Re: [digitalradio] Re: NBEMS testing
So far I am very impressed with NBEMS's performance..especially considering it was not meant for non-NVIS HF pathsfor non-NVIS HF paths you might consider lowering the FLARQ exponent parameter to 2 or 3it shortens frame length and makes for less re-tries. Don't make the block length less than 16 characters (exp 4) except for situations where you have heavy QRN. The packet overhead is 8 characters, and you will loose tons of speed. We have learned this during 3 years of practise with pskmail. I don't know if Dave implemented the adaptive block length feature, that should settle for the optimum block length for the condx automatically. Pskmail does not use block lengths less than 8. 73, Rein PA0R -- http://pa0r.blogspirit.com Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] PSKAM10 on 14.074
Hi all I am playing with PSKAM10 on 14.074 -1000Hz now . Multipsk is in beacon mode transmitting cq de LA5VNA every 30 sec . I am running only 5W. Are you able to copy me? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up.
Pactor and Packet spots and sked arranging are also welcome at http://www.obriensweb.com.sked Andy On Jan 3, 2008 9:19 PM, vk4jrc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all Pactor Packet people, Sholto, KE7HPV has been kind enough to put up a spot page for Pactor Packet operators. See http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ Hope this will stir up some interest Thanks Sholto :-) 73s Jack VK4JRC -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: Pactor Packet Spot Page now up.
- Typo, that should be http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
[digitalradio] One laptop project dealt big blow
BBC News . One laptop project dealt big blow Intel has pulled out of a project to put cheap laptops in the hands of children in the developing world. Citing philosophical differences, Intel has withdrawn its funding and technical help from the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project. OLPC aimed to boost learning in poorer nations via a custom-built laptop intended to cost no more than $100. Intel's withdrawal is a blow to OLPC which has found few nations willing to buy large numbers of laptops. Intel joined the OLPC in July 2007 and was widely expected to work on a version of the projects laptop that used an Intel chip. Many expected this machine to be unveiled at the CES technology fair which opens in Las Vegas on 5 January. The first versions of the OLPC or XO laptop were powered by a chip made by Intel's arch-rival AMD. The green and white XO machine was designed specifically for children, was ruggedised to cope with conditions in developing nations and could be kept powered using a hand crank. Intel spokesman Chuck Molly said it had taken the decision to resign from the OLPC board and end its involvement because the organisation had asked it to stop backing rival low-cost laptops. The chip maker has been promoting its own cheap laptop, the Classmate, in many of the same places as the OLPC. OLPC had asked Intel to end our support for non-OLPC platforms, including the Classmate PC, and to focus on the OLPC platform exclusively, said Mr Mulloy . At the end of the day, we decided we couldn't accommodate that request. He added that the use of AMD chips in the first XO laptops had not influenced its decision. Cost breakdown of OLPC laptop So far the OLPC has yet to comment on the split. Prior to Intel's involvement, OLPC founder Nicholas Negroponte criticised the chip firm for what he called its attempts to undermine the project's work. He said Intel was selling its Classmate at a loss to make the XO laptop less attractive. While Dr Negroponte's initial aim was for a laptop costing only $100 the final versions that have been trialled in Nigeria and Uruguay cost $188 (£95). Costs were supposed to be kept low by governments ordering the XO laptop in shipments of one million but large orders for the XO laptop have, so far, not materialised. In a bid to boost the numbers of laptops available OLPC ran a Give One, Get One program in the US from 12 November to 31 December. This allowed members of the public to buy two XO machines - one for themselves and one for a OLPC project elsewhere. OLPC said the success of this had helped it to launch programmes in Haiti, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mongolia, and Afghanistan. -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up.
Charles Brabham wrote: Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and generally will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way. The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that they have a god-given right to crash other hams' QSO's. We operate according to PART97 and The Amateur's Code. - When we are not having our QSO crashed by a mindless PACTOR Lid, that is... Stop by at WinLink-Watch to see the pics. - http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL I doubt you'll see many Pactor QSOs. Pactor is dead and will stay dead. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] JT65A - gotaway
Mind you, I do have to pay attention to the difference between the column marked DT and the one marked dB when sending a report - Ooops! I'm having a problem coverting to the HF reporting system from the MS one. Well, that is my excuse. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] JT65A - gotaway
Andrew O'Brien wrote: Dave , there is a well known WSJT phenomenon whereby one receives FALSE CQs. When I first started using WSJT on HF and left on overnight , I received a few CQs from Japan on 40M but I was on a frequency that is not used in Japan. That's why I *never* have deep search switched on. Even on VHF/UHF. Sorry, I just think there's more chance that you think you have worked someone, when you have not. Just like on CW - If I don't receive the whole callsign at least once, I've not made a contact... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up.
Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and generally will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way. The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that they have a god-given right to crash other hams' QSO's. We operate according to PART97 and The Amateur's Code. - When we are not having our QSO crashed by a mindless PACTOR Lid, that is... Stop by at WinLink-Watch to see the pics. - http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: vk4jrc [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 8:19 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up. Hi all Pactor Packet people, Sholto, KE7HPV has been kind enough to put up a spot page for Pactor Packet operators. See http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ Hope this will stir up some interest Thanks Sholto :-) 73s Jack VK4JRC No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1208 - Release Date: 1/3/2008 3:52 PM
Re: [digitalradio] JT65A - gotaway
Dave , there is a well known WSJT phenomenon whereby one receives FALSE CQs. When I first started using WSJT on HF and left on overnight , I received a few CQs from Japan on 40M but I was on a frequency that is not used in Japan. As I mentioned in my Bozo'z Guide To HF JT65A, this occurs because WSJT thinks it might have detected something and takes a guess at who it might be via the list of known active stations. If you select NO DEEP SEARCH you are less likely to have this happen. The 1 0 after the grid square are tips about this possibility. That being said , it usually does not happen to the extend that you receive several CQs from the same station, so yours is likely a real situation. Andy K3UK On Jan 4, 2008 2:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If only I didn't have to sleep! Found a load of the following CQ calls on 80M, from leaving WSJT running overnight... 034600 3 -16 1.6 100 3 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 034700 0 -15 3.3 -471 3 034800 5 -15 1.6 100 3 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 034900 0 -15 8.1 -471 3 035000 3 -17 1.7 100 3 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 035100 0 -16 5.4 108 3 035200 4 -16 1.6 100 3 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 035300 0 -16 -1.9 -471 3 035400 5 -16 1.8 100 1 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 035500 0 -15 6.7 108 3 035600 2 -18 1.9 100 1 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 Oh well. Dave (G0DJA) -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Pactor3
Can anyone point me at a page or reference to programmers / other hams not being allowed to add Pactor 3 to their software? This is a serious request, part of an attempt to remove Pactor 3 from our bands on the basis of it being a 'closed system'. Simon Brown, HB9DRV
[digitalradio] NBEMS Testing
Testing NBEMS 30M 10140 PSK31 flarq beacon as of 1400Z John VE5MU
RE: [digitalradio] Pactor3
Simon, While not exactly what you were asking, the SCS website claims to own the trademark Pactor, and gives limitations on the amount of connects their product allows on P3 before user has to purchase a license. They consider themselves the Pactor creators, and state it on thier site. http://www.scs-ptc.com/registration.html Don't know if this helps, David KD4NUE (owner of SCS PTC IIex with Pactor 3 license) their info from site: _ Contact us Address: SCS Special Communications Systems GmbH Co. KG Roentgenstr. 36 63454 Hanau Germany Tel: +49-6181-85 00 00 9:00 - 12:00 and 14:00 - 18:00 German time (CET) Current time in Germany: Fax: +49-6181-99 02 38 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] VAT ID No.: DE 218002556 Banking: Bank:Postbank Frankfurt Account No.: 555 836 600 Banking Code:500 100 60 IBAN:DE25 5001 0060 0555 8366 00 BIC/SWIFT: PBNKDEFF PACTORR is a registered trademark of SCS, Germany. -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Brown Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:57 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Pactor3 Can anyone point me at a page or reference to programmers / other hams not being allowed to add Pactor 3 to their software? This is a serious request, part of an attempt to remove Pactor 3 from our bands on the basis of it being a 'closed system'. Simon Brown, HB9DRV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Demetre SV1UY wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one. You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that. In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone. Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor. As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS wants to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction. de Roger W6VZV Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did not mean to offend you. Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe. You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world is supposed to be tolerant. 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. enough said!!! __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS problem
I definitely kept the newer file, of course. My question was asking the reverse, as maybe in some cases, the ones not having problems were the ones who did not have the newer file on their computer. The newer directX support apparently takes care of the older OCX OLE structure. From what Skip has said, I am the only person experiencing this problem of no waterfall on receive and yet the transmit, including the waterfall pattern during transmit, works fine. 73, Rick, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick wrote: When you loaded your software, did you get a warning that a file was newer on your computer and that it recommended you keep the file? In my case it was one of the system32 files: MSCOMCTL.OCX. Yes, that is a known issue. You should have kept the newer file. Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] PSKAM10 on 10.136
Hi all Calling CQ in PSKAM10 on 10.136 -1000Hz now . Multipsk is in beacon mode transmitting cq de LA5VNA every 30 sec . I am running 100W 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
RE: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up.
Nice analogy, John. Dave From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Becker, WØJAB Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:34 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up. Charles please don't lump us good pactor operators in with the PMBO operators. There is as much difference as there is a house guest to a burglar. At 08:44 AM 1/4/2008, you wrote: Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and generally will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Sorry, but I have to ask; What is wrong with some of you pactor guys ? It is the QRM from untended stations that cause the main trouble, NOT the net or system. Strange that this is so difficult to understand after hundreds of debates that often turn in to endless circular arguments. :( LA5VNA Jose A. Amador skrev: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Demetre SV1UY wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one. You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that. In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone. Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor. As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS wants to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction. de Roger W6VZV Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did not mean to offend you. Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe. You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world is supposed to be tolerant. 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. enough said!!! __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up.
Charles please don't lump us good pactor operators in with the PMBO operators. There is as much difference as there is a house guest to a burglar. At 08:44 AM 1/4/2008, you wrote: Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and generally will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way.
[digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies
Where and when is the testing of NBEMS and Flarq going on? I would like to do some testing from here. 73 Ted W4ZE Port St Lucie, FL
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
I fully agree. I have no problem with the mode or modulation. I wish I could run Pactor-2 cheaply! It is just the Pactor-3 bomb from unattended Winlink machines that explodes over existing QSO's in the narrowband data areas that irritates me. I am happy to put Jack's Pactor/Packet (kb-2-kb) spotting page up at http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ which if nothing else will give an indication of the amount of use of keyboard-keyboard QSO's in these modes. 73 Sholto KE7HPV - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes Sorry, but I have to ask; What is wrong with some of you pactor guys ? It is the QRM from untended stations that cause the main trouble, NOT the net or system. Strange that this is so difficult to understand after hundreds of debates that often turn in to endless circular arguments. :( LA5VNA Jose A. Amador skrev: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Demetre SV1UY wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one. You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that. In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone. Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor. As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS wants to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction. de Roger W6VZV Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did not mean to offend you. Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe. You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world is supposed to be tolerant. 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. enough said!!! __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] PSKAM10 on 10.136
QSY 7033 USB and calling Steinar Aanesland skrev: Hi all Calling CQ in PSKAM10 on 10.136 -1000Hz now . Multipsk is in beacon mode transmitting cq de LA5VNA every 30 sec . I am running 100W 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
[digitalradio] NBEMS VBdigi and Flarq
So, anyone up to try these out on 30 or 20M? presently on 30 17:30Z John VE5MU
