jimmy, David and all.

It is very interesting how quickly tension is rising and how quickly my
point is misused (which I expected btw, therefore I thought twice before
posting). What have I done? I only pointed out that now at the
receiver's
side some information is known before the QSO takes place. This DOES
have an
influence on the amount of information transferred, no question. And
this
does not at all mean that in CW the full callsigns are not copied
perfectly.

What some still don't want to understand is that there is a difference
between data bits and information bits which sadly is measured also by
bits
instead of pound, km or else.

Dear Joe, before you tell me how information is measured and quote
Klaus'
article would you please reread it before? Yes, in a sked the
information
transferred is one bit (as Klaus also says): the partner station is
there or
not. I have no additional information to gather from the transfer of
both
callsigns as I know them already. It is all perfectly explained in
Klaus'
article so why do people only quote what matches their intentions?

The fact that in a sked only 1 bit information(!) is being transferred
does
not mean the stations did not copy all characters (=data bits). That is
the
main point.

My apologies for getting a little personal, Joachim, I'm sorry to say
but
your one-dit example below shows perfectly you have not at all
understood
the difference between data and information bits because if you had,
then
you would not have suspected me of wanting to make QSOs as you
described.
This also applies for SM2CEW's completely wroing examples of
"information
being filled in" on his website.

And to make it clear I did not insult anyone so how can anyone of you
guys
possibly accuse me of doing so? I have just put the finger on a fact
that
some of the CW friends don't like but one can't deny facts.

I'm happy to explain to everyone in a private email the difference
between
data bits and information bits.

73 Bernd

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Kraft [mailto:funk-telegramm at t-online.de] 
Sent: Freitag, 15. Juni 2007 17:40
To: DF2ZC; 'Moon-Net'; moon at moonbounce.info
Subject: Re: [Moon] RE: PJ4EME CW activity 17 june

Gentlemen,

I am sorry but here I have to step in.
What Bernd writes is totally wrong and has nothing to do with any facts.
It is just ridiculus and shows that he has not understood anything about
how
the Deep Search mode in JT65 works.
There are excellent articles available about this topic
>from Prof. Dr. Klaus von der Heide a scientist from the University
of Hamburg. 
Knowing in advance who may call you (on CW or JT65 without DS) has
nothing
do to with the Deep Search problematic of not sufficient information
transfer.
If Bernd really means what he writes then there would be (almost) no
information  transfer in a sked because there is only one callsign
possibilty that you have to choose from.
And this means automatically that if you hear just one dit that the the
complete information transfer was done and you send a report or what?
May be this is the way Bernd would do, but for sure 99% of the CW
operators
want to really hear and copy every single dit and dah of any letter of
the
callsigns before they count the QSO as valid.

I like CW and I like JT65 and I operate both modes, but the most
important
for me is to tell the truth!

73
Joe, DL8HCZ/CT1HZE
DUBUS

what you write is totally 

-----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:06:25 +0200
Subject: [Moon] RE: PJ4EME CW activity  17 june
From: "DF2ZC" 
To: "'Moon-Net'" , 

Jimmy,

Congratulations on your speed. As ususal you are once again shooting
from
the hip. I said nothing about last weekend, I'm talking of a
communicated
callsign list of possible stations BEFORE the time slot for CW. 

Here you have a string of 15 stations and now please don't tell me of
information transferred, something that you and others obviously are not
willing to understand - the difference between data bits and information
bits. With 15 callsigns there are is only less than 4 bit of information
transferred with one of those callsigns. Since PJ4EME is klnown already
there is a 5th bit of information transferred with this callsign. You
are
always publicly complaining and lamenting about callsign lists but now
this
here is very much similar. And of course, no doubt all DATA bits are
copied
on air, be it CW or JT65. But now the information transferred is less. I
hope this clarifies it now.

And the PJ4EME team does know I very much give them credit for their
excellent achievement and their very professional dxpedition.

Peter CEW I know you are grateful to me now for giving you another input
for
your blog ;-)

Vy 73 Bernd DF2ZC
-----Original Message-----
From: jimmyv at hol.gr [mailto:jimmyv at hol.gr]
Sent: Freitag, 15. Juni 2007 16:51
To: DF2ZC
Cc: Moon-Net; moon at moonbounce.info
Subject: RE: PJ4EME CW activity 17 june

Bernd

so how last Sunday they did not know who was calling and they made 10 cw
QSOs on random, without preamp, filter and headphones? Same was true for
those that worked them.
You know why? Because they COPIED the signals. Not identified with some
certainty 1/7 of the information to match it to a database list, as Deep
Search (DS) decoder does in jt65. And as DJ5HG articles well have
pointed
out.
Pls do not create false impressions and do unfortunate mode comparisons,
when current digital status is at least -25db (300 times) and beyond,
easier
than cw. Plus the fact that in DS there is NO COPY of full information
as
required by EME operating procedures that apply for years.

So give PJ4EME some credit for their cw FB work and being the only 2m
expedition that at least keeps its promise and works both modes by
honoring
the time slots they had announced per mode.

By the way, why didn't u try to work them too last Sunday or coming one,
copy them yourself, and tx anywhere near their transmitting frequency;
this
is what happened when for example I had the QSO with
them:-)
So as to compare apples with apples and see for yourself the difficulty
each
mode entails.

73,
Jimmy SV1BTR

> hmmm...so the PJ4 teams knows in advance who will be calling, i.e. 
> which callsigns might be in the pileup. Isn't that exactly what is 
> always complained about the JT65 DS mode?
>
> ;-)
>
> vy 73 Bernd DF2ZC (JO30RN)
> __________________________
> Website: www.df2zc.de
> ICQ    : 273214349
> 144 MHz EME NewsLetter: www.df2zc.de/newsletter
>
> 144 MHz DXCC #21
> 144 MHz WAC
>
>
> Kenwood TS 2000
> 2 x GU74b by LZ2US
> 4 x 2M18XXX 21 dBd full elevation
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: moon-bounces at moonbounce.info
> [mailto:moon-bounces at moonbounce.info] On Behalf Of Paul Chominski
> Sent: Freitag, 15. Juni 2007 05:09
> To: Marko Tsekov; PE1L Ren?
> Cc: moon at moonbounce.info
> Subject: Re: [Moon] ] PJ4EME CW activity 17 june
>
>
> WA6PY is also interested
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marko Tsekov
> To: PE1L Ren? 
> Cc: moon at moonbounce.info
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 1:13 AM
> Subject: [Moon] ] PJ4EME CW activity 17 june
>
>
>
> Latest info about stations wanted to work PJ4EME on CW:
>
> CT1HZE
> G4DHF
> G3ZIG
> DF6NA
> IK2DDR
> IV3GBO
> I5WBE
> K9DX
> LZ1DP
> LZ2US
> YO2AMU
> RA6DA
> RN6MT
> SV3AAF
> EI4DQ
>
> 15 stations  for now................
>
> 73 de  LZ2US
>
>
>
>   _____
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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