[digitalradio] Re: Its all getting out of hand.........
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think these discussions about ALE who, PSK this, who hates Pactor etc are starting to destroy this group. We all have our favourite ideas/opinions etc. IF people feel strongly about regulatory or operational problems in the hobby, then write to your Ham Radio representatives, ARRL etc or FCC. I mean, geeall I want to do is have fun playing radio :-) Like the rest of you, I bet! Hmm I wouldn't bet on that Jack. All they want to do is create noise!!! 73s Jack VK4JRC (I am off to play Pactor Packet!) 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Its all getting out of hand.........
*applause* 73 de LA5VNA Steinar - Original Message - From: David [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, January 14, 2008 2:41 Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Its all getting out of hand. To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Hi Jack.you will note that the digitalradio group is populated by mainly US hams who love nothing but arguing among themselves about the merits of various digital modes.and the regulations controlling them they forget that they are only a percentage of the Amateur Radio Operators from around the world and we who are the others are having to put up with there arguing on two occasions i have withdrawn from this group due to the fact that two thirds of the e-mails coming into my mailbox i dont want to read as they are nothing but rubbish that doesnt interest this ham who lives in another part of the world i have suggested that maybe another group be started so that those who want to argue there points of view do so away from the rest of the world who are interested in DIGITAL MODES and DIGITALRADIO without all the arguments.This idea has not been taken up... im considering removing myself from this group again if the arguing continues much longer 73 David VK4BDJ Jack Chomley wrote: I think these discussions about ALE who, PSK this, who hates Pactor etc are starting to destroy this group. We all have our favourite ideas/opinions etc. IF people feel strongly about regulatory or operational problems in the hobby, then write to your Ham Radio representatives, ARRL etc or FCC. I mean, geeall I want to do is have fun playing radio :-) Like the rest of you, I bet! 73s Jack VK4JRC (I am off to play Pactor Packet!)
[digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations......
Hi all Pactorologists! I now have my band scanning function running (I think!) for Pactor connects. The controller talks to my Icom 718 to scan 10 frequencies in 5 bands, the scan delay for each frequency is 3 seconds. My tones are Mark 1600 Space 1400 with USB mode on all frequencies. Keyboard connect call is VK4JRC, mailbox is VK4JRC-8, I am hoping to have the configuration correct, but its untested, you may need to send // to access the mailbox. Or there is a possibility NOTHING may work at all, anyway nothing venturednothing gained :-) Pactor 1 connects accepted Frequencies: 14.087 14.079.5 18.100 18.105 21.078 21.093 24.920 24.925 28.105 28.110 This fits with Region 3 Band Plan, please let me know IF it fouls up other Region Band Plans, or MAY step on other people's toes who are already running established NETs etc, on any of my chosen frequencies. Times of operation at this stage are 1900z to 1200z daily (under manual control) 73s Jack VK4JRC
[digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!
Hi all Pactorologists! Sorry, the first frequency should read 14.078 NOT .087 Back to yourscheduledprogramme! 73s Jack VK4JRC
[digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all Pactorologists! Sorry, the first frequency should read 14.078 NOT .087 Hi Jack, Are these frequencies CENTER frequencies? I will try to connect you today sometime and keep trying different times until we can link. Back to yourscheduledprogramme! 73s Jack VK4JRC 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!
At 08:27 PM 1/14/2008, Demetre wrote: Hi Jack, Are these frequencies CENTER frequencies? I will try to connect you today sometime and keep trying different times until we can link. Back to yourscheduledprogramme! 73s Jack VK4JRC 73 de Demetre SV1UY Hi Demetre, They are DIAL frequencies, and I am running my published tones. IF a few people want to coordinate other dial frequencies and standardize on a different tone set, I am happy to change anything needed. Just had to start somewhere :-) Sadly, my antenna cannot accommodate 30 metres.. 73s Jack VK4JRC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!
At 08:45 PM 1/14/2008, Skip wrote: Jack, I use my 80m base-loaded, tophat, vertical on 30m, and it works great! 80m and 30m are harmonically related. 3.5 x 3 = 10.150. Similar to using a 40m antenna on 15m. 73, Skip KH6TY Skip, Thanks for that. Unfortunately its a Cushcraft MA-5V 20m through 10m, incl WARC bands :-( I am working on a 30m solution, can do auto antenna switching off the TNC scan function, so I can run a second separate antenna, to fix my problem. Another job to dosometime! 73s Jack VK4JRC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!
