There was a time when ham radio operators were known for having long conversations over the radio — rag chewing, as they called it. A new program, LongChat, is a new entry into the ham radio software world that could bring chatting back to ham radio. [Tech Minds] has a video covering it (and using it), which you can see below.
While some people do talk using microphones or Morse code keys, there are a lot of digital modes now. Some, like RTTY or PSK31, can support conversations, but the more popular ones, like FT-8, are very stripped down. Your computer exchanges basic information with the other station’s computer, and that’s it.
The LongChat program is very new, and we were sad to see it is only for Windows so far. It also isn’t open source, so we aren’t sure if other platforms will get any love.
Like other modern modes, it uses forward error correction and can operate in as little as 300 Hz of bandwidth. Subtracting overhead, you can expect to send 40 bits per second which is about five characters per second. This isn’t for file transfer, but for leisurely chats.
The software is from [Oguz] (TA2STO), a ham from Türkiye. His video about the software is the second video below. The original intent was to allow sensors to send data long distances on very low power.
Of course, new modes like this are only useful if people start using them and can find each other. For now, you’d probably have to do like [Tech Minds] and try it out with a friend.
If you’d rather get started with FT8 first, we can help you out. For better or worse, ham radio and computers are inextricably married.
When it comes to using a slow digital mode for more than a simple “hello”/”contact,” I would prefer something based on Morse code so a trained listener copy it without a computer. One possible way of doing this is to transmit using a computer-driven, fixed-speed Morse code with pauses every few characters to insert error-correction. Another is to modulate the Morse code with the error-correcting code in a way that wouldn’t prevent a human listener from copying it. You might not be able to get 60 wpm but at least it would be “backwards-compatible” with the human ear.
Computer-only modes are better than Morse code for high- and very-low-speed communications, non-text data (slow-scan TV, etc.), and extremely difficult/high-noise conditions.
That said, I hope someone puts out an open-source version of this. If it serves a need and is free-and-easy to use, it will catch on.
HAM in a nutsack
“Damn kids, get off my 21m lawn!”
The Longchat figures are amazing , but Olivia MFSK sounds much better and uses less bandwidth, despite being rated down to ‘only’ -10db of SNR.
Yup, Olivia is great. I’ve also used Thor. Fldigi is multiplatform and does both. Heck, PSK31 works great, too, if you’re not in a hurry.
I’ve noticed the author “discovering” amateur radio for his stories. Not sure there is much hack value here, though.
Needlessly re-inventing the wheel for your own education and entertainment is basically my definition of hacking. And how I go about ham-radioing as well. The self education is the hobby. I’m making a homebrew “simple” CW transciever which basically means teaching myself how analog electronics and RF circuits work starting from zero knowledge. It is a useless pursuit to make a useless device that is useless to the vast majority of other people. I couldn’t be happier.
Excellent.
Just for the record, I got my license in 1977…
Were you running on Prolog back then?
(Sorry)
This was my thought exactly. “Does he realize who he’s talking to?”
Thank you for keeping ham radio approachable for any hacker!
If it’s not open source, it’s pretty much DOA. The problem with low speed digital modes isn’t a technical one: there are plenty of techniques that offer great performance at different combinations of bitrate, bandwidth and resistance to noise. The problem is turning them into applications that are adopted by enough hams to make them worth adding to your shack, and that simply cannot happen without being open source.
“If it’s not open source, it’s pretty much DOA.”
Oh, come on! DOS and Windows were pretty much the home platforms for generations of amateur radio software and they weren’t open source, didn’t have to be.
Linux was superfluous in the days of Windows 98SE!
Windows 98SE allowed bit-banging the bare metall, controlling pins on serial and parallel ports (Linux couldn’t do USB in that era yet).
If you wanted to have the source of a Freeware of Public Domain program in the old days, then you simply sent the author a message with a request.
You could write a mail, send a fax, use e-mail (CompuServe etc) or make contact via Packet Radio network.
That method was personal and respectful.
The author might have made some suggestions, even, which is better than snatching the code anonymously.
And we don’t live in that world any more.
There are other operating systems and always have been, I’ve got ham software for C64 and VIC20 for example.
These days cross platform open source applications are where where it’s at, especially for a digital mode that’s ideally suited to QRP portable operation where hams use things like Raspberry Pi, tablets and even mobile phones.
“And we don’t live in that world any more.”
Maybe, though no need to get religious about Open Source.
I still remember how sect-like Linux and Open Source activists were at early 21th century..
They showed little tolerance to other concepts, they acted like missionars.
In many way, they’ve been a strict, aggressive counter movement to what had existed before.
In the DOS days, there was a lot of free software in form of Freeware and Public Domain software (also with source code sometimes).
PD was truely free, without forcing a bogus license onto users.
(That was a time when Turbo Pascal had been leading in PC programming still, rather than annoying C/C++.