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA Hi Jose, Happy New Year to you and your family. As for the early KAMs you are right, but after a while they brought out new firmware and they fixed the problem. I have an early KAM with a special addon PCB so that it can take PACTOR 1 modeand I followed all the firmware upgrades up to 8.1 I think. It is now in the basement somewhere so it is not handy for me to check. But as I said before it was always a lousy PACTOR controller (probably it had a bad modem design because even in HF packet it performed badly. So in the end I had to buy an SCS Controller because as you know it is superior in PACTOR and in PACKET RADIO. 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. What happened with this petition that was attempting to bring digital modes into the 19th century? Does anyone knows
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS VBdigi and Flarq
John I just started my beacon on 10.137 .I have on message to send. Russell --- John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, anyone up to try these out on 30 or 20M? presently on 30 17:30Z John VE5MU = IN GOD WE TRUST ! = Russell Blair NC5O Skype-Russell Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[digitalradio] Re: JT65A - gotaway
In this case I'm fairly certain they're not false decodes. I finished a JT65A QSO with KD5JGA on 80m 18 minutes prior to what you saw. He started calling CQ again afterwards. -Dan, AE9K Dave , there is a well known WSJT phenomenon whereby one receives FALSE CQs. . The 1 0 after the grid square are tips about this possibility. That being said , it usually does not happen to the extend that you receive several CQs from the same station, so yours is likely a real situation. Andy K3UK If only I didn't have to sleep! Found a load of the following CQ calls on 80M, from leaving WSJT running overnight... 034600 3 -16 1.6 100 3 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 034700 0 -15 3.3 -471 3 034800 5 -15 1.6 100 3 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 034900 0 -15 8.1 -471 3 035000 3 -17 1.7 100 3 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 035100 0 -16 5.4 108 3 035200 4 -16 1.6 100 3 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 035300 0 -16 -1.9 -471 3 035400 5 -16 1.8 100 1 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 035500 0 -15 6.7 108 3 035600 2 -18 1.9 100 1 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 Oh well. Dave (G0DJA) -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: New ARRL HF Digital Handbook - Fourth Edition (Available October 2007)
Can anyone comment on the ARRL's HF Digital Handbook Fourth Edition or CQ's Digital Modes For All Occassions by ZL1BPU? I don't want to wait until Dayton (where I can thumb through these) to determine whether they have sufficient explanation of modulation and encoding schemes, design assumptions and the like. I'm concerned these may be more of a primer on how to operate using each mode. What I'm looking for is along the lines of the article Peter Martinez wrote for QEX back in 1999 on PSK theory, implementation and on-air performance. Anyone that has either of these books care to comment on their content? I'm also open to suggestions for other books or articles that are Martinez-esque in content and clarity. Thanks, Dan, AE9K Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Mark, this looks quite interesting. ANdy K3UK On 9/7/07, Mark Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ARRL's HF Digital Handbook Fourth Edition ARRL's HF Digital Handbook Fourth Edition
[digitalradio] NBEMS
I'm just jumping on the NBEMS bandwagon and am wondering if there's a dedicated place for asking about NBEMS technical issues other than this list. Thanks, John W2KI
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Hi Jose, Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10 years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation). This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do the same with other software writers. I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a soundcard program, but I think they can't. If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3 (and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR 2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product! At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all. Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I like PSKmail much more than NBEMS. Both can be called The poor man's Winlink2000, but really they leave a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF propagation is concerned. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up.
At 12:44 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote: Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and generally will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way. The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that they have a god-given right to crash other hams' QSO's. We operate according to PART97 and The Amateur's Code. - When we are not having our QSO crashed by a mindless PACTOR Lid, that is... Stop by at WinLink-Watch to see the pics. - http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htmhttp://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL [EMAIL PROTECTED] - So, you are saying ALL Pactor operators crash the Packet guys? I thought the problem was with WinLink PMBO's on Pactor 3? I don't think too many individual people would have licenced Pactor 3, I certainly have not, and don't need to. Since part of this idea is to announce our Pactor/Packet skeds via Sholto's Andy's spot pages, it may revive things a little, is there anything wrong with that? Those looking for contacts, have places to help them coordinate skeds. Oh yes, how about trying 600 baud Robust Packet ;-) Pactor may be deadbut whats wrong with trying to get it going? Like, Ham Radio IS a hobby? Why not all enjoy it for what it is, with what ever mode we want to use. :-) 73s Jack VK4JRC
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies
Propnet on 30m was very strong here. Around 1100 Hz when my transceiver was set to 10.137, I think. Correct me if I am wrong, but nothing wrong with working along side Propnet, just not on top of it. No problem - just wait for a few minutes and if and when Propnet comes on, move over a few hundred Hz. LIke Flip Wilson's Geraldine used to say, What you see is what you get, Honey (on the waterfall). Although we have debated how to specify a PSK31 frequency for years (as RF frequency), it is more understandable to just say, for example, 10.137 USB and 1500 Hz tone frequency. I'll be watching 30m now and will be available for some NBEMS ARQ file transfers. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies I think it might make sense to use the SAME frequencies as Propnet. This may make no sense at all to others, so what do you think. I would not want to interfere with Propnet beacons since they perform a valuable service, but if we are going to beacon, perhaps we should use the same frequency but at a slightly differing audio frequency. Propnet folks usually use 1500 Hz, I think. How about FLARQ beacons on same frequency but at audio freq of 1000 Hz ? But.. does not propnet use 10139.5 and then 1500, not 10138 ? On 1/4/08, Darrel Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted, I am beaconing on 10.138Mhz (10.137+1Khz) psk63 now. I see there are a couple of Propnet stations beaconing using psk31 on the same frequency. Darrel, VE7CUS On 4-Jan-08, at 6:11 AM, Ted Huf wrote: Where and when is the testing of NBEMS and Flarq going on? I would like to do some testing from here. 73 Ted W4ZE Port St Lucie, FL -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 12:05 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor3
Hi Simon, I was wondering if you had thought about including Patrick's Reed Solomon detection feature in DM780? I realize DM780 doesn't have all the modes MultiPSK has, and DM780 has Throb-X 4 baud which MultiPSK doesn't - but if you just had the recognition part for the modes in common I think it would help a lot of beginners to the digi modes understand what they are seeing/hearing. 73 Sholto KE7HPV. - Original Message - From: Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 6:56 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Pactor3 Can anyone point me at a page or reference to programmers / other hams not being allowed to add Pactor 3 to their software? This is a serious request, part of an attempt to remove Pactor 3 from our bands on the basis of it being a 'closed system'. Simon Brown, HB9DRV
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies
I think it might make sense to use the SAME frequencies as Propnet. This may make no sense at all to others, so what do you think. I would not want to interfere with Propnet beacons since they perform a valuable service, but if we are going to beacon, perhaps we should use the same frequency but at a slightly differing audio frequency. Propnet folks usually use 1500 Hz, I think. How about FLARQ beacons on same frequency but at audio freq of 1000 Hz ? But.. does not propnet use 10139.5 and then 1500, not 10138 ? On 1/4/08, Darrel Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted, I am beaconing on 10.138Mhz (10.137+1Khz) psk63 now. I see there are a couple of Propnet stations beaconing using psk31 on the same frequency. Darrel, VE7CUS On 4-Jan-08, at 6:11 AM, Ted Huf wrote: Where and when is the testing of NBEMS and Flarq going on? I would like to do some testing from here. 73 Ted W4ZE Port St Lucie, FL -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor3
At 09:01 AM 1/5/2008, Sholto wrote: Hi Simon, I was wondering if you had thought about including Patrick's Reed Solomon detection feature in DM780? I realize DM780 doesn't have all the modes MultiPSK has, and DM780 has Throb-X 4 baud which MultiPSK doesn't - but if you just had the recognition part for the modes in common I think it would help a lot of beginners to the digi modes understand what they are seeing/hearing. 73 Sholto KE7HPV. - Original Message - From: Simon Brown mailto:simon.brown%40kns.ch[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 6:56 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Pactor3 Can anyone point me at a page or reference to programmers / other hams not being allowed to add Pactor 3 to their software? This is a serious request, part of an attempt to remove Pactor 3 from our bands on the basis of it being a 'closed system'. Simon Brown, HB9DRV Maybe an add on module to a program that is a decoder, for signal mode identification purposes only. Remove Pactor 3? Whilst it maybe a good idea, I see another WinLink skirmish coming.;-) 73s Jack VK4JRC
RE: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up.
