Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Alan, Of course, the FCC rules on SS are outdated and ROS should be allowed due to its narrow spreading range, but the road to success is not to just rename a spread spectrum modem to something else and try to fool the FCC. This is a sure way to lose the battle. The genie is already out of the bottle! Instead, just petition the FCC for a waiver, or amendment, to the regulations that are a problem, to allow FHSS as long as the spreading does not exceed 3000 Hz and the signal is capable of being monitored by third parties. Do this, and there is not a problem anymore. But, do not try to disguise the fact that FHSS is being used by calling it something else, as that undermines the credibilty of the author of the mode and will make the FCC even more determined not to it on HF/VHF. It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS. “/If/ it walks /like a duck/, quacks /like a duck/, /looks like a duck/, it must be a /duck/”. It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie. 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: The difference between ROS and MFSK16 at idle (i.e. no data input), is that MFSK16 has repetitive carriers in a pattern, but the ROS idle has no repetitive pattern and when data is input, the pattern still appears to be random. Note the additional carriers when I send six letter N's in MFSK16. It then returns to the repetitive pattern of an MFSK16 idle. Note that the data (i.e. N's created new carriers depending upon the data. In this case, the frequency carriers are data dependent. If ROS is just FSK144, then I expected to find a repeating pattern at idle, but I never see one, even after letting ROS idle for a long time in transmit. It's pretty common in modems to randomize the data to prevent carriers when sending all zero's or ones. Phone modems do it, I'm pretty sure P3 does, and other RF modems do. I know of another amateur RF modem that had randomized spectra by design. By this test it would have been considered spreadspectrum, but it was not, it was mfsk with a randomizer. The randomizing algorithm was provided to the FCC, and life was good. This was before SS was allowed at all, and there was not a bit of discussion that it might have been spread-spectrum. If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? All I know is, this is not the spread spectrum everyone is worried is going to ruin the bands! IE: traditional spread spectrum with bandwidth expansion of 100-1000. Have fun, Alan km4ba
AW: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Just as an idea: Ad a (non-random) idle to the soft ROS maybe with a bit higher audio level selectable by the user Can be used to resync, for afc, etc. So decoding maybe a bit better And you have overcome the SS problem (if it is a problem . but I do not see any) During sending data the randomize is to become better decoding while there is qrm so it is just a question of definition I think dg9bfc ps all modes should be allowed anywhere if bw is 3kc (or 500hz in some bands/areas) so no ss over the whole band or across many bands like a plc modem but ss in a given channel of a ssb-filter hamradio is an experimental hobby! _ Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von KH6TY Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Februar 2010 12:29 An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Alan, Of course, the FCC rules on SS are outdated and ROS should be allowed due to its narrow spreading range, but the road to success is not to just rename a spread spectrum modem to something else and try to fool the FCC. This is a sure way to lose the battle. The genie is already out of the bottle! Instead, just petition the FCC for a waiver, or amendment, to the regulations that are a problem, to allow FHSS as long as the spreading does not exceed 3000 Hz and the signal is capable of being monitored by third parties. Do this, and there is not a problem anymore. But, do not try to disguise the fact that FHSS is being used by calling it something else, as that undermines the credibilty of the author of the mode and will make the FCC even more determined not to it on HF/VHF. It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck. It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie. 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: The difference between ROS and MFSK16 at idle (i.e. no data input), is that MFSK16 has repetitive carriers in a pattern, but the ROS idle has no repetitive pattern and when data is input, the pattern still appears to be random. Note the additional carriers when I send six letter N's in MFSK16. It then returns to the repetitive pattern of an MFSK16 idle. Note that the data (i.e. N's created new carriers depending upon the data. In this case, the frequency carriers are data dependent. If ROS is just FSK144, then I expected to find a repeating pattern at idle, but I never see one, even after letting ROS idle for a long time in transmit. It's pretty common in modems to randomize the data to prevent carriers when sending all zero's or ones. Phone modems do it, I'm pretty sure P3 does, and other RF modems do. I know of another amateur RF modem that had randomized spectra by design. By this test it would have been considered spreadspectrum, but it was not, it was mfsk with a randomizer. The randomizing algorithm was provided to the FCC, and life was good. This was before SS was allowed at all, and there was not a bit of discussion that it might have been spread-spectrum. If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? All I know is, this is not the spread spectrum everyone is worried is going to ruin the bands! IE: traditional spread spectrum with bandwidth expansion of 100-1000. Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation): 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies. upper 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?
Re: [digitalradio] LPDA calculation software?
From: obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 Time: 06:12:07 Anyone have a link to the old LPDA DOS software? I found a couple of on-line calculators but they do not seem to allow for custom designs as much as the olf DOS application did. LPDA? I googled, but couldn't find anything related to digitalradio. -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
Re: [digitalradio] LPDA calculation software?
Log Periodic Dipole Array On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Ian Wade G3NRW g3...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: From: obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com k3ukandy%40gmail.com Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 Time: 06:12:07 Anyone have a link to the old LPDA DOS software? I found a couple of on-line calculators but they do not seem to allow for custom designs as much as the olf DOS application did. LPDA? I googled, but couldn't find anything related to digitalradio. -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
[digitalradio] Re: VHF and UHF Scanning of public service bands
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dan Hensley kc9...@... wrote: Be careful with scanning the Illinois State Police systems in Illinois, while on the Illinois side of the border! Rep. Dan Brady has brought forth legislation that is very blurry and at the end of the proposed law states to the effect that Access to the Illinois State Police Radio System is by written authorization of the originator of the broadcast. This proposal does not define what access for these purposes means. I, and others are hoping this is only to keep unauthorized transmissions off of the system and not to ban scanning the system altogether. Actually, the proposal does define access quite specifically to mean obtaining any transceiver that can transmit on the system without authorization. CARMA (Chicago Area Radio Monitoring Association) has posted their public reply to Dan Brady on their site, and has pointed out that there are already sufficient laws to take care of the things that Dan Brady is pursuing. The overall tone of the bill seems to be to end internet re-broadcasts of the Starcom21 system, but again, the bill goes into very confusing language as it gets to the middle and end of the bill. If it passes, it will be dangerous precedent for us all. The language is only confusing if one is searching for anti-scanner motivations. There are none, and Internet rebroadcasting is not mentioned at all in there. 73 de Dave, NF2G
Re: [digitalradio] LPDA calculation software?
