Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies
Being so close to another net frequency is not going to work unless you provide a proper filter. Using flarq efficiently you need to * use a 500 Hz filter or better * use a distance of 500 Hz. We have tried to put 2 pskmail servers on a 250 Hz distance but they qrm'ed each other in such a way that is was not feasible. We had to increase the distance to 500 Hz. To use a broad filter and let the DSP do the filtering is basically wrong. The AGC will wipe out the flarq signal to the effect that all packets are damaged and no transfer is possible. To take advantage of the small bandwidth of PSK63 you need to have a matched (100 Hz) filter. If you don't have that it makes more sense to increase the speed to PSK250. That has the added advantage of being less frequency-critical. Just some of the experience we gathered with pskmail... 73, Rein PA0R 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 -- 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/
Re: [digitalradio] PSK250
Most pskmail servers have switched from PSK63 to PSK250, the effective baud rate is 8x the rate of PSK31. 73, Rein Pa0R -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: 05.01.08 05:21:14 An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Betreff: [digitalradio] PSK250 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 -- 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/
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor3
Hi, Yes - Patrick's idea is on the to-do list along with PSF63F. At the moment I am working on SSTV with the aim of having a beta inside three weeks. Although SSTV is analogue it's a great weak-signal DX mode and really quite interesting from a retro-viewpoint. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Sholto Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: [digitalradio] HF BBS systems
Rick wrote: The BBS concept (without the internet) was THE system in place for well over a decade. We initially had worldwide packet HF BBS systems, however they were less effective after the sunspots declined and the higher bands became unusable. Packet does not work well on HF. It requires a relatively high S/N ratio for any kind of throughput. Well, it allowed access to information to those without Internet access, still a vast majority in the Third World. It was a way to know about operating events, DXpeditions, new developments, replacing the magazines or internet distributed bulletins we did not receive. Of course bad HF propagation affected it more than we would have wished. Also, a content control was needed to cope with the scarce bandwidth available. 7PLUS could be either a blessing or a nightmare at times. Once, I had a clash with a british net controller, which I regarded as fascist instantly, imposing a limit of 5 K per piece of mail sent to the british network. It happened that one of my users had sent a too large piece of e-mail. Later, when the VHF packet community here grew, I faced the same problems with ill adjusted, greedy parameters and resource deprived 286's that some of my users had, generating endless retry chains On packet, the ill chosen layer one is the responsible. I am quite sure that it would have been different with a better layer one, using a mixture of FEC/ARQ, as pactor does, and is available nowadays. It would increase latency, but also thruput would increase. Of course, it is too easy to be a prophet of the past... snip These BBS's eventually were tied in to local VHF packet BBS systems so that hams could send traffic worldwide although it could take days to get through. Everything was done via amateur radio RF links for HF although there were wormholes (practically speaking, the early internet), that made big jumps to connect VHF packet. I had a good link to different Satellite Gateways at different times, and it worked well. A packet mail to Australia usually had a reply the following day. When Pactor and Clover II became available, the BBS system moved to these modes and renamed the system Winlink to include a MS Windows GUI interface along with the two new modes providing the transport. Some of them only, I would say. I kept on using FBB while using pactor II for the forwarding links, a 10:1 improvement in thruput. These are some of my views, from my perspective, 73, Jose, CO2JA __ 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] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Dave, I don't agree about Windows real-time scheduling problems - correct use of priority (SetThreadPriority) and CPU cycle counting (QueryPerformanceCounter) results in a level of accuracy more than adequate for our needs. Do you know about the Pactor 3 copyright issue? I believe that it is protected but cannot find any proof about this. If the documentation about the protocol is insufficient then this adds fuel to the anti-Pactor 3 argument. This is for a very serious IARU presentation which aims to ensure that all modes which can be used on our bands are properly documented and can be developed royalty-free for use in the amateur bands. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ 2. The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 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 Hi Dave, This is just about the 1st time you spoke rationally and we agree. Now you are not mixing up PACTOR I/II/III with Winlink2000 and this is a start. I would also like to let you know that PACTOR operators who intend to operate in PACTOR III mode, start their QSO with the 2.4 KHZ filter in their radio and they are able to hear all the passband that PACTOR III will eventually occupy when expanded. Hence they can hear anyone else using the frequency. If they want to use PACTOR II they always use their 500 HZ wide filter and they still can hear if anyone else is using the frequency in their passband. So PACTOR III operators never interfere anyone else's QSO because they can hear them before transmitting. Automatic or semiautomatic Winlink2000 PMBOs and other automatic FORWARDING and not FORWARDING HF Mailboxes, HF to VHF/UHF GATEWAYS etc. using PACTOR/PACKET or any other modes, work in a different way and I am not going to go back to it because this matter has been beaten to death already. People get sick of hearing about it all the time. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: HF BBS systems
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Once, I had a clash with a british net controller, which I regarded as fascist instantly, imposing a limit of 5 K per piece of mail sent to the british network. It happened that one of my users had sent a too large piece of e-mail. Hi Jose again, I think that exactly this behaviour killed PACKET RADIO networks worldwide. Bad sysops like the one you are describing above existed in many parts of the world are responsible for this. NETROM BARONS AND PACKET KINGS!!! I kept on using FBB while using pactor II for the forwarding links, a 10:1 improvement in thruput. There are still quite a few around the world that still do that and they also provide HF PACTOR to VHF/UHF PACKET RADIO GATEWAYS. These are some of my views, from my perspective, 73, Jose, CO2JA 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] More JT65A - gotaway
I left WSJT in mode JT65A monitoring last night as well. 80M, 3.576MHz on the dial and no deep search (see the 1 0 at the end of the captures). Again, all whilst I was asleep. HI. 043800 6 -18 -0.1 -3 3 * CQ N4UPX EM50 1 0 043900 0 -18 -0.6 19 1 044000 4 -17 -0.1 -3 3 # AE9K N4UPX EM50 OOO 1 0 044100 0 -18 5.7 19 4 044200 5 -18 0.0 -3 3 * AE9K N4UPX R-08 1 0 044300 0 -19 6.2 19 2 044400 2 -17 -0.2 -3 3 * AE9K N4UPX RRR1 0 044500 0 -19 1.4 19 4 044600 6 -18 -0.1 -3 3 * AE9K 73 TU DA 1 0 044700 0 -22 9.7 412 6 044900 4 -19 0.0 -8 3 * CQ N9DSJ EN52 1 0 045000 0 -25 -0.5 -541 3 045100 5 -18 0.1 -8 3 * CQ N9DSJ EN52 1 0 045200 2 -23 -0.1 358 4 * CQ N4UPX EM50 1 0 045300 1 -31 -89 3 73 ? 045400 4 -21 0.0 358 4 * CQ N4UPX EM50 1 0 045900 10 -15 -0.1 -8 3 * CQ N9DSJ EN52 1 0 05 0 -25 9.7 19 2 050100 4 -18 -0.2 -8 3 * CQ N9DSJ EN52 1 0 050200 0 -24 9.2 -563 1 050300 4 -18 -0.2 -8 3 * CQ N9DSJ EN52 1 0 050400 1 -29 -0.2 573 3 * 050500 2 -18 0.0 -8 3 * WB8PMG N9DSJ -22 1 0 050800 3 -20 -0.2 498 0 * CQ N4UPX EM50 1 0 053300 5 -20 -0.2 -3 3 * CQ N4UPX EM50 1 0 053400 0 -26 -1.7 -253 25 053500 3 -16 -0.2 -3 3 * CQ N4UPX EM50 1 0 Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF BBS systems
Demetre SV1UY wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Once, I had a clash with a british net controller, which I regarded as fascist instantly, imposing a limit of 5 K per piece of mail sent to the british network. It happened that one of my users had sent a too large piece of e-mail. Hi Jose again, I think that exactly this behaviour killed PACKET RADIO networks worldwide. Bad sysops like the one you are describing above existed in many parts of the world are responsible for this. NETROM BARONS AND PACKET KINGS!!! I used the Packet network for many years, only as an operator and 'interested party'. I did talk to some sysops, and most were people who wanted the network to work. However, there were some who I suspected had either become sysops because of the power that it gave them over their fellow Radio Amateurs, or who wanted to kill the system dead. A common ploy in the business world. Looking at the new systems, I'm sure they will find their users and devotees, but, to be honest, I'm not sure that they will catch on in the UK, or even most of Europe, to a great extent. The obvious rival is internet email. Love it or hate it, and argue that it's not using Amateur Radio all you like, and that it could be knocked out by accidents and any number of causes, but it's just too cheap, too fast and, mostly, too reliable to send stuff over the air instead. Add to that the need to dedicate radios and antennas to it to make it work, which was why I did not run a BBS or an APRS node, as I prefer the freedom to use my own antennas whenever I wanted, and the added problems of not wanting to loose a band due to having a transmitter going on a nearby frequency for periods of the day, and it might seem selfish but I wasn't prepared to do that. All cudos to those that did, and paid out to put node transceivers on towers etc., etc. but it takes alot of organising to do it... There will always be the special interest groups, who will do it because they want to prove it can be done and those that live in places where sending email is expensive, or difficult, of course. However, as Amateurs, it seems to me that we do seem to keep coming out with new ideas to reinvent the wheel at times. Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Bozo Guide for SVN (subversion)