At 10:48 AM 1/4/2008, you wrote: Nice analogy, John. Sorry Dave, I just call em as I see em
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies
Pronet came on and I was unable to print anything for it, my beacon will be 10.137/1500hz, I have one single short file in the folder for tranfer. Russell --- kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Propnet on 30m was very strong here. Around 1100 Hz when my transceiver was set to 10.137, I think. Correct me if I am wrong, but nothing wrong with working along side Propnet, just not on top of it. No problem - just wait for a few minutes and if and when Propnet comes on, move over a few hundred Hz. LIke Flip Wilson's Geraldine used to say, What you see is what you get, Honey (on the waterfall). Although we have debated how to specify a PSK31 frequency for years (as RF frequency), it is more understandable to just say, for example, 10.137 USB and 1500 Hz tone frequency. I'll be watching 30m now and will be available for some NBEMS ARQ file transfers. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies I think it might make sense to use the SAME frequencies as Propnet. This may make no sense at all to others, so what do you think. I would not want to interfere with Propnet beacons since they perform a valuable service, but if we are going to beacon, perhaps we should use the same frequency but at a slightly differing audio frequency. Propnet folks usually use 1500 Hz, I think. How about FLARQ beacons on same frequency but at audio freq of 1000 Hz ? But.. does not propnet use 10139.5 and then 1500, not 10138 ? On 1/4/08, Darrel Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted, I am beaconing on 10.138Mhz (10.137+1Khz) psk63 now. I see there are a couple of Propnet stations beaconing using psk31 on the same frequency. Darrel, VE7CUS On 4-Jan-08, at 6:11 AM, Ted Huf wrote: Where and when is the testing of NBEMS and Flarq going on? I would like to do some testing from here. 73 Ted W4ZE Port St Lucie, FL -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 12:05 PM = IN GOD WE TRUST ! = Russell Blair NC5O Skype-Russell Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
The biggest problem with Pactor-3 in the U.S. is that it periodicly fuels a desire to elimnate all digital modes with a similar bandwidth as the FCC would never ban a specific product. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Demetre SV1UY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 21:48 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Hi Jose, Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10 years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation). This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do the same with other software writers. I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a soundcard program, but I think they can't. If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3 (and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR 2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product! At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all. Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I like PSKmail much more than NBEMS. Both can be called The poor man's Winlink2000, but really they leave a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF propagation is concerned. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Beacon's ?
My Question, is a beacon a beacon if is maned, or does it have to be unmaned to be a beacon. For me my beacon has not be on the air without being here at the PC. So do we scrip the testing or find a spot up on 10m. Russell NC5O = IN GOD WE TRUST ! = Russell Blair NC5O Skype-Russell Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies
Aren't the PropNet operators monitoring their transmissions? Here in the U.S. beacons are not permitted below the 10 meter band except for the special international beacons. I realize that there are scofflaws (or worse) operating outside the rules, but it does not seem wise to promote this unless it is determined legal by the FCC ( I have not heard back yet from the FCC for help in understanding numerous issues and operations that are going on our bands). If anyone transmits a test signal (which PropNet is likely considered), and then someone else comes along and uses that frequency, such as a digital mode Q, then that frequency is busy and it is illegal for anyone to intentionally transmit on that frequency if they can hear either of the stations. Today I was able to correctly configure my emachines computer to run the vbdigi software using the suggested frequency of 10137 +1000 Hz. I happened to be on the same time as Skip, KH6TY, and so we were able to work each other although signals were fairly weak with his 3 watts to an inside antenna. (Hey, not bad, right?) The solution for the computer problem, was to insure that both the input and outputs in the Windows Control Panel Sound applet were going to the same sound card. But in order to use my Sound Blaster Live! card, I was forced to make it the default card under Windows. This created some other problems with not being able to use the front earphone jack that connects to the Realtek built-in card, for listening to MP3's, etc., but it seemed the only practical solution for now. At least I can key up the old rig with VOX, via rear panel connectors, which is something I can not do with my ICOM 756 Pro 2. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: I think it might make sense to use the SAME frequencies as Propnet. This may make no sense at all to others, so what do you think. I would not want to interfere with Propnet beacons since they perform a valuable service, but if we are going to beacon, perhaps we should use the same frequency but at a slightly differing audio frequency. Propnet folks usually use 1500 Hz, I think. How about FLARQ beacons on same frequency but at audio freq of 1000 Hz ? But.. does not propnet use 10139.5 and then 1500, not 10138 ? On 1/4/08, *Darrel Smith* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted, I am beaconing on 10.138Mhz (10.137+1Khz) psk63 now. I see there are a couple of Propnet stations beaconing using psk31 on the same frequency. Darrel, VE7CUS On 4-Jan-08, at 6:11 AM, Ted Huf wrote: Where and when is the testing of NBEMS and Flarq going on? I would like to do some testing from here. 73 Ted W4ZE Port St Lucie, FL -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com http://www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 12:05 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: JT65A - gotaway
Dave, I was on 80m last worked Dan AE9K.Then I went back to calling CQ .I am on most evening so look for me.Hope we can make a contact some night. 73 Eddie KD5JGA - Original Message From: AE9K [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 12:11:18 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: JT65A - gotaway In this case I'm fairly certain they're not false decodes. I finished a JT65A QSO with KD5JGA on 80m 18 minutes prior to what you saw. He started calling CQ again afterwards. -Dan, AE9K Dave , there is a well known WSJT phenomenon whereby one receives FALSE CQs. . The 1 0 after the grid square are tips about this possibility. That being said , it usually does not happen to the extend that you receive several CQs from the same station, so yours is likely a real situation. Andy K3UK If only I didn't have to sleep! Found a load of the following CQ calls on 80M, from leaving WSJT running overnight... 034600 3 -16 1.6 100 3 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 034700 0 -15 3.3 -471 3 034800 5 -15 1.6 100 3 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 034900 0 -15 8.1 -471 3 035000 3 -17 1.7 100 3 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 035100 0 -16 5.4 108 3 035200 4 -16 1.6 100 3 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 035300 0 -16 -1.9 -471 3 035400 5 -16 1.8 100 1 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 035500 0 -15 6.7 108 3 035600 2 -18 1.9 100 1 * CQ KD5JGA EM16 1 0 Oh well. Dave (G0DJA) -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb. com (QSL via N2RJ) Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
