Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
For the love of god, (just an expression) Will everyone please stop !! Over night I have received over 80 messages regarding this conflict. It is beyond a joke surely. I must admit that I haven't even read all the messages, but come on folks. This is getting out of hand. ROS seems to be no more than using a single frequency with a multi hop FSK signal that takes up an enormous band width. Ok so it is large but so are other modes such as mt63 or olivia 2000htz what is the problem. ? Use it where the band plans allow I.e. In the voice spectrum. Stop all this crap about it has to be in with other digi modes (does anyone have a problem with sstv in 14.230 as it is no where near the other digi modes.) It is not a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode, indeed it only transmits in the pass band that your radio is on, not frequency hopping as the FCC mentions. Give us all a break, please. If you don't want to use it, then fine. If you do, then fine. I'm sick and tired of opening my e-mail and seeing the same spiel as yesterday and the day before and the bloody week before that. Put it like this, if it is so bad and you call it spread spectrum frequency hopping mode. Then what is ALE and the like? Does it even look to see if the frequency is in use when it changes band automatically. I think not. Do the pactor stations give a damn when they blast my signal when working olivia, rtty, ROS, etc . NO Give it up people I remember starting in ham radio due to it's unusual regard for self bettering, understanding and experimenting. Not bureaucracy and the like. My 2p worth. I have had enough.Maybe Jose shouldn't have called it SSFH software but in the end it isn't. Done Had enough. T x --- ---Original Message--- From: John B. Stephensen Date: 24/02/2010 04:05:25 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` In order for amateurs in the U.S. to use any RTTY/data mode other than Baudot, ASCII or AMTOR over 2FSK they must be able to point to a published technical specification for the potocol that shows that it is legal. It was condition that we all agreed to when we were issued a license. When this is done the problem will be solved. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:41 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` OK, I am starting to agree with Dave now and with Andy as before ... this is starting to now become circular . It has now been solidly established that ROS is FSK, NOT SS, by the authors own words. The author NEVER approached the FCC for an OPINION about his unfinished work at all. Indeed he made it clear the whole thing was still BETA In the US, when has an OPINION of someone lower than the enforcing authority made anything legal or illegal? It was only an opinion of one of the agents (agent #3820) based on the incomplete data provided to them. had I been that agent, I would have said the same thing under the circumstances of only having incomplete, inaccurate documentation presented to me. Jose, the author, has already indicated he intends to correct the error in his updated documentation which should remove all questions about legality in the US. It is not necessary for him to provide anyone with his algorithm so long as he continues to provide his program so that anyone can monitor the transmissions. The transmissions all fall within FCC guidelines already, that has never been argued. The only real argument has been, is it SS or FSK If it is FSK, it is NOT illegal. The spread spectrum rule simply does not apply here. What more will the outcome of this discussion ultimately determine? Presently, the FCC is so understaffed due to budgetary constraints, my guess is that they really do not have the resources needed to chase such questionable things as this in the first place. Can anyone imagine our enforcement group is going to expend the kind of resources necessary to enforce something that is likely not really an issue in the first place? They are not there just sitting and waiting to jump on anyone potentially violating such a questionable matter in the first place. As for the requirements of how this software generates or does not generate it's spectrum should no longer even be a question since the only reason it was ever argued in the first place was based on the authors misunderstanding of OUR (the US) definition of SS versus FSK. Once he (the program author) understood the difference in that definition, he immediately noted his program was NOT SS at all, but was in fact FSK. Argument should be over? TRUE? NOT TRUE? Dave, where would we go from here . if we were in your country? John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: It is a NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT requirement (out of three). The point is
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
I see you have not idea waht is the meaning of Spread spectrum. Spread spectrum reduce energy density. De: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 03:55 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Convolutional coding and Viterbi decoding may increase the occupied bandwidth but they also decrease the amount of power required to communicate. In some cases, like trellis-coded modulation, the bandwidth stays the same even though the power required decreases by a factor of 2-4. Spread spectrum increases the occupied bandwidth without the decrease in power. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:24 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I have a different take on this. There are a number of modes that uses vertebrae coding which could be mis-described as spread spectrum by some. The problem with part 97 is that it tries to be as broad as possible where technical parameters are concerned. In this case it causes things to be vague. There are many things that can be described as spread spectrum that are not by definition in part 97. FM would be one of them. Anytime information is transmitted in a wider bandwidth than necessary it could be described as spread spectrum. This would include some low noise modes. The problem is that we petitioned the FCC to loosen SS rules and the more vague those rules are made the more open to debate they are. The worst that can happen under the rules if one would be operating ROS in the phone segment would be an order to cease such operation if the comish so ordered. Skip You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose’s part a better technical description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Reply-To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country. Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not substantial ), but the government here is now demanding that Toyota SHOW proof that there is no problem, and not merely saying there is not. This is currently a very hot topic with the government and Congress and on the minds of everyone. So I assume likewise that PROOF will have to be SHOWN that there is no spreading signal used in ROS. Mere words will probably not be enough, and there is probably only ONE chance to succeed, so you need to be successful the first time. If you decide to only change the description and nothing further, I sincerely hope I am wrong, and I could well be. But, that is your decision, not mine. If you need to protect your invention, then just fully document and witness it, or do whatever is necessary in your country and others, and be free to do whatever is required to win this battle. Good luck! 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, KH6. I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. De:KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
My DELETE button HAS been getting a workout this week... ;-) Wes W1LIC From: Toby Burnett ruff...@hebrides.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 4:48:34 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` For the love of god, (just an expression) Will everyone please stop !! Over night I have received over 80 messages regarding this conflict. It is beyond a joke surely. I must admit that I haven't even read all the messages, but come on folks. This is getting out of hand. ROS seems to be no more than using a single frequency with a multi hop FSK signal that takes up an enormous band width. Ok so it is large but so are other modes such as mt63 or olivia 2000htz what is the problem. ? Use it where the band plans allow I.e. In the voice spectrum. Stop all this crap about it has to be in with other digi modes (does anyone have a problem with sstv in 14.230 as it is no where near the other digi modes.) It is not a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode, indeed it only transmits in the pass band that your radio is on, not frequency hopping as the FCC mentions. Give us all a break, please. If you don't want to use it, then fine. If you do, then fine. I'm sick and tired of opening my e-mail and seeing the same spiel as yesterday and the day before and the bloody week before that. Put it like this, if it is so bad and you call it spread spectrum frequency hopping mode. Then what is ALE and the like? Does it even look to see if the frequency is in use when it changes band automatically. I think not. Do the pactor stations give a damn when they blast my signal when working olivia, rtty, ROS, etc . NO Give it up people I remember starting in ham radio due to it's unusual regard for self bettering, understanding and experimenting. Not bureaucracy and the like. My 2p worth. I have had enough. Maybe Jose shouldn't have called it SSFH software but in the end it isn't. Done Had enough. T x --- ---Original Message- -- From: John B. Stephensen Date: 24/02/2010 04:05:25 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` In order for amateurs in the U.S. to use any RTTY/data mode other than Baudot, ASCII or AMTOR over 2FSK they must be able to point to a published technical specification for the potocol that shows that it is legal. It was condition that we all agreed to when we were issued a license. When this is done the problem will be solved. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:41 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` OK, I am starting to agree with Dave now and with Andy as before ... this is starting to now become circular . It has now been solidly established that ROS is FSK, NOT SS, by the authors own words. The author NEVER approached the FCC for an OPINION about his unfinished work at all. Indeed he made it clear the whole thing was still BETA In the US, when has an OPINION of someone lower than the enforcing authority made anything legal or illegal? It was only an opinion of one of the agents (agent #3820) based on the incomplete data provided to them. had I been that agent, I would have said the same thing under the circumstances of only having incomplete, inaccurate documentation presented to me. Jose, the author, has already indicated he intends to correct the error in his updated documentation which should remove all questions about legality in the US. It is not necessary for him to provide anyone with his algorithm so long as he continues to provide his program so that anyone can monitor the transmissions. The transmissions all fall within FCC guidelines already, that has never been argued. The only real argument has been, is it SS or FSK. If it is FSK, it is NOT illegal. The spread spectrum rule simply does not apply here. What more will the outcome of this discussion ultimately determine? Presently, the FCC is so understaffed due to budgetary constraints, my guess is that they really do not have the resources needed to chase such questionable things as this in the first place. Can anyone imagine our enforcement group is going to expend the kind of resources necessary to enforce something that is likely not really an issue in the first place? They are not there just sitting and waiting to jump on anyone potentially violating such a questionable matter in the first place. As for the requirements of how this software generates or does not generate it's spectrum should no longer even be a question since the only reason it was ever argued in the first place was based on the authors misunderstanding of OUR (the US) definition of SS versus FSK. Once he (the program author) understood the difference in that definition, he
[digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
Dear Jose, It is very simple: 1. You are the designer of ROS, and you say ROS is Spread Spectrum. 2. FCC says 'The ROS designer says ROS is Spread Spectrum' so we believe this is true. 3. Spread Spectrum is not allowed below 222MHz for USA hams by FCC Rules. 4. Hams in USA must follow FCC rules. Even if the rules are bad. Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@... wrote: This is very simple. Chip64 is SS, however there is not problems with anybody, because people dont  go propagating by all forums hey, is illegal, is illegal I think some people must thing in improve the Ham Radio, instead of want to be noticed from the beginning saying is illegal. From now on, anyone who thinks that ROS is illegal, say to me, because I am going to create a filter that people without autorithation tu use the software.
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Not true according to Shannon. Using an independent code is a means to an end in the digital domain but is not an absolute as far a the theory goes. This is an example why we need to keep lawyers and government as far away from the hobby as possible. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:00:49 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` The distinguishing characteristic of spread spectrum is spreading by a code INDEPENDENT of the data. FM for example, creates carriers depending upon the audio frequency and amplitude. SSB creates carriers at a frequency dependent upon the tone frequency, and RTTY at a pair of set frequencirs depending upon the shift or the tones used to generate shift. In spread spectrum, as Jose has written, an independent code is used for the spreading, one of the requirements to classify it as spread spectrum. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: I have a different take on this. There are a number of modes that uses vertebrae coding which could be mis-described as spread spectrum by some. The problem with part 97 is that it tries to be as broad as possible where technical parameters are concerned. In this case it causes things to be vague. There are many things that can be described as spread spectrum that are not by definition in part 97. FM would be one of them. Anytime information is transmitted in a wider bandwidth than necessary it could be described as spread spectrum. This would include some low noise modes. The problem is that we petitioned the FCC to loosen SS rules and the more vague those rules are made the more open to debate they are. The worst that can happen under the rules if one would be operating ROS in the phone segment would be an order to cease such operation if the comish so ordered. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:53:53 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I am for whatever will succeed, but do not underestimate how difficult it is to convincingly reverse oneself after first originally being so convincing. For myself, even from the beginning, I could not understand how the spreading was accomplished by a code that everyone else automatically had, but that was the claim, so I accepted it. Perhaps there is no spreading code independent of the data, but if so, it must now be proven thus, and not just claimed in what might be seen as an attempt to have something approved that has already been disapproved. Just because I might possess the necessary technical skills does not mean I can individually overrule the FCC with my actions. Even opposing technical experts are called by both parties in a legal argument, and the judge to decide who is correct in this case is the FCC, which has already issued an opinion, even if it may be wrong if given new information, but just saying it is so does not make it so. I believe some concrete proof is required now, and maybe your spectrum analyzer display can be part of such proof. Other's opinions may vary... 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Skip You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose¹s part a better technical description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country. Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not substantial), but the
[digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
The greatest danger for Ham Radio is turning it into a Museum. From 100years ago it was an important part of tecnology development, and starters of Broadcasters. Since the age of PC most youngsters dived into PC - Internet- Cellphones- so called Social forums etc. We need to go on developing and experimenting or the hobby will die. Digital modes is maybe the most important part of this. Look to TV and Radio. They are going digital and are now ahead of us. History looks like driving a car with breaks on. CW-AM-RTTY-SSB-AMTOR-PACTOR1, 2, 3 Packet, FS forward kompression B0 B1, Winlink B2F All the newer sound card modes. D-Star. etc Always a discussion, is the new stuff legal or not. Difficult to listen with only the old gear. Off course no encryptions. Protocolls open, or easy to get listening equipment. No one is arguing against that. The Dansish ham radio organization has a good name: (translated) Experimenting Danish Radioamateurs. EDR. This should be what the rest of us aim for as well. Keep on the good work for development and experimentation. 73 de la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@... wrote: This is very simple. Chip64 is SS, however there is not problems with anybody, because people dont  go propagating by all forums hey, is illegal, is illegal I think some people must thing in improve the Ham Radio, instead of want to be noticed from the beginning saying is illegal. From now on, anyone who thinks that ROS is illegal, say to me, because I am going to create a filter that people without autorithation tu use the software. De: W2XJ w...@... Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 02:48 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response  Agreed, the more letters to the FCC the more problems for amateur radio. If someone sent a letter to the FCC about Chip64 they would get the same response that the FCC gave for ROS. The FCC only gets involved when someone complains. I think that they would love to have simpler and less restrictive rules to enforce. It's the public that opposes the removal of restrictions that they beleive favor their group. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message -  From:  jose alberto  nieto ros mailto:nietorosdj@ yahoo.es   To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com   Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:02  UTC  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC  request and response       That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?.  Then what are we discuss?   De:silversmj silver...@yahoo. com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010  01:46 Asunto: [digitalradio]  Re: ROS . FCC request and response     Greetings All, Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations  should cease Chip64 emissions as it is described using SS, see http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation  s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf (Note: ARRL) Someone should mention this  to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run a Net using Chip64,  see http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option=  com_content view=article id=88Itemid= 95 http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_contentview=articleid=88Itemid=95 (Also note:  ARRL) I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun  and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a  little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an  individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/ authorities to just say no,  especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need  more information. 73 GL de Mike  KB6WFC     From: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast. net Reply-To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:16:22 - To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response       
