Archive
 
 
  Topic: SWL version. ? (21 replies)
#1     Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:48 am
G3KLV
Sywell, Northampton
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1
Subject: SWL version. ?

I think that it is a first class prog.
However a lot of swl's that I have shown cq100 to have asked if there will be a swl version.
Iam sure there are swl's all over the world that would use a swl version only.

Gordon G3KLV
__________________
#2     Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:45 am
W0SDG
Apple Valley MN
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 101
Subject:

I think this idea is sound. It has been brought up before and would definatley serve a purpose. I feel it would be beneficial to the growth of Ham Radio. The incentive of Ham Radio is to earn the right to operate on the Ham Bands. The neat thing about CQ100 is that it does narrow the gap by not separating the class of licensees so it would only take a bit of effort to become licensed for those interested. If we can promote ham radio through the use of the internet and eventually see new users get on the RF spectrums as a result of this opportunity, it would serve our fellowship quite well.

Steve - W0SDG
__________________
#3     Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:11 pm
2E1EHM
Kent
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5
Subject: good to have swl's

Hi Everybody
I agree it would be good to have swl's on all of these systems, eQSO is the main system that allows swl's. I think upto date now we have eQSO has encouraged upto 15-20 people to get a ham license and that must be good for the hobby.
73
2E1EHM
__________________
#4     Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:16 pm
VE3EFC
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 724
Subject:

SWL's can listen on an real radio with a few feet of antenna.

I am generally in favour of both SWL version and a CB version. However there are some subtle problems that need to be considered...

1) Receiving consumes the same server resources and bandwidth as transmitting, so the price would be the same for SWL version.

2) Currently we are averaging about 4 to 5 listeners for every talker. If there was a quick and easy SWL sign-up, we could easily jump to 1000 listeners for every talker. The system archecture may need to be upgraded to handle this situation. The 90 day free trial would be maybe 15 days for SWL.

3) Many real hams who are just curious about the system would choose to try the SWL route instead of enduring the effort to upload their license. The result would be stations who would have been talkers are now just listening. Anything that reduces the number of talkers has a negative impact on the enjoyment of the system. Its the talkers who make it worth something.

4) A completely independent CB server with a 40 channel virtual transceiver might make good business sense. It would not in any way be related to QsoNet. Just a place where the CB'ers can go to practice their cursing *hi*

.. Doug
__________________
#5     Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:28 pm
2E1EHM
Kent
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5
Subject: swl

Hi Everybody
1. Does it mean you are segregating swl's so they can't talk to ham operators?

2. For swl's to learn they need to speak to people about the hobby, don't they?

3. Is this programme money oriantated, as we are having a discussion about bettering the hobby and introducing new hams, and you mention prices for swl version.

4. How do other systems manage, are they money oriantated or do they ask for donations?

5. Perhaps we should select a frequency on the programme and have a general discussion about these matters.
73
2E1EHM
__________________
#6     Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:47 pm
W0SDG
Apple Valley MN
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 101
Subject:

Of course we are segregating the SWL'rs from using this software "as is". It is doing what it is intended to do. Doug's comments about bandwidth, etc., are very valid. I would only agree to disagree about the pricing structure but this is not my baby so he sets the standards. My only comment regarding Dougs first item on his posting, is that it takes more then a few feet of wire for an interested person, it also means purchasing a rig of some sort. This program is readily available, outrageously inexpensive, and if there are cost considerations, it is only fair you are compensated for them. I strongly agree that this does not need to turn into a CB concept. I am having difficulty understanding why so many want to question the simple intent of this program?

Steve

(ps) God I love to inject my opinions!) :twisted:
__________________
#7     Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:01 pm
2E1EHM
Kent
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5
Subject: swl's

Hi Everybody
So the swl's will be talking to each other then. How will they learn about the hobby, you might aswell not have them at all. What sort of pipeline is this server on, and how many users can be talking at one time and listening, as all servers will have a limit, could it be 20 talking and 100 listening does anybody know.?
73
2E1EHM
__________________
#8     Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:28 pm
VE3EFC
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 724
Subject:

I would never allow SWL's to talk. What does the "L" stand for?

The system capacity does not care if you are talking or listening. Its the same bandwidth in the opposite direction. If someone is listening to static there is no bandwidth consumed, except for the band scope updates.

The QsoNet system is virtually unlimited in its capacity because we can move band servers to different locations and we can load-balance multiple servers to act as one. Currently we have 3,000 registered users and are peaking about 300 simultaneous connections in the afternoon. Approximately 1500 different stations use the system in a 24 hour period. At peak, we are running just 3% CPU load, 12% of our monthly traffic limit and 3% of our instantaneous bandwidth capacity. This is with all 6 band servers currently running on the same machine.