Pascal programmers were way more relaxed and meantally healthy, I think. Thanks to the flexibility and friendliness of the language.
C/C++ programmers were more like fighter jet pilots and obsessed with optimizations/performance, which lead into writing obscure code structures. Or did lead to Linux, for the matter, hi.)
Also, amateur radio had always been about sharing and helping.
Many authors accepted requests or gave advice, if being asked nicely.
And that’s the core issue here, the decrease of social interaction.
What Open Source nerds -and many hams- have unlearned is personal interaction with other human beings.
They demand (!) for free access to work of others, and having latest communications technology, but fail on a social level.
They’re seemingly feeling uncomfortable doing actual communication.
That’s how things like FT8 came to be, as well. Making contacts without need for any human interaction.
Trophys and diplomas at your finger tips. Sports and ego rather than international friendship, in short.
The old morse code fans aren’t necessarily any better here, by the way.
They’re just as guilty by limiting their conversations to superfascial CQ/73/599 statements that they bragingly call a “QSO”.
There are diploma hunters, too among of them, I mean.
Chatting, making friends or tinkering with electronics barely interests them anymore.
It’s about contacts to distant places, akin to conquering a country and then setting your flag for victory.
Or maybe, they’re just incapable of doing real telegraphy, because they merely have learned Q codes? 🤔
(There must be exceptions, though, I admit. I followed a real morse QSO in clear text a while ago, no abbreviations used). 73s.
I think you should understand what open source is actually about, and what it has accomplished.
As far as “demanding free access to work of others”, I’d beg to differ. I’m retired and have gotten active again in ham radio. I’m an EE, so I still like to code and create. All the code I write myself, I freely choose to make open source. I benefit from having others look it over and contribute fixes and enhancements. Many other people feel the same way about what they write; that’s why open source is so popular.
I am also a board member (and past president) of Amateur Radio Digital Communications (www.ardc.net), a foundation with over $100M in assets that makes grants for, among other things, research and development of new amateur radio technologies. One of our few non-negotiable requirements is that any “intellectual property” developed under an ARDC grant MUST be open source. So we’re putting our money where are mouths are.
“If it’s not open source, it’s pretty much DOA.”
Yah, sure. I actually do wish that was true. Non-open stuff should be considered to be encryption. IMHOP.
But…. if hams weren’t prone to using closed stuff anyway then why is the AMBE codec used? And if you say it’s because that was all that was available when DStar was being designed… fine… why hasn’t Codec2 taken it’s place yet?
Wasn’t DStar being made by a Japanese ham or something?
I vaguely remember something, but I’m not sure about it.
But if so, then it makes sense. Using Windows and shyness/embarassment to share imperfect code still persists over there.
That’s why historically, Open Software had it not so easy over there.
The default DStar codec was chosen, because it was established in commercial applications already.
No one thought about this being an issue at the time DStar was created. That’s why no provisions for an alternate codec had been made, I believe.
But that’s really an issue, the codec situation.
It’s okay if an piece of software is closed, but not a modulation scheme. Because it’s excluding others.
Imagine, FM or AM had required paying royalties or had involved patents that forbade others to make their own AM or FM citcuits.
That’s much more of an issue than Open Source software or not.
The requirement to buy an codec chip made by one company is a real concern.
It’s same reason why LoRa is such a dangerous thing.
It leads into technological dependence.
Back then with AM and FM hams could still use alternative technology that’s compatible with the other one.
AM vs synch. AM detection vs DSB, FM vs PM vs slope detection etc.
SSB detection using AM radio with an BFO..
These things, these workarounds nolonger work with codec chips.
They’re black boxes made by one company. It’s a prison that we put ourself in.
Nothing has taken the place of AMBE because a lot of equipment would have to be yanked out and thrown away. People bought D-STAR (registered trademark of ICOM) equipment without knowing what was under the hood. AMBE was de facto encryption from day one, but both the FCC and ARRL were totally oblivious to it. Hams are prone to using closed technology when it’s shiny and new.
DStar and DMR are older than Codec 2. System Fusion came out when Codec 2 was still in alpha.
If you want to use Codec 2, give FreeDV a try for HF.
There’s also M17 for VHF/UHF. It needs a radio with a 9600 baud data port though. There are also a couple of HTs that can run it with custom firmware.
I tend to agree with you. While I open source all of the ham software I write, that’s my choice. If someone else doesn’t want to do that, that’s their choice (just don’t apply for an ARDC grant — see below).
But I feel differently about ham band “air interfaces”, i.e., the modulation, coding, codecs, protocols, etc of a given communications mode. In keeping with the spirit of ham radio, they really ought to be documented publicly even if the software implementing them is not. And yes, you could argue that any non-documented air interface is “obscuration” under the FCC rules even if it’s not technically “encryption”.