From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 Time: 07:48:51 Log Periodic Dipole Array Try asking in the rec.radio.amateur.antenna Usenet newsgroup. -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
[digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or interpretation of ROS, and further says The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. Forget the petitions for waivers. File a federal lawsuit stating that the FCC's determination that ROS is SS and therefore unlawful on HF bands in the USA is arbitrary and capricious, based on the above statement that they have abdicated their statutory responsibility to make a technical examination of the proposed mode to see whether or not it fits their regulations. Yeah, I know, filing suit is an inherently unfriendly act. The FCC has been unfriendly to anything that is not a major corporate money maker for quite some time now. Time to start pushing the Commission back on track. 73 de Dave, NF2G
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies. upper 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?
[digitalradio] Repair of KPC-3
Hi, Someone said he repairs TNC? I have a KPC-3 that needs repairs. Chas/W1CG
Re: [digitalradio] LPDA calculation software?
Ian Wade G3NRW wrote: From: obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 Time: 06:12:07 Anyone have a link to the old LPDA DOS software? I found a couple of on-line calculators but they do not seem to allow for custom designs as much as the olf DOS application did. LPDA? I googled, but couldn't find anything related to digitalradio. It's not specific to Digital, but I guess useful for some people using digital modes? Anyway, there's an online calculator at http://www.changpuak.ch/electronics/lpda.html If anyone is interested. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies. upper 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/OLIVIA32-1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Sorry for the typos! seared should have been smeared and Olivia 32-100 should have been Olivia 32, 1000, as you requested. 73 - Skip KH6TY KH6TY wrote: Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/OLIVIA32-1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is
[digitalradio] Re: New ROS Version 2.1.0 More Powerfull
Still does not have enough COM port selections... Al/ W8AII --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, nietorosdj nietoro...@... wrote: Download here: http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ And configure the Email menu
[digitalradio] LPDA Software
I hope you will find some useful software here -- http://www.electromagnetics.biz/Tools.htm I will ask around of my local group and see what someone who used the LPDA may have a copy of the program you are looking for. A lot of folks have no clue what a LPDA is,other than the old standard of Log Periodic Dipole Array. In the meantime I hope you find the above mentioned web site useful. Very 73 from Hope, Rhode Island, USA. Myrton - N1GKE - SKCC # 5521 30MDG # 2922 I use the original form of social networking, Amateur Radio.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Jose, I have already had some experience in dealing with the FCC on mode matters and even submitted my own petition, so I am trying to use that experience with them to give you good advice on how to get ROS allowed over here. I want to use ROS myself on 2M EME also, but rith now I can only use it on 70cm EME unless the FCC will allow it on 2M, so I have a strong reason myself to see the regulations changed to allow ROS to be used. My best advice to you is that a petition to the FCC to allow ROS (with the necessary limitations they think are necessary to protect other users of the bands), stands the best chance of success. If you think this is stupid advice, then just ignore it, and hope that your approach will win, but I doubt that it will, given the fact that the FCC has already believed you in the first case and because spectral analysis shows ROS is not the same as FMFSK16 or Olivia 32-1000, both FSK modes where the data determines the frequency spread. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies. upper 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member? If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC member, then we know what you are. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
This is rude. Where is the moderator when you need him? From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 8:59:00 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member? If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC member, then we know what you are. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Jose, I am a ham radio member in good standing and have been for over 55 years. I believe I also have some degree of respect and appreciation in the ham community for my development of DigiPan, introduction of PSK63, and my speech-to-text software for the blind ham so they can use PSK31. Recently, I have been trying to use my experience in dealing with the FCC to help get you over this problem you have created, but you do not understand that, and I really do not appreciate your snide inferences as to my motives. You have made your own bed, so you can now lie in it, Jose. I will not waste any more of my time trying to help ROS be legal in the USA. Let someone else be the subject of your personal attacks. Goodbye and good luck. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member? If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC member, then we know what you are. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast. net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Warren, Patrick, F6CTE, has an excellent spectral display of almost every mode at this link: http://f1ult.free.fr/DIGIMODES/MULTIPSK/digimodesF6CTE_en.htm Those displays are just like the one I made with ROS and MFSK16, but not over such a wide bandwidth and not with data input - only idling, and without the comparison to ROS. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS is a dead issue for me at this time.
