[Moon] Hakan: wsjt-cw

[Klaus DJ5HG]

Hello Hakan and all,


I want to announce that I immediately was blocked on the 
moon-net reflector after sending the following mail:

--------------------------------------------------------


Dear Dominique, dear Bernd,

Dear EME community,


as a reply to some statements made on this 
reflector I want to express the following:

(1) It is a fact that the "modern correlation 
scheme" as used in JT65 deep search needs the 
prior knowledge of a limited set of possible 
messages. The amount of information that can 
be communicated with the usual list is less 
than half of that of a single callsign.

(2) The fundamental problem in a QSO is to get 
the knowledge what already has been received 
at the other end, i.e. at what stage the other 
station is. In a minimal QSO this meta-knowledge 
is one bit only. From each reception the operator 
must make the decision between "yes he got it" 
and "he did not get it or I don't know". 
If this one bit of basic information is sent 
via the internet, then the dialog is completely 
running on the internet while the radio path is 
used for a physical measurement and not for 
communication. As a consequence, any use of the 
internet in a time window around a radio contact 
clearly invalidates this contact as a QSO. This 
even is true if someone sends his "TNX for QSO" 
via the internet while the other is still sending 
the the final RRR.

The internet is a fine medium to communicate 
problems and solutions of our hobby, especially 
to help newcomers in EME. But an EME-QSO is a 
challenge. It should be a challenge to reach 
the requirements of a QSO, not to find ways 
to reduce the requirements.

There is a basic difference between identifying 
a signal and receiving information. What finally 
is written into the log clearly is information. 
I wonder if there is any doubt that all this 
information must be communicated via the radio 
path. 


73,

Klaus, DJ5HG

-------------------------------------------------------

Did I say any ugly word? What went wrong here?



Now let me comment the mails of Hakan:


> Hello   Kenny and all on the list.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure that i am right in my thinking but i think the 
> proffesionals work with  FEC  (Forward error correction) and recreates 
> missing pieces in a message sent. (deep space?)

Yes of course, mobile phone, DSL, CD, DVD, everything 
uses FEC. 
 
> After much thinking have i come to the standing that the deep search 
> thing does the same.  It recreates callsigns that are not transmitted 
> over the radiopath but the clever programme can figure out what is 
> transmitted anyway with the help of the call3 data base or information 
> written in by the user  during qso
> 
> 
> As i see it this should not have come into the hobby in any other way 
> then experimentation and should not have anything with claimed DXCC and 
> awards as the deep search qso is not a complete QSO from my 
> requirements.
> 
> I could almost (not so deep as deep search) do the same with CW and 
> the waterfall as i can easily see signals much deeper then i can decode 
> by ear.  I choose not to receive the report until i hear it by ear of 
> course.

Yes, DS also works with CW which does not use FEC. 
The principle of DS is to communicate the message 
via the internet to a list on the harddisc. Then 
in the QSO only the address information into the 
list must be communicated, not the callsigns. 
This is a fact, there is no space for other 
interpretation.

Although the subject of the discussion seems 
to be digital vs. CW, the basic point of the 
discussion is not DS, it is the fundamental 
question whether the COMMUNICATION aspect of 
ham radio should be given up in favour of 
looking at the radio path as a PHYSICAL 
experiment only.

Professional communication services never 
would use DS because it is nonsense to 
communicate all possible messages via 
other ways and then use a suboptimal 
code to encode the address information. 

The greatest damage DS produces is, that 
there no longer is any challenge to 
develop an advanced digital mode that 
can cope with professional techniques. 
There is no such COMMUNICATION mode 
that can cope with DS which does not 
need to communicate the messages.
 
 
> Also all this exchanging of information in chatroom during ongoing QSO 
> have made me decide that worked DXCC and awards using deep search just 
> passes by without notice.

Yes, the use of the internet is another 
problem of the same cathegory that 
undermines the sportive aspect of ham 
radio.

 
> I think it is time to go separate ways as  Deep search / CW people 
> have nothing in common. Let the moon-net be a deep search EME list and 
> MOON a CW EME list. 

I cannot accept this by two reasons:

(1) I am far more a digital op than CW. 
    But my view on ham radio is that of 
    making real dialogs by communicating 
    all QSO information via the radio path.
    So there would be no reflector for me. 
    Where is the reflector for the real 
    problems of communication ?

(2) As a consequence of that proposal 
    all trophies like DXCC must clearly 
    be classified the same way. There 
    must be lists of "firsts" for 
    QSOs with full communication and 
    for assisted QSOs.

Such a separation never is a solution of 
a problem. It is absolutely necessary to 
objectively discuss the problem and to 
find a solution. 

 
> I want also to take the time to thankyou guys who have the time and 
> strength to question new things.  Very good!.
> 
> 
> 73 de Hakan  SM7WSJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That we are way behind the professionals ?? 
> True in the aspect that some of use claim to receive and decode data 
> that
> isn't there or at least not completely received . 
> I don't think professionals are working that way ! 
> 
> 73
> Kenny ON4DPX
> 
That's completely true.


73,

Klaus, DJ5HG