Hi, Is there a bozo SVN guide for windows? The task is not to retreive anything, but to put a project into sourceforge or similar. The project is about 50 VC++ files and some libs. Any instructions would be appreciated. 73, Cesco, HB9TLK
[digitalradio] Re: HF BBS systems
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I used the Packet network for many years, only as an operator and 'interested party'. I did talk to some sysops, and most were people who wanted the network to work. However, there were some who I suspected had either become sysops because of the power that it gave them over their fellow Radio Amateurs, or who wanted to kill the system dead. A common ploy in the business world. Looking at the new systems, I'm sure they will find their users and devotees, but, to be honest, I'm not sure that they will catch on in the UK, or even most of Europe, to a great extent. The obvious rival is internet email. Love it or hate it, and argue that it's not using Amateur Radio all you like, and that it could be knocked out by accidents and any number of causes, but it's just too cheap, too fast and, mostly, too reliable to send stuff over the air instead. Add to that the need to dedicate radios and antennas to it to make it work, which was why I did not run a BBS or an APRS node, as I prefer the freedom to use my own antennas whenever I wanted, and the added problems of not wanting to loose a band due to having a transmitter going on a nearby frequency for periods of the day, and it might seem selfish but I wasn't prepared to do that. All cudos to those that did, and paid out to put node transceivers on towers etc., etc. but it takes alot of organising to do it... There will always be the special interest groups, who will do it because they want to prove it can be done and those that live in places where sending email is expensive, or difficult, of course. However, as Amateurs, it seems to me that we do seem to keep coming out with new ideas to reinvent the wheel at times. Dave (G0DJA) Hi Dave, Wise words OM. I have also seen the UK packet network first hand since I am in the UK at least twice a year for a period of 2-3 weeks each time and I know what you are talking about. Also in the UK once the aerial masts were sold to private companies many PACKET NODES died as well, as well as many voice repeater nodes. As for the Internet being the biggest competitor to PACKET RADIO and the like, yes it is the biggest competitor, but ostly radio hams got sick of the NETROM BARONS and PACKET KINGS, hi hi hi!!! I personally still like PACKET Radio and I still maintain a 19k2 link and 9k6 and 1k2 user ports along with an APRS IGATE and DIGI here in Athens. A few people still use the PACKET RADIO nodes but not many. I also use my mobile phone as a GPRS modem connected to my laptop and this does not cost me more than 3.5 EURO a month. Also my PDA when there is free WiFi access in the city since the PDA is always in my pocket. I use these when I want to surf the Internet and I am away from any fast Internet at home, but when I have radio access I like to use 9k6 or 1k2 PACKET RADIO for my Ham stuff, or my SCS-PTCII modem for PACTOR/PACKET/RTTY/PSK31 QSOs or HF radio e-mail especially when I am on holiday and I can get all the necessary rigs with me. After all I enjoy using my radio gear more than the real Internet, especially when I am away from home and away from my ADSL or WiFi backup link. Mind you people in France and Germany and Switzerland have a marvelous PACKET RADIO NETWORK and they have upgraded to 76k8 long ago so PACKET RADIO is not DEAD in Europe. I think the Germans especially and the French have done a marvelous job in PACKET RADIO NETWORK in their countries. They do not care about Internet taking over, they just try to maintain and improve their network constantly. It is not a coincidence that SCS is a German company. Also FLEXNET and DAMA are both made by German Hams and FPAC by the French Hams. These 3 are the best Network Switching Protocols in Packet Radio. So really if we are to improve our hobby and more than anything else digital modes that we all seem to care about, we should perhaps take some lessons from these guys in Germany, France, Switzerland and also in Holland where they also still have a decent Packet Network as I read in various Radio Amateur lists. I am sure that some radio amateurs that live in these places and are also members of this list can tell us much more than I said. We can definatelly take some lessons from them. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] More JT65A - gotaway
Look like real ones to me, now if only you could work them while sleeping ! On Jan 5, 2008 5:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I left WSJT in mode JT65A monitoring last night as well. 80M, 3.576MHz on the dial and no deep search (see the 1 0 at the end of the captures). Again, all whilst I was asleep. HI. 043800 6 -18 -0.1 -3 3 * CQ N4UPX EM50 1 0 043900 0 -18 -0.6 19 1 044000 4 -17 -0.1 -3 3 # AE9K N4UPX EM50 OOO 1 0 044100 0 -18 5.7 19 4 044200 5 -18 0.0 -3 3 * AE9K N4UPX R-08 1 0 044300 0 -19 6.2 19 2 044400 2 -17 -0.2 -3 3 * AE9K N4UPX RRR 1 0 044500 0 -19 1.4 19 4 044600 6 -18 -0.1 -3 3 * AE9K 73 TU DA 1 0 044700 0 -22 9.7 412 6 044900 4 -19 0.0 -8 3 * CQ N9DSJ EN52 1 0 045000 0 -25 -0.5 -541 3 045100 5 -18 0.1 -8 3 * CQ N9DSJ EN52 1 0 045200 2 -23 -0.1 358 4 * CQ N4UPX EM50 1 0 045300 1 -31 -89 3 73 ? 045400 4 -21 0.0 358 4 * CQ N4UPX EM50 1 0 045900 10 -15 -0.1 -8 3 * CQ N9DSJ EN52 1 0 05 0 -25 9.7 19 2 050100 4 -18 -0.2 -8 3 * CQ N9DSJ EN52 1 0 050200 0 -24 9.2 -563 1 050300 4 -18 -0.2 -8 3 * CQ N9DSJ EN52 1 0 050400 1 -29 -0.2 573 3 * 050500 2 -18 0.0 -8 3 * WB8PMG N9DSJ -22 1 0 050800 3 -20 -0.2 498 0 * CQ N4UPX EM50 1 0 053300 5 -20 -0.2 -3 3 * CQ N4UPX EM50 1 0 053400 0 -26 -1.7 -253 25 053500 3 -16 -0.2 -3 3 * CQ N4UPX EM50 1 0 Dave (G0DJA) -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies
While in the shack today, I will be FLARQing on 10137 plus 1000 HZ AF. Andy K3UK FN02hk On Jan 5, 2008 4:02 AM, Rein Couperus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Being so close to another net frequency is not going to work unless you provide a proper filter. Using flarq efficiently you need to * use a 500 Hz filter or better * use a distance of 500 Hz. We have tried to put 2 pskmail servers on a 250 Hz distance but they qrm'ed each other in such a way that is was not feasible. We had to increase the distance to 500 Hz. To use a broad filter and let the DSP do the filtering is basically wrong. The AGC will wipe out the flarq signal to the effect that all packets are damaged and no transfer is possible. To take advantage of the small bandwidth of PSK63 you need to have a matched (100 Hz) filter. If you don't have that it makes more sense to increase the speed to PSK250. That has the added advantage of being less frequency-critical. Just some of the experience we gathered with pskmail... 73, Rein PA0R 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 -- 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 -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
I'm familiar with and use both SetThreadPriority, QueryPerformanceCounter - but Windows provides no way to guarantee that a process will receive service within a specified limit. Try dragging around the Windows Task Manager, for example; even the highest priority processes will be starved. Running Windows in a virtual machine (e.g. VMWare) on Linux and running the protocol engine directly on Linux could be a solution. I have not pursued the Pactor spec or IP issues; you might ask Bob N4HY via his email address in QRZ.com. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Brown Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:18 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes Dave, I don't agree about Windows real-time scheduling problems - correct use of priority (SetThreadPriority) and CPU cycle counting (QueryPerformanceCounter) results in a level of accuracy more than adequate for our needs. Do you know about the Pactor 3 copyright issue? I believe that it is protected but cannot find any proof about this. If the documentation about the protocol is insufficient then this adds fuel to the anti-Pactor 3 argument. This is for a very serious IARU presentation which aims to ensure that all modes which can be used on our bands are properly documented and can be developed royalty-free for use in the amateur bands. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
I have often made the distinction between Pactor III and Winlink, Demetre. For example, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/25201 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:28 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 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 Hi Dave, This is just about the 1st time you spoke rationally and we agree. Now you are not mixing up PACTOR I/II/III with Winlink2000 and this is a start. I would also like to let you know that PACTOR operators who intend to operate in PACTOR III mode, start their QSO with the 2.4 KHZ filter in their radio and they are able to hear all the passband that PACTOR III will eventually occupy when expanded. Hence they can hear anyone else using the frequency. If they want to use PACTOR II they always use their 500 HZ wide filter and they still can hear if anyone else is using the frequency in their passband. So PACTOR III operators never interfere anyone else's QSO because they can hear them before transmitting. Automatic or semiautomatic Winlink2000 PMBOs and other automatic FORWARDING and not FORWARDING HF Mailboxes, HF to VHF/UHF GATEWAYS etc. using PACTOR/PACKET or any other modes, work in a different way and I am not going to go back to it because this matter has been beaten to death already. People get sick of hearing about it all the time. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] The NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System (NBEMS) IT WORKS !!!!