Thanks Skip for all your help and input into this matter, and until I see something from the FCC it's dead for me. Let Jose take it from here. You have done more than a lot others would have. Tnx Russell NC5O 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 9:48:45 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Jose, I am a ham radio member in good standing and have been for over 55 years. I believe I also have some degree of respect and appreciation in the ham community for my development of DigiPan, introduction of PSK63, and my speech-to-text software for the blind ham so they can use PSK31. Recently, I have been trying to use my experience in dealing with the FCC to help get you over this problem you have created, but you do not understand that, and I really do not appreciate your snide inferences as to my motives. You have made your own bed, so you can now lie in it, Jose. I will not waste any more of my time trying to help ROS be legal in the USA. Let someone else be the subject of your personal attacks. Goodbye and good luck. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member? If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC member, then we know what you are. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
jose alberto nieto ros wrote: KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member? If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC member, then we know what you are. Jose, I should give up on this discussion if I were you. The genie is out of the bottle and you wont be able to get it back in on this forum, whatever the technical arguments are. My advice would be to forget the debate, let those in the USA sort out their own administration problems by *them* petitioning the ARRL and/or the FCC (not sure which way round it has to go) if they want to use the mode. If I were you I'd just concentrate efforts on developing the program and let those of us that are fortunate that we don't live in the USA use and develop the mode. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Sounds like a bunch of crap to me . . . From: Toby Burnett ruff...@hebrides.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 9:44:05 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Lol really sorry, must have clicked the wrong message to reply too. You guys didn't need to know that lol ---Original Message- -- From: Toby Burnett Date: 26/02/2010 14:41:16 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle It's a voting ballot sheet. Trying to fix the 2m yagi beam. God it's old but it was given to me and it may still work. Xxx Picked up ALL the dog poop 5 bags worth, some not so easy. xx ---Original Message- -- From: KH6TY Date: 26/02/2010 13:39:44 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode b e able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies. upper 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Astonishing... astonishing language barrier and also an astonishing lack of clues... What a pity. He is not a ham and it seems that understanding the facts is harder for him than applying the proper equations. You can fool all a part of the time, fool a few all the time but not everybody all the time. Jose, CO2JA El 26/02/2010 09:59 a.m., jose alberto nieto ros escribió: KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member? If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC member, then we know what you are. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast. net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Hi Skip, Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia? Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will
[digitalradio] NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM
All, I have attempted to translate Arnie Coro's message posted on the ROS reflector into English (below). It is a vitally important issue and I would ask all amateurs (regardless of country) to find a different 20m frequency. Surely it wouldn't be impossible to go to 14105 USB or 14107 USB or even higher? 73 Sholto K7TMG Translation --- Greetings! URGENT Jose, it is necessary to remove as soon as possible indication of frequencies on 20 meters using very, very close to the network synchronized global beacons to study radio propagation in the HF bands operating in 14,101 We are capturing in Europe and here in America station interference using ROS that obliterated the reception of the NCDXF beacon network. We send a message to his more explicit account HOTMAIL. Moreover, I inform you that I have perceived a great confusion among the colleagues who used digital modes, as many believe that ROS CAN NOT BE USED IN HF bands, according regulations of the amateur services in their respective countries. I am available to help as much as possible to the maturation of their ROS digital mode, which can make an important contribution to the amateur digital communications, provided they observe a number internationally recognized standards Sincerely Prof. Arnaldo Coro Antich, emergency management coordinator IARU Region II Area C CO2KK --- In rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com, acoro33100 acoro33...@... wrote: Saludos ! URGENTE Jose, es necesario que suprima a la mayor brevedad posible la indicacion de utilizar frecuencias en 20 metros muy , pero muy cercanas a la red mundial de radiofaros sincronizados para estudio de la radiopropagacion en las bandas decametricas que opera en 14.101 Estamos captando en Europa y aqui en America interferencia de estaciones utilizando ROS que obliteran la recepcion de la red de radiofaros NCDXF. Le envie un mensaje mas explicito a su cuenta en HOTMAIL. Por otra parte , le comunico que he percibido una gran confusion entre los colegas que emplean los modos digitales, pues muchos opinan que ROS NO PUEDE SER UTILIZADO EN LAS BANDAS DE ONDAS DECAMETRICAS, segun los reglamentos de los servicios de radioaficionados de sus respectivos paises. Estoy a su disposicion para ayudarlo en todo lo posible a la maduracion de su modo digital ROS , el cual puede constituir una importante contribucion a las comunicaciones digitales de aficionados , siempre y cuando se respeten una serie de normas reconocidas internacionalmente Atentamente Prof. Arnaldo Coro Antich, coordinador de emergencias IARU Region II Area C CO2KK
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Hi Warren, I do not know of any way to change bandwidth in ROS. My observations with ROS is that another ROS station on the same frequency will make ROS stop decoding the first station and start decoding the next. I don't know if it is a matter of strength, but I guess it is. The reason for this is that if the second station is weaker than the first, the first will continue decoding and I will not know there is another signal on the frequency, until one or the other fades. Any wideband signal, like Pactor, covering about the upper forth of the ROS signal also stops decoding. Olivia is much more narrow than ROS, so the chances of QRM to ROS are much greater, and harder to get away from, since ROS is so wide. Jose admits that QRM from wideband signals cannot be tolerated, but narrowband signals (like PSK31) can be, and I can understand that, but ROS is still a wideband signal, even if the tones are randomly spaced and separated a lot, and you can see what happens when one ROS signal comes on the frequency used by another ROS signal just by monitoring a popular ROS frequency. 14.101 is particularly bad for Pactor QRM, both from Pactor I, Pactor-II and Pactor-III. I don't use Olivia enough on HF to know how it handles same-frequency interference. I use Olivia daily only on UHF, where it works as well as SSB phone, or sometimes a little better, under severe Doppler flutter and QSB on 70cm DX. I am hoping that ROS will do even better. I think the 1 baud mode may be very good for real time VHF DX or EME QSO's. Unfortunately, we can only use ROS above 222, so 2m EME is not possible yet for us using ROS. I hope some day it will be. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Hi Skip, Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia? Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast. net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:29:23 -0500, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net said: [snip] It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS. “/If/ it walks /like a duck/, quacks /like a duck/, /looks like a duck/, it must be a /duck/”. It sounds like US hams would run afowl of the law if they used ROS on HF, Skip. And then the FCC might waddle in and slap them all with a hefty bill. It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie. I guess ROS has taken a tern for the worse. And it doesn't help that it's author is now ducking the issue... :-P -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Hi Warren, in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode new station until a first station has finished. Please, use latest version. Old version has thats problem, and when you have doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the mode. He is the only that know how it work. Thanks De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 20:27 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Warren, I do not know of any way to change bandwidth in ROS. My observations with ROS is that another ROS station on the same frequency will make ROS stop decoding the first station and start decoding the next. I don't know if it is a matter of strength, but I guess it is. The reason for this is that if the second station is weaker than the first, the first will continue decoding and I will not know there is another signal on the frequency, until one or the other fades. Any wideband signal, like Pactor, covering about the upper forth of the ROS signal also stops decoding. Olivia is much more narrow than ROS, so the chances of QRM to ROS are much greater, and harder to get away from, since ROS is so wide. Jose admits that QRM from wideband signals cannot be tolerated, but narrowband signals (like PSK31) can be, and I can understand that, but ROS is still a wideband signal, even if the tones are randomly spaced and separated a lot, and you can see what happens when one ROS signal comes on the frequency used by another ROS signal just by monitoring a popular ROS frequency. 14.101 is particularly bad for Pactor QRM, both from Pactor I, Pactor-II and Pactor-III. I don't use Olivia enough on HF to know how it handles same-frequency interference. I use Olivia daily only on UHF, where it works as well as SSB phone, or sometimes a little better, under severe Doppler flutter and QSB on 70cm DX. I am hoping that ROS will do even better. I think the 1 baud mode may be very good for real time VHF DX or EME QSO's. Unfortunately, we can only use ROS above 222, so 2m EME is not possible yet for us using ROS. I hope some day it will be. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Hi Skip, Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia? Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Hi Jose, in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode new station until a first station has finished.Please, use latest version. Old version has thats problem You may be directing you statement to Skip. I have not downloaded ROS yet. I was waiting for your mode to mature a bit. I am very interested in new modes and am an always interested in experimented with them. you have doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the mode. He is the only that know how it work. I have no doubts, I was not really asking how ROS works, but am asking those who have played with the mode to date their real world experience. Jose, When you designed this mode, what were the major benefits you were going for over other modes like Olivia for example. I assumed that it was better resistance to QRM, is this correct? Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es wrote: From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 1:41 PM Hi Warren, in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode new station until a first station has finished. Please, use latest version. Old version has thats problem, and when you have doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the mode. He is the only that know how it work. Thanks De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 20:27 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Warren, I do not know of any way to change bandwidth in ROS. My observations with ROS is that another ROS station on the same frequency will make ROS stop decoding the first station and start decoding the next. I don't know if it is a matter of strength, but I guess it is. The reason for this is that if the second station is weaker than the first, the first will continue decoding and I will not know there is another signal on the frequency, until one or the other fades. Any wideband signal, like Pactor, covering about the upper forth of the ROS signal also stops decoding. Olivia is much more narrow than ROS, so the chances of QRM to ROS are much greater, and harder to get away from, since ROS is so wide. Jose admits that QRM from wideband signals cannot be tolerated, but narrowband signals (like PSK31) can be, and I can understand that, but ROS is still a wideband signal, even if the tones are randomly spaced and separated a lot, and you can see what happens when one ROS signal comes on the frequency used by another ROS signal just by monitoring a popular ROS frequency. 14.101 is particularly bad for Pactor QRM, both from Pactor I, Pactor-II and Pactor-III. I don't use Olivia enough on HF to know how it handles same-frequency interference. I use Olivia daily only on UHF, where it works as well as SSB phone, or sometimes a little better, under severe Doppler flutter and QSB on 70cm DX. I am hoping that ROS will do even better. I think the 1 baud mode may be very good for real time VHF DX or EME QSO's. Unfortunately, we can only use ROS above 222, so 2m EME is not possible yet for us using ROS. I hope some day it will be. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Hi Skip, Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia? Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
It is correct, especially in multipath channels (HF). And remember that ROS 16 is two times more fast than OLIVIA 32/1000. Despite that, it is more robust. De: Warren Moxley k5...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 21:37 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Jose, in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode new station until a first station has finished.Please, use latest version. Old version has thats problem You may be directing you statement to Skip. I have not downloaded ROS yet. I was waiting for your mode to mature a bit. I am very interested in new modes and am an always interested in experimented with them. you have doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the mode. He is the only that know how it work. I have no doubts, I was not really asking how ROS works, but am asking those who have played with the mode to date their real world experience. Jose, When you designed this mode, what were the major benefits you were going for over other modes like Olivia for example. I assumed that it was better resistance to QRM, is this correct? Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo. es wrote: From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo. es Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 1:41 PM Hi Warren, in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode new station until a first station has finished. Please, use latest version. Old version has thats problem, and when you have doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the mode. He is the only that know how it work. Thanks De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 20:27 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Warren, I do not know of any way to change bandwidth in ROS. My observations with ROS is that another ROS station on the same frequency will make ROS stop decoding the first station and start decoding the next. I don't know if it is a matter of strength, but I guess it is. The reason for this is that if the second station is weaker than the first, the first will continue decoding and I will not know there is another signal on the frequency, until one or the other fades. Any wideband signal, like Pactor, covering about the upper forth of the ROS signal also stops decoding. Olivia is much more narrow than ROS, so the chances of QRM to ROS are much greater, and harder to get away from, since ROS is so wide. Jose admits that QRM from wideband signals cannot be tolerated, but narrowband signals (like PSK31) can be, and I can understand that, but ROS is still a wideband signal, even if the tones are randomly spaced and separated a lot, and you can see what happens when one ROS signal comes on the frequency used by another ROS signal just by monitoring a popular ROS frequency. 14.101 is particularly bad for Pactor QRM, both from Pactor I, Pactor-II and Pactor-III. I don't use Olivia enough on HF to know how it handles same-frequency interference. I use Olivia daily only on UHF, where it works as well as SSB phone, or sometimes a little better, under severe Doppler flutter and QSB on 70cm DX. I am hoping that ROS will do even better. I think the 1 baud mode may be very good for real time VHF DX or EME QSO's. Unfortunately, we can only use ROS above 222, so 2m EME is not possible yet for us using ROS. I hope some day it will be. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Hi Skip, Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia? Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that
[digitalradio] Re: ROS carrier pattern when idle
May be they can drive over the boarder to Canada or Mexico and work ROS / P ? I thought prohibition had been abandoned over there and Edgar had been outed . some things just don't change .. makes the 9 khz discussion on this side look quite tame ! G .. Keep going Jose .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... wrote: jose alberto nieto ros wrote: KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member? If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC member, then we know what you are. Jose, I should give up on this discussion if I were you. The genie is out of the bottle and you wont be able to get it back in on this forum, whatever the technical arguments are. My advice would be to forget the debate, let those in the USA sort out their own administration problems by *them* petitioning the ARRL and/or the FCC (not sure which way round it has to go) if they want to use the mode. If I were you I'd just concentrate efforts on developing the program and let those of us that are fortunate that we don't live in the USA use and develop the mode. Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Re: ROS carrier pattern when idle
Hey Skip KH6TY, Could you show us a pic of Chip64 (your choice to compare it to ROS)? Have a look at the links on my message 34845: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/34845 The author of Chip64 uses DSSS but in a much narrow BW than ROS. How it works is very nicely disclosed. Since your currently closer (according to QRZ) to the ARRL VA Section NTS than I, perhaps you could listen for the Virginia Digital Net (VDN) 1915 Eastern M-F 3578.5 kHz who advertises/promotes using Chip64. I appreciate all that you and the author of ROS have done for amateur radio. Kind 73 de Mike KB6WFC
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Warren, Please allow me put my two cents. I would not expect so if the spreading code is the same. The adventage of CDMA is code orthogonality, each user has a different chipping code that has little correlation with other user's codes., and so, there is little mutual QRM. As far as I have seen, ROS uses a 3 kHz fixed bandwidth, irrespective of signalling speed. ROS 16 is affected by packet, pactor 2 and other ROS users QRM, printing only garbage in such cases. ROS 16 looks good on a clear channel, but crumbles under QRM. Not to be surprising when confined to just 3 kHz. Anyone can figure out just by listening on 14101. Perhaps ROS 1 fares better, but so far I can't tell. To me, so far, Olivia is the toughest chat mode, and includes a lot (perhaps, too much!) flexibility. Likewise, JT65A if you want to squeeze QSO's out of thin air, but is hardly conversational at all. You can, in very short sentences (believe it is 13 characters), but you lose the adventage of some special hard coded short hand sentences (RRR, RO, 73 and such). Not a big penalty, but nevertheless, a penalty. 73, Jose, CO2JA El 26/02/2010 01:42 p.m., Warren Moxley escribió: Hi Skip, Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia? Warren - K5WGM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS carrier pattern when idle
Mike, I have uploaded the comparison you requested for ROS (16 baud this time for better comparison overall) compared to CHIP64, both idling: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/ROS16vsChip64.jpg It is hard to see what happens when you send data in CHIP64 as the signal looks a lot like noise, but you can definitely ascertain a fixed pattern in the noise at idle. I can't spot any repetitive pattern in ROS, even at 16 baud. Perhaps you can. When you send data, it is hard to see any change in CHIP64. From the image, it looks like the spreading in CHIP64 is by a fixed pattern, and perhaps the data modulates the fixed carriers. Anyway, I have not seen the technical description, so I don't know. I'll leave it to you to more accurately interpret the images. I had to use MultiPSK instead of DigiPan this time to get better detail regarding amplitude with corresponding colors. 73 - Skip KH6TY silversmj wrote: Hey Skip KH6TY, Could you show us a pic of Chip64 (your choice to compare it to ROS)? Have a look at the links on my message 34845: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/34845 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/34845 The author of Chip64 uses DSSS but in a much narrow BW than ROS. How it works is very nicely disclosed. Since your currently closer (according to QRZ) to the ARRL VA Section NTS than I, perhaps you could listen for the Virginia Digital Net (VDN) 1915 Eastern M-F 3578.5 kHz who advertises/promotes using Chip64. I appreciate all that you and the author of ROS have done for amateur radio. Kind 73 de Mike KB6WFC
Re: [digitalradio] LPDA Software
Many thanks Myrton, the lpda software I have been looking for was at your link, 73 de Andy K3K On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:00 AM, n1gke n1...@amsat.org wrote: I hope you will find some useful software here -- http://www.electromagnetics.biz/Tools.htm I will ask around of my local group and see what someone who used the LPDA may have a copy of the program you are looking for. A lot of folks have no clue what a LPDA is,other than the old standard of Log Periodic Dipole Array. In the meantime I hope you find the above mentioned web site useful. Very 73 from Hope, Rhode Island, USA. Myrton - N1GKE - SKCC # 5521 30MDG # 2922 I use the original form of social networking, Amateur Radio.