At 10:56 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote: My Question, is a beacon a beacon if is maned, or does it have to be unmaned to be a beacon. For me my beacon has not be on the air without being here at the PC. So do we scrip the testing or find a spot up on 10m. Russell NC5O = IN GOD WE TRUST ! = Russell Blair NC5O Skype-Russell Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 Some software has an Auto CQ. As far as I am concerned, I use that function while I am in attendance of my station location, that is the room where my equipment is. I would call it a CQ beacon, as soon as I leave the room, whilst it is still running. But what would I know? I ain't a lawyer :-) 73s Jack VK4JRC
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Those who have considered implementing Pactor 2 and/or 3 report two challenges: 1. The documentation provided is insufficient 2. The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide #1 might be overcome by an intense reverse engineering effort, but #2 reduces the total available market to a point where #1 is moot: either the application must be written to run natively on Linux or some other realtime OS (small user base), or the application must run on a dedicated processor in a relatively expensive outboard box (small user base). Most people smart enough to write good software are smart enough to not be motivated by a dare alone. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:49 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Hi Jose, Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10 years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation). This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do the same with other software writers. I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a soundcard program, but I think they can't. If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3 (and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR 2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product! At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all. Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I like PSKmail much more than NBEMS. Both can be called The poor man's Winlink2000, but really they leave a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF propagation is concerned. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
RX only wouldn't need to worry about turnaround times.. Hmmm Leigh/WA5ZNU On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 5:23 pm, Dave AA6YQ wrote: Those who have considered implementing Pactor 2 and/or 3 report two challenges: 1. The documentation provided is insufficient 2. The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide #1 might be overcome by an intense reverse engineering effort, but #2 reduces the total available market to a point where #1 is moot: either the application must be written to run natively on Linux or some other realtime OS (small user base), or the application must run on a dedicated processor in a relatively expensive outboard box (small user base). Most people smart enough to write good software are smart enough to not be motivated by a dare alone. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:49 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Hi Jose, Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10 years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation). This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do the same with other software writers. I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a soundcard program, but I think they can't. If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3 (and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR 2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product! At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all. Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I like PSKmail much more than NBEMS. Both can be called The poor man's Winlink2000, but really they leave a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF propagation is concerned. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
I would argue that the fuel for this is the irresponsible use of Pactor III by Winlink in unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect whether or not the frequency is locally clear - not some inherent flaw or suboptimal characterics. In attended operation, Pactor III is a bit challenging in that one must ensure that one's modem does not dynamically expand its bandwidth to exploit improved conditions unless the full bandwidth is clear of other QSOs. But as long as operators fulfill their responsibilities, Pactor III should not be any more problematic than any other digital mode. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:49 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes The biggest problem with Pactor-3 in the U.S. is that it periodicly fuels a desire to elimnate all digital modes with a similar bandwidth as the FCC would never ban a specific product. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Demetre SV1UY mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 21:48 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Hi Jose, Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10 years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation). This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do the same with other software writers. I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a soundcard program, but I think they can't. If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3 (and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR 2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product! At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all. Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I like PSKmail much more than NBEMS. Both can be called The poor man's Winlink2000, but really they leave a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF propagation is concerned. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up.
Hey Charles! Me thinks you've got a rather broad brush being used here. Someone says that PACTOR is dead..period. Another has said that PACTOR is deadand if I was smart, I'd pitch my AEA unit like everyone else. You, speaking for Packet enthusiasts, say Packet operators won't climb on board this innocent proposal because they're constantly being QRMed by PACTOR lids and for that reason, the Packet operators want nothing to do with anything that remotely touches PACTOR. That isn't fair to me, and any number of other folks who like the PACTOR I mode and are kindling a small surge of rebirth in the mode's interest. I've always followed the rules as they have, I'm sure. Individual PACTOR I operations cannot possibly be linked to BOTS, Winlink or whatever. I'm sure that Jack has been a considerate and law-abiding Ham for all his licensed life and means no ill-will towards anyone, least of all disrespect. I bet you and the others don't even know Jack and doubt you have ever been deliberately interferred with by him. I doubt he'd like to be included in any association with Winlink and the BOTS any more than I would. That message you quoted was a friendly, enthusiastic idea that came about from some ideas that have been bantered about offline amongst myself and some others who want to use our TNCs and PACTOR I again, just because. Seriously, this business about Winlink and BOTS is getting just a bit hysterical I think, to the point of irrationality. I say that simply because of your reaction and you're not alone at all. AND...it's understandable for sure. But, jeez, Charles. Aren't you being a bit harsh to the point that you're taking a swipe at everyone? That's exactly what the Packet operators don't want for themselves. I was on last night running my PK232 through its paces and getting reacquainted with it. I even made a couple of contacts with it using PACTOR I during Sunday and it was fun! Surely, you're not going to call me a lid simply because of using the PACTOR mode, alledged to being mis-used by others alledged to have a totally selfish agenda are you? Just my polite $ .02 worth. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Charles Brabham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up. Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and generally will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way. The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that they have a god-given right to crash other hams' QSO's. We operate according to PART97 and The Amateur's Code. - When we are not having our QSO crashed by a mindless PACTOR Lid, that is...
