QSO Today Podcast - Brian Callahan AD2BA Create your own Digital Protocol

It takes a new ham, without some pre-existing notions, to come up with the new communication protocols to send and and receive messages over the air using traditional operating modes like CW. Dr. Brian Callahan, AD2BA, shares his background and interest in amateur radio, as well as Japanese arcade games, and challenges us to think out of the box in this episode of QSO Today.

 

Brian is doing some very interesting work. Glad it is being publicized.

The bottom line is there are an near infinite number of potential protocols, and many,many that are 'optimized' for hams. Physicists would say the solution space is 'degenerate'. So how do you choose?

There is not room for many,many protocols: we end up being a tower of Babble. You end up with the analogous historical precedent of 'cow catchers' (true story!)--which had dozens and dozens of variants of Babbage's inventon, 150+ years ago. They all push cows off the track. Yet...Who wins? Who loses? And why?

Those are the additional issues that need to be pursued. IMO.

73
Chip W1YW

 

I agree that there are other issues important that need to be pufsued. Rather than more and more protocols when they are not comparable with each other.

 

Word down to the street & digitised humans ...

Way to lose what little ability you had as it was, to actually communicate using natural faculty.

 

We already have somewhere between 20 and 30 amateur radio related computer protocols from my latest count.

But apparently we need more because we still can't decide on which VHF/UHF digital voice protocol to settle on. And if we ever do settle on a single VHF/UHF digital voice protocol, that means we are no longer looking for something better--which is counter to Part 97.1(b).

And on HF, currently, the most popular digital protocol is FT8, but because of its limited *actual* communication ability, we need more. (WinLink shows promise right now with lots of potential for continuous change.)

If we're not moving forward by continuously changing, we're falling behind. And if we ever do settle on a any protocols, we'll go stale and collapse.

That's the world we live in today: Keep the rate of change at or near the breaking point of society. It's the only way. Otherwise, there's no way to break the ways of old thinking. Otherwise, there's no way for young people to rise up and become successful.

Biblical references such as Genesis 11:1-9 will fall on deaf ears because, as we've done many times in human history, we are now repeating the history of Judges 21:25.

 

Our digital comms are like the Tower of Babel now. What's the point of new modes for the sake of new modes? Not saying to stop experimenting but make a mode better than what we have already in common use.

 

(facepalm) Why use PSK31 because we already have CW. Why use FT8 when we have PSK31. I love the fudd argumnets.
I literally can pile tons of people into JS8Call use 5 watts get Japan etc and communicate in a narrow band and half you people bleed all over the band and blast 100s of watts. Maybe because digital can decrease bandwidth use, communicate, and cut output requirements while exposing more of the band for use? Also experimenting. Someone really needs to think your argument through beyond "change bad"

 

The new protocols are exciting. What bugs me is some hardware needs to be changed to accommodate the new protocols.
I just updated my manufactured audio interfaces to handle the faster bandwidths.
There also has to be given consideration to DSP getting in the way. It can wreck havoc on even RTTY.
I think ham radio has become, for the majority of new licensees, appliance operators.
I don't hear any conversations about new dimensions in experimentation.
Maybe I'm not running the right group.

 

HAMSCI; TAPR; anything that KA9Q does...

those are just a few options....

 

Somebody needs to create a protocol that cannot be hacked by anyone or anything.
Then you got something.