But I’m not going to make that argument because, yes, D*Star, P-25, DMR, and Fusion would all be immediately banned for using various flavors of the AMBE codec. That ship has sailed; I wouldn’t want to tell the PAPA repeater network here in Southern California (I’m a member) to turn off all its digital repeaters. And in practice the FCC seems to interpret that rule as “as long as we can buy or get the hardware or software we need to listen to something, it’s OK”. And that makes sense. They simply want to monitor a communication; they’re not going to do a critical design review or write their own implementations.
I think the answer here is to beat them at their own game. If you object to some proprietary mode, don’t just bitch about it. Do a better one yourself, publish it, implement it, distribute it and promote it. It may take a while but if it’s any good people will eventually use it. If you need financial support, go request a grant from ARDC; we love to fund this kind of work, and we have an ironclad rule that anything developed with our grant money MUST be open source. –Phil Karn, KA9Q, ARDC board member and past president
I dont think open source will guarantee adaptation. FreeDV is a good example, havent heard that on on HF in years.
Js8call is chat based on ft8 and already has an active following.
Js8call is incredibly slow. It’s ideal for one-finger typists.
Came here to say the same thing; this sounds like the same niche that Js8call already fills.
Yeah JS8 is fabulous for this, has excellent performance in crap conditions, open source, and is actually being updated soon. And people actually use it. Well, some do anyway. Nothing like FT8 (I think JS8 could use a translate plugin)
There’s also VaraC but…gag. VARA is for file transfer.
Yeah, hams have a bad case if not-invented-here syndrome. Even if someone doesn’t like Js8Call, they should do a deep dive into it before starting something new. The biggest problem with a new mode is getting a critical mass of hams to adopt it and stick with it. Js8Call has done that, even if “just barely.” A new mode will have to get to at least that level of acceptance to survive.
Isn’t that kinda the point though? If they want reliable, fast communication, reaching for HTTPS over 5G is much faster.
I agree that Js8Call was already there and orobably a better choice, but it’s nice to see people still making their own things.
program is no problem. Problem is with good modem. The best is LoraShark but only for lora.
I need flipper box for any radio. For example glue baofeng K1 or yaesu or other good hardware and small sound modem with m17 or , packet radio or gemini or other software. I need complete system not only modem. Flipper is similar but for hacking. normal people need PMR, CB Radio send receive digital data etc.
Dammmm, I’d love to see M17 text messaging support in OpenRTX.
please look at reticulum.network is better, faster and multiband
And it’s cryptographic. Please go away.
Licensed since in 1962, CW on 15 meters. It was a blast! All this digital mumbo jumbo. 👎 When all else fails during the EMPs, my Hallicrafters will prevail.
Normal morse telegraphy is digital, in the sense of it using on/off keying.
(There’s also modulated morse, as being used on FM repeater by the ID keyer.)
However, the problem is that it doesn’t follow a “digital” (fingered, digitus=finger, as in finger of a comb) pattern in the sense that the dashes and dots are being sent in a pre-defined ratio.
Of course, there actually is a pre-defined ratio – on paper!
A dash is tree times the dot.
In practice, though, amateurs don’t stick to that ratio.
And this confuses computer algorithms.
Morse telegraphy could be perfectly digital, like Baudot code, if the ham operators had same accuracy as a computer.
But since this isn’t the case (hams have a “fist”), morse telegraphy is more like a “fuzzy” mode like Hellschreiber or radio fax.
Correction. Some elbugs have a keyer that keeps care of the ratio.
Such elbugs had been used on ships, too, I think.
Speaking of ships, they often had quite modern equipment in the radio room.
Good old morse telegraphy, but also RTTY or SITOR I think.
SITOR was being known in amateur radio as AMTOR.
That’s silly. Digital modes are only “mumbo jumbo” because you can’t figure out how to use them effectively. Your Hallicrafters isn’t even going to function after an EMP because you won’t have the power to run it, given that modern AC distribution systems are computerized. What WILL still be functional are relatively low powered rigs operating from batteries charge by solar cells, and some of those low powered rigs are going to run digital modes because they typically have 6-8 dB better S/N than CW.
One suspects they were flexing, and gently taking the P or joking. I am sure they understand digimodes as well as they wish to, despite their incredibly advanced age :-P
I wouldnt count on low power rigs or solar cells surviving the EMP any better than the power companies.
The closed-source and proprietary system bothers me. They’re going to publish the schema of the mode, right? They’d have to. Otherwise, it’s functionally encryption. There’s lots of digital modes for amateur radio, and the FCC takes dim view of keeping the method secret. Sure, your app to do it is one thing. You can have that closed all you want. But others had better be able to create their own apps to use that schema, or you’ve put proprietary communications on a public channel. That’s not allowed under Part 97. (Title 47, Part 97.309.B, to be precise.) Many digital modes exist, and some even want to be able to sell their program to recoup their expenses in development, but the actual mode should be open so others can write their own apps, especially to cross-platform the mode. This is the difference between encoded (put into symbolic form) and encrypted (put into a keyed symbolic form to obscure meaning).