Warren,
Patrick, F6CTE, has an excellent spectral display of almost every mode
at this link: http://f1ult.free.fr/DIGIMODES/MULTIPSK/digimodesF6CTE_en.htm
Those displays are just like the one I made with ROS and MFSK16, but not
over such a wide bandwidth and not with data input - only idling, and
without the comparison to ROS.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Warren Moxley wrote:
Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time
add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes.
Thanks in advance,
Warren - K5WGM
--- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /<kh...@comcast.net>/* wrote:
From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM
Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC
believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any
attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe
you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe
ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can
be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB
phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data
is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow
modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire
PSK31 activity area.
Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/
~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by
MFSK16 (the letters "N"), and you can see that the frequencies are
being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in
the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing,
and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted,
obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data,
which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This
definitely implies ROS is FHSS.
If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition
to the FCC to allow it.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you
are not trying help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:* KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net>
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
> jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
> I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue
saying stupid things in this group.
Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first!
Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests
ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim.
This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/
SPECTRUM. JPG
Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on
UHF.
I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It
will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go
ahead as you wish.
73, Skip KH6TY SK
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is
what ROS is.
If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham
Radio, instead of criticism ROS.
I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue
saying stupid things in this group.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:* KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net>
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
> If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become
spread-spectrum?
Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question.
The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions
are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) :
1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum
bandwidth necessary to send the information.
2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal,
often called a code signal, which is independent of the data.
3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data)
is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal
with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to
spread the information.
Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse
code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information
signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since
they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above.
Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home.
comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that
MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is.
Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement
that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the
narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1
and 14.225, because ROS is so wide.
BTW, this same issue came up during the "regulation by
bandwidth" debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia)
proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals
everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on
any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy
to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM
signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin
communication for narrow modes, like PSK31.
The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that
users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another
mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was
realized that only CW used by both parties would make this
possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or
with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of
other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must do in
order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has
already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not
work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies.
upper
73 - Skip KH6TY
Alan Barrow wrote:
If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?