Sadly, my antenna cannot accommodate 30 metres.. 73s Jack VK4JRC Jack, I use my 80m base-loaded, tophat, vertical on 30m, and it works great! 80m and 30m are harmonically related. 3.5 x 3 = 10.150. Similar to using a 40m antenna on 15m. 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving the development of new digital modes as madness? Do you really think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is the problem. No I don't Dave. But I do feel that some have come to hate such modes as pactor from just what they have read and not seeing what it really is. My experience is that those ops who express a distaste for Pactor do so because they've been QRM'd by a Pactor signal. They incorrectly blame the protocol rather than the operator. Incorrect as this may be, the more Pactor is misused, the more it will be criticized. You as a programmer has done a lot for the ham radio. Just to bad I can't use any of it. All the modes you have built your software around I don't use. My love is RTTY, Amtor and Pactor as far as digital. But I do CW and love it. That will leave a lot out of the picture. WinWarbler supports soundcard RTTY, John, as well as Amtor, Pactor, RTTY, and CW via a modem -- not that this is relevant to the topic at hand. But like I side before there seems to be this non-PSK and anti-wide thing going. No, there is not. You frequently make this statement, but without justification or evidence. The only anti thing going on is anti- QRM. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving the development of new digital modes as madness? Do you really think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is the problem. No I don't Dave. Good! But I do feel that some have come to hate such modes as pactor from just what they have read and not seeing what it really is. As we've discussed several times, this hatred is misplaced. It arises from the misuse of Pactor by those who employ it in unattend stations without busy frequency detectors becaue ops are QRM'd by those stations -- and its a Pactor signal doing the QRMing. As long as this abhorrent practice continues, the mode will be maligned -- unfairly, but that's just human nature. You as a programmer has done a lot for the ham radio. Just to bad I can't use any of it. All the modes you have built your software around. I don't use. My love is RTTY, Amtor and Pactor as far as digital. You are misinformed, John. WinWarbler supports soundcard RTTY, generates CW, and will work with most modems to provide run RTTY, Amtor, and the Pactor family. I have used it to monitor WinLink PMBOs with my SCS modem. WinWarbler can run soundcard RTTY and a RTTY modem (KAM, PK232, SCS, etc.) simultaneously, prividing point-and-click tuning with the ability to decode two RTTY QSOs simultaneously, or a RTTY DX station and his or her pileup, or one RTTY QSO twice (diversity decoding). But like I side before there seems to be this non-PSK and anti-wide thing going. No, there is no non-PSK and anti-wide thing going. You frequently say this, but without evidence or justification. The only anti thing going on is anti-QRM from unattended stations without busy detectors. I don't know why you choose to frame this as anti-wide; that position has about as much basis in reality as DXLab doesn't support RTTY. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] IARU Region 2 Bandplan: Errors Re: HF Automatic Sub Bands
The station you singled out, VE2AFQ, is not operating illegally when operating just below 14070 as a Pactor PMBO. A polite reminder sent to the station might work? Tried that before 1-1-08 and got no reply. Will try again now that the bandplan has been published, but it really should be done by a Canadian, since it is a Canadian-approved bandplan as well as a US-approved bandplan. There are a number of US PMBO Stations which list access frequencies very close to 14070.0 . K6IXA, KB6YNO, N0IA , to name a few. These are certainly not in the unattended band portion. Have a look at the Winlink station list for more information. I have that list from ZS5S. So this brings up the questions; is it acceptable for US stations to ignore the IARU Region 2 band plan, when FCC regulations allow them to, or should they attempt To voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with FCC regulations? No, it is not acceptable to the ham community and the ARRL has pushed hard for everyone to follow bandplans. IMHO, US stations should voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with all FCC regulations. Where FCC regulations allow operations that the bandplan does not, the bandplan should be followed, or what is the sense of trying to work together? And Should the IARU attempt to have member countries accept the band plan as written, and to enact a set of bandwidth-based regulations which would enforce this plan? That is what the IARU wants, but if everyone followed the bandplan, agreed upon by member societies where they live and operatoe, there would be no need for any change in regulations, which take years to change in many cases. Unfortunately, there are some US amateur groups who refuse to follow bandplans, to the detriment of all. 73, Skip KH6TY John VE5MU No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1222 - Release Date: 1/13/2008 12:23 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!