I beacon with a ARQ'd PSK63 signal on 30M this morning and Skip KH6TY (in 4-land) connected with me . I had seen FLARQ work before , under Linux, when visiting Skip's shack in the summer. I tried hard to find others willing to test it on HF but only had partial success with a local ham on 6M and he had a drifting tube rig. A couple of other 40M tests did not go well , mostly pilot errors So, today Skip and I worked PSK63, 125, and 250 , He with 25 watts and an attic 80M antenna and me with a 40M inverted V and 35 watts, both not with the best antennae. Each th PSK modes achieved a completed file transfer and , importantly, the received text was thus 100% accurate. PSK63 was without any re-tries. PSK125 was with a couple of re-tries, and PSK250 had several. The point is... that all worked ! When typing keyboard-style in PSK250 it was hard to decode more than 60% of the text but , obviously, with ARQ for the file transfer we achieved 100 copy. So, when we posted about this in September, we emphasized the potential for this software to become a reliable method for sending emergency communications without reliance on the Internet or without wide-mode digital methods. Skip also emphasized how useful this will be on VHF, the primary target frequencies for regional communications. I will try again to get my local ARES colleagues to download the new Windows version and see if I can persuade them to try it on local 2M and 6M frequencies. I recall that Skip's net in Mount Pleasant was having reliable communications up to a 150 mile range on VHF. So, folks. What Skip and Dave proclaimed appears to be true, I encourage all to try it and set up some email and file transfer tests. We have a simple to operate, narrow band, robust digital mode , with ARQ when needed. It will work when there is no Internet! Get the free software from http://w1hkj.com/NBEMS/ . It takes less that 2 minutes to configure the software, it is simple but give me a shout if you need help setting it up. -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) The NBEMS development team is pleased to announce the availability of a Windows NBEMS software suite for beta testing. The NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System (NBEMS) for Windows is a suite of software programs designed for point-to-point, fast, error-free, emergency messaging up to or over 100 miles distant, and takes up a very minimum of space on the ham bands, leaving more space for all other ham activites. The system is designed primarily for use on the two-meter band, or on HF with NVIS antennas, where there is a minimum of fading (QSB) to slow down message transfers. Two meters has the advantage that distances long enough to span disaster areas of up to 100 miles can be dependably covered with small, portable antennas. In hilly regions, if two meters is not workable over the distances required, NVIS antennas on HF can be employed instead, but are not nearly as portable. The system uses the computer soundcard as the modem and, other than a simple interface connection between the computer and transceiver, no additional hardware is needed. Composing and sending emergency messages on NBEMS utilizes the same Outlook Express, Outlook, or Windows Mail, email program used for Internet email, and is no more difficult than sending an email over the Internet. Messages just go over the radio instead, when the Internet, phone service, or repeater system is not locally reachable in an emergency. PSK63, PSK125, or PSK250 is used to modulate either two-meter SSB, or HF SSB transmitters, using horizontally polarized antennas for greatest range. Two meters is unique in that the propagation is more constant than on the lower bands from 6 meters on down, range is greater, and absorption less, than on the lowest UHF band, 70 cm, so much wider modes, that handle QSB by continuing to work far below the noise level, are not needed. This point-to-point system does not utilize repeaters, or email robots, for message forwarding. All forwarding is always done by stations manned by live operators on both ends, who can comfirm that a frequency is clear locally, negotiate a QSY if necessary to avoid causing interference, and confirm delivery of a message by the intended recipient. The system depends upon a multitude of radio amateurs providing the traditional public service function, similar to the way they always have, and gives more hams a chance to help out with emergency communications without requiring a large hardware investment. The software can also be used for daily casual communications on PSK31, PSK63, RTTY, or MFSK16 and is capable of sending flawless, high resolution, passport photo-sized color images, in less than 10 minutes over any path that can sustain PSK250 without excessive repeats. All the members on this digitalradio reflector are invited to participate in the beta test of the NBEMS. The NBEMS suite can be downloaded for beta testing from: http://w1hkj.com/NBEMS/
[digitalradio] Re: New ARRL HF Digital Handbook - Fourth Edition (Available October 2007)
Good morning, Dan, I just received this book for Chirstmas and find it very useful (in fact, I found this forum becase of the book). It appears to cover much of the basics and provides a nice overview of various modes, down to describing the method of transmission, charater sets, etc. I am not famailiar with the Peter Martinez article, so I can not compare it directly, but I do not believe that you would be able to develop a program to use these modes based on the information in the book (if that is your intent). However, I believe this book worthy of looking at. I have enjoyed reading it! Hope this helps. 73, Robert - N4IJS --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, AE9K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 andrewobrie@ wrote: Thanks Mark, this looks quite interesting. ANdy K3UK On 9/7/07, Mark Thompson wb9qzb@ wrote: ARRL's HF Digital Handbook Fourth Edition ARRL's HF Digital Handbook Fourth Edition
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies
This rather surprises me as I can normally decode PSK31 stations right next to each other with no problems at all. Even if they are almost touching each other on the waterfall. And that is using a very wide filter, typically voice bandwidth, unless I have some very strong signals that is desensing the rig too much. Did you mean that the center frequencies of the PSK250 mode were separated by 500 Hz? If so, that would be as close as you could possibly get at that baud rate and bandwidth since each modulation would be out about 250 Hz from the center frequency. Anything closer than 500 Hz from the center frequencies would overlap with a 250 baud rate. 73, Rick, KV9U Rein Couperus wrote: Being so close to another net frequency is not going to work unless you provide a proper filter. Using flarq efficiently you need to * use a 500 Hz filter or better * use a distance of 500 Hz. We have tried to put 2 pskmail servers on a 250 Hz distance but they qrm'ed each other in such a way that is was not feasible. We had to increase the distance to 500 Hz. To use a broad filter and let the DSP do the filtering is basically wrong. The AGC will wipe out the flarq signal to the effect that all packets are damaged and no transfer is possible. To take advantage of the small bandwidth of PSK63 you need to have a matched (100 Hz) filter. If you don't have that it makes more sense to increase the speed to PSK250. That has the added advantage of being less frequency-critical. Just some of the experience we gathered with pskmail... 73, Rein PA0R 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/
RE: [digitalradio] Bozo Guide for SVN (subversion)
I have not seen a bozos guide but can assist you. Offline from the group might be better... I am using Goggle Code as the repository for The Ham Network since it uses SVN. Since I work with Windows I also have a utility called Tortoise SVN that integrates with Windows Explorer. Via right click I get a menu that lets me do day to day operations on my local and Google repository. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of cesco12342000 Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:02 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Bozo Guide for SVN (subversion) Hi, Is there a bozo SVN guide for windows? The task is not to retreive anything, but to put a project into sourceforge or similar. The project is about 50 VC++ files and some libs. Any instructions would be appreciated. 73, Cesco, HB9TLK
Re: [digitalradio] The NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System (NBEMS) IT WORKS !!!!
10137 and 1000 Hz On Jan 5, 2008 11:11 AM, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:21 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote: I beacon with a ARQ'd PSK63 signal on 30M this morning and Skip KH6TY (in 4-land) connected with me Where you at on 30M Andy? -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] The NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System (NBEMS) IT WORKS !!!!
At 09:21 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote: I beacon with a ARQ'd PSK63 signal on 30M this morning and Skip KH6TY (in 4-land) connected with me Where you at on 30M Andy?
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
Rick You keep lumping automatic together with unattended As you may know the ProrNet site says to NEVER leave your station untended as well as the WL2K site.
Re: [digitalradio] The NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System (NBEMS) IT WORKS !!!!
Couldn't quite cut it from Sarasota, FL, Andy. Thanks for trying. I'll be beaconing near you. John W2KI
[digitalradio] Re: Bozo Guide for SVN (subversion)
I also have a utility called Tortoise SVN that integrates with Windows Explorer. I have tried this and got extremely confused. I prefer the command line tool. I have not seen a bozos guide but can assist you. Offline from the group might be better... TNX. I will mail you directly, maybe you can remove some roadblocks for me. 73, Cesco, HB9TLK
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Rick You keep lumping automatic together with unattended As you may know the ProrNet site says to NEVER leave your station untended as well as the WL2K site. A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at the location of the receiver* is unattended. Some have confused the issue by claiming that a remote station (i.e. a Pactor station) that is activated by another station hundreds or thousands of miles away, is attended because it was activated by the distant station. This is unattended transmitting because the distant station cannot check the channel to see if it is clear due to the properties of skip. So Rick's use of the terms was correct. The concept of a distant activating station attending a remote transmitter is incorrect. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] JT65A reports
There seems to be a difference btween reporting systems between the US system and the European system on terrestrial JT65A contacts. Can anyone explain to me when a contact is 'valid' between two stations using the two different systems please? For example, I received the following today (callsigns obscured to not cause offence) on 20M 163700 12 -2 0.05 4 * CQ EA*** JM**1 0 163900 10 -5 0.15 3 * G0DJA EA*** JM** 1 0 164100 6 -6 0.05 3 * G0DJA EA*** 1 0 164300 10 -15 4 3 RRR ? That was it, no report, not even OOOs. I was using what, in the guide, says is the European standard of sending the received dB signal strength, but the EA station was using the US version, appart from no OOO. A quick read through the excellent Bozos guide gave me the clue that the other station was double left clicking on callsigns (US system reports)and I am double right clicking (Eu system reports). Now, two questions occur to me at this point. 1. Is my EA contact 'good' or 'incomplete' and 2. What's going to happen when US stations and Eu stations work each other? I wonder why two reporting systems were created for terrestrial JT65A? My guess is that the US one will win out anyway, as that just seems to be the way these things go and left clicking is more the norm than right anyway, so why the alternative systems? Also, whilst I'm asking questions, why does double right clicking automatically turn Auto TX to ON? If you are not careful, and want to pre-load a callsign to call at the end of an existing QSO, you end up accidentally TXing over the top of the person working the station you want to have a go at next. This seems a bit like poor operating and it's not untill you do it for the first time that you realise what's happening... Thanks for any help with these problems I'm having - Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] JT65A reports
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was it, no report, not even OOOs. I was using what, in the guide, says is the European standard of sending the received dB signal strength, but the EA station was using the US version, appart from no OOO. Sorry, my mistake, I missread the guide. Seems that OOOs are the old system and dB reports are the new. Not US/EU. However, there still remains the problem of letting people know that they have not sent a report. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