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Based on a lot of testing abt 90s with som fellow hams using KAM (e+) we found Gtor making good speed when good conds. But pactor1 proved more robust. 80m during night. The most easy mode to make a link with again and again was AMTOR, because of its very short call. But plenty of errors during an ongoing link. Pactor1 was a bit more difficult to achieve a link with. But off course 100% correct, and fully 8 bit comm, as long as it worked. Working 100 and 200b. Gtor was much more difficult to start a link during bad conds. The call burst was very long. Pactor1 always won the race creating a link. Gtor didnt work so well during bad conds twisting multipath as advertized. But was very effective indeed during daytime. Often running 300b. One could set parameters for how long the link should hang on during deep and long QSBs. We often did test towards a counter station in TOR mode with its internal PBBS activated. Worked like the receiving station accepted call in either amtor, pactor1 or gtor. Distances Oslo Stavanger, (Southeast to southwest, and to Valdres (abt middle of south Norway). (Later also pure pactor1 link from Oslo to Svalbard (Hopen) on 20m for 1/2year. Pactor1 80 night Oslo to Lofoten (North Norway). Pactor2 40 night Oslo to North Cape most north of Norway.) But this was irrelevant to GTOR, no comparison between modes. One could very well achieve a GTOR 300b link with narrow 500hz filter and FSK 170hz shift. (Even 350hz Icom filter obvious not very sharp edged). Recommended shift was 200. Gtor was good for file transfers under good conds, unneccessary quick for keyboard qsos, but pactor1 better for qsos, under worse conds. One couldnt type quicker than pactor1 worked. It was a pity that this mode became so quickly outperformed by Pactor2. Both modes held proprietary. Maybe a combination of GTOR and PACTOR2 could have been interesting all these years. Starting the negotiaton with the short PACTOR1 bursts. All narrow band. Today I wonder how comparison between WINMOR 500hz and GTOR would show up. I am glad that Gtor obviously has been given free. Maybe something for BPQ32? 73 de la7um Finn. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, graham787 g0...@... wrote: Stiner .. will try again wed night , for soem reason I have to select 3 as the audio in to the prog . could see a signal +/- 1700 on speclab , 15 db over noise .. also one signal was quite wide ? 73 - Graham . --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saanes@ wrote: 3586
[digitalradio] T-Index on the rise - finally
All, The T-index is derived from data taken from ionosondes in both hemispheres. Notice the rise in the T-index since the beginning of February 2010. Big change compared to the entire year of 2009. The upper HF bands have certainly come allive. http://www.ips.gov.au/HF_Systems/7/2 Tony -K2MO
[digitalradio] ¡¡Has been detected an important bug in the software !!
¡¡Has been detected an important bug in the software !! Please, download latest version. ¡So before you could see the tones clearly but you could not decode anything! Fixed.
Re: [digitalradio] I'm curious about this Mix W oddity
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:20:26 -0500, you wrote: I have seen something similar to this, I think, in DM780, when using Olivia mode. The previous QSO , or the tail end of it, is displayed back. Andy K3UK It is not a mode-dependent problem, it is some bug in the underlying software routines that DM780 is based on. -- OV1A Jens The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by people who don't have it.
[digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !
Up to 1-9-1 but dont see sound card select ? is there a way yet ? Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Barry Murrell ZS2EZ mailgro...@... wrote: Hi Jose Any indication when selectable soundcards will become a reality? So far unable to try ROS out here, as I use multiple soundcards -
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !
graham787 wrote: Up to 1-9-1 but dont see sound card select ? is there a way yet ? No, not yet. You still have to set the sound card that you want to use as the Windows default sound card. Jose, the program owner and developer, has said that he intends to add the option to select the sound card from within the program, but I think he's been busy with a couple of other issues. Let's face it, the 1st ever recorded QSO using ROS was completed on the 18th of this month, just 6 days ago, so I think we, the users, do need to be a little bit patient. HI. Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Re: Would it be to much to ask
Welcome to the machine as Mr(pink) floyd would say :) G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Hi John Thanks for your nice and personality mail. Although I do not think I am the biggest spammer in the group , I will try to remember deleting post what WE all have seen a number of times. la5vna S Bay the way , I tried to reply to you, but I got this massage from your mail server : Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients: Recipient address: w0...@... Reason: SMTP data accept failure has occurred Diagnostic code: smtp;559 we do not accept spam Remote system: dns;stl-online.net --- On 24.02.2010 00:31, John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Would it be to much to ask you to delete from your post what WE all have seen a number of times. I for one live in a rural area and therefore must either get on line from dial-up or satellite. One is slow. the other has a meter running. When that limit is hit it could slow to the point dial-up. Belive me, I can hit that max limit on my own. I really don't need any help. PLEASE delete. John, W0JAB digitalradio co-moderator
[digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !
Tnx , Dave .. looks like lots of new issues .. some even qra based .. wonder if a narrow band vesrsion would loose the s/n edge . would be good for MF as the whole band is only 3 KHz wide and most are limited to 100 hz G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... wrote: graham787 wrote: Up to 1-9-1 but dont see sound card select ? is there a way yet ? No, not yet. You still have to set the sound card that you want to use as the Windows default sound card. Jose, the program owner and developer, has said that he intends to add the option to select the sound card from within the program, but I think he's been busy with a couple of other issues. Let's face it, the 1st ever recorded QSO using ROS was completed on the 18th of this month, just 6 days ago, so I think we, the users, do need to be a little bit patient. HI. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
A member of this group contacted the FCC, got a ruling, and published it here. Just remember that you have no legal defense if the FCC decides to take action. I keep replying to this stuff because some members of this group could led others into losing their licenses. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: ocypret To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:04 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? Wow! What a mess! I think absent a clear ruling from the FCC and as long as I think a plausible argument can be made for its compliance with Part 97, I'm going to use it. I made a contact this afternoon with PC5W on 20 meters. It looks like a good mode to use. Sorry for stirring up the firestorm again - I thought you guys had pretty much argued yourselves out or I wouldn't have posted the question. All the previous posting on this have left my head spinning. Wayne N5BZA
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