At 10:01 PM 1/14/2008, you wrote: --- In mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Demetre, They are DIAL frequencies, and I am running my published tones. IF a few people want to coordinate other dial frequencies and standardize on a different tone set, I am happy to change anything needed. Just had to start somewhere :-) Sadly, my antenna cannot accommodate 30 metres.. Calling you now on 21.078 Jack. I will also try your 18MHZ and 14MHZ qrgs. 73s Jack VK4JRC 73 de Demetre SV1UY OK Demetre, I will leave it run for another hour or so, before I go to bed. I would leave it run all night, but the transceiver band switching relays will keep me awake! Fire it up again at 1900z 73s Jack VK4JRC
[digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Demetre, They are DIAL frequencies, and I am running my published tones. IF a few people want to coordinate other dial frequencies and standardize on a different tone set, I am happy to change anything needed. Just had to start somewhere :-) Sadly, my antenna cannot accommodate 30 metres.. Calling you now on 21.078 Jack. I will also try your 18MHZ and 14MHZ qrgs. 73s Jack VK4JRC 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
For clarification only: Your statement, John, about DXLab as program suite with Dave as author is incorrect. I'd suggest you look into the facts before communicating wrong statements like All the modes you have built your software around I don't use when your next sentences are informing us that you love RTTY and CW. Those modes are implemented in WinWarbler which is one part of DXLab. Together with your SCS PTC you can also use Amtor as well as Pactor without any problem in WinWarbler(CW, RTTY not only via the WinWarbler modules but via the SCS PTC as well, if you like, together with all other modes the SCS PTC allows). You even have a much better GUI compared to that what is offered on the SCS web sites. I have looked into all of them and decided not to use them because of the competetive advantage of DXLab. Please inform me via direct e-mail if you need some assistance to set up the SCS PTC properly in DXLab and I will be very glad to help you. 73 Juergen, DL8LE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 07:29 PM 1/13/2008, you wrote: John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving the development of new digital modes as madness? Do you really think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is the problem. No I don't Dave. But I do feel that some have come to hate such modes as pactor from just what they have read and not seeing what it really is. Talk about needing a seeing eye dog. You as a programmer has done a lot for the ham radio. Just to bad I can't use any of it. All the modes you have built your software around I don't use. My love is RTTY, Amtor and Pactor as far as digital. But I do CW and love it. That will leave a lot out of the picture. But like I side before there seems to be this non-PSK and anti-wide thing going.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
On Sunday 13 January 2008 08:15:45 pm John Becker, WØJAB wrote: The anti-automatic and anti-everything-that-is-not-PSK31 hams have a very hard time understanding what the rest are doing. Some of us are just ant-Bully In The Neighborhood. You simply refuse to recognize that some modes are a bully on the bands. I'm sure you have rationalized your choice, but that won't change the perception.
[digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK Demetre, I will leave it run for another hour or so, before I go to bed. I would leave it run all night, but the transceiver band switching relays will keep me awake! Fire it up again at 1900z FB Jack, I will try again at 19.00z although probability is 1-25% because ShortPath MUF is on 12MHZ at that time but you never know. LongPath MUF is 14MHZ but really the best time for LongPath QSO between us is 07.00z - 10.00z, but you might be busy then. 73s Jack VK4JRC 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] IARU Region 2 Bandplan: Errors Re: HF Automatic Sub Bands
This seems to me to sum up much of the difficulty in working together to solve a common problem. It is my understanding (and someone can correct me if I am wrong about this) that the ARRL approached the FCC a while back and asked them if the rules could be changed here in the U.S. so that bandplans formed by a body that represents U.S. radio amateurs would carry the force of law. (Perhaps that could include both IARU regional plans and the ARRL's own bandplan?). The FCC declined to support such a rule change. Therefore, bandplans are still only a recommendation only and theoretically do not have to be followed. On the other hand, my further understand is that Mr. Hollingsworth has written letters to hams who are not operating within the bandplan which suggests that they may use this for possible enforcement action. Personally, I would rather it be clearly understood what is expected by the FCC and then we can all follow the same rules with no need for equivocation. For those who do not support a given rule, there is always the redress by petition. My personal goal is to try and make sense of the bandplans, (not always easy to do), and follow them within the legal framework of our country's rules. Hopefully this will be true for other radio amateurs from their respective countries. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: is it acceptable for US stations to ignore the IARU Region 2 band plan, when FCC regulations allow them to, or should they attempt To voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with FCC regulations? No, it is not acceptable to the ham community and the ARRL has pushed hard for everyone to follow bandplans. IMHO, US stations should voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with all FCC regulations. Where FCC regulations allow operations that the bandplan does not, the bandplan should be followed, or what is the sense of trying to work together? And Should the IARU attempt to have member countries accept the band plan as written, and to enact a set of bandwidth-based regulations which would enforce this plan? That is what the IARU wants, but if everyone followed the bandplan, agreed upon by member societies where they live and operatoe, there would be no need for any change in regulations, which take years to change in many cases. Unfortunately, there are some US amateur groups who refuse to follow bandplans, to the detriment of all.
Re: [digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations......
- Original Message - From: Jack Chomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:57 AM Subject: [digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations.. Hi all Pactorologists! I now have my band scanning function running (I think!) for Pactor connects. The controller talks to my Icom 718 to scan 10 frequencies in 5 bands, the scan delay for each frequency is 3 seconds. My tones are Mark 1600 Space 1400 with USB mode on all frequencies. SNIP SNIP Hi Jack! Are you going to continue to post operations on http://www.obriensweb.com/sked and http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ for the scanning? Perhaps your scanning of the freq list will give me a better opportunity to work you. I did connect with Demetre, SV1UY, on 20m yesterday and had a brief but nice chat. The band was a bit busy but we connected succesfully. It surprised both of us; He had wondered about the ability of PACTOR I to pull it off due to the competition of nearby signals who came and went. Overall, some contacts were made with KU2A (Nick), NT3K in NM, N1DP in ME, NO4Y in NC, WB2JEP (AL) - running MultiPSK, and VK2PN. The QSO with AL, WB2JEP lasted the better part of an hour. I'm still trying for W0JAB (John) and you, of course. I've heard no signal from you whatsoever to date, same think for W0JAB. I'm still trying and I'm sure the effort will pay off before long. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations......