It is one thing to be automatic and attended and another to be automatic and unattended . The rules say you can't be unattended At 11:19 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote: A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at the location of the receiver* is unattended. Some have confused the issue by claiming that a remote station (i.e. a Pactor station) that is activated by another station hundreds or thousands of miles away, is attended because it was activated by the distant station. This is unattended transmitting because the distant station cannot check the channel to see if it is clear due to the properties of skip. So Rick's use of the terms was correct. The concept of a distant activating station attending a remote transmitter is incorrect. de Roger W6VZV 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
Re: [digitalradio] More JT65A - gotaway
Andrew O'Brien wrote: Look like real ones to me, now if only you could work them while sleeping ! No point in stopping up tonight though. 2008 ARRL RTTY Round-Up Begins 1800 UTC Saturday, ends 2400 UTC Sunday (*January 5-6, 2008). *At 1800 on the dot I had to give up any chance of anymore JT65A signals being received here. Dave (G0DJA) **
[digitalradio] Testing NBEMS
Have had the opportunity to use NBEMS on 30m and would offer the following observations: . I like how Vbdigi , flarq, and the email software sylpheed work together. I set up sylpheed to one of my email addresses and it looks like I can receive mail via Vbdigi, and easily bounce it over to the internet. Haven't tried writing any mail rules with sylpheed to do that semi automatically yet. . Vbdigi works well as a small, simple stand-alone piece to use for PSK MFSK and RTTY. Menu is intuitive and easy to use. . Not crazy over the flarq file and mail transfer system. While ARQ, the packet size is huge and would result in endless repeats under anything other than ideal conditions. Sending mail , the software would break down a 1K test message into 2 , or 3 packets at the most. Using HF, the time taken to send one packet would be very subject to the usual QSB/QRM/QRN etc which on a large packet would likely result in a repeat. Smaller packet sizes would improve the software very much . . File transfer using Flarq was slower than Multipsk ALE400, using PSK31. Would be much slower with any repeats. Am interested in further experiments and look forward to meeting anyone interested on 80-20M John VE5MU
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL HF Digital Handbook - Fourth Edition (Available October 2007)
Hello, The ARRL also sells a very nice book about Digital Signal Processing although at $45 it is a little expensive. I am just getting started reading it but if you want to know how all of this stuff we are doing in digital HF really works, this would be the book to read. Rick - KH2DF/W5 _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of n4ijs Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:01 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL HF Digital Handbook - Fourth Edition (Available October 2007) Good morning, Dan, I just received this book for Chirstmas and find it very useful (in fact, I found this forum becase of the book). It appears to cover much of the basics and provides a nice overview of various modes, down to describing the method of transmission, charater sets, etc. I am not famailiar with the Peter Martinez article, so I can not compare it directly, but I do not believe that you would be able to develop a program to use these modes based on the information in the book (if that is your intent). However, I believe this book worthy of looking at. I have enjoyed reading it! Hope this helps. 73, Robert - N4IJS --- In digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, AE9K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 andrewobrie@ wrote: Thanks Mark, this looks quite interesting. ANdy K3UK On 9/7/07, Mark Thompson wb9qzb@ wrote: ARRL's HF Digital Handbook - Fourth Edition ARRL's HF Digital Handbook - Fourth Edition
Re: [digitalradio] Testing NBEMS
Have had the opportunity to use NBEMS on 30m and would offer the following observations: . I like how Vbdigi , flarq, and the email software sylpheed work together. I set up sylpheed to one of my email addresses and it looks like I can receive mail via Vbdigi, and easily bounce it over to the internet. Haven't tried writing any mail rules with sylpheed to do that semi automatically yet. You can do the same thing with Outlook Express as outlined in the VBdigi Messaging and Radio Email help. If you click on Reply to All, with almost any email client, the address for forwarding will already be filled in. The it is simply a matter of pressing Send to forward over the Internt. For emcomm, we recommend forwarding emails, but also contacting the recipient to tell a written message is waiting. Otherwise, it might lie unnoticed for hours before someone thinks to check his inbox. This is one reason we do not use email robots for NBEMS, in addition to eliminating the problem of an unattended station transmitting over traffic local to itself, that is undetectable by the remote client. . Vbdigi works well as a small, simple stand-alone piece to use for PSK MFSK and RTTY. Menu is intuitive and easy to use. . Not crazy over the flarq file and mail transfer system. While ARQ, the packet size is huge and would result in endless repeats under anything other than ideal conditions. Sending mail , the software would break down a 1K test message into 2 , or 3 packets at the most. Using HF, the time taken to send one packet would be very subject to the usual QSB/QRM/QRN etc which on a large packet would likely result in a repeat. Smaller packet sizes would improve the software very much . You can configure the packet sizes in the flarq Config menu by varying the Exponent value to suit conditions. Rein has offered some experience with the optimum packet size. NBEMS was developed specifically for emcomm communications using small, very portable, antennas on 2m VHF, where QSB is negligible on paths up to 100 miles in length. As a result, the incidence of repeats is very small, unless you are just at the background noise level. Most repeats will be caused by packets ruined by multipath reflections, such as when an airplane flies overhead. The additional overhead by sending a long text message as email instead of as text is about 30 seconds. For most messages, it is worth the extra time to simplify the message composition and use the email client for composing, but that overhead can be eliminated by composing and saving as a text file and dragging it into the ARQsend folder instead of the ARQout folder that Flarq establishes the first time it is run. . File transfer using Flarq was slower than Multipsk ALE400, using PSK31. Would be much slower with any repeats. Slower transfer speed is the price you pay for using a narrow bandwidth. On VHF, where NBEMS is intended to be used most of the time, PSK250 in less than a 500 Hz bandwidth approaches the average Pactor-III speed when Pactor-III is used daily by Winlink on long-haul paths. The idea is that in a real emergency, a multitude of stations can fit into the space of the IF passband and all be passing traffic simultaneously, with all visible on the waterfall where everyone knows where to look. This is important so that there are opportunites for many hams to help with message forwarding. Am interested in further experiments and look forward to meeting anyone interested on 80-20M These days, I will be monitoring 30m off and on in the daytime, and 80m at night. Last night, we found the QSB on 80m, using antennas with a low takeoff angle, to be quite a problem and causing excessive repeats compared to 30m during the day. If NVIS antennas are used, the QSB should be much less, and NVIS is the alternative antenna for NBEMS if VHF is not practical due to the terrain. If it is possible to try NBEMS on 2m, it would be a more relevant test of the system design. John VE5MU Thanks for the interest John! We are right now working to improve the user feedback for message transfers and will posting an update soon, which will also fix a few isolated bugs that have been reported. 73, Skip KH6TY
RE: [digitalradio] JT65A reports
Hi Dave, Actually what you describe is EME reports as opposed to Terrestrial reports. The OOO and RO are used for EME but are also the defaults in so much as the JT65 modes were initially mainly used on EME. Either will constitute a good contact as long as RRR is exchanged. The 73 exchange is not required for either EME or Terrestrial and is really just a courtesy. Usually you will see new stations both in EU and the US using the EME protocol until they have gained some experience and or someone has explained how to send terrestrial signal reports. Hope this helps. 73, Barry VE3CDX/W7 _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:24 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] JT65A reports There seems to be a difference btween reporting systems between the US system and the European system on terrestrial JT65A contacts. Can anyone explain to me when a contact is 'valid' between two stations using the two different systems please? For example, I received the following today (callsigns obscured to not cause offence) on 20M 163700 12 -2 0.0 5 4 * CQ EA*** JM** 1 0 163900 10 -5 0.1 5 3 * G0DJA EA*** JM** 1 0 164100 6 -6 0.0 5 3 * G0DJA EA*** 1 0 164300 10 -15 4 3 RRR ? That was it, no report, not even OOOs. I was using what, in the guide, says is the European standard of sending the received dB signal strength, but the EA station was using the US version, appart from no OOO. A quick read through the excellent Bozos guide gave me the clue that the other station was double left clicking on callsigns (US system reports)and I am double right clicking (Eu system reports). Now, two questions occur to me at this point. 1. Is my EA contact 'good' or 'incomplete' and 2. What's going to happen when US stations and Eu stations work each other? I wonder why two reporting systems were created for terrestrial JT65A? My guess is that the US one will win out anyway, as that just seems to be the way these things go and left clicking is more the norm than right anyway, so why the alternative systems? Also, whilst I'm asking questions, why does double right clicking automatically turn Auto TX to ON? If you are not careful, and want to pre-load a callsign to call at the end of an existing QSO, you end up accidentally TXing over the top of the person working the station you want to have a go at next. This seems a bit like poor operating and it's not untill you do it for the first time that you realise what's happening... Thanks for any help with these problems I'm having - Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
Sorry if you misunderstood that. I am not sure where you saw me make such a claim and you might want to point me to such a statement. My point frequently has been that unattended operation is not permitted in the U.S. and Riley Hollingsworth has stated this publicly. What I have said is that the ARRL (and others) have incorrectly used the term unattended. Realistically though, I often wonder if this is a distinction without a difference. I am not sure how much control is going on with automatic stations. It might be wise for PropNet to not use the term beacon and call it a test transmission since only a few world wide coordinated beacons are legal below 28 MHz here in the U.S. They obviously can never leave the station unattended without a rules violation, unless we hear differently from the FCC. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Rick You keep lumping automatic together with unattended As you may know the ProrNet site says to NEVER leave your station untended as well as the WL2K site. 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
[digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
Hi Rick KV9U, I know we have had a few email exchanges on this and I really appreciate you and many other digital ops here in this group and on the bands. I will not get into this too much but agree it must be attended while in the shack and as you know I'm also a user and supporter of PropNet until or if the FCC otherwise states that the operation of PropNet on 30m is not with in the rules (also, I think Ev W2EV from PropNet doesn't call PropNet operators 'beacons' but PropNet stations). If the FCC does comment on this one way or the other then we will of course do as directed and follow any rules as they interpret them. I know you where going to email/write/contact the ARRL and the FCC on the PropNet issues below 28mhz and wonder if you ever got a response yet? I would be very interested in the repsonses because we can talk about what we think the rules say or try our best to interpret them for what PropNet is doing but the FCC really has the final word and say if what they have is unclear or operations are not within the rules. Thanks for all you do Rick and others digital ops here for Ham Radio digi ops. BTW, we are planning another 30m PropNet in March 2008 and hope we have others participate if they are around in the Shack to operate and participate...those that must leave the shack or can't attend due to other events can always participate anyway while using the PropNet 'lurk' mode where you can still be a rcvr and report PropNet signals but just not participate in the transmit part of the event. Thanks for letting me post here in this group. de kb9umt Don EN50dp http://www.30meterdigital.org --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry if you misunderstood that. I am not sure where you saw me make such a claim and you might want to point me to such a statement. My point frequently has been that unattended operation is not permitted in the U.S. and Riley Hollingsworth has stated this publicly. What I have said is that the ARRL (and others) have incorrectly used the term unattended. Realistically though, I often wonder if this is a distinction without a difference. I am not sure how much control is going on with automatic stations. It might be wise for PropNet to not use the term beacon and call it a test transmission since only a few world wide coordinated beacons are legal below 28 MHz here in the U.S. They obviously can never leave the station unattended without a rules violation, unless we hear differently from the FCC. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Rick You keep lumping automatic together with unattended As you may know the ProrNet site says to NEVER leave your station untended as well as the WL2K site. 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