SS reduces the power spectral density but not the total power per bit for a given error rate. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:03 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I see you have not idea waht is the meaning of Spread spectrum. Spread spectrum reduce energy density. -- De: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 03:55 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Convolutional coding and Viterbi decoding may increase the occupied bandwidth but they also decrease the amount of power required to communicate. In some cases, like trellis-coded modulation, the bandwidth stays the same even though the power required decreases by a factor of 2-4. Spread spectrum increases the occupied bandwidth without the decrease in power. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:24 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I have a different take on this. There are a number of modes that uses vertebrae coding which could be mis-described as spread spectrum by some. The problem with part 97 is that it tries to be as broad as possible where technical parameters are concerned. In this case it causes things to be vague. There are many things that can be described as spread spectrum that are not by definition in part 97. FM would be one of them. Anytime information is transmitted in a wider bandwidth than necessary it could be described as spread spectrum. This would include some low noise modes. The problem is that we petitioned the FCC to loosen SS rules and the more vague those rules are made the more open to debate they are. The worst that can happen under the rules if one would be operating ROS in the phone segment would be an order to cease such operation if the comish so ordered. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Reply-To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:53:53 -0500 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I am for whatever will succeed, but do not underestimate how difficult it is to convincingly reverse oneself after first originally being so convincing. For myself, even from the beginning, I could not understand how the spreading was accomplished by a code that everyone else automatically had, but that was the claim, so I accepted it. Perhaps there is no spreading code independent of the data, but if so, it must now be proven thus, and not just claimed in what might be seen as an attempt to have something approved that has already been disapproved. Just because I might possess the necessary technical skills does not mean I can individually overrule the FCC with my actions. Even opposing technical experts are called by both parties in a legal argument, and the judge to decide who is correct in this case is the FCC, which has already issued an opinion, even if it may be wrong if given new information, but just saying it is so does not make it so. I believe some concrete proof is required now, and maybe your spectrum analyzer display can be part of such proof. Other's opinions may vary... 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Skip You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose’s part a better technical description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing. -- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Reply-To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Actually, I'd like to have the regulations changed. However, the more that amateurs ignore existing regulations the less the FCC will trust us. The SS restriction is one of the few provisions that the FCC actually cares about. They have given a legal opinion and can monitor this mailing list to see whether people comply. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave Ackrill To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 20:48 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` John B. Stephensen wrote: A member of this group contacted the FCC, got a ruling, and published it here. Just remember that you have no legal defense if the FCC decides to take action. I keep replying to this stuff because some members of this group could led others into losing their licenses. On a 1st offence, even in the USA, I would expect a warning at least before the full force of the law was applied. Even over here it's rare for someone to be band for a technical infringement of the rules. I suspect a little over egging the pudding is going on... Maybe by people who, dare I say it, want to frighten others into not using the program? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
I agree, and wager 6 months from now hardly anyone will be using ROS. And for those who say im gonna use it regardless of the FCC reply, well go ahead, start saving for your fine. 73 Buddy WB4M For the love of god, (just an expression) Will everyone please stop !! Over night I have received over 80 messages regarding this conflict. It is beyond a joke surely. I must admit that I haven't even read all the messages, but come on folks. This is getting out of hand. ROS seems to be no more than using a single frequency with a multi hop FSK signal that takes up an enormous band width. Ok so it is large but so are other modes such as mt63 or olivia 2000htz what is the problem. ? Use it where the band plans allow I.e. In the voice spectrum. Stop all this crap about it has to be in with other digi modes (does anyone have a problem with sstv in 14.230 as it is no where near the other digi modes.) It is not a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode, indeed it only transmits in the pass band that your radio is on, not frequency hopping as the FCC mentions. Give us all a break, please. If you don't want to use it, then fine. If you do, then fine. I'm sick and tired of opening my e-mail and seeing the same spiel as yesterday and the day before and the bloody week before that. Put it like this, if it is so bad and you call it spread spectrum frequency hopping mode. Then what is ALE and the like? Does it even look to see if the frequency is in use when it changes band automatically. I think not. Do the pactor stations give a damn when they blast my signal when working olivia, rtty, ROS, etc . NO Give it up people I remember starting in ham radio due to it's unusual regard for self bettering, understanding and experimenting. Not bureaucracy and the like. My 2p worth. I have had enough.Maybe Jose shouldn't have called it SSFH software but in the end it isn't. Done Had enough. T x
Re: [digitalradio] Something to consider about external automatic antenna tuners
On 02/22/2010 09:09 PM, Dave 'Doc' Corio wrote: However, there is one thing the tuner will NOT do. It will not remember any band or frequency, until the transmitter is keyed. For example: I operate CW on 14.035 for a period of time. I then have a CW sked on 18.075. After the sked I move back to 14.035. The tuner is still set for the last transmission, which was on 18.075. Until I transmit on 14.035 again, the signals are a bit attenuated, since the tuner is set for a different frequency. I have noticed the same with my LDG AT-200 Pro. The effect is especially pronounced when moving from a low frequency to a high frequency, eg. having an 80m QSO and then moving to 12m. The attenuation can be quite significant and it may be useful to transmit a short tone (a fraction of a second is enough) to get your antenna tuned on that band. Of course, after you do that, reception on the band will be enhanced. One reason that this effect is not seen with internal tuners is that the tuner is only present in the transmit path inside the radio - the tuner is never used for receive. With an external tuner, you may need to tickle it to get better reception - but IMHO that is outweighed by the potential of getting better reception. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
On 02/23/2010 06:14 PM, jose alberto nieto ros wrote: John, the only person in the world who know what is ROS is the person who have created it. And the creator say that ROS is a FSK of 144 tones with a Viterbi FEC Coder and a header of synchronization. Last week, you said that ROS was spread spectrum :) The FCC says that amateurs are responsible for judging whether or not the mode they use is spread spectrum. Until a technical specification of ROS is released, I will not be able to make that judgement for myself. I understand that you do not want to release the technical specifications before the protocol is finished and will wait patiently :) -- All rights reversed.
[digitalradio] ROS discussion: Ending 25/2/10 1200 UTC
Discussion of ROS' legality was allowed to continue because of the news from ARRL and FCC. The topic will be closed as of 25/2/10 at 1200 UTC. Get you final say in on the issue , if you wish. After that, leave the topic alone for a while. Andy K3UK Andy
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Asking a lawyer is the last person you would ask for technical advice. Try asking an engineer not a lawyer. Bob, AA8X - Original Message - From: Rik van Riel To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` On 02/23/2010 03:26 PM, ocypret wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? There's a few things we all agree on: 1) The legality of a mode depends on the technical details of that mode, not on what the author calls the mode. 2) The FCC's lawyers are the definite authority. K3UK has sent a letter to the FCC to ask for clarification. Once the FCC responds, we'll know for sure :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:05:36 -, obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com said: In the few ROS 16 and ROS 1 tests that I have dome so far... ROS 16 seems similar to Olivia 8/1000 , good performance but perhaps a not quite as good as Olivia under QRM or deep fades. ROS 1 , not as good as JT65A in very poor conditions. Anyone else have impressions, perhaps I am wrong... these are on-air impressions not lab tests. I wonder if there are any test results (or even on-air impressions substantially different from Andy's) to explain what looks like the proverbial elephant in the living room from where I'm standing... i.e., the fact that ROS is 2000 Hz while Olivia nn/1000 and JT65A are 1000 and 200 Hz respectively. Or is it now somehow cool to do the same thing as before but with a 2x-12x larger footprint on the bands? -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD.
[digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published?