I'm still trying for W0JAB (John) and you, of course. I've heard no signal from you whatsoever to date, same think for W0JAB. I'm still trying and I'm sure the effort will pay off before long. Howard - when I call out a dial frequency for pactor such as the one I hang out on 7077.5 it's going to be LSB always. I think we have been close a number of times.
Re: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
For me, the proven offenders can be ATTENDED stations. The past week I was linked to a Winlink station on 40 meters when somebody started calling on top of us. I turned on my linear, and he kept on calling. Three options to be heard: my correspondent, me, and me and my half gallon linear. And he / she kept on calling on top...I could not see who was, I could not monitor the failed attempts while linked. I did not lose my link even when an ALE 141A station started calling also on top of the ongoing QSO. Something that has been spoken about very little...QRM from other clients. 73, Jose, CO2JA Roger J. Buffington escribió: Dave AA6YQ wrote: No one is beating on Pactor. The objects of mass disgust are unattended stations that transmit without listening, thereby QRMing other stations. Many of these happen to use Pactor III, but that's no fault of Pactor III. As I've said here before, we don't ban cars because some people drive drunk; neither should we ban Pactor because some arrogant and inconsiderate hams operate and use unattended Pactor stations without busy frequency detectors. John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving the development of new digital modes as madness? Do you really think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is the problem. You seem to be saying turn the clock back 10 or 15 years and keep it there. I find John's position to be incomprehensible, but that's OK I guess. And you are right. No one has an objection to Pactor so long as it is Pactor operated in a courteous fashion. There is an interesting question about Pactor 2 and 3, which is--are these open-documented modes such that identification in these modes is legal? SCS claims that these are proprietary modes to which they hold copyrights. I don't know the answer to the foregoing question; I'm just asking. Put simply, if it takes ownership of a special modem (SCS modem) to decode the ID, is the ID legal? Pactor is dead as an ordinary QSO mode, at least here in North America. I have received emails from Europe which indicate that it is as dead as Julius Caesar as a QSO mode in Europe as well. When you visit the SCS website, it is apparent that Pactor is primarily aimed at non-ham-operators including boaters and RVers, and commercial users. As far as amateur radio goes, it is Finis Pactor. Thank goodness for Peter Martinez and other ham radio Greats who have made the soundcard modes what they are today--powerful digital modes within the reach of most ham operators worldwide. de Roger W6VZV __ 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] VK4JRC Pactor Operations......
- Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations.. Howard - when I call out a dial frequency for pactor such as the one I hang out on 7077.5 it's going to be LSB always. I think we have been close a number of times. Roger that! I'll make sure, John. Thanks. Yes, I bet we have been close.that's why I'm still trying. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
[digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
What frequency were you using? Was it a keyboard mode that started calling on top of you, or a modem mode? Hard to believe someone with a keyboard mode and a waterfall display would start over top of you, although there are jerks everywhere. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For me, the proven offenders can be ATTENDED stations. The past week I was linked to a Winlink station on 40 meters when somebody started calling on top of us. I turned on my linear, and he kept on calling. Three options to be heard: my correspondent, me, and me and my half gallon linear. And he / she kept on calling on top...I could not see who was, I could not monitor the failed attempts while linked. I did not lose my link even when an ALE 141A station started calling also on top of the ongoing QSO. Something that has been spoken about very little...QRM from other clients. 73, Jose, CO2JA Roger J. Buffington escribió: Dave AA6YQ wrote: No one is beating on Pactor. The objects of mass disgust are unattended stations that transmit without listening, thereby QRMing other stations. Many of these happen to use Pactor III, but that's no fault of Pactor III. As I've said here before, we don't ban cars because some people drive drunk; neither should we ban Pactor because some arrogant and inconsiderate hams operate and use unattended Pactor stations without busy frequency detectors. John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving the development of new digital modes as madness? Do you really think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is the problem. You seem to be saying turn the clock back 10 or 15 years and keep it there. I find John's position to be incomprehensible, but that's OK I guess. And you are right. No one has an objection to Pactor so long as it is Pactor operated in a courteous fashion. There is an interesting question about Pactor 2 and 3, which is--are these open-documented modes such that