[digitalradio] for anyone that cares
I have been calling CQ on 7077.5 P1.
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies
Aren't all automatic transmission outside the auto subbands supposed to be under the control of an operator present? If there is activity on the frequency, then the assumption is that the control operator is not present or he would not have allowed transmission. Mark, where are you! Skip - Original Message - From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies Aren't the PropNet operators monitoring their transmissions? Here in the U.S. beacons are not permitted below the 10 meter band except for the special international beacons. I realize that there are scofflaws (or worse) operating outside the rules, but it does not seem wise to promote this unless it is determined legal by the FCC ( I have not heard back yet from the FCC for help in understanding numerous issues and operations that are going on our bands). If anyone transmits a test signal (which PropNet is likely considered), and then someone else comes along and uses that frequency, such as a digital mode Q, then that frequency is busy and it is illegal for anyone to intentionally transmit on that frequency if they can hear either of the stations. Today I was able to correctly configure my emachines computer to run the vbdigi software using the suggested frequency of 10137 +1000 Hz. I happened to be on the same time as Skip, KH6TY, and so we were able to work each other although signals were fairly weak with his 3 watts to an inside antenna. (Hey, not bad, right?) The solution for the computer problem, was to insure that both the input and outputs in the Windows Control Panel Sound applet were going to the same sound card. But in order to use my Sound Blaster Live! card, I was forced to make it the default card under Windows. This created some other problems with not being able to use the front earphone jack that connects to the Realtek built-in card, for listening to MP3's, etc., but it seemed the only practical solution for now. At least I can key up the old rig with VOX, via rear panel connectors, which is something I can not do with my ICOM 756 Pro 2. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: I think it might make sense to use the SAME frequencies as Propnet. This may make no sense at all to others, so what do you think. I would not want to interfere with Propnet beacons since they perform a valuable service, but if we are going to beacon, perhaps we should use the same frequency but at a slightly differing audio frequency. Propnet folks usually use 1500 Hz, I think. How about FLARQ beacons on same frequency but at audio freq of 1000 Hz ? But.. does not propnet use 10139.5 and then 1500, not 10138 ? On 1/4/08, *Darrel Smith* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted, I am beaconing on 10.138Mhz (10.137+1Khz) psk63 now. I see there are a couple of Propnet stations beaconing using psk31 on the same frequency. Darrel, VE7CUS On 4-Jan-08, at 6:11 AM, Ted Huf wrote: Where and when is the testing of NBEMS and Flarq going on? I would like to do some testing from here. 73 Ted W4ZE Port St Lucie, FL -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com http://www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 12:05 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 12:05 PM
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
At 11:35 AM 1/5/2008, Dave wrote: I would argue that the fuel for this is the irresponsible use of Pactor III by Winlink in unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect whether or not the frequency is locally clear not some inherent flaw or suboptimal characterics. In attended operation, Pactor III is a bit challenging in that one must ensure that ones modem does not dynamically expand its bandwidth to exploit improved conditions unless the full bandwidth is clear of other QSOs. But as long as operators fulfill their responsibilities, Pactor III should not be any more problematic than any other digital mode. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Its not hard to stop the SCS Modem from using Pactor 3. You just set MYLevel parameter to 2, modem will then only operate Pactor 1 or 2. Pactor 3 is locked out. Problem is SCS have the default set for use of Pactor 3 comms if desired, which works for the first 20 connects, after that you buy the licence from SCS and its coded to the modem serial number, where I believe originally it was coded to your callsign. 73s Jack VK4JRC
Re: [digitalradio] for anyone that cares
- Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:58 PM Subject: [digitalradio] for anyone that cares I have been calling CQ on 7077.5 P1. Hello, John. Been listening around 0223Z - I just saw your message then - not hearing you. There is some voice activity quite nearby but no indication of your P1 signal. Not sure when you started but, for what it's worth Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] for anyone that cares
Yeah I hear it also Would not want to QRM them.. Hello, John. Been listening around 0223Z - I just saw your message then - not hearing you. There is some voice activity quite nearby but no indication of your P1 signal. Not sure when you started but, for what it's worth Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up.