Jose wrote: if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Hi Jose, Do you plan to publish documentation of a non-Spread Spectrum version of ROS mode? Examples of public documentation: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/ Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA FCC Rules for amateur radio service in USA §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
[digitalradio] WSJT7 Windows Error Immediately
I recently downloaded WSJT7. When I start it, it immediately stops and the Windows Error dialog box opens saying, WSJT7.EXE has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience. It goes on to ask if I want to report the problem to Microsoft. I am running XP Home SP3 on a little eee PC with N270 CPU @ 1.6 GHz with 1 gig ram. I haven't seen this mentioned on the web so perhaps it is unique to me. All the same, it is possible someone has a suggestion. In the meantime I am going to try WSJT6 and see what happens. 73 Glen K1GW
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
A lawyer with an engineering degree would be the best person to interpret FCC regulations. The ARRL has engineers and lawyers and deals with the FCC so they are the best source of free advice in the U.S. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Bob John To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 19:17 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Asking a lawyer is the last person you would ask for technical advice. Try asking an engineer not a lawyer. Bob, AA8X - Original Message - From: Rik van Riel To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` On 02/23/2010 03:26 PM, ocypret wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? There's a few things we all agree on: 1) The legality of a mode depends on the technical details of that mode, not on what the author calls the mode. 2) The FCC's lawyers are the definite authority. K3UK has sent a letter to the FCC to ask for clarification. Once the FCC responds, we'll know for sure :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published?
Hi Bonnie, i saw in the first place of that list: Chip 64 explaining clearly that Chip 64 is Spread Spectrum. Then, what have to say ARRL about it ? They are publishing a SS in his own officcial website. Somebody can explain me what happen here? De: expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 23:20 Asunto: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Jose wrote: if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Hi Jose, Do you plan to publish documentation of a non-Spread Spectrum version of ROS mode? Examples of public documentation: http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA FCC Rules for amateur radio service in USA §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published?
think I lost your id number in icq... clicked to fast... 73 Wolfgang, dl7nb www.dx-buddy.net Am 25.02.2010 um 00:30 schrieb jose alberto nieto ros: Hi Bonnie, i saw in the first place of that list: Chip 64 explaining clearly that Chip 64 is Spread Spectrum. Then, what have to say ARRL about it ? They are publishing a SS in his own officcial website. Somebody can explain me what happen here? De: expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 23:20 Asunto: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Jose wrote: if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Hi Jose, Do you plan to publish documentation of a non-Spread Spectrum version of ROS mode? Examples of public documentation: http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA FCC Rules for amateur radio service in USA §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published?
I don't understand what you say? De: Wolfgang dl7nb dl...@gmx.de Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 00:40 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? think I lost your id number in icq... clicked to fast... 73 Wolfgang, dl7nb www.dx-buddy. net Am 25.02.2010 um 00:30 schrieb jose alberto nieto ros: Hi Bonnie, i saw in the first place of that list: Chip 64 explaining clearly that Chip 64 is Spread Spectrum. Then, what have to say ARRL about it ? They are publishing a SS in his own officcial website. Somebody can explain me what happen here? De: expeditionradio expeditionradio@ yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 23:20 Asunto: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Jose wrote: if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Hi Jose, Do you plan to publish documentation of a non-Spread Spectrum version of ROS mode? Examples of public documentation: http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA FCC Rules for amateur radio service in USA §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published?
CHIP64 is legal above 222 MHz -- they're assuming that the user will notice that it's spread-spectrum and act accordingly. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 23:30 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Hi Bonnie, i saw in the first place of that list: Chip 64 explaining clearly that Chip 64 is Spread Spectrum. Then, what have to say ARRL about it ? They are publishing a SS in his own officcial website. Somebody can explain me what happen here? -- De: expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 23:20 Asunto: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Jose wrote: if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Hi Jose, Do you plan to publish documentation of a non-Spread Spectrum version of ROS mode? Examples of public documentation: http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA FCC Rules for amateur radio service in USA §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published?
And ROS is legal because is not a SS modulation. De: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 00:47 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? CHIP64 is legal above 222 MHz -- they're assuming that the user will notice that it's spread-spectrum and act accordingly. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 23:30 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Hi Bonnie, i saw in the first place of that list: Chip 64 explaining clearly that Chip 64 is Spread Spectrum. Then, what have to say ARRL about it ? They are publishing a SS in his own officcial website. Somebody can explain me what happen here? De: expeditionradio expeditionradio@ yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 23:20 Asunto: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Jose wrote: if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Hi Jose, Do you plan to publish documentation of a non-Spread Spectrum version of ROS mode? Examples of public documentation: http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA FCC Rules for amateur radio service in USA §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published?
ooops , sorry the mouse was faster than the brain pse ignore the post 73 Wolfgang, dl7nb www.dx-buddy.net Am 25.02.2010 um 00:43 schrieb jose alberto nieto ros: I don't understand what you say? De: Wolfgang dl7nb dl...@gmx.de Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 00:40 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? think I lost your id number in icq... clicked to fast... 73 Wolfgang, dl7nb www.dx-buddy. net Am 25.02.2010 um 00:30 schrieb jose alberto nieto ros: Hi Bonnie, i saw in the first place of that list: Chip 64 explaining clearly that Chip 64 is Spread Spectrum. Then, what have to say ARRL about it ? They are publishing a SS in his own officcial website. Somebody can explain me what happen here? De: expeditionradio expeditionradio@ yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 23:20 Asunto: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Jose wrote: if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Hi Jose, Do you plan to publish documentation of a non-Spread Spectrum version of ROS mode? Examples of public documentation: http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA FCC Rules for amateur radio service in USA §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
[digitalradio] Re: FCC Technology Jail: ROS is Dead on HF for USA Hams
The 4th option is to join Army Mars where the FCC is not involved.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far
I have had a few more days to test it and watch how it does in QRM. Same impressions, a good mode but not offering substantially more than the other well known modes. In a couple of specific tests, Olivia 500-128 did better than ROS 1. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Stelios Bounanos m0...@enotty.net wrote: On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:05:36 -, obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.comk3ukandy%40gmail.com said: In the few ROS 16 and ROS 1 tests that I have dome so far... ROS 16 seems similar to Olivia 8/1000 , good performance but perhaps a not quite as good as Olivia under QRM or deep fades. ROS 1 , not as good as JT65A in very poor conditions. Anyone else have impressions, perhaps I am wrong... these are on-air impressions not lab tests. I wonder if there are any test results (or even on-air impressions substantially different from Andy's) to explain what looks like the proverbial elephant in the living room from where I'm standing... i.e., the fact that ROS is 2000 Hz while Olivia nn/1000 and JT65A are 1000 and 200 Hz respectively. Or is it now somehow cool to do the same thing as before but with a 2x-12x larger footprint on the bands? -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD. Reply tom0...@enotty.net?subject=re:+%5Bdigitalradio%5D+ROS+impressions+so+far
Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far
Does not believe that even you, Andy. I know you are a special interest ROS dont was used, i dont know why. De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 00:58 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far I have had a few more days to test it and watch how it does in QRM. Same impressions, a good mode but not offering substantially more than the other well known modes. In a couple of specific tests, Olivia 500-128 did better than ROS 1. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Stelios Bounanos m0...@enotty. net wrote: On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:05:36 -, obrienaj k3uka...@gmail. com said: In the few ROS 16 and ROS 1 tests that I have dome so far... ROS 16 seems similar to Olivia 8/1000 , good performance but perhaps a not quite as good as Olivia under QRM or deep fades. ROS 1 , not as good as JT65A in very poor conditions. Anyone else have impressions, perhaps I am wrong... these are on-air impressions not lab tests. I wonder if there are any test results (or even on-air impressions substantially different from Andy's) to explain what looks like the proverbial elephant in the living room from where I'm standing... i.e., the fact that ROS is 2000 Hz while Olivia nn/1000 and JT65A are 1000 and 200 Hz respectively. Or is it now somehow cool to do the same thing as before but with a 2x-12x larger footprint on the bands? -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD. Reply to
AW: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
As i know it is about 2.5khz wide . so a normal ssb filter would work . but do not use a narrow ssb filter Dg9bfc Sigi _ Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von jose alberto nieto ros Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 10:21 An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? You must configure your receiver without any king filter. ROS filter the signal better than the transceiver. Please: DONT APPLY FILTERS TO YOUR TRANSCEIVERS. _ De: Ugo ugo.dep...@me.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com CC: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 07:40 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? Hi All. Just a question, and please, be patient if I'm asking this... I'm a SWL and I decoded ros in last days, but HOW MUCH is large its bandwidth ? In other words, which is the minimun value of bandwidth enough to receive/decode ros ? Best regards and thanks in advance for any reply. 73 de Ugo - SWL 1281/VE (sent with iPhone) Il giorno 22/feb/2010, alle ore 22.33, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net mailto:kh...@comcast.net ha scritto: Hi Jose, Of course we start that way (using a SSB filter), but then a Pactor station will come on, cover the upper fourth of the ROS signal, and decoding becomes garbage until it leaves. With a more narrow mode, the Pactor station can just be filtered out at IF frequencies and not affect either the AGC or the decoding of something like MFSK16 or Olivia 16-500, as long as those signals are sufficiently away from the Pactor signal (even if they are still within the bandwidth of a ROS signal). In the case of CW stations, during the contest, they just appeared in the SSB filter bandwidth, and therefore among the ROS tones, and some of those also stopped decoding until they left. Let's say a MT63-500 signal appears at 2000 Hz tone frequency (i.e. covering from 2000 to 2500 Hz) at the same signal strength as the ROS signal. Will ROS stop decoding? If a MT-63-1000 signal appears at 1500 Hz tone frequency, will ROS stop decoding? If this happens and there is a more narrowband signal like MFSK16, for instance, covering from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz, the MFSK16 signal can coexist with the MT63 signal unless the MT63 signal has captured the AGC and cutting the gain. If it has, then passband tuning can cut out the MT63 signal, leaving only the MFSK16 signal undisturbed and decoding. In other words, there is less chance for an interfering signal to partially or completely cover a more narrow signal that there is a much wider one, unless the wider one can still decode with half or 25% of its tones covered up. The question posed is how well ROS can handle QRM, and that is what I tried to see. If ROS can withstand half of its bandwidth covered with an interfering signal and still decode properly then I cannot explain what I saw, but decoding definitely stopped or changed to garbage when the Pactor signal came on. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better than you transceiver. _ De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? Howard, After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following: 1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not desensitization due to AGC capture, as the ROS signals on the waterfall did not appear any weaker. 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. 3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with passband tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough of the ROS signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro. 4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one is decoded. 5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal seems to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five Olivia 16-500 signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal needs, so QRM, covering the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, would probably not disrupt any of three Olivia signals in the bottom 60% of the ROS signal bandwidth. In other words, the wide
Re: AW: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
You are right De: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 01:19 Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? As i know it is about 2.5khz wide … so a “normal” ssb filter would work … but do not use a “narrow” ssb filter Dg9bfc Sigi Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im Auftrag von jose alberto nieto ros Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 10:21 An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? You must configure your receiver without any king filter. ROS filter the signal better than the transceiver. Please: DONT APPLY FILTERS TO YOUR TRANSCEIVERS. De:Ugo ugo.dep...@me. com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com CC: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 07:40 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? Hi All. Just a question, and please, be patient if I'm asking this... I'm a SWL and I decoded ros in last days, but HOW MUCH is large its bandwidth ? In other words, which is the minimun value of bandwidth enough to receive/decode ros ? Best regards and thanks in advance for any reply. 73 de Ugo - SWL 1281/VE (sent with iPhone) Il giorno 22/feb/2010, alle ore 22.33, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net ha scritto: Hi Jose, Of course we start that way (using a SSB filter), but then a Pactor station will come on, cover the upper fourth of the ROS signal, and decoding becomes garbage until it leaves. With a more narrow mode, the Pactor station can just be filtered out at IF frequencies and not affect either the AGC or the decoding of something like MFSK16 or Olivia 16-500, as long as those signals are sufficiently away from the Pactor signal (even if they are still within the bandwidth of a ROS signal). In the case of CW stations, during the contest, they just appeared in the SSB filter bandwidth, and therefore among the ROS tones, and some of those also stopped decoding until they left. Let's say a MT63-500 signal appears at 2000 Hz tone frequency (i.e. covering from 2000 to 2500 Hz) at the same signal strength as the ROS signal. Will ROS stop decoding? If a MT-63-1000 signal appears at 1500 Hz tone frequency, will ROS stop decoding? If this happens and there is a more narrowband signal like MFSK16, for instance, covering from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz, the MFSK16 signal can coexist with the MT63 signal unless the MT63 signal has captured the AGC and cutting the gain. If it has, then passband tuning can cut out the MT63 signal, leaving only the MFSK16 signal undisturbed and decoding. In other words, there is less chance for an interfering signal to partially or completely cover a more narrow signal that there is a much wider one, unless the wider one can still decode with half or 25% of its tones covered up. The question posed is how well ROS can handle QRM, and that is what I tried to see. If ROS can withstand half of its bandwidth covered with an interfering signal and still decode properly then I cannot explain what I saw, but decoding definitely stopped or changed to garbage when the Pactor signal came on. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better than you transceiver. De:KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? Howard, After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following: 1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not desensitization due to AGC capture, as the ROS signals on the waterfall did not appear any weaker. 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. 3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with passband tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough of the ROS signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro. 4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one is decoded. 5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal seems to be a disadvantage as far as
Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published?