[digitalradio] Re: ROS carrier pattern when idle
Hey, TU Skip KH6TY for your time and the pic. Wow, I don't see and random-ness to Chip64 yet it is DSSS. Jose has posted/published Technical Spec for ROS if you care to look: http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ Best 73 de Mike KB6WFC
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Hi Jose, When all users are using latest version of ROS then you will see as other ROS not interference with ROS. About packet, pactor 2, etc... it's obvious . They occuped an important part of spectrum. have you tested what happen if Olivia is tx over other Olivia? or over packet? Some things are of sense common De: José A. Amador ama...@electrica.cujae.edu.cu Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 20:33 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Warren, Please allow me put my two cents. I would not expect so if the spreading code is the same. The adventage of CDMA is code orthogonality, each user has a different chipping code that has little correlation with other user's codes., and so, there is little mutual QRM. As far as I have seen, ROS uses a 3 kHz fixed bandwidth, irrespective of signalling speed. ROS 16 is affected by packet, pactor 2 and other ROS users QRM, printing only garbage in such cases. ROS 16 looks good on a clear channel, but crumbles under QRM. Not to be surprising when confined to just 3 kHz. Anyone can figure out just by listening on 14101. Perhaps ROS 1 fares better, but so far I can't tell. To me, so far, Olivia is the toughest chat mode, and includes a lot (perhaps, too much!) flexibility. Likewise, JT65A if you want to squeeze QSO's out of thin air, but is hardly conversational at all. You can, in very short sentences (believe it is 13 characters), but you lose the adventage of some special hard coded short hand sentences (RRR, RO, 73 and such). Not a big penalty, but nevertheless, a penalty. 73, Jose, CO2JA El 26/02/2010 01:42 p.m., Warren Moxley escribió: Hi Skip, Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia? Warren - K5WGM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
--- On Fri, 26/2/10, DaveNF2G d...@nf2g.com wrote: File a federal lawsuit stating that the FCC's determination that ROS is SS and therefore unlawful on HF bands in the USA is arbitrary and capricious, based on the My interpretation from over on this side of the Atlantic is that the FCC DID NOT say ROS was unlawful on HF. In fact in the response at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/34812 they specifically do not state the Commissions View on ROS saying: The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. The sentence: ROS is viewed as spread spectrum, and the creator of the system describes it as that. Is NOT giving the Commissions determination of the mode. They are simply noting what is said in the original Request for clarification, which was basically some that Radio Amateurs view it as SS, hence the debate, and the author of the mode did indeed describe it as such. The FCC simply say it is up to the Operator to make a decision as to whether a mode is in breach of regulations. It is worth remembering that US Amateurs have been using CHIP64 on HF for 5 years, a long time. It is a Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum mode and described as such on the ARRL website. I am not aware of the FCC having had a problem with Amateur usage of that mode on HF. Out of curiosity what is the initial response of the FCC if an Amateur where to breach one of the regs ? Is it to sent them a letter informing them of the breach and asking them to desist ? Long term the solution looks like reform of the license regs but that may be easier said than done. It's over 32 years since the FCC itself first proposed band planning by bandwidth (their plan was for 350 Hz, 3.5 kHz, 7.5 kHz etc bandwidth segments) and 5 years since the ARRL submitted a similar proposal. Perhaps a 3rd attempt at changing introducing bandwidth planning will be successful ? I hope so. 73 Trevor M5AKA
[digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
I have to agree with Trevor. Not only did the FCC not declare or rule ROS in any way, but the author NEVER asked for any clarification whatsoever. Also of note, once the author understood the difference in the way spread spectrum was being interpreted, he immediately changed the reference to it in ALL of his documentation. AGAIN, the author NEVER approached anyone to seek ANY opinion about it. That was the result of someone else doing so of their own volition. The FCC did say they viewed it as spread spectrum, not because of any technical inspection by them, but solely upon the documentation presented to them, and they qualified THAT by saying they assumed the author knew what he had written. There should be no further argument, and Andy asked that it stop, but it seems certain folks still have an axe to grind over it. Seems some want Jose to publish his code. That is just plain wrong on so many levels. For someone to even ask that is beyond ludicrous in the first place. It is in effect penalizing the preacher and his sermon because the janitor asked a policeman if the grass was cut correctly. The two just do not belong in the same discussion. Jose has clearly stated, and shown in the technical specifications this is NOT spread spectrum, no matter how some want to try to declare it so. Sorry Skip, but a spectral display does not necessarily show if a signal is spread spectrum or not. Jose shows that there are FEC bytes in the signal that are generated even if there is no signal present. He is still the author of the program and should know by now what the differences in spread spectrum and FSK are. I, for one believe that if this gentleman is intelligent enough to write this code, he is also savvy enough to recognize if it is spread spectrum or not. He has nothing to gain by falsifying it since the program and his efforts are free, just like many other programs out there for us hams to use and experiment with. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding why this The FCC has ruled continues on. The FCC has NOT RULED on anything at all. PERIOD. An AGENT at the FCC answered a request for opinion' from an individual with no standing in the case as yet, and was presented with unfinished documents. That is like asking a doctor to prescribe medications for a patient he has never seen or even heard of, but some friend of the patient heard a rumor that the patient might feel bad. How could the doctor prescribe from that? I did not really want to get back into this but it seems certain erroneous parts of this discussion just will not die. If there is another agenda, please state it plainly for all to see. Else let's let the man try to work on his program rather than keep responding to these false innuendos created by folks with their own motives. I have no axe to grind, no dog in this fight, no trees to burn, etc etc etc. But Trevor is right. The FCC did NOT rule on anything at all. It does not matter what WAS in Jose's original documentation. Just because his original documentation may have said spread spectrum did not make it so. Jose NEVER asked ANYONE, let alone the FCC for their opinion. If someone else fouled the water for him, then as was suggested earlier, I suggest that Jose file his own lawsuit if that seems to be what is needed. IMHO John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Trevor . m5...