Using FT8 to demonstrate Antenna Orientations

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KM9G, Oct 6, 2021.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-2
ad: HRDLLC-2
ad: L-Geochron
ad: Left-3
  1. KM1NDY

    KM1NDY Ham Member QRZ Page

    How silly to think you cannot formulate a scientific study with this data.

    Here's a simple one for this discussion.

    Hypothesis:
    Detected 80M FT8 signals from antenna X at 10pm are greater in number than 80M FT8 signals at noon in October.

    Null hypothesis:
    Detected 80M FT8 signals from antenna X at 10pm are not greater in number than 80M FT8 at noon in October.

    Experimental design:
    Count FT8 80M detected signals from Antenna X at 10pm and noon every day through October.

    Analysis: T-test demonstrates probability of less than 5% (p<0.05) that the number of FT8 80M signals detected at 10pm compared to noon is by random chance.

    Conclusion: If p<0.05, then the null hypothesis is disproved.

    Voila! Scientific experiment with FT8!

    Mindy
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
    M1WML, KK2DOG, KC7ZXY and 2 others like this.
  2. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes. It is silly.

    A posteriori 'experiments' are not science. They are outcomes biased by selection effects. You cannot design an 'experiment' which favors a specific hypothesis based on knowing the data beforehand. Experiments must be blind. And they must have a control.

    'Observations' are valid but then must succumb to Occam's Razor, and when possible require actual experiments as follow ups. Antennas and ionospheric conditions are testable EXPERIMENTS, and are far beyond any 'observation' stage.

    One cannot latch onto an explanation for an OBSERVATION when the most likely and simple --Occam's Razor-- explanation is couched in ambiguity from numerous variables. IOW the most likely explanation is no explanation. The 'experiment' is unbounded.

    I am not going to go into this further.

    Ham radio operators have the ability to tap into a wealth of scientific experience rather than assume science is made by what one believes. Science is not a matter of opinion or 'how one feels'. It is not a random puttering designed as video eye candy with a jaw dropping title. The fact that we have reduced the possibility of 'doing' science to the level of a hillbilly swimming pool is an insult to the many here who are more than willing to assist with helpful knowledge on how to proceed. The OP does not ASK about how to take an approach and rigorously test. Count me as one of those who now just ignore the nonsense rather than one who is willing to help.

    The equipment and data gathering are possible. The scientific method is absent. Don't blame the tools. Join Hamsci to learn what can be done, for example.

    Good luck.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
    W0PV, M1WML, WN1MB and 2 others like this.
  3. PU2OZT

    PU2OZT Ham Member QRZ Page

    They have plenty data, FT8 running 24h on several thousand stations worldwide, but taking out some to exemplify and/or corroborate couldn't be anything else than mere statistics.
    Obviously Radio Science is much more than that.

    Oliver
     
    M1WML likes this.
  4. KM1NDY

    KM1NDY Ham Member QRZ Page

    @W1YW

    I think you are the one presuppossing the answer to my very simple experiment.

    What exactly is the evidence you have that confirms FT8 signals detected at 10pm from antenna X (pick one) are greater in quantity than FT8 signals detected at noon for the month of October?

    You must believe or feel you know the answer!

    ;)

    Mindy
     
    M1WML, KC7ZXY and 2E0TWD like this.
  5. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Heaven forbid you extend the courtesy of using names....nice.

    Your response: Clear evidence that this issue, to you, is based on 'how you feel'.

    Sorry Mindy, science is not a question posed to Spock in movie 3...
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
    M1WML likes this.
  6. 2E0TWD

    2E0TWD Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    All Hail the miserable, the pompous and the rude folk.
     
    M1WML, KC7ZXY and KM9G like this.
  7. KI5AAI

    KI5AAI Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Do you really need more LOL
     
    M1WML likes this.
  8. K8XG

    K8XG XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Well, Chip is an awarded Antenna Scientist that has modern patents on new antenna designs that are advancing our Space Satellites. He also made himself invisible and got a patent for that.

    However "sometimes" he can come off "Rough" on the edges when discussing science like being at the Physics Cafeteria in MIT vs our Ham Radio Observation discussions.
     
    M1WML and K2ENF like this.
  9. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Having fun experimenting is a great path in ham radio.

    But we have to be careful how we conduct ourselves.

    Why? Because Part 97 explicitly points out we exist, in part, to 'enhance the radio art'. That means we all have an obligation to either see how the 'radio art' works, or ask the vast pool of knowledgable fellow hams their feedback. And that is the context of my comments.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    KN1B, M1WML, AC0OB and 1 other person like this.
  10. N3RYB

    N3RYB Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Sometimes! Especially on 160M. Or the occasional sporadic-e opening on 10M. If I hear a DX station that briefly comes in from South America or wherever on 10M I'm not going to have any qualms about increase power level until he can hear me(or he can hear my computer as you snarky types are going to say) as well. Sometimes that means 50W sometimes that means 850W.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
    M1WML, KY4GD, W3PX and 2 others like this.

Share This Page