A published technical specification proving that it is not SS and meets all other requirements in the FCC regulations will allow use below 222 MHz in the U.S. The FCC requires the published specification to allow use of any RTTY or data mode on any frequency. Non-use of SS is just an additional requirement for frequencies below 222 MHz. They also have baud rate limits that vary by frequency. 300 baud is the maximum on most HF bands. It really is necessary to read Title 47 part 97 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations to develop this kind of software for use in the U.S. (see http://wireless.fcc.gov/index.htm?job=rules_and_regulations). 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 23:52 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? And ROS is legal because is not a SS modulation. -- De: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 00:47 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? CHIP64 is legal above 222 MHz -- they're assuming that the user will notice that it's spread-spectrum and act accordingly. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 23:30 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Hi Bonnie, i saw in the first place of that list: Chip 64 explaining clearly that Chip 64 is Spread Spectrum. Then, what have to say ARRL about it ? They are publishing a SS in his own officcial website. Somebody can explain me what happen here? De: expeditionradio expeditionradio@ yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 23:20 Asunto: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Jose wrote: if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Hi Jose, Do you plan to publish documentation of a non-Spread Spectrum version of ROS mode? Examples of public documentation: http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA FCC Rules for amateur radio service in USA §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far
Incorrect Jose. I have used it, and havw made special efforts to get other to use t on my web page http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitalswitch=1 Example, see below.. all my efforts to help people... MM/DD UTC 02/23 16:03 *KQ7W m...@mats4d.com* 5r8kh copied me.. nice dx 02/23 16:02 *G4ILO julian.g4...@gmail.com* What power are most people using as a matter of interest? 02/23 16:00 *KQ7W m...@mats4d.com* n4qlb gotcha.. all good 02/23 15:52 *KQ7W m...@mats4d.com* howdy 02/23 15:50 *N4QLB* Now on 21.130.20 ROS 16baud 02/23 15:49 *K3UK* 14101 RX: 15:48 UTC 15.6 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de KQ7W KQ7W KQ7W My email is: m...@mats4d.com m...@mats4d.com m...@mats4d.com STOP[x] http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=943 02/23 15:48 *K3UK* Break time. 73[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=942 02/23 15:48 *N3TL n...@bellsouth.net* Thank Andy. I'll continue to test, and want to work other bands, too. Want to work W6SZ on 20 first, 02/23 15:47 *K3UK* Nothing on 40M[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=940 02/23 15:45 *K3UK* checking 7057[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=939 02/23 15:45 *K3UK* 14101 RX: 15:44 UTC -78.1 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de YV4GJN YV4GJN YV4GJN pse k STOP[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=938 02/23 15:43 *N4QLB* CQ ROS 7.057.20 02/23 15:40 *K3UK* Yes Michael, very quickly.[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=936 02/23 15:40 *K3UK* Congrats Tim ! My decode improved after I pressed 'clear frame may be coincidence... but[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=935 02/23 15:39 *N4QLB* k3uk Lost you in QSB Andy (ROS) 02/23 15:38 *N3TL n...@bellsouth.net* Finally ... my frist ROS contact 02/23 15:38 *N3TL n...@bellsouth.net* Wow ... just worked YV4GJN and decode was perfect. 02/23 15:37 *K3UK* 2 QSOs same time, about 60Hz apart. RX: 15:36 UTC 23.4 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de W6SZ W6 RX: 15:36 UTC -85.9 Hz. tnx fer QSO, 73. N3TL de YV4GJN sk My email is: yv4...@yahoo.com yv4...@yahoo.com[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=931 02/23 15:35 *K3UK* RX: 15:33 UTC -85.9 Hz. My name is: FRANCESCO My QTH is: Valencia Venezuela, Locator: FK50xf STOP[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=930 02/23 15:34 *K3UK* There u go Tim RX: 15:32 UTC -85.9 Hz. N3TL N3TL de YV4GJN YV4GJN YV4GJN kn STOP[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=929 02/23 15:32 *N3TL n...@bellsouth.net* Just decoded a YV4 here! 02/23 15:32 *K3UK* 2 CQs[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=927 02/23 15:32 *K3UK* 14101 RX: 15:31 UTC -85.9 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de YV4GJN YV4GJN YV4GJN pse k STOP RX: 15:31 UTC 23.4 Hz. uQ CQ CQ de W6SZ W6SZ W6SZ pse k STOP[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=926 02/23 15:32 *G6LUG bobyoung...@googlemail.com* Timnothing heard on 14112 so far. Path is 4094 miles. 02/23 15:30 *N3TL n...@bellsouth.net* QSY to 14.101 to listen. Thank you! 02/23 15:28 *K3UK* Someone just CQ 14101, 1.7 decoded partial, 1.6 not at all.[x] http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=923 02/23 15:27 *N3TL n...@bellsouth.net* CQing 14.112 now 02/23 15:24 *K3UK* I have BOTH 1.6.2 and .1.7.0 running at same time now... will what happens.[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=921 02/23 15:23 *N3TL n...@bellsouth.net* RRR ... if I can't decode anything in the next hour or so, I'll try it again as a test. Thank you! 02/23 15:21 *K3UK* 1.6.2 , yes[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=919 02/23 15:21 *N3TL n...@bellsouth.net* I must be in some kind of ROS black hole this morning - hearing no signals on 20. 02/23 15:21 *G6LUG bobyoung...@googlemail.com* I'm calling CQ on 14112. I'm using version 1.7.2. 02/23 15:17 *N3TL n...@bellsouth.net* V 1.6.2? That may be the one that decoded for me, actually. 02/23 15:17 *K3UK* 2 signals on 14101[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=915 02/23 15:16 *K3UK* A signal now, ROS16, on 14101[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=914 02/23 15:14 *K3UK* What version are you using ? I find version 1.2 does betetr that latest versions[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=913 02/23 15:12 *N3TL n...@bellsouth.net* Andy - One line over the weekend. That's it, despite really strong audible signals here yesterday. 02/23 15:12 *K3UK* weak ROS 16 around 14103 now[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=911 02/23 15:09 *K3UK* Tim, have u decoded ANY ROS signals[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=910 02/23 15:04 *N3TL n...@bellsouth.net* I just CQd @ 14.112 - but really need to find some signals because I can't seem to decode here. 02/23 15:01 *K3UK* I am listening...[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=908 02/23 15:00 *N3TL n...@bellsouth.net* @ N4QLB - Are you
Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far