At 11:45 AM 1/5/2008, Howard wrote: Hey Charles! Me thinks you've got a rather broad brush being used here. Someone says that PACTOR is dead..period. Another has said that PACTOR is deadand if I was smart, I'd pitch my AEA unit like everyone else. You, speaking for Packet enthusiasts, say Packet operators won't climb on board this innocent proposal because they're constantly being QRMed by PACTOR lids and for that reason, the Packet operators want nothing to do with anything that remotely touches PACTOR. That isn't fair to me, and any number of other folks who like the PACTOR I mode and are kindling a small surge of rebirth in the mode's interest. I've always followed the rules as they have, I'm sure. Individual PACTOR I operations cannot possibly be linked to BOTS, Winlink or whatever. I'm sure that Jack has been a considerate and law-abiding Ham for all his licensed life and means no ill-will towards anyone, least of all disrespect. I bet you and the others don't even know Jack and doubt you have ever been deliberately interferred with by him. I doubt he'd like to be included in any association with Winlink and the BOTS any more than I would. That message you quoted was a friendly, enthusiastic idea that came about from some ideas that have been bantered about offline amongst myself and some others who want to use our TNCs and PACTOR I again, just because. Seriously, this business about Winlink and BOTS is getting just a bit hysterical I think, to the point of irrationality. I say that simply because of your reaction and you're not alone at all. AND...it's understandable for sure. But, jeez, Charles. Aren't you being a bit harsh to the point that you're taking a swipe at everyone? That's exactly what the Packet operators don't want for themselves. I was on last night running my PK232 through its paces and getting reacquainted with it. I even made a couple of contacts with it using PACTOR I during Sunday and it was fun! Surely, you're not going to call me a lid simply because of using the PACTOR mode, alledged to being mis-used by others alledged to have a totally selfish agenda are you? Just my polite $ .02 worth. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN All modes have their good and bad features, AND operators! I am sure most Hams respect their resource and its use, needing to share with others. There will always be some who through ignorance or having a bad hair day, will crash someone's QSO. Just like someone driving the highway crashes your lane, wile jibbering on a cell phone, reading the paper, doing their hair, emailing on their Blackberry etc. The responsibility for decent operating rests with the operator, themselves. Relying on the FCC, TUV,ACMA and other regulatory organisations to solve problems in our hobby, does not often provide the results we would like. These regulators are sick of us.believe me. The money they get from Ham licencing? We are a liability to them. Having said that, its really up to the like of the ARRL, RSGB, WIA and other organisations in the World to play more of a part in the hobby regulating itself and promoting good band plans that reflect harmonious operating in the hobby. The Pactor 3 problem? There are many other considerations too, ALE, Propnet, APRS and the list goes on growing.. Many of the these modes use a form of beacons for their operations. They are all entitled to some consideration in trying to work within band plans, some of which maybe need changing? The major part of these problems is the political agendas that seem to always screwup the potential of anything good, that can benefit the majority of people, when there is a decision making process going on. Yep, thats life as a Human Being on this Earth :-) You all may think, OK what goes here? I have been on this board all of 5 minutes, so people are thinking.what's my agenda? You're right, I DO have an agenda, its carrying out experiments/operation on HF 300 baud Packet, HF Robust 200/600 baud Packet, compared to Amtor, Pactor 1 II along with some PSK31 etc. Now you want to know WHY? OK, MY other hobby is motorcycles, specifically off road ones and the remote places I ride them. I am trying to integrate my Ham hobby, with riding in remote places. My best option for digital modes is a TNC based system. An SCS PTC-IIex, with Icom 703, Buddipole antenna, RS232 AA battery powered dumb terminal OR Psion 3mx palmtop allows me to operate motorcycle portable on Amtor, Pactor, Packet, PSK31, CW. Its a compact, portable station which allows me to also run a mailbox on the motorcycle, while mobile or portable. Carrying a laptop is not something I want to do...that leaves all the sound card modes out. Having just bought a bike for my expeditions in South Africa, for riding there and to surrounding countries, and playing Ham Radio, its gonna be a whole lot of fun! 73s Jack VK4JRC
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
I am just talking about sending the FLARQ beacon while in the shack. On Jan 4, 2008 11:09 PM, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The FCC is pretty clear on the definition of a beacon. 97.3 Definitions/ (9) Beacon/. An amateur station transmitting communications for the purposes of observation of propagation and reception or other related experimental activities. Here are the frequency bands that they may be operated automatically: 97.203 (d) A beacon may be automatically controlled while it is transmitting on the 28.20-28.30 MHz, 50.06-50.08 MHz, 144.275-144.300 MHz, 222.05-222.06 MHz, or 432.300-432.400 MHz segments, or on the 33 cm and shorter wavelength bands. There are no HF or MF frequencies below 28 MHz that permit radio amateurs to run a beacon automatically. As I have pointed out, a number of ham activities that are claimed to be for the purposes of propagation, especially PropNet and the HFLinkNet appear to be illegal operations if they are being run automatically. It is stretching the rules rather thin but you could probably transmit test transmissions as the FCC says, on any frequency authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes. This is why Bonnie, KQ6XA freaked out so strongly with her personal attack on me for daring to actually ask the FCC for some answers to these very questions, but yet did not have one shred of technical information to suggest otherwise. These issues need to be addressed. Perhaps the FCC can change the rules to allow such operations in the future, but should the rules be ignored for now? I wonder if the OO program has been involved with any of these violations? 73, Rick, KV9U Russell Blair wrote: My Question, is a beacon a beacon if is maned, or does it have to be unmaned to be a beacon. For me my beacon has not be on the air without being here at the PC. So do we scrip the testing or find a spot up on 10m. Russell NC5O -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: PSK250