identification in these modes is legal? SCS claims that these are proprietary modes to which they hold copyrights. I don't know the answer to the foregoing question; I'm just asking. Put simply, if it takes ownership of a special modem (SCS modem) to decode the ID, is the ID legal? Pactor is dead as an ordinary QSO mode, at least here in North America. I have received emails from Europe which indicate that it is as dead as Julius Caesar as a QSO mode in Europe as well. When you visit the SCS website, it is apparent that Pactor is primarily aimed at non-ham-operators including boaters and RVers, and commercial users. As far as amateur radio goes, it is Finis Pactor. Thank goodness for Peter Martinez and other ham radio Greats who have made the soundcard modes what they are today--powerful digital modes within the reach of most ham operators worldwide. de Roger W6VZV __ 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: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
This is not new in any way Jim. Just a few weeks Tony, K2MO was in a QSO on 7077.5 Pactor and someone started calling CQ and then just sent trash. I did sent a email. His reply was (as it always is) I was thinking it was a PMBO station . John, W0JAB At 01:51 PM 1/14/2008, you wrote: What frequency were you using? Was it a keyboard mode that started calling on top of you, or a modem mode? Hard to believe someone with a keyboard mode and a waterfall display would start over top of you, although there are jerks everywhere. Jim WA0LYK
[digitalradio] multipsk
Greetings Am new to the list and do have a problem. I downloaded multipsk and was able to run the program but when I shut it down, it left the desktop full of folders. Did miss something in the installation? Thanks Lynn
[digitalradio] Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
Regarding the continuing vocal disagreement (and flame-wars) between the live chat operators, Morse operators, and the BBS/Winlink or ALE network operators: Two HF bands are discussed below as examples of possible ongoing evolution throughout the amateur radio service's spectrum allocations There is some history that relates to the popularity and use of various non-Morse operations prior to year 1995, and now . Non-Morse operation in the past was only live keyboard to keyboard mode until the innovative spirit of amateur radio operators realized the value of ARQ modes for error-free message handling, starting first with HF Packet forwarding. Back in the stone age of amateur radio, and before the advent of sound-card modes, the prevailing location for Amtor and pactor was specifically between 14070 and 14080, with 14080 to 14099 being for RTTY operations. Back in this Stone age, 40 meter Amtor/pactor was allocated to the 7070 to 7080 KHz segment, and RTTY operations from 7080 to 7099 KHz As time passed, fewer individual stations were using Amtor/pactor/G-tor for live-chat, which left primarily the pactor stations being used for BBS mailboxes and message forwarding ... This change in usage was primarily due to the preference of radio amateurs to adopt less-costly methods of digital communications that did not require the investment of $300 or more for multi-mode TNC's of the time such as the early versions of the Kantronics KAM; MFJ-1278, and AEA PK-232 hardware modems. A solution to the interference problem between ARQ modes and widely popular sound-card, and other types of Live chat modes using data communications would be to migrate live-chat operations farther down the band, such as 7050 to 7070 , and 14050 to 14070 Due to the elimination of Morse code as a requirement for an amateur radio license, it is likely in the future that the current use of the RTTY/DATA bands would be inverted in usage, i.e. Morse code operations would *primarily* be in a more narrowly-defined sub band, while data modes would exist over a much larger band segment in each amateur radio band than Morse operations ... On a legal basis, Morse operations would continue to have access to the full allocation of each amateur radio HF band... This may ruffle the feathers of the old-timers, however Morse code will still be of major importance as a very simple and manual mode of communications when more robust modes are not available.. Morse code will also remain important in the future as a part of living history ... It is likely in the future that, for example, Morse operations may be in the 14000 to 14050 segment, and data modes between 14050 and 14099 and 14101 to 14120 KHz, while Morse operations on 40 meters may be between 7000 to 7050Khz with RTTY/data between 7050 and 7150KHz. Message forwarding operations would likely be toward the upper-portions of the RTTY/DATA bands, while manual, Live chat operations would be farther down in frequency with respect to the BBS/forwarding stations (whether they are Winlink or other modes yet to be developed) Flame on this idea if you wish, however robust live-chat sound-card modes, ARQ messaging modes, and Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) modes will all gain increased popularity, acceptance, and adoption because of their more efficient and reliable communication capabilities as compared to manual and non-keyboard modes .. Elaine ... -- Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons WA6UBE / AAR9JA http://www.qrz.com/wa6ube Being a bush pilot does not mean that I care much for our President !!