We are not the least bit concerned about the system capacity.

73 Doug
__________________
#9     Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:23 pm
WB5UDI
Parker, CO USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11
Subject: SWL - Version ?

In the midst of THOROUGHLY enjoying this program/service, I too have had thoughts about a "version" for SWL's. Here are my ideas, as they have developed since "jousting" with others on different forums about the merits of CQ100. I think I have written some of these elsewhere on this discussion board, as well..........

I appreciate the costs that are required to support the "server farm" that will house QSONet. I would like to suggest that the price for an SWL version should be "less" than for the licensed version.

I feel strongly that the xmit function should be disabled. This would simulate a receiver--allow non-hams and SWL's to listen in on our conversations---and hopefully be motivated to find out more about our wonderful hobby--eventually becoming licensed.

I say this because I believe many, many of us got started this way--namely SWL'ing from a borrowed radio receiver. However, we now live in an age where the 'younger' folks are completely and totally comfortable and plugged into the Internet.

How much 'easier' it would be to tell a person today- "Go to this website and download this CQ-100-SWL program---it's a 'virtual' radio receiver-and you can hear REAL Amateur Radio operaters talking to one another in both VOICE and CW!!!!".

Now, I understand that this is QRM and QRN free--but all in all--it still conveys the aspect of Amateurs communicating with one another--and constantly tinkering and experimenting to find improvements. And if the experimenting continues on the 29MHz "band", they will hear live RF repeater links.

Doug, I have even thought of adding a 'button' to the front panel that when pushed--would show ALL the hams email addresses that are in close proximity to this SWL'ers IP address---this way, he/she could email that Ham and ask questions about the hobby--or arrange for a visit to the Ham shack, etc. How cool would that be???? Obviously these would only be hams that said it was OK with them to be used as an "Elmer" reference.


I AM advocating, that we 'exploit' the younger generation's use and comfort with the internet--as a means to "reach" them regarding our hobby. QSONet seems to be an awesome tool that could be used to that end.

Oh well......just my rambling thoughts......and oh, by the way...there is another ham on this discussion board that has also put a lot of thought into this topic as well. He is K4QKY - Don..


73s,

Stan

WB5UDI
Parker, CO
__________________
#10     Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:07 pm
W0SDG
Apple Valley MN
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 101
Subject:

It seems to me that this program would not be useful in promoting Ham Radio. Very bold for me to say this but here is why I think this way. If it were for the simple reason that this was the only method of our younger generation to be introduced to Ham Radio, and real challenge of it, then I could see some value to this idea. Ham Radio is about understanding a little bit about communcation theory, antenna knowledge, and takes some effort to get a license based on these criterias. There is no real challenge, using the internet, to "chat" to someone in a far off country, using methods not common to everyone, or persuade a "listener" to want to eventually get his or her "ticket". That is what Ham Radio is really about. Uniqness!

"Hey, I just talked to someone in England!!". "Wow, how did you do that?". "Ham Radio" he or she replies. "Can I do that too?". "Sure, if you get your ham license". "You can even get a two meter rig and put it in your car and talk to your Ham Radio friends locally". "And you can even put an HF rig in your car to and talk all over the world".. "Wowwww.., what's an HF rig?"..

I am not quite sure how we promote that concept here on the internet where anyone can do just about the same thing with any other VOIP chat program already in existence? If you are trully on a mission to advance the hobby, you will demonstrate your hobby at schools, camps or just being visible to those few that are really interested in the challenge. I listen to so many hams on here that are going to use this program because they don't have antenna room or capabilities, so what would these people offer anyone outside our existing community? Certainly not the opportunity to chat with someone far away, using equipment that the general population doesn't already have. So how exactly would we promote "Ham Radio" over the internet? I am at lose for ideas. But I can bring my rig to a scout camp and impress the few that would take it further, or start a morse code class.

What we have here, it seems to me, is just an oppertunity for licensed operators to chat with other licensed operators, QRM/QRN and QSB free. It is simply another "chat" program on the internet. It's uniqness is that it is for Hams only so we can carry on comfortable converstions without the fear of non hams causing problems. It will also allow for a few different modes of operation we already are familiar with. We just love to communicate with the elite! It's a sickness we can live with! But to assume that this program would be more effective in recruiting new members because we can talk far and near, I feel is probably not going to happen. Heck, this program might be detrimental to Ham Radio because it is the "easy way out" by todays standards and we are losing all that RF up in the sky! I wonder if we can get cancer with all the digital electrons running through the internet? :)

I am just enjoying what is in front of me as is. It's just an extra treat for me because I am a licensed Ham operator and I am going to use CQ100 for this purpose. (Oh, I do carry on so!).

Steve - W0SDG
__________________




Copyright ©2013 Cormac Technologies Inc.