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
Unattended operation is not prohibited. However, every station must have a control operator (97.7) that fulfills specific duties (97.105) that include not transmitting when the frequency is already in use (97.101d). The cited sections are appended below for your convenience. All of part 97 is available via http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=57 73, Dave, AA6YQ 97.7 Control operator required When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. The control operator must be a person: (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or (b) Who is authorized for alien operation by §97.107 of this Part. 97.105 Control operator duties (a) The control operator must ensure the immediate proper operation of the station, regardless of the type of control. (b) A station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent permitted by the privileges authorized for the class of operator license held by the control operator. 97.101 General standards (a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good amateur practice. (b) Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station. (c) At all times and on all frequencies, each control operator must give priority to stations providing emergency communications, except to stations transmitting communications for training drills and tests in RACES. (d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal. -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jgorman01 Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 5:09 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ? What rule says you can't leave an automatic station unattended? It would be a great rule, but I don't see it. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is one thing to be automatic and attended and another to be automatic and unattended . The rules say you can't be unattended At 11:19 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote: A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at the location of the receiver* is unattended. Some have confused the issue by claiming that a remote station (i.e. a Pactor station) that is activated by another station hundreds or thousands of miles away, is attended because it was activated by the distant station. This is unattended transmitting because the distant station cannot check the channel to see if it is clear due to the properties of skip. So Rick's use of the terms was correct. The concept of a distant activating station attending a remote transmitter is incorrect. de Roger W6VZV 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
RE: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
That would depend on your definition of unattended. Remote-controlled operation is definitely permissable under FCC rules; is this attended or unattended? The key requirement is for every station to have a control operator who performs specific duties. If those duties can be reliably performed remotely, then the operation is permissable. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jack Chomley Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 5:15 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ? At 07:47 AM 1/6/2008, you wrote: Right here - 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. Should that not read appear to be illegal operations if they are being run unattended I think we all know that you *CAN'T* run a unattended station. John So..you can't leave your APRS turned on, when your leave your car to go into a shop, or parked in your driveway?? You can't leave your digipeater function turned on in your TNC, in case someone uses it for a link, or even leave you Packet Station turned on, in case someone connects to its mailbox, while you are outside, mowing the lawn :-) You can't put up a dedicated digipeater anywhere, even for test purposeswithout being in attendance? WHAT rock has the ARRL been sleeping under, not to move with the times and petition the FCC? OR have I got this all wrong... 73s Jack VK4JRC (In a country where auto and unattended is allowed)
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
John, The FCC Part 97 has no such reference. Could you please explain why you are making such as statement? 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: It is one thing to be automatic and attended and another to be automatic and unattended . The rules say you can't be unattended Roger, W6VZV had written: A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at the location of the receiver* is unattended. Some have confused the issue by claiming that a remote station (i.e. a Pactor station) that is activated by another station hundreds or thousands of miles away, is attended because it was activated by the distant station. This is unattended transmitting because the distant station cannot check the channel to see if it is clear due to the properties of skip. So Rick's use of the terms was correct. The concept of a distant activating station attending a remote transmitter is incorrect. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
At 07:47 AM 1/6/2008, you wrote: Right here - 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. Should that not read appear to be illegal operations if they are being run unattended I think we all know that you *CAN'T* run a unattended station. John So..you can't leave your APRS turned on, when your leave your car to go into a shop, or parked in your driveway?? You can't leave your digipeater function turned on in your TNC, in case someone uses it for a link, or even leave you Packet Station turned on, in case someone connects to its mailbox, while you are outside, mowing the lawn :-) You can't put up a dedicated digipeater anywhere, even for test purposeswithout being in attendance? WHAT rock has the ARRL been sleeping under, not to move with the times and petition the FCC? OR have I got this all wrong... 73s Jack VK4JRC (In a country where auto and unattended is allowed)
[digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
What rule says you can't leave an automatic station unattended? It would be a great rule, but I don't see it. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is one thing to be automatic and attended and another to be automatic and unattended . The rules say you can't be unattended At 11:19 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote: A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at the location of the receiver* is unattended. Some have confused the issue by claiming that a remote station (i.e. a Pactor station) that is activated by another station hundreds or thousands of miles away, is attended because it was activated by the distant station. This is unattended transmitting because the distant station cannot check the channel to see if it is clear due to the properties of skip. So Rick's use of the terms was correct. The concept of a distant activating station attending a remote transmitter is incorrect. de Roger W6VZV 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
Hi Don, I agree that is not completely clear from reading the rules, but maybe one could interpret them to mean that you can transmit a beacon if you are the control operator. The main point is that you definitely can not do this if you operate automatically on the bands below 28 MHz. I contacted ARRL several months ago and did receive a response from Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, on some of these issues. At the time I was mostly concerned about clarification on what text data refers to vs. image/fax and whether or not we could consider documents (.doc, .xls, .pdf, etc.) to be fax, that sort of thing. Also, the issues about baud rate in the voice/image portions of the bands. I believe that I published his response on the HFDEC yahoogroup, maybe on this group as well?. He had some clear answers to some questions but on some he felt that the issues were yet to be determined. About that time, additional issues came up and as I sent an e-mail to ARRL's Dan Henderson, N1ND, on 10/1/07, mentioning that I had contacted Paul about some of the issues. He indicated he would defer the questions to Paul and I waited about a month and contacted him to find out how things were going and he indicated that he did not plan to do anything further as he assumed somehow that Paul had already answered the questions. It was a bit bizarre to say the least as I thought I explained that only some of the questions had been dealt with, but he had no further response. I then asked this group to respond and make recommendations to my draft questions I was planning to forward to the FCC. I believe that Andy, K3UK, had any suggestions. Some hams publicly and privately appreciated that someone was at least going to ask these questions. At least one ham, was over the top with a personal attack but I guess that you have to expect this behavior these days. I took Andy's suggestions, and modified the questions and sent them to the attention of Mr. Hollingsworth, on 12/11/07. I have not heard anything back at this time. I agree with you completely on this issue and I take issue with those who do not want a response from the FCC. It is simply not reasonable for so many hams to not clearly understand what a given rule does or does not mean. We should all be pleased that someone is finally asking for some assistance in interpreting some of these rules. If the FCC does respond in a way that some feel is not a proper interpretation, or they are opposed to the rule, they can then petition the government for a change. That is the democratic process and it should be strongly supported by hams who want to do the right thing. 73, Rick, KV9U Don wrote: Hi Rick KV9U, I know we have had a few email exchanges on this and I really appreciate you and many other digital ops here in this group and on the bands. I will not get into this too much but agree it must be attended while in the shack and as you know I'm also a user and supporter of PropNet until or if the FCC otherwise states that the operation of PropNet on 30m is not with in the rules (also, I think Ev W2EV from PropNet doesn't call PropNet operators 'beacons' but PropNet stations). If the FCC does comment on this one way or the other then we will of course do as directed and follow any rules as they interpret them. I know you where going to email/write/contact the ARRL and the FCC on the PropNet issues below 28mhz and wonder if you ever got a response yet? I would be very interested in the repsonses because we can talk about what we think the rules say or try our best to interpret them for what PropNet is doing but the FCC really has the final word and say if what they have is unclear or operations are not within the rules. Thanks for all you do Rick and others digital ops here for Ham Radio digi ops. BTW, we are planning another 30m PropNet in March 2008 and hope we have others participate if they are around in the Shack to operate and participate...those that must leave the shack or can't attend due to other events can always participate anyway while using the PropNet 'lurk' mode where you can still be a rcvr and report PropNet signals but just not participate in the transmit part of the event. Thanks for letting me post here in this group. de kb9umt Don EN50dp http://www.30meterdigital.org
[digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
