[Moon] Reading with Meaning

[David Johnson]

My 2nd attempt at this posting.



Hello Colleagues,

 

Like so many, I've been monitoring the on-going CW-WSJT threads with some interest and I am disappointed by the present Moderation on Moon-Net. I have not read any profanity, seen evidence of character deformation (other than those suggested in private emails) or read of deliberate malice. The facts that have been presented may be perceived as being uncomfortable, inconvenient and even outrageous to a dedicated band of WSJT devotees, but these have been available in the public domain for some time and still require addressing or continued discussion. It would appear that all too many on the Reflectors fail to read what has been actually written and resort to a mantra of how digital technology has taken the lead over CW, particularly for those operators with modest stations. Sadly, some only read what they want to read. Discussion should not be reduced to mutual back slapping-praise, which enforces pre-conceived opinions and is always very comfortable. Being challenged to examine the facts and question personal misconceptions is often inconvenient, but it provides the foundation for education and enlightenment.

 

Readers would be forgiven for believing that the on-going debate is still all about Digital vs. CW, with many responses quoting how recent development in digital techniques, which I presume to be a reference to WSJT, have seen a significant increase in EME activity. This is indeed correct and I am sure that the majority of the EME community have no problems with JT65. Others have argued that with the demise of CW, more people are turning to computer-aided techniques, with WSJT being at the vanguard of recent developments. CW has a limited life, apparently. I feel confident that the RSGB would repudiate this latter claim, quoting from the experience of their volunteer trainers and I would argue that the vast majority of EME enthusiasts use and actively promote the development of digital techniques that aid weak signal detection. To suggest otherwise is merely a smokescreen that diverts from an examination of the facts. Surely, the core of the issue is in the use (and amount) of RF that is exchanged in communication, nothing more and nothing less. This is where the use of DS in WSJT differs.

 

I'd like to illustrate my observation with an anecdote of a recent major G HF DX-pedition to a rare Island. I thought that I had worked the station on all bands and modes, only to find some time later that my call had been busted twice on CW because the operators, many of whom I know personally, had received my call as G4DSF and G4BHF. While I was disappointed, I accepted that the operator had misread my QRP call in the QRM. There can be no guarantees in making any QSO, which is why so many enjoy the technical challenge and work hard to improve their art and skill of communication. I ask myself, what would be the scenario had the DS decoder been employed in WSJT?  My assumption is that a match would have been made thereby qualifying my QSO's.  I accept that this fragmented match is different to what is currently recognised as constituting a valid QSO, but would argue that it does not necessarily mean advancement. Being of limited ability, I read the reasoned and informed arguments of DJ5HG, which confirms that with DS limited information is being exchanged via the RF path. I now ask if the ARRL would accept a similar set of DS parameters at HF? I suspect that the response from most HF operators would be laughable, but because we are dealing with lower levels of RF and a far lower database of calls on VHF than on HF, for some reason it is perfectly acceptable to have two different QSO standards running concurrently. 

 

I feel sure that the majority if WSJT users have no idea that when DS is employed so little of the contact is actually been made via the RF path. Being in the majority, however, does not automatically convey a moral right, particularly in the absence of facts. I have no idea if they would be concerned as it a matter of personal integrity, but when these achievements are being recognised alongside the more traditional modes, like so many on this Reflector, I feel a sense of injustice. This is compounded by the present intolerance of Moon-Net by restricting an informed debate, but I do understand the frustration of the Moderator at the recent lack of intelligent responses to the informed arguments made by many who have attempted to raise the above concerns. I'm grateful for the likes of SM2CEW for bringing these issues into the public domain. They have clearly irritated many, been inconvenient to a few but have informed the majority and have promoted debate, when they be read with meaning. Some may not agree with what he has to say, but the wider EME community owes him a debt of gratitude for his level of integrity and good sense. I'd like to slightly change the emphasis of Peter's closing remarks by saying that RF is King. Who would really disagree?

 

I'm nearly ready to be QRV again. C U via RF.

 

73,

David, G4DHF
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.moonbounce.info/pipermail/moon/attachments/20080419/0b6eceb2/attachment-0001.htm