@... wrote: --- On Fri, 26/2/10, DaveNF2G d...@... wrote: File a federal lawsuit stating that the FCC's determination that ROS is SS and therefore unlawful on HF bands in the USA is arbitrary and capricious, based on the My interpretation from over on this side of the Atlantic is that the FCC DID NOT say ROS was unlawful on HF. In fact in the response at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/34812 they specifically do not state the Commissions View on ROS saying: The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. The sentence: ROS is viewed as spread spectrum, and the creator of the system describes it as that. Is NOT giving the Commissions determination of the mode. They are simply noting what is said in the original Request for clarification, which was basically some that Radio Amateurs view it as SS, hence the debate, and the author of the mode did indeed describe it as such. The FCC simply say it is up to the Operator to make a decision as to whether a mode is in breach of regulations. It is worth remembering that US Amateurs have been using CHIP64 on HF for 5 years, a long time. It is a Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum mode and described as such on the ARRL website. I am not aware of the FCC having had a problem with Amateur usage of that mode on HF. Out of curiosity what is the initial response of the FCC if an Amateur where to breach one of the regs ? Is it to sent them a letter informing them of the
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
No, I have not, because Olivia is usually found in different frequencies than those where packet activity is found on this side of planet Earth, and in general, packet sysops and Olivia users know their way around and do not step over others toes. Very seldom I have experienced Olivia to Olivia QRM, I have heard the other's tones showing up near to the frequency I have been using, it has shown up on the waterfall but it did no impairment to reception. I have to add that I only have copied one side of the other's QSO, so it is quite likely that he did not hear my correspondent either. Nothing to create fuss about. El 26/02/2010 18:06, jose alberto nieto ros escribió: have you tested what happen if Olivia is tx over other Olivia? or over packet?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
In fact, a person named Timothy J. Lilley - N3TL wrote to FCC in my representation without ask me previously, saying what he would think that ROS was, after to read an incomplete document. Here I think each person does their personal guesses as he believes that ROS works, without prior reading any documents. And when in doubt, it is best to go about preaching the forums that is illegal. 500 years ago I had been burned at the stake De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: sáb,27 febrero, 2010 00:39 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum I have to agree with Trevor. Not only did the FCC not declare or rule ROS in any way, but the author NEVER asked for any clarification whatsoever. Also of note, once the author understood the difference in the way spread spectrum was being interpreted, he immediately changed the reference to it in ALL of his documentation. AGAIN, the author NEVER approached anyone to seek ANY opinion about it. That was the result of someone else doing so of their own volition. The FCC did say they viewed it as spread spectrum, not because of any technical inspection by them, but solely upon the documentation presented to them, and they qualified THAT by saying they assumed the author knew what he had written. There should be no further argument, and Andy asked that it stop, but it seems certain folks still have an axe to grind over it. Seems some want Jose to publish his code. That is just plain wrong on so many levels. For someone to even ask that is beyond ludicrous in the first place. It is in effect penalizing the preacher and his sermon because the janitor asked a policeman if the grass was cut correctly. The two just do not belong in the same discussion. Jose has clearly stated, and shown in the technical specifications this is NOT spread spectrum, no matter how some want to try to declare it so. Sorry Skip, but a spectral display does not necessarily show if a signal is spread spectrum or not. Jose shows that there are FEC bytes in the signal that are generated even if there is no signal present. He is still the author of the program and should know by now what the differences in spread spectrum and FSK are. I, for one believe that if this gentleman is intelligent enough to write this code, he is also savvy enough to recognize if it is spread spectrum or not. He has nothing to gain by falsifying it since the program and his efforts are free, just like many other programs out there for us hams to use and experiment with. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding why this The FCC has ruled continues on. The FCC has NOT RULED on anything at all. PERIOD. An AGENT at the FCC answered a request for opinion' from an individual with no standing in the case as yet, and was presented with unfinished documents. That is like asking a doctor to prescribe medications for a patient he has never seen or even heard of, but some friend of the patient heard a rumor that the patient might feel bad. How could the doctor prescribe from that? I did not really want to get back into this but it seems certain erroneous parts of this discussion just will not die. If there is another agenda, please state it plainly for all to see. Else let's let the man try to work on his program rather than keep responding to these false innuendos created by folks with their own motives. I have no axe to grind, no dog in this fight, no trees to burn, etc etc etc. But Trevor is right. The FCC did NOT rule on anything at all. It does not matter what WAS in Jose's original documentation. Just because his original documentation may have said spread spectrum did not make it so. Jose NEVER asked ANYONE, let alone the FCC for their opinion. If someone else fouled the water for him, then as was suggested earlier, I suggest that Jose file his own lawsuit if that seems to be what is needed. IMHO John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Trevor . m5...@... wrote: --- On Fri, 26/2/10, DaveNF2G d...@... wrote: File a federal lawsuit stating that the FCC's determination that ROS is SS and therefore unlawful on HF bands in the USA is arbitrary and capricious, based on the My interpretation from over on this side of the Atlantic is that the FCC DID NOT say ROS was unlawful on HF. In fact in the response at http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/digitalrad io/message/ 34812 they specifically do not state the Commissions View on ROS saying: The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. The sentence: ROS is viewed as spread spectrum, and the creator of the system describes it as that. Is NOT giving the Commissions determination of the mode. They are simply noting what is said in the original Request for clarification , which was basically some that Radio Amateurs