Andy, as you note we have problems with old versions thats days. Software did not start decode. I expect you began to do test with this new version. Perhaps, you will change of opinion. De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Para: nietoro...@yahoo.es CC: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 01:35 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far Incorrect Jose. I have used it, and havw made special efforts to get other to use t on my web page http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked/ sked.php? page=digitalswitch=1 Example, see below.. all my efforts to help people... MM/DD UTC 02/23 16:03 KQ7W 5r8kh copied me.. nice dx 02/23 16:02 G4ILO What power are most people using as a matter of interest? 02/23 16:00 KQ7W n4qlb gotcha.. all good 02/23 15:52 KQ7W howdy 02/23 15:50 N4QLB Now on 21.130.20 ROS 16baud 02/23 15:49 K3UK 14101 RX: 15:48 UTC 15.6 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de KQ7W KQ7W KQ7W My email is: m...@mats4d. com m...@mats4d. com m...@mats4d. com STOP[x] 02/23 15:48 K3UK Break time. 73[x] 02/23 15:48 N3TL Thank Andy. I'll continue to test, and want to work other bands, too. Want to work W6SZ on 20 first, 02/23 15:47 K3UK Nothing on 40M[x] 02/23 15:45 K3UK checking 7057[x] 02/23 15:45 K3UK 14101 RX: 15:44 UTC -78.1 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de YV4GJN YV4GJN YV4GJN pse k STOP[x] 02/23 15:43 N4QLB CQ ROS 7.057.20 02/23 15:40 K3UK Yes Michael, very quickly.[x] 02/23 15:40 K3UK Congrats Tim ! My decode improved after I pressed 'clear frame may be coincidence. .. but[x] 02/23 15:39 N4QLB k3uk Lost you in QSB Andy (ROS) 02/23 15:38 N3TL Finally ... my frist ROS contact 02/23 15:38 N3TL Wow ... just worked YV4GJN and decode was perfect. 02/23 15:37 K3UK 2 QSOs same time, about 60Hz apart. RX: 15:36 UTC 23.4 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de W6SZ W6 RX: 15:36 UTC -85.9 Hz. tnx fer QSO, 73. N3TL de YV4GJN sk My email is: yv4...@yahoo. com yv4...@yahoo. com[x] 02/23 15:35 K3UK RX: 15:33 UTC -85.9 Hz. My name is: FRANCESCO My QTH is: Valencia Venezuela, Locator: FK50xf STOP[x] 02/23 15:34 K3UK There u go Tim RX: 15:32 UTC -85.9 Hz. N3TL N3TL de YV4GJN YV4GJN YV4GJN kn STOP[x] 02/23 15:32 N3TL Just decoded a YV4 here! 02/23 15:32 K3UK 2 CQs[x] 02/23 15:32 K3UK 14101 RX: 15:31 UTC -85.9 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de YV4GJN YV4GJN YV4GJN pse k STOP RX: 15:31 UTC 23.4 Hz. uQ CQ CQ de W6SZ W6SZ W6SZ pse k STOP[x] 02/23 15:32 G6LUG Timnothing heard on 14112 so far. Path is 4094 miles. 02/23 15:30 N3TL QSY to 14.101 to listen. Thank you! 02/23 15:28 K3UK Someone just CQ 14101, 1.7 decoded partial, 1.6 not at all.[x] 02/23 15:27 N3TL CQing 14.112 now 02/23 15:24 K3UK I have BOTH 1.6.2 and .1.7.0 running at same time now... will what happens.[x] 02/23 15:23 N3TL RRR ... if I can't decode anything in the next hour or so, I'll try it again as a test. Thank you! 02/23 15:21 K3UK 1.6.2 , yes[x] 02/23 15:21 N3TL I must be in some kind of ROS black hole this morning - hearing no signals on 20. 02/23 15:21 G6LUG I'm calling CQ on 14112. I'm using version 1.7.2. 02/23 15:17 N3TL V 1.6.2? That may be the one that decoded for me, actually. 02/23 15:17 K3UK 2 signals on 14101[x] 02/23 15:16 K3UK A signal now, ROS16, on 14101[x] 02/23 15:14 K3UK What version are you using ? I find version 1.2 does betetr that latest versions[x] 02/23 15:12 N3TL Andy - One line over the weekend. That's it, despite really strong audible signals here yesterday. 02/23 15:12 K3UK weak ROS 16 around 14103 now[x] 02/23 15:09 K3UK Tim, have u decoded ANY ROS signals[x] 02/23 15:04 N3TL I just CQd @ 14.112 - but really need to find some signals because I can't seem to decode here. 02/23 15:01 K3UK I am listening...[x] 02/23 15:00 N3TL @ N4QLB - Are you transmitting or monitoring? 02/23 14:59 K3UK 14112 N4QLB ROS 16[x] 02/23 14:56 K3UK I get the pilot tone strong and centered but no deocde on 14112[x] 02/23 14:53 G6LUG Well, It would be a QSO if EA3AQS heard himhe's calling QRZ now. WB0KGN was strong with me. 02/23 14:52 G6LUG EA3AQS in QSO with WB0KGN Olivia 32/1000 on dial qrg 14.107 + 1500hz 02/23 14:50 K3UK maybe 14112[x] 02/23 14:49 K3UK Ok, that explains it. STrong ROS now around 14111, no decode...[x] 02/23 14:48 G6LUG There is Olivia AND ROS16 on 14107 02/23 14:46 K3UK WEak ROS16 14101[x] Skeds for digital radio experiments including Winmor, ROS, and more. Suggested calling frequencies: ROS 14101, 14109. JT65A : 21076, 18102,14076, 3576. WINMOR: 3587, 7080 14112. Other modes: 1843, 3583,7073,10143, 14073,14109( wide modes), 18103, 21073,24923, 28123MM/DD UTC 02/23 14:45 K3UK No, maybe is Olivia[x] 02/23 14:44 G6LUG I've QSYd 14111, hrd tailend of ROS tx, but no decode. 02/23 14:38 K3UK ROS 16 14111[x] 02/23 14:34 K3UK 14074 Feld Hell, weak[x] 02/23 14:32 K3UK Strong signal now on 14101 but no deode. No pilot tone, so maybe not have him tuned in correctly[x] 02/23 14:31 K3UK Hello Hador, I heard your signals yesterday[x] 02/23 14:31 G6LUG OK
[digitalradio] ROS routine help
Hi, I have made a routine to send emails. i need somebody want to tester and i will send you the file. You need have a mail server, like Outlook or similar. Thanks
Re: AW: [digitalradio] ROS routine help
I have send you an email De: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 01:59 Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] ROS routine help Here … me me me ….dg9bfc (call) at freenet dot de Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im Auftrag von nietorosdj Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 01:42 An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Betreff: [digitalradio] ROS routine help Hi, I have made a routine to send emails. i need somebody want to tester and i will send you the file. You need have a mail server, like Outlook or similar. Thanks
[digitalradio] Amateurs- (was: Is ROS Legal in US?)
John B. Stephensen wrote: A lawyer with an engineering degree would be the best person to interpret FCC regulations. The ARRL has engineers and lawyers and deals with the FCC so they are the best source of free advice in the U.S. No disrespect intended to the ARRL tech leads, but I'm personally aware of three cases where the initial read from ARRL tech contacts were overturned later when examined properly. And same for the ad-hoc ULS query to the FCC that followed on two of them. One was never opposed by the FCC. One of those decisions specifically involved code injection to randomize the resultant carriers sidebands. It was not SS or encryption, but some construed it to be. Another involved Frequency multiplexing. Back to ROS, My observation is that the FCC said the author states it's SS, and he is best positioned to know... Not that different than I'd expect for a query sent without any context. No idea what qualifications agent 3820 has, they may be great, or may just be licensing. We have other engineer resources that can be worked with when engaged properly. I don't have a horse in this race, just hate seeing things play out this way. Anytime we go to the FCC with an amateurish is this legal we lose, both directly with the (no surprise) cursory read that is very conservative and long term with lost credibility. I've seen the right way play out more than once, and this was not it! ROS has many aspects of SS, and might technically be a form of SS. But it also is missing some of the key attributes that makes SS disallowed below 222 Mhz, and as such should be evaluated in more than a cursory fashion. By forcing the issue (poorly, in my mind), we lost that opportunity. Or certainly muddied the waters enough that it will now be 10x harder to get a clean read. This has nothing to do with the merits of the mode, it's the process and the putting the amateur back in amateur radio behavior associated with it. Kind of pathetic, if you think about it. Have fun, and better luck with the next mode! Alan km4ba
[digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta
Please download the latest version.
[digitalradio] VHF and UHF Scanning of public service bands
I wonder what the latest is in the state of art scanning of the VHF and UHF bands. What digital modes and sued and what are the modern scanners up to these days ? Andy K3UK
