Message-ID: <47B3211E.5070004@hifidelity.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:55:58 +0000
From: Steve Dove <dsp@hifidelity.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <47B1D0DE.18046.30EAED@localhost> <200802122040270700.0639F17F@smtp.wanadoo.fr>
In-Reply-To: <200802122040270700.0639F17F@smtp.wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: LF: CW Skimmer
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hi John,

Something like this has already been done, about 20 or so 
years ago.  The creator's call escapes me for now, but he's 
a well-known West Coast contester:

It was a Z-80 (I think) based micro which nudged transceiver 
tuning, decoded CW, looked for 'CQs', parsed callsigns and 
such, then called, waited for a report, then sent a reply 
report.  Admittedly it was 'tuned' for the format of the 
domestic ARRL CW 'Sweepstakes' contest, rather than general 
random QSOs, but he let the thing loose over the 48-hour 
event, and it apparently didn't place too badly in the 
results . . .

Yes, it (and any newer implementation) depends on most CW 
being machine generated (or at least tidied up with a keyer) 
and a formulaic QSO environment, but isn't that pretty much 
what prevails anyway?

The 'Turing Test' stuff is Plan B.

         Cheers,

                 Steve


John RABSON wrote:
> This gives me an idea.  
> If you combine this program with something to choose which station you wish to work, then link this into your transmitter and leave the whole thing running overnight, you can come back in the morning and see what DX you have worked.  Signal reports would be no problem as everybody seems to give a report of 599 anyway.
> I would have liked this as a final year artificial intelligence student project, but that was long ago.
> 
> John, F5VLF