Hey! I'll call and raise you two! Unattended operation is not just not prohibited, it is specifically allowed. 97.3(a)(6)Automatic control. The use of devices and procedures for control of a station when it is transmitting so that compliance with the FCC Rules is achieved without the control operator being present at a control point. 97.109(d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. As you say each of these rules do require a control operator for the station AND neither of these rules have verbiage relieving the control operator of meeting all the requirements you have listed. However, they do not require the control operator to be present. In other words, if someone claims harmful interference and you are operating unattended, I don't see where you would have a leg to stand on when claiming you didn't interfere. At the very least, you couldn't have followed 97.101(b) and you are putting yourself at a large risk for not being able to meet 97.101(c). By the way, the claim for semi-automatic operation is a joke. The rules very plainly delineate three types of control, local, remote, and automatic. That's it, end of story. The rules also plainly detail what an auxiliary station station is when using an RF link to control your station remotely, and a winlink client simply doesn't meet the requirements for an aux station or a telecommand station. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unattended operation is not prohibited. However, every station must have a control operator (97.7) that fulfills specific duties (97.105) that include not transmitting when the frequency is already in use (97.101d). The cited sections are appended below for your convenience. All of part 97 is available via http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=57 73, Dave, AA6YQ 97.7 Control operator required When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. The control operator must be a person: (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or (b) Who is authorized for alien operation by §97.107 of this Part. 97.105 Control operator duties (a) The control operator must ensure the immediate proper operation of the station, regardless of the type of control. (b) A station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent permitted by the privileges authorized for the class of operator license held by the control operator. 97.101 General standards (a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good amateur practice. (b) Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station. (c) At all times and on all frequencies, each control operator must give priority to stations providing emergency communications, except to stations transmitting communications for training drills and tests in RACES. (d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal. -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jgorman01 Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 5:09 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ? What rule says you can't leave an automatic station unattended? It would be a great rule, but I don't see it. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB w0jab@ wrote: It is one thing to be automatic and attended and another to be automatic and unattended . The rules say you can't be unattended At 11:19 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote: A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at the location of the receiver* is unattended. Some have confused the issue by claiming that a remote station (i.e. a Pactor station) that is activated by another station hundreds or thousands of miles away, is attended because it was activated by the distant station. This is unattended transmitting because the distant station cannot check the channel to see if it is clear due to the properties of skip. So Rick's use of the terms was correct. The concept of a distant activating station attending a remote transmitter is incorrect. de Roger W6VZV 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
Re: [digitalradio] JT65A reports
Hey Barry, Happy New Year.. Where are you camped out now? Not much new here, still sticking in TXs and stuff like that with Paul PQ... Will be in AZ next month I think.. Len
Re: [digitalradio] JT65A reports
Barry Garratt wrote: Hi Dave, Actually what you describe is EME reports as opposed to Terrestrial reports. The OOO and RO are used for EME but are also the defaults in so much as the JT65 modes were initially mainly used on EME. Either will constitute a good contact as long as RRR is exchanged. The 73 exchange is not required for either EME or Terrestrial and is really just a courtesy. Usually you will see new stations both in EU and the US using the EME protocol until they have gained some experience and or someone has explained how to send terrestrial signal reports. Hope this helps. 73, Barry VE3CDX/W7 *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:24 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* [digitalradio] JT65A reports There seems to be a difference btween reporting systems between the US system and the European system on terrestrial JT65A contacts. Can anyone explain to me when a contact is 'valid' between two stations using the two different systems please? For example, I received the following today (callsigns obscured to not cause offence) on 20M 163700 12 -2 0.0 5 4 * CQ EA*** JM** 1 0 163900 10 -5 0.1 5 3 * G0DJA EA*** JM** 1 0 164100 6 -6 0.0 5 3 * G0DJA EA*** 1 0 164300 10 -15 4 3 RRR ? That was it, no report, not even OOOs. I was using what, in the guide, says is the European standard of sending the received dB signal strength, but the EA station was using the US version, appart from no OOO. A quick read through the excellent Bozos guide gave me the clue that the other station was double left clicking on callsigns (US system reports)and I am double right clicking (Eu system reports). Now, two questions occur to me at this point. 1. Is my EA contact 'good' or 'incomplete' and 2. What's going to happen when US stations and Eu stations work each other? I wonder why two reporting systems were created for terrestrial JT65A? My guess is that the US one will win out anyway, as that just seems to be the way these things go and left clicking is more the norm than right anyway, so why the alternative systems? Also, whilst I'm asking questions, why does double right clicking automatically turn Auto TX to ON? If you are not careful, and want to pre-load a callsign to call at the end of an existing QSO, you end up accidentally TXing over the top of the person working the station you want to have a go at next. This seems a bit like poor operating and it's not untill you do it for the first time that you realise what's happening... Thanks for any help with these problems I'm having - Dave (G0DJA) Hi Barry..as far as i can tell the 73 exchange is still needed for a complete contact. look in WSJT 6 Help Examples of minimal JT65 QSO's and both styles of EME and Terrestial are shown.i understand there has been some talk about this with Joe Taylor and his statement is that the minimal shown is the way that it always has been on CW or SSB some ops are very fussy about the 73 and ive had them send it several times until they get a 73 reply. hope to work you one day on JT65A 20 or 30 m 73 David VK4BDJ
RE: [digitalradio] JT65A reports
G'Day David, Well it can be a bit confusing I suppose in whether 73 is needed or not. I think you will find a lot of stations will consider the contact good once RRR has been received. The help file for WSJT states this if you hit F5. That said if you look at the examples of a minimal QSO for JT65 it shows 73. I guess it is an operator choice in the long run. I usually send it unless the signal is very weak, during a pileup on VHF or lack of meteors on MS. Have a great day! 73, Barry VE3CDX/W7 DM26ic _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:10 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT65A reports Barry Garratt wrote: Hi Dave, Actually what you describe is EME reports as opposed to Terrestrial reports. The OOO and RO are used for EME but are also the defaults in so much as the JT65 modes were initially mainly used on EME. Either will constitute a good contact as long as RRR is exchanged. The 73 exchange is not required for either EME or Terrestrial and is really just a courtesy. Usually you will see new stations both in EU and the US using the EME protocol until they have gained some experience and or someone has explained how to send terrestrial signal reports. Hope this helps. 73, Barry VE3CDX/W7 _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:24 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] JT65A reports There seems to be a difference btween reporting systems between the US system and the European system on terrestrial JT65A contacts. Can anyone explain to me when a contact is 'valid' between two stations using the two different systems please? For example, I received the following today (callsigns obscured to not cause offence) on 20M 163700 12 -2 0.0 5 4 * CQ EA*** JM** 1 0 163900 10 -5 0.1 5 3 * G0DJA EA*** JM** 1 0 164100 6 -6 0.0 5 3 * G0DJA EA*** 1 0 164300 10 -15 4 3 RRR ? That was it, no report, not even OOOs. I was using what, in the guide, says is the European standard of sending the received dB signal strength, but the EA station was using the US version, appart from no OOO. A quick read through the excellent Bozos guide gave me the clue that the other station was double left clicking on callsigns (US system reports)and I am double right clicking (Eu system reports). Now, two questions occur to me at this point. 1. Is my EA contact 'good' or 'incomplete' and 2. What's going to happen when US stations and Eu stations work each other? I wonder why two reporting systems were created for terrestrial JT65A? My guess is that the US one will win out anyway, as that just seems to be the way these things go and left clicking is more the norm than right anyway, so why the alternative systems? Also, whilst I'm asking questions, why does double right clicking automatically turn Auto TX to ON? If you are not careful, and want to pre-load a callsign to call at the end of an existing QSO, you end up accidentally TXing over the top of the person working the station you want to have a go at next. This seems a bit like poor operating and it's not untill you do it for the first time that you realise what's happening... Thanks for any help with these problems I'm having - Dave (G0DJA) Hi Barry..as far as i can tell the 73 exchange is still needed for a complete contact. look in WSJT 6 Help Examples of minimal JT65 QSO's and both styles of EME and Terrestial are shown.i understand there has been some talk about this with Joe Taylor and his statement is that the minimal shown is the way that it always has been on CW or SSB some ops are very fussy about the 73 and ive had them send it several times until they get a 73 reply. hope to work you one day on JT65A 20 or 30 m 73 David VK4BDJ
[digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
Hi all, Too many lawyers in USA killed PACKET RADIO. The way you are going on you are going to kill all DIGITAL RADIO too. Hey guys hold your horses. It is a hobby not a court of law. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
Demetre, amateur radio in the United States is governed by FCC regulations. Would the fact that Winlink PMBOs flagrantly violate these regulations have something to do with your suggestion that we ignore them? 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ? Hi all, Too many lawyers in USA killed PACKET RADIO. The way you are going on you are going to kill all DIGITAL RADIO too. Hey guys hold your horses. It is a hobby not a court of law. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Hi Jose, Happy New Year to you and your family. Happy New Year to you and yours, too (also, to the readers of this list). 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. I did never own a KAM, but a friend of mine owned one of the early ones. He always used it on RTTY, but I began experimenting with that packet thing when I visited him then... Packet on HF...required a LOT of patience. Seems I achieved it (I know quite a few that did not...), as I spent some 5 years of HF packet sysop, and then, some other six or seven in pactor. In packet, a single erroneous bit trashes the frame. Fading, sparks, collissions, all of that made it too easy to generate a retry. For some time, I ran my homebrew linear (about 400 watts out) to keep the link to the US. Really, not affordable, it cooked a final tank that was quite OK for SSB or CW, but not for packet. I had to rebuild that pi-network. I could do the same in pactor2 with only 25 watts, not only to the neighborhood, but also to Africa. So, actually, the pactor 2 and 3 modulation schemes are good for low powers. Where is the key to it? The protocol. Using ARQ plus FEC (convolutional code), data interleaving and block codes allows to recover frames that packet layer one would lose. It is similar to what CD's and digital broadcasting uses nowadays. In retrospective, packet radio layer one belongs to the dark ages. Could it be changed? Yes, AX.25 specification only deals with layers 2 and 3, and Q15X25 did it with some success. But in general, manufacturers did not innovate on this. I was not really aware of that back then, either. What is missing on this scheme: bandwidth/speed negotiation, like pactor does to survive bad links. SCAMP failure is associated with its unability to negotiate the link. So in the end I had to buy an SCS Controller because as you know it is superior in PACTOR and in PACKET RADIO. I have never got any addons to my SCS PTC-II. And the newer robust packet adittion also requires a RAM addition to 2 MB. I just have loaded the tiny38.pt2 firmware upgrade and it still works quite OK. That is another example I did not mention: robust packet, using PSK instead of FSK. I don't know in detail the tricks they added to robust packet, but it would be interesting to dig and see (if that could be possible) what they did. But certainly, data modes require some coding tricks to survive the HF hostile environment (Olivia success is based on the Walsh code layer it uses), as has become usual nowadays for data transfers (keyboarding is something with a different twist, the simpler the better). It was a mixture of sheer good luck and naiveness to get a raw Bell 103 modem to work on the lower HF bands. Maybe Kantronics Golay COULD have been better, but 300 baud is generally too much. And it never really became popular, with each manufacturer having its own pet project, that did not achieve the numbers required to have an impact on the community. PA0R comments about PSK speeds in PSKMail seem to agree with what is well known: PSK63 works, PSK125 somehow, but nowadays PSK250 has only a 60% success. On 10 meters and using a single propagated ray (as usually happens close to the MUF), I would not be surprised to see that PSK1200 (or QPSK1200) would work as well. 73 de Demetre SV1UY 73, Jose, CO2JA __ 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] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