[digitalradio] Re: multipsk
Hello Lynn, That is not a normal install. Perhaps you inadvertently unzipped the files into your desk top? You might also ask on the dedicated Multipsk group - alot of very helpful people there, although I am sure Patrick monitors this group also. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, n0alo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greetings Am new to the list and do have a problem. I downloaded multipsk and was able to run the program but when I shut it down, it left the desktop full of folders. Did miss something in the installation? Thanks Lynn
Re: [digitalradio] Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
Elaine You really know how to make Friends with comments like STONE AGE . Seems to me that the ones dragging there knuckles on the ground are those who fail to accept the fact that there are other things but using the ham bands for E-MAIL When you start to act like others exist and they have rights too try again BTW . I DON'T DO CODE . but have a open mind for thoes who do ... --- Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regarding the continuing vocal disagreement (and flame-wars) between the live chat operators, Morse operators, and the BBS/Winlink or ALE network operators: Two HF bands are discussed below as examples of possible ongoing evolution throughout the amateur radio service's spectrum allocations There is some history that relates to the popularity and use of various non-Morse operations prior to year 1995, and now . Non-Morse operation in the past was only live keyboard to keyboard mode until the innovative spirit of amateur radio operators realized the value of ARQ modes for error-free message handling, starting first with HF Packet forwarding. Back in the stone age of amateur radio, and before the advent of sound-card modes, the prevailing location for Amtor and pactor was specifically between 14070 and 14080, with 14080 to 14099 being for RTTY operations. Back in this Stone age, 40 meter Amtor/pactor was allocated to the 7070 to 7080 KHz segment, and RTTY operations from 7080 to 7099 KHz As time passed, fewer individual stations were using Amtor/pactor/G-tor for live-chat, which left primarily the pactor stations being used for BBS mailboxes and message forwarding ... This change in usage was primarily due to the preference of radio amateurs to adopt less-costly methods of digital communications that did not require the investment of $300 or more for multi-mode TNC's of the time such as the early versions of the Kantronics KAM; MFJ-1278, and AEA PK-232 hardware modems. A solution to the interference problem between ARQ modes and widely popular sound-card, and other types of Live chat modes using data communications would be to migrate live-chat operations farther down the band, such as 7050 to 7070 , and 14050 to 14070 Due to the elimination of Morse code as a requirement for an amateur radio license, it is likely in the future that the current use of the RTTY/DATA bands would be inverted in usage, i.e. Morse code operations would *primarily* be in a more narrowly-defined sub band, while data modes would exist over a much larger band segment in each amateur radio band than Morse operations ... On a legal basis, Morse operations would continue to have access to the full allocation of each amateur radio HF band... This may ruffle the feathers of the old-timers, however Morse code will still be of major importance as a very simple and manual mode of communications when more robust modes are not available.. Morse code will also remain important in the future as a part of living history ... It is likely in the future that, for example, Morse operations may be in the 14000 to 14050 segment, and data modes between 14050 and 14099 and 14101 to 14120 KHz, while Morse operations on 40 meters may be between 7000 to 7050Khz with RTTY/data between 7050 and 7150KHz. Message forwarding operations would likely be toward the upper-portions of the RTTY/DATA bands, while manual, Live chat operations would be farther down in frequency with respect to the BBS/forwarding stations (whether they are Winlink or other modes yet to be developed) Flame on this idea if you wish, however robust live-chat sound-card modes, ARQ messaging modes, and Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) modes will all gain increased popularity, acceptance, and adoption because of their more efficient and reliable communication capabilities as compared to manual and non-keyboard modes .. Elaine ... -- Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons WA6UBE / AAR9JA http://www.qrz.com/wa6ube Being a bush pilot does not mean that I care much for our President !! Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
Hello Jose, You are correct, it does not seem that attended stations are always listening stations. Have seem many clients qrming each other and probably, to some locations, qrming the PMBO itself as they are calling the PBMO that is already linked. Might explain why, even though supposed busy detector will allegedly on detector Pactor (in the Winlink example), that it is oft turned off. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For me, the proven offenders can be ATTENDED stations. The past week I was linked to a Winlink station on 40 meters when somebody started calling on top of us. I turned on my linear, and he kept on calling. Three options to be heard: my correspondent, me, and me and my half gallon linear. And he / she kept on calling on top...I could not see who was, I could not monitor the failed attempts while linked. I did not lose my link even when an ALE 141A station started calling also on top of the ongoing QSO. Something that has been spoken about very little...QRM from other clients. 73, Jose, CO2JA
[digitalradio] Re: Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