FRom Multipsk. --Creation: in 2007 Description : Baud rate : 250 Speed : 296 wpm in capital letters and 408 wpm in small letters (average) Bandwidth : about 500 Hz, Drift tolerance : 120 Hz/min in BPSK250 and 40 Hz/min in QPSK250 (depending on level) Lowest S/N : -2 dB The secondary channel specific to Multipsk There are two sets of characters among 256 ASCII and ANSI characters: * a first set of 193 characters (the primary table) is used for the current exchanges, * a second set of 62 characters (the secondary table) is used to send automatically, in a continue and repetitive way, the following pieces of information Call, Name, Locator, QTH during which nothing is sent, the QSO being in progress. It is a sort of intelligent idling. These characters are displayed in a little window. The idling character, if nothing can be sent, is the character CHR(0). This secondary channel is interesting because the flow of characters in these modes is very superior to the typing speed. It will permit to Hams listening to rapidly have essential information between typed characters. See the document Characters to manage for secondary text on DominoEX FEC, PSK63 and PSK125.doc on my WEB site (Specifications) for details. Note: for the remainder, except the secondary channel, the characteristics are identical to the ones of BPSK31/QPSK31 modes.- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am trying to find more information on PSK250 but there seems to be a considerable lack of information when I do a Google search. I'd like to know some of its specifications and what the effective baud rate is with a good HF signal when that mode is implemented. Can anyone point me to a good source of info on PSK 250? Ed K7AAT Dial Broadband has arrived Nationwide! Up to 5 times faster than traditional dialup connections from $13.33/month! See the demo for yourself at a href=http://www.BigValley.net;www.BigValley.net/a
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
The FCC is pretty clear on the definition of a beacon. 97.3 Definitions/ (9) Beacon/. An amateur station transmitting communications for the purposes of observation of propagation and reception or other related experimental activities. Here are the frequency bands that they may be operated automatically: 97.203 (d) A beacon may be automatically controlled while it is transmitting on the 28.20-28.30 MHz, 50.06-50.08 MHz, 144.275-144.300 MHz, 222.05-222.06 MHz, or 432.300-432.400 MHz segments, or on the 33 cm and shorter wavelength bands. There are no HF or MF frequencies below 28 MHz that permit radio amateurs to run a beacon automatically. As I have pointed out, a number of ham activities that are claimed to be for the purposes of propagation, especially PropNet and the HFLinkNet appear to be illegal operations if they are being run automatically. It is stretching the rules rather thin but you could probably transmit test transmissions as the FCC says, on any frequency authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes. This is why Bonnie, KQ6XA freaked out so strongly with her personal attack on me for daring to actually ask the FCC for some answers to these very questions, but yet did not have one shred of technical information to suggest otherwise. These issues need to be addressed. Perhaps the FCC can change the rules to allow such operations in the future, but should the rules be ignored for now? I wonder if the OO program has been involved with any of these violations? 73, Rick, KV9U Russell Blair wrote: My Question, is a beacon a beacon if is maned, or does it have to be unmaned to be a beacon. For me my beacon has not be on the air without being here at the PC. So do we scrip the testing or find a spot up on 10m. Russell NC5O
Re: [digitalradio] PSK250
Andrew, Thank you for the info. It was exactly what I was looking for. Ed K7AAT Dial Broadband has arrived Nationwide! Up to 5 times faster than traditional dialup connections from $13.33/month! See the demo for yourself at a href=http://www.BigValley.net;www.BigValley.net/a
[digitalradio] 2008 ARRL RTTY Round-Up this weekend
2008 ARRL RTTY Round-Up Rules General Rules 1. Object: Amateurs worldwide contact and exchange QSO information with other amateurs using digital modes (Baudot RTTY, ASCII, AMTOR, PSK31, and Packet—attended operation only) on 80, 40, 20, 15, and 10 meter bands. Any station may work any other station. Stations may be worked once per band, regardless of mode. 2. Date and Contest Period: First full weekend of January, but never on January 1. Begins 1800 UTC Saturday, ends 2400 UTC Sunday (January 5-6, 2008). 1. 2.1. Operate no more than 24 hours. 2. 2.2. The six hours of off time must be taken in no more than two blocks. 3. Entry Categories: 1. 3.1. Single Operator: 1. 3.1.1. Low Power. 2. 3.1.2. High Power. 2. 3.2. Multioperator, Single Transmitter: 1. 3.2.1 Power. 1. 3.2.1.1. Low Power 2. 3.2.1.2. High Power 2. 3.2.2. Stations are allowed only one transmitted signal at any given time. 3. 3.2.3. Includes those single operators that use any form of spotting assistance such as from nets or packet. 4. 3.2.4. Includes those that receive assistance with logging or relief operators, etc. 5. 3.2.5. Limited to 6 band changes (maximum) in any clock hour. 6. 3.2.6. The clock hour is from zero through 59 minutes. 7. 3.2.7. Band changes are defined so that, for example, a change from 20 meters 15 meters and then back to 20 meters constitutes two band changes. 4. Exchange: 1. 4.1. United States: Signal report and State. 2. 4.2. Canada: Signal report and Province. 3. 4.3. DX: Signal report and consecutive serial number, starting with 001. 5. Scoring: 1. 5.1. QSO Points: Count one point for each completed QSO. 2. 5.2. Multipliers: Each US state (except KH6 and KL7) plus the District of Columbia (DC), Canadian provinces/territories: NB (VE1, 9), NS (VE1), QC (VE2), ON (VE3), MB (VE4), SK (VE5), AB (VE6), BC (VE7), NWT (VE8), NF (VO1), LB (VO2), NU (VYØ), YT (VY1), PEI (VY2) and each DXCC country. KH6 and KL7 count only as separate DXCC entities. 1. 5.2.1. Count only once (not once per band). 2. 5.2.2. The US and Canada do not count as DXCC entities. 6. Reporting: 1. 6.1. All entries are must be postmarked or emailed by February 5, 2008. 2. 6.2. Entries in electronic format may be submitted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or submitted on 3.5 diskette to RTTY Round-Up, ARRL, 225 Main St, Newington, CT 06111. 3. 6.3. All logs that are created electronically are required to submit their electronic log file in Cabrillo file format. A print out of an electronically generated log is not an acceptable substitute. A hand-written log that is later entered into a logging or other electronic program is considered an electronically generated log and must meet electronic file requirements. 4. 6.4. The Cabrillo entries include the header and the complete QSO list. 5. 6.5. Submissions may be made using the web applet at www.b4h.net/cabforms 6. 6.6. Hand-logged entries may be submitted to RTTY Round-Up, ARRL, 225 Main St, Newington, CT 06111. 7. Miscellaneous: 1. 7.1. Packet radio contacts made through digipeaters or gateways are not permitted. 2. 7.2. All ARRL Contest rules and forms may be downloaded from the ARRL Contest web page at: http://www.arrl.org/contests/forms or obtained from the Contest Branch by sending an SASE with 2 units of postage. 3. 7.3. For contest information contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or (860) 594-0232 8. Awards: 1. 8.1 Certificates will be awarded to: 1. 8.1.1. Top high power and low power Single Operator and Multioperator scorers in each ARRL/RAC Section. 2. 8.1.2. Top high power and low power Single Operator and Multioperator scorers in each DXCC country (other than W/VE). 2. 8.2. Plaques, if sponsored, will be awarded to the top scoring low and high power entrant in each category overall, each ARRL Division, and Canada. 1. 8.2.1. Unsponsored plaques may be purchased from the ARRL. 9. Other: See General Rules for All ARRL Contests and General Rules for ARRL Contests on bands below 30 MHz (HF) November 2001 QST. -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email:
[digitalradio] Re: 2008 ARRL RTTY Round-Up this weekend
Note, many differing digital modes are permitted not just RTTY