w6ids wrote: snip I'm sorry, but I have never understood WHY the mode got dropped just because PSK came alive. I see no reason why it can't be as fun to use as legacy RTTY. I'm probably odd man out but frankly, after some trial and error testing, I have little interest in MT63, Olivia, Throb, Feld, most of the modes in Patrick's MultiPSK, and the like. You may call that fashion, as it happens with clothing, etc. I believe that people felt lonely and went looking for others, and being the majority using the newer cheaper way, the old way became less and less popular (or fashionable, as you may like). I had a clash with a younger local ham in a contest team asking what the I was using that I did not copy anybody quick enough. He was using MixW and I was using my PTC-II in PSK31. I told him to keep operating if he felt he could do better, I was going QRT. Nowadays, I use MultiPSK a lot. Olivia is real good, the best I have tried so far, besides WSJT, which is meant for EXTREME QSOS, not for chatting or file transfers. Working digimodes with PC has only required to BUILD an interface, just two transformers, an optocoupler and a red LED. I DO like PACTOR, along with DIGI pix and file transfers, DIGI voice, SSTV, RTTY, PSK and it's variants, etc. I know that my PK232 can't work the new modes that have come along but I think so what? FWIW, it as a good packet and RTTY demodulator, and a mailbox. Does not require a PC to stay in watch. I have never quite understood AEA going into bankrupcy because of the Internet I remember many enjoyable contacts using my PK232 with really good copy. OK, so it might not be as fast as PSK but most hams can't type fast anyway. I type 75 wpm myself but find it not to be an advantage. The important point for me is that I had a $300 box that worked just fine and gave me some interesting operations. Yes, I do know that 'puters can do wonders with DSP and such. However, look at how many hams still use legacy PCs for their station use, yet (if stories are true) they had no compunction in trashing fully functional boxes simply because THEY chose to stop using them like sheep in a flock. That didn't happen with RTTY and it's still a relatively popular niche mode. It is simple, and syncs quick with a good TU. I built my own quite elaborate TU back in 1998 and it worked very well with the available MSDOS software. It worked, in fact, better than one of the best modem chips available then, the AM7910, and up to par with PK-232's and KAM's. But the PTC-II can be used in several ways, even as a programmable dumb modem, and also works very well. My TU was not programmable, was a pure hardware project. Heck, I could have incorporated a T/R function, etc into the PK rather than springing for a RIGblaster, for heaven's sake. DUH! I have build a few interfaces, one for CWType and versions of the one I am using now. I have left CW aside lately, so I am not sure if CWType can be substituted, but it has a configurable character table, which is important for my language, which are not used in the Morse character set. I still keep my AccuKeyer It seems like Hams were too quick to chuck $300 or ?? out-of-pocket TNCs away to deliberately make them obsolete for interest's sake, not because of the box as such. That's like throwing a Collins or Drake or Hallicrafters unit in the trash just because it's not quite up to par with the expensive state-of-the-art, mostly foreign produced, whistle 'n bells toys sold today. Personally, I don't care about PTC II, myself. I can't afford the box anyway, yet I see a value for the mode. Ergo, at the least I can have a PACTOR-type ability with the PK232. It DID work before and there's no reason why that box can't provide service today. I was lucky that Santa was so niceotherwise, I would not have it, either. I've read where the thinking is that most hams won't bother with the PACTOR I if only because of little desire to buy an expensive outboard TNC. What about the hams who never threw away their original TNC, the one sitting in the closet per se? It takes little cost to put them back on line, yet they sit, even for lack of use for RTTY at least. Again, I do know it won't measure up to the SCS units but so what? I have a Collins KWM-2A ensemble, Drake ensemble, and an IC-746. They do not come up to the standards of the more expensive products available today but.so what? They work and they're fun to use. Besides, I don't owe any money on them either GRIN. I could use Pactor 1 ARQ with TERMAN93. The only STRICT requirement was to have an accurate 14.318 MHz dot clock. I dunno, IMOH I just think we've misplaced some of our valuable neurons along the way due to shallow and simplistic thinking. Sometimes, rational beings should ask themselves if it is worthwhile to follow the flock... Well, I didn't intend this to be a diatribe. I'm probably beating
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
The unattended terminology is mostly semantics since the effect of allowing automatic operation does permit the station to operate without a control operator present or even performing this duty from a remote base. Although the FCC does not use the term semi-automatic, we hams often use it as a shorthand term for having human to machine connections and with the machine only being permitted to operate when queried by the human control operator. It is clearly covered under 97.22 Automatically controlled digital station. (c) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on any other frequency authorized for such emission types provided that: (1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control; and (2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz. Otherwise, if the station is over 500 Hz, or if the station is operated machine to machine, such as the old Winlink network, current NTS/D network, packet networks, etc., (even if they were 500 Hz and under, they must operate inside limited frequency segments on the HF bands. 73, Rick, KV9U jgorman01 wrote: Hey! I'll call and raise you two! Unattended operation is not just not prohibited, it is specifically allowed. 97.3(a)(6)Automatic control. The use of devices and procedures for control of a station when it is transmitting so that compliance with the FCC Rules is achieved without the control operator being present at a control point. 97.109(d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. As you say each of these rules do require a control operator for the station AND neither of these rules have verbiage relieving the control operator of meeting all the requirements you have listed. However, they do not require the control operator to be present. In other words, if someone claims harmful interference and you are operating unattended, I don't see where you would have a leg to stand on when claiming you didn't interfere. At the very least, you couldn't have followed 97.101(b) and you are putting yourself at a large risk for not being able to meet 97.101(c). By the way, the claim for semi-automatic operation is a joke. The rules very plainly delineate three types of control, local, remote, and automatic. That's it, end of story. The rules also plainly detail what an auxiliary station station is when using an RF link to control your station remotely, and a winlink client simply doesn't meet the requirements for an aux station or a telecommand station. Jim WA0LYK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
Russel, If your goal is to set up an automated beacon on the 10 meter band, then you're ok as per Part 97.203. It looks like your out of luck if you want to test propagation using your own beacon on the lower HF frequencies without being present in the shack. That being the case, why not call CQ instead of broadcasting a one way beacon? You'll pretty much gain the same knowledge about propagation and make a contact in the interim! If your interests are strictly propagation, there's always the NCDXF beacons. They are in continuous operation 24/7 on 14100.0, 18110.0, 21.150.0, 24.930.0 and 28.200.0. Good luck with your endeavors... Tony -K2MO 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] Re: Beacon's ?
Tony, well with all the commits about my question about Beacons. I was part of the testing of the NBEMS and the question came up about Beacons below 10m. So with the Beacon program that comes with VBdigi, in the message section I will input a CQ. Now with attended and unattended, with the internet and a ethernet card and VNC or some other programs that you or any other operator could be the control operator, So I just call you and say can you keep check on my station I need to be away, at that time you would connect via the internet to my PC and be the control operator, until I get back and take controls back. I know this is a crude example of controling a unattended station. Russell NC5O --- Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russel, If your goal is to set up an automated beacon on the 10 meter band, then you're ok as per Part 97.203. It looks like your out of luck if you want to test propagation using your own beacon on the lower HF frequencies without being present in the shack. That being the case, why not call CQ instead of broadcasting a one way beacon? You'll pretty much gain the same knowledge about propagation and make a contact in the interim! If your interests are strictly propagation, there's always the NCDXF beacons. They are in continuous operation 24/7 on 14100.0, 18110.0, 21.150.0, 24.930.0 and 28.200.0. Good luck with your endeavors... Tony -K2MO 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 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[digitalradio] NBEMS Frequencies.
I have VBDIGI/FLARQ up and running,and there has been a lot of posts about 30m frequencies. I do not have a 10Mh antenna so would like to know of frequencies for 14 and 7Mh, so that I can monitor/beacon in the right spots. Kevin VK5OA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Standard sideband for digi modes?
MultiPSK also has a reverse button for QPSK modes. Jose, CO2JA Demetre SV1UY wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] And don't forget that really it does not matter if you use USB or LSB and you can always flick the REVERSE SWITCH. This is true for all narrow digital modes with the exception of QPSK31. [snip] 73 de Demetre SV1UY I forgot to mention that the REVERSE SWITCH is only present in RTTY, the other narrow modes (except QPSK31) do not care what sideband you are on. 73 de Demetre SV1UY __ 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] Questions on digital opposition
OK, Bruce. Rereading my post, maybe I forgot to emphasize that one size does not fit all. I am not against development at all, actually, I try to follow it as closely as affordable, but discarding what works in favor of newer, more fashionable is somehow singing in the same tune of the marketing hype, allowing it to suck money from your pockets at its pace. It is clear to me that not everybody can follow that trend, or cannot do that simultaneously. And the newer stuff has new risks of its own, that must be acknowledged. For one case, the military in more than one country have already reevaluated the role of HF communications, that, while not achieving perfection, are far simpler to mantain than satellites or wired links, which have also their own weaknesses. Paraphrasing the final line of an old movie, Some like it hot, NOTHING is perfect. It is actually better to have a variety of solutions available, and being capable of selecting the most appropiate or convenient in each scenario. It is just not safe or fair to extrapolate that my best solution is everybody's else best solution. It is something that we should be able to accept. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- bruce mallon wrote: Yep you sure had that right ! --- Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is amazing that the developists in highly developed places forgets that the world is far from being equally developed and connected, with high speed digital repeater networks, easily accessible Internet, etc, etc... Even more, that you don't have to go to Asia, Africa or anywhere in the Third World to find it the same case... Towers may fall...fibers may break (it happened recently in the US west coast), etc, etc. We have had that scenario here in my country several times this decade. In the middle of a category 5 hurricane, only HF works...who is going to keep a satellite dish properly aimed in such a situation? Satellites have to be substituted periodically, in no more than 10 years periods. How many times has the ionosphere been substituted since 1900 ? None, that I remember. Jose, CO2JA --- John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Sure it would but what are you going to do away from the big cities? I live in a rural area VHF UHF other then satellite is useless. I have one portable radio this is used for Emergency Medical Services for a 3 county area as a EMT. You got to remember that painfully slow HF link may be the *only* link that we have that is working. John, W0JAB - At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully slow HF link. __ 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] Re: Beacon's ?