First, let me say that these recommendations are based solely upon hopes and dreams. There are no facts or data with by which one can adequately assess the recommendations. If you want to convince someone that further segmentation of the rtty/data segments into smaller and smaller pieces is a good thing, then you need some actual spectrum usage studies to back up your recommendations. What you are addressing is interference mitigation. Trying to minimize interference through segmentation will ultimately result in complete channelization. Further, your hypothesis deals with eliminating interference between live chat modes and ARQ modes. How is restricting morse code to a smaller and smaller segment going to provide interference mitigation between these two chat modes and ARQ modes? More space is not the answer, because you also indicate that these modes will grow thereby resulting in more and more mixing, and consequently more and more interference between the two types of data communications. So nothing will be solved. More and more space is not the answer because there simply isn't space to continue to expand. Reducing interference is best dealt with by proper interference mitigation techniques, not segmentation. These techniques must be developed and implemented by all modes. The most basic should be a busy detection feature for all unattended and attended automatic stations. Let me share some thoughts from Peter, G3PLX. I take no credit for them. They are all his ideas but pertinent. The use of ARQ in a congested band is counter-productive, since in the face of co-channel interference (which results from congestion), it INCREASES the amount of time-bandwidth it uses, thus making the congestion worse. To be able to survive congestion in an unregulated band, there must be a mechanism that causes individual transmitting stations to REDUCE their output (in time-bandwidth terms) when faced with undesirable congestion. The AX25 protocol, much maligned for HF use, did achieve this. Traditional one-to-one amateur operation has this desirable feedback mechanism - an operator faced with QRM due to congestion will shorten his transmissions or close down, thus reducing the congestion. Amateur radio in an unregulated environment where the level of activity is congestion-limited, will ONLY be stable and self-limiting if there are enough people on the air who are just there for fun, and who will QRT if/when it stops being fun. If we ever got to the situation where a significant fraction of the activity is by people who need to be on the air for a purpose, then there will be an increasing tendency for congested bands to exhibit 'grid-lock' behavior. Every time I hear a boater saying they must have winlink to receive weather reports and to communicate with family I think to myself, this is not being described as a recreational use but a vital communications that needs a specific time and place to operate. The fact that AX25 'backed off' in the face of errors (which could be due to congestion) meant that multiple AX25 links could share a channel in a stable way. Pactor has no such characteristic. Co-channel QRM between two Pactor links results in neither link passing any traffic until one link aborts. The logistic consequence of this is that Winlink sysops will always choose to operate on a channel on which they can be sure no other Pactor link will take place. They will always prefer to be subjected to random QRM from another service than to be subjected to QRM from another Pactor link. The result is making sure that there are no overlapping winlink stations, maximizing the amount of amateur spectrum used. This unfortunate characteristic has meant that the interference from Pactor to other services is maximized rather than minimized, and it also means that the Winlink organizers complain bitterly that there is insufficient space within the designated automatic sub-bands. The total volume of traffic handled by these unattended stations could easily be passed within the automatic sub-band limits, given a mechanism by which the stations involved could co-ordinate their activity. However, it cannot be done with Pactor or Winlink in their present forms, and if these stations are free to roam the bands, there will be no incentive to improve their channel utilization. In theory at least, the same arguments for segregating unattended ARQ stations applies to ALL amateur activity which has a purpose other than recreation. Only truly recreational activity is self-limiting without regulation. Any other activity in which amateur radio performs a service to/from a third party, will be vulnerable to grid-lock in the face of band congestion in an unregulated channel structure. To be truly a service to the community, these activities should have their own channels outside of the amateur bands. This would be worth exploring. Ask yourself how close we are to turning the amateur bands into a service oriented
Re: [digitalradio] Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
At 07:26 PM 1/14/2008, you wrote: Seems to me that the ones dragging there knuckles on the ground are those who fail to accept the fact that there are other things but using the ham bands for E-MAIL Bruce If I may - here is one of the so called email that you referred to. this message was from a ham at sea from last week. It looked just like a message from the ARRL system. look at all of hams at sea there at this URL http://winlink.org/positions/PosReports.aspx This message text just said: Should arrive Sydney within 48 hours on the 8th. Addressed St. Paul, MN phone number e mail address. Just like a ARRL message it has an email address attached just in case that last station is not close and will not have to make a toll call. Can you tell me why you think that all the messages passed on the winlink system is email? Why do I feel that you have *never* copied any of this traffic and are just going by what you read or have been told? That's too bad because neither have the people you have been listing too. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] PSK63 Party: Congratulations to Dave AA6YQ and others
Results of the EPSK PSK63 QSO Party are in.. Continental Party Winners Continent Call Sign EPC QSOs Mults Score WW Place Europe RU3QR 0016 599 490 1253910 001 Asia 4L1QX 0203 421 361 674709 012 Africa CN8YZ 0364 409 311 515327 017 North America AA6YQ 2640 144 105 59220 095 South America YV1FM 0162 83 58 18270 177 Oceania ZL3RG 1059 50 41 8774 210 Regional Party Winners Region Call Sign EPC QSOs Mults Score WW Place United Kingdom MMØDGR 0200 231 190 188290 048 Scandinavia LA5HPA 1322 290 238 295596 030 Russian Federation RU3QR 0016 599 490 1253910 001 United States of America AA6YQ 2640 144 105 59220 095 Canada VE1MC 0742 114 86 39388 129 Japan JF2SKV 2296 76 59 18408 176 Conditions in the USA were quite poor and Dave AA6YQ , the highest scoring USA station was 95th overall95 AA6YQ 144 105 59220 As for that K3UK dude... er, 249th ! K3UK 42 27 4050 . One way to spin it was that K3UK was 7th in the WHOLE USA (but 7 out of 15 !) Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] PSK63 Party: Congratulations to Dave AA6YQ and others
Gee I did no make the list.
