[digitalradio] Re: Making RSID de rigueur, for Olivia
Gentlemen, Excellent!!! Ideas!!! I have hearing problems, although I can make it in the outside world, telling the difference between modes can be a major pain. RSID has and will continue to broaden the scope of my digital operating. On the other hand, Gavin I see your point, and will shut RSID off on the common modes. 73 all, de Jon KT4KB WCC-10 --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Gavin g0...@... wrote: Agreed, it is handy for all digi modes.except psk31..why do people insist on using RSID for modes we all know? It gets damned annoying seeing little boxes popping up on my screen to tell me it has heard a psk31 signal.Qpsk even i could accept, but psk31 using rsid for psk31 is just dumb. So just use it for the more exotic modes please! --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: I want to embark on a campaign to make RSID de rigueur, for Olivia. It is nice to see Olivia continue to be used as a mode , a very effective mode. However, Olivia users need to remind themselves that there are 10 common sets tones/bw, and despite their appearance in a waterfall, it is not easy to determine which Olivia variant it is. RS ID makes that so much easier. Please use it, it will increase your chances of a someone returning to your CQ. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
Skip Do you really think the FCC will put that much effort into this? They really want amateur radio to be self regulating. I think that people who bother the comish with such trivia degrades the hobby. When the administration of our activities become too burdensome, the FCC will be less inclined to support it. I can not see them using valuable engineering time on this. What the FCC stated was that based on the documentation, the developer claimed it was SS but it was up to the individual amateur to make the determination. They made no ruling or determination, just a carefully worded opinion of a staff member. Part of holding a license is being able to determine which operation is legal. The same thing came up over digital repeaters a few years ago. An FCC staff member told an interested group at Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have the ability to read and interpret the rules and figure it out for themselves. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:58:58 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling Thanks for the clarification, Rein. That agrees with what Steinar sees, and with the Wikipedia discussion, which says in part, Most pseudorandom generator algorithms produce sequences which are uniformly distributed /wiki/Uniform_distribution_%28discrete%29 by any of several tests. It is an open question, and one central to the theory and practice of cryptography /wiki/Cryptography , whether there is any way to distinguish the output of a high-quality PRNG from a truly random sequence without knowing the algorithm(s) used and the state with which it was initialized. The differentiating factor in FHSS is apparently whether or not the data is superimposed on the carriers, or if the carrier frequencies are determined by the data. I cannot see that happing in ROS, and I can in all the FSK modes, but maybe I just do not know how to find it for sure. I guess the FCC engineers will probably figure out if ROS is actually spread spectrum as originally claimed, or FSK with FEC as now claimed. It is just hard to imagine that someone as intelligent and capable as Jose could make such a huge mistake after writing seven pages of text and diagrams describing the mode the first time! No wonder the FCC believed him! Will they now believe him, or will they believe that the so-called technical description now on the ROS website is just an attempt to get ROS considered legal on HF? Probably they will believe only their own tests now, so we will have to wait for those. The FCC does not care about the mode, or what it is called, but only what is transmitted on the air. 73 - Skip KH6TY pa0r wrote: SS uses pseudorandom codes to wag the carrier(s). EVERY pseudorandom code is repetitive, the length may vary. 73, Rein PA0R --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , KH6TY kh...@... mailto:kh...@... wrote: That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to exclude it from being FHSS. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: [Attachment(s) #TopText from Steinar Aanesland included below] Hi Skip I have been monitoring a ROS idling over time using DL4YHF's Spectrum Lab. Here is the results.You can clearly see a pattern 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 26.02.2010 12:29, KH6TY wrote: 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
Re: [digitalradio] NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM
Tony wrote: 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... I, personally, don't use 14.101MHz and have been trying to persuade people to move up the band a bit anyway. So, the deafening silence has been the art of persuasion rather than big boots stomping up and down on a new experimental mode. I do hope that you will be figuring out who and what that packet or TOR mode is that is below 14.101, and nearer the beacon frequency and stomping on that as well? In fact, if ROS is on a dial frequency of 14.101MHz, and like most digital modes it transmits HF of that frequency by some offset, probably about 1.2kHz or so, wont it be far out of the passband of even a wide/normal CW filter? If so, please explain how you are so sure it is ROS that is causing a problem. Even if the '1st tone' was some 400Hz above the dial frequency, that is still 1.4kHz, and only transmitting that 400Hz tone infrequently, so, again, I would have thought way above a 'standard' CW filter width... Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Testing a post.
My last post didn't make it out it was about Extra class only can use ROS, I must have missed it . 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
Re: [digitalradio] New subject: FSK clicks
The EPC PSK125 contest was in operation. Is that possibly what you were seeing/hearing? Wes W1LIC From: jhaynesatalumni jhhay...@earthlink.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, February 27, 2010 8:05:55 PM Subject: [digitalradio] New subject: FSK clicks I was just listening on 80M - some kind of RTTY contest is on - and I hear a bunch of normal-sounding FSK RTTY signals, and some that are awfully clicky, like key clicks except it's FSK. I wonder what those guys are doing wrong. Having the speech processor turned on, perhaps? Or too-rapid switching between mark and space? Please listen when you get a chance and see if you hear what I'm hearing and if you can guess what is causing it. On the waterfall it shows up kinda like an overdriven PSK signal, but that shouldn't matter so much for FSK. Jim W6JVE
Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
Self-regulating means that we police ourselves and obey the rules on the honor system. It also might mean the Official Observers assist in regulations. Regulating means following rules, not interpreting them for our own benefit, but as accurately as possible. If you were the FCC and had received a seven page document describing ROS as FHSS, and then later received a two page technical description that was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, but that ROS had not changed, would you believe the