Dave AA6YQ wrote: Demetre, amateur radio in the United States is governed by FCC regulations. Would the fact that Winlink PMBOs flagrantly violate these regulations have something to do with your suggestion that we ignore them? Thank you for that, Dave. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
Russell, It's my understanding that the ham accessing ones station via the internet (IRB) is not the control operator. The reason is that the ham at the computer does not have the ability to shut down the transmitter in the event of trouble. I think the bottom line is that the control operator must be in control of his or her station when operating on specific segments of the amateur bands that do not allow automation or unattended operation. I think it's that simple. Best of luck with your projects... Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Russell Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ? Tony, well with all the commits about my question about Beacons. I was part of the testing of the NBEMS and the question came up about Beacons below 10m. So with the Beacon program that comes with VBdigi, in the message section I will input a CQ. Now with attended and unattended, with the internet and a ethernet card and VNC or some other programs that you or any other operator could be the control operator, So I just call you and say can you keep check on my station I need to be away, at that time you would connect via the internet to my PC and be the control operator, until I get back and take controls back. I know this is a crude example of controling a unattended station. Russell NC5O --- Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russel, If your goal is to set up an automated beacon on the 10 meter band, then you're ok as per Part 97.203. It looks like your out of luck if you want to test propagation using your own beacon on the lower HF frequencies without being present in the shack. That being the case, why not call CQ instead of broadcasting a one way beacon? You'll pretty much gain the same knowledge about propagation and make a contact in the interim! If your interests are strictly propagation, there's always the NCDXF beacons. They are in continuous operation 24/7 on 14100.0, 18110.0, 21.150.0, 24.930.0 and 28.200.0. Good luck with your endeavors... Tony -K2MO 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 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
Tony, I'm not trying to split hairs, But Hams that are remote controling thier radios as with HRD program are putting there radios in an unattended state. I when and looked at my TS-450s and your right there is no command via CV-I to turn off the radio if it got in trouble. I will post this question to the HRD group, and ask them how does HRD manage the radio if it get hung in Tx mode on the air and needs to be turned off if it in a remote state. Tony, No project hr just asking question. Russell NC5O --- Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell, It's my understanding that the ham accessing ones station via the internet (IRB) is not the control operator. The reason is that the ham at the computer does not have the ability to shut down the transmitter in the event of trouble. I think the bottom line is that the control operator must be in control of his or her station when operating on specific segments of the amateur bands that do not allow automation or unattended operation. I think it's that simple. Best of luck with your projects... Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Russell Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ? Tony, well with all the commits about my question about Beacons. I was part of the testing of the NBEMS and the question came up about Beacons below 10m. So with the Beacon program that comes with VBdigi, in the message section I will input a CQ. Now with attended and unattended, with the internet and a ethernet card and VNC or some other programs that you or any other operator could be the control operator, So I just call you and say can you keep check on my station I need to be away, at that time you would connect via the internet to my PC and be the control operator, until I get back and take controls back. I know this is a crude example of controling a unattended station. Russell NC5O --- Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russel, If your goal is to set up an automated beacon on the 10 meter band, then you're ok as per Part 97.203. It looks like your out of luck if you want to test propagation using your own beacon on the lower HF frequencies without being present in the shack. That being the case, why not call CQ instead of broadcasting a one way beacon? You'll pretty much gain the same knowledge about propagation and make a contact in the interim! If your interests are strictly propagation, there's always the NCDXF beacons. They are in continuous operation 24/7 on 14100.0, 18110.0, 21.150.0, 24.930.0 and 28.200.0. Good luck with your endeavors... Tony -K2MO 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 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping = IN GOD WE TRUST ! = Russell Blair NC5O Skype-Russell Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
Russell, Understand -- licensed 18 years and still asking questions. Have fun... Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Russell Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ? Tony, I'm not trying to split hairs, But Hams that are remote controling thier radios as with HRD program are putting there radios in an unattended state. I when and looked at my TS-450s and your right there is no command via CV-I to turn off the radio if it got in trouble. I will post this question to the HRD group, and ask them how does HRD manage the radio if it get hung in Tx mode on the air and needs to be turned off if it in a remote state. Tony, No project hr just asking question. Russell NC5O --- Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell, It's my understanding that the ham accessing ones station via the internet (IRB) is not the control operator. The reason is that the ham at the computer does not have the ability to shut down the transmitter in the event of trouble. I think the bottom line is that the control operator must be in control of his or her station when operating on specific segments of the amateur bands that do not allow automation or unattended operation. I think it's that simple. Best of luck with your projects... Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Russell Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ? Tony, well with all the commits about my question about Beacons. I was part of the testing of the NBEMS and the question came up about Beacons below 10m. So with the Beacon program that comes with VBdigi, in the message section I will input a CQ. Now with attended and unattended, with the internet and a ethernet card and VNC or some other programs that you or any other operator could be the control operator, So I just call you and say can you keep check on my station I need to be away, at that time you would connect via the internet to my PC and be the control operator, until I get back and take controls back. I know this is a crude example of controling a unattended station. Russell NC5O --- Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russel, If your goal is to set up an automated beacon on the 10 meter band, then you're ok as per Part 97.203. It looks like your out of luck if you want to test propagation using your own beacon on the lower HF frequencies without being present in the shack. That being the case, why not call CQ instead of broadcasting a one way beacon? You'll pretty much gain the same knowledge about propagation and make a contact in the interim! If your interests are strictly propagation, there's always the NCDXF beacons. They are in continuous operation 24/7 on 14100.0, 18110.0, 21.150.0, 24.930.0 and 28.200.0. Good luck with your endeavors... Tony -K2MO 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 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping = IN GOD WE TRUST ! = Russell Blair NC5O Skype-Russell Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS Frequencies.
Kevin, Do you realize that 3 x 3.5 = 10.5, which is close to 10.137. An 80m antenna will operate on the third harmonic for 30m operation! I have never seen this published as far as I can remember. Lots of references to using a 40m antenna on 15 m, but not to using an 80m antenna on 30m. This is what I am doing and it seems to be working, but I don't know what takeoff angle I have. Have to model it to find out. So, if you have an 80m dipole (my 80m antenna is a base-load, tophat vertical in the attic), try it on 30m. Just might work... Skip - Original Message - From: Kevin O'Rorke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Digital Radio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 11:10 PM Subject: [digitalradio] NBEMS Frequencies. I have VBDIGI/FLARQ up and running,and there has been a lot of posts about 30m frequencies. I do not have a 10Mh antenna so would like to know of frequencies for 14 and 7Mh, so that I can monitor/beacon in the right spots. Kevin VK5OA No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date: 1/5/2008 11:46 AM
[digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, Demetre, you got something against lawyers? We lawyers LOVE digital radio. Down with anti-lawyer bigotry. He he Roger, Some people don't like pactor and some don't like lawyers!! de Roger W6VZV 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: EU 30 Meter Digital Weekend Event 19/20 Jan 2008 -correction
Also, my error-correction on times, again this is a 2 day event: de kb9umt Don Jan19th z to Jan20th 2400z..please note that. Thanks de kb9umt Don EU 30 Meter Digital Weekend Event My error...correction on times-this is a 2 day event: When: January 19th utc to January 20th 2400 utc 2 days of digital fun, ragchew and DX on 30 Meters, all day or when you can. (NOTE: When 30m is in decent shape please note for NA band has been open to EU from 1900 to 2300utc for ZL/VK open to EU has been open from 1200 to 1700 utc appx times of course depending on band conditions) Where: 30 meter Band 10.135 to 10.145 MHZ Modes: Mainly PSK31 10.140 +/- 1000 BUT all digital modes welcomed including RTTY/MFSK/HELL/WSJT/etc. Objective: For Amateurs Worldwide to make contact with EU Stations to promote and increase digital mode activity on 30 Meters. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Don [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for letting me post here to this group...just an FYI for those that might be interested in this digital mode event..thanks. de kb9umt Don EU 30 Meter Digital Weekend Event When: January 19th 2400 utc to January 20th 2400 utc 2 days of digital fun, ragchew and DX on 30 Meters, all day or when you can. (NOTE: When 30m is in decent shape please note for NA band has been open to EU from 1900 to 2300utc for ZL/VK open to EU has been open from 1200 to 1700 utc.appx times of course depending on band conditions) Where: 30 meter Band 10.135 to 10.145 MHZ Modes: Mainly PSK31 10.140 +/- 1000 BUT all digital modes welcomed including RTTY/MFSK/HELL/WSJT/etc. Objective: For Amateurs Worldwide to make contact with EU Stations to promote and increase digital mode activity on 30 Meters. This is not a contest but a casual event in promoting 30 Meter Digital activity in conjunction with the 30 Meter DigitalGroup: http://www.30meterdigital.org http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/30meterPSKGroup Contact: Graham m5aav [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don kb9umt [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***Please note logs do not have to be sent because this event is to promote 30m digital activity. We would appreciate though if you have time to just give a count of stations worked and email to the above addresses so that a report of the weekend activity can be produced.