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
The FCC didn't do anything arbitrary or capricious. They read a specification provided by the author of the software that stated that ROS is a spread-spectrum mode. They then told the person asking for the FCC's opinion that they should go by what the author wrote and not use ROS on HF. The author now states that his original document was incorrect and ROS is not spread-spectrum but has not published a new specification. If it isn't SS, the new specification will clear the way for U.S hams to use the mode. FCC regulations don't state that the FCC has any obligation to make determinations about a new mode. They state that the author must publish a specification and each amateur must look at that and determine the legality. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: DaveNF2G To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 13:26 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or interpretation of ROS, and further says The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. Forget the petitions for waivers. File a federal lawsuit stating that the FCC's determination that ROS is SS and therefore unlawful on HF bands in the USA is arbitrary and capricious, based on the above statement that they have abdicated their statutory responsibility to make a technical examination of the proposed mode to see whether or not it fits their regulations. Yeah, I know, filing suit is an inherently unfriendly act. The FCC has been unfriendly to anything that is not a major corporate money maker for quite some time now. Time to start pushing the Commission back on track. 73 de Dave, NF2G
Re: [digitalradio] NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM
Sholto, The silence is deafening... I'm sure there are some who may be unaware of the the NCDXF beacon network ( www.ncdxf.org ) but there's no excuse for the deliberate QRM I've witnessed. I'm very surprised... NCDXF BEACONS - 14100.0 18110.0 21150.0 24930.0 28200.0 Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: sholtofish To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 1:21 PM Subject: [digitalradio] NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM All, I have attempted to translate Arnie Coro's message posted on the ROS reflector into English (below). It is a vitally important issue and I would ask all amateurs (regardless of country) to find a different 20m frequency. Surely it wouldn't be impossible to go to 14105 USB or 14107 USB or even higher? 73 Sholto K7TMG Translation --- Greetings! URGENT Jose, it is necessary to remove as soon as possible indication of frequencies on 20 meters using very, very close to the network synchronized global beacons to study radio propagation in the HF bands operating in 14,101 We are capturing in Europe and here in America station interference using ROS that obliterated the reception of the NCDXF beacon network. We send a message to his more explicit account HOTMAIL. Moreover, I inform you that I have perceived a great confusion among the colleagues who used digital modes, as many believe that ROS CAN NOT BE USED IN HF bands, according regulations of the amateur services in their respective countries. I am available to help as much as possible to the maturation of their ROS digital mode, which can make an important contribution to the amateur digital communications, provided they observe a number internationally recognized standards Sincerely Prof. Arnaldo Coro Antich, emergency management coordinator IARU Region II Area C CO2KK --- In rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com, acoro33100 acoro33...@... wrote: Saludos ! URGENTE Jose, es necesario que suprima a la mayor brevedad posible la indicacion de utilizar frecuencias en 20 metros muy , pero muy cercanas a la red mundial de radiofaros sincronizados para estudio de la radiopropagacion en las bandas decametricas que opera en 14.101 Estamos captando en Europa y aqui en America interferencia de estaciones utilizando ROS que obliteran la recepcion de la red de radiofaros NCDXF. Le envie un mensaje mas explicito a su cuenta en HOTMAIL. Por otra parte , le comunico que he percibido una gran confusion entre los colegas que emplean los modos digitales, pues muchos opinan que ROS NO PUEDE SER UTILIZADO EN LAS BANDAS DE ONDAS DECAMETRICAS, segun los reglamentos de los servicios de radioaficionados de sus respectivos paises. Estoy a su disposicion para ayudarlo en todo lo posible a la maduracion de su modo digital ROS , el cual puede constituir una importante contribucion a las comunicaciones digitales de aficionados , siempre y cuando se respeten una serie de normas reconocidas internacionalmente Atentamente Prof. Arnaldo Coro Antich, coordinador de emergencias IARU Region II Area C CO2KK
[digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
hello Tim it sure is hell when you try to do a good deed, keep it up. david/wd4kpd
[digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
AMEN to your last Trevor. and this is why i continue to operate ROS. thank you for some sanity. david/wd4kpd
[digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
you got it right John perhaps c u on the bands via ROS. david/wd4kpd
[digitalradio] BPSK125 this weekend
From http://www.hornucopia.com/contestcal/weeklycont.php BPSK125 Bands: 80, 40, 20, 15, 10m Classes:Single Op All Band (High/Low)(24/12) Single Op Single Band (High/Low) Single Op Low Bands (High/Low) Single Op High Bands (High/Low Multi Op Single Transmitter (Old/Young) Multi Op Multi Transmitter (Old/Young) Max power: HP: 100 watts LP: 10 watts Exchange: RST + QSO No. QSO Points: 1 point per QSO with same country 2 points per QSO on 80,40,20m with different country, same continent 3 points per QSO on 15,10m with different country, same continent 4 points per QSO on 40,20,15m with different continent 5 points per QSO on 10m with different continent 6 points per QSO on 80m with different continent 3 points per QSO with maritime mobile Multipliers:Each DXCC country once per band Score Calculation: Total score = total QSO points x total mults Submit logs by: March 28, 2010 E-mail logs to: epcwwdx[at]srars[dot]org Mail logs to: (none) Find rules at: http://www.epcwwdx.srars.org/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=44:epc-ww-dx-contest-rules-2010catid=34:contest-rulesItemid=59