[digitalradio] Re: Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
But you're ignoring the aggregate effects. It's like showing your wife a hair off an elephant that is rampaging through your house and saying, no big deal, look it's just a little hair. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 07:26 PM 1/14/2008, you wrote: Seems to me that the ones dragging there knuckles on the ground are those who fail to accept the fact that there are other things but using the ham bands for E-MAIL Bruce If I may - here is one of the so called email that you referred to. this message was from a ham at sea from last week. It looked just like a message from the ARRL system. look at all of hams at sea there at this URL http://winlink.org/positions/PosReports.aspx This message text just said: Should arrive Sydney within 48 hours on the 8th. Addressed St. Paul, MN phone number e mail address. Just like a ARRL message it has an email address attached just in case that last station is not close and will not have to make a toll call. Can you tell me why you think that all the messages passed on the winlink system is email? Why do I feel that you have *never* copied any of this traffic and are just going by what you read or have been told? That's too bad because neither have the people you have been listing too. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
Jose Amador wrote: For me, the proven offenders can be ATTENDED stations. Indeed, Jose, this is always possible. Who among us has not on some erroneous occasion transmitted without listening long ENOUGH, and instead unintentionally QRMed an innocent QSO? But VERY few of us would ever do such a thing intentionally; I like to think that none of us would. Winlink, by contrast, transmits without first listening as a matter of *policy* by deliberately eschewing modest technical modifications, already in being but not in use, which would allow it to listen first. This is because its guiding lights have concluded that Winlink transmissions are more valuable than other forms of ham activity, and the latter must be made to give way to them. This explains the proposal on various Winlink websites of channelization whereby certain (many!) frequencies are argued to be Winlink priority frequencies, which the rest of us may use only on sufferance. If this were an upward trend, it would eventually have to result in an outright ban of Winlink, unless we want to see much of our bands comprised of nothing but over-the-air email dumps. Fortunately, Winlink is very inefficient compared to the conventional internet. The rise of Wi-Fi in RV parks and boat marinas, and the steady drop in the cost of boat satellite communications will likely result in its gradual, and I trust timely, demise. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] Re: PSK63 Party: Congratulations to Dave AA6YQ and others
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gee I did no make the list. Well, John, you did at least as well as I did or better. 73. Bill N9DSJ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
7102.2, center frequency. Certainly, a busy frequency. I cannot tell what mode called on top of me, because, robotic or manned, all pactor link initiations are about the same. Only after you receive a system ID or a human greeting you get to know. But I guess, given the frequency, that it was another client attempting to throw me away to seize the link. And no, I guess it was not using a waterfall, neither did I. It was another PTC calling, I heard it on pactor. And somebody else on 141A, too. So, and I stress it, this is about the lack of consideration those who trigger the robots that so far have got the lion's share of the blaming. Activity detectors would be only part of the solution. Jose, CO2JA --- jgorman01 wrote: What frequency were you using? Was it a keyboard mode that started calling on top of you, or a modem mode? Hard to believe someone with a keyboard mode and a waterfall display would start over top of you, although there are jerks everywhere. Jim WA0LYK __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
[digitalradio] QRM wars.
OK, Bill, I had heard it before, and refrained to comment, but this time I suffered it myself. I decided to change the subject to something more appropiate to what I am referring to. I have been thinking a bit about all thisI am tempted to try to monitor using Multipsk with the soundcard while using my PTC-II, if the frame duration and the SNR allows to identify anything else than the signal of my correspondent. So far I have used Spectran as waterfall monitor the PTC and FDMDV, and Spectran is really very sensitive waterfall display. This matter of the busy detector has been overpreached here, and I have always insisted in the fact that the hidden station does exist, but I also have to insist that there is a human factor that aggravates the situation, caused by some greedy PMBO users. Would a succesful busy detector really avoid it? It seems to be a real tough task... 73, Jose, CO2JA -- Bill McLaughlin wrote: Hello Jose, You are correct, it does not seem that attended stations are always listening stations. Have seem many clients qrming each other and probably, to some locations, qrming the PMBO itself as they are calling the PBMO that is already linked. Might explain why, even though supposed busy detector will allegedly on detector Pactor (in the Winlink example), that it is oft turned off. 73, Bill N9DSJ __ 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] PSK63 Party: Congratulations to Dave AA6YQ and others
Thanks, Andy. That was my first -- and likely last -- contest. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:15 PM To: DIGITALRADIO Subject: [digitalradio] PSK63 Party: Congratulations to Dave AA6YQ and others Results of the EPSK PSK63 QSO Party are in.. Continental Party Winners Continent Call Sign EPC QSOs Mults Score WW Place Europe RU3QR 0016 599 490 1253910 001 Asia 4L1QX 0203 421 361 674709 012 Africa CN8YZ 0364 409 311 515327 017 North America AA6YQ 2640 144 105 59220 095 South America YV1FM 0162 83 58 18270 177 Oceania ZL3RG 1059 50 41 8774 210 Regional Party Winners Region Call Sign EPC QSOs Mults Score WW Place United Kingdom MMØDGR 0200 231 190 188290 048 Scandinavia LA5HPA 1322 290 238 295596 030 Russian Federation RU3QR 0016 599 490 1253910 001 United States of America AA6YQ 2640 144 105 59220 095 Canada VE1MC 0742 114 86 39388 129 Japan JF2SKV 2296 76 59 18408 176 Conditions in the USA were quite poor and Dave AA6YQ , the highest scoring USA station was 95th overall 95 AA6YQ 144 105 59220 As for that K3UK dude... er, 249th ! K3UK 42 27 4050 . One way to spin it was that K3UK was 7th in the WHOLE USA (but 7 out of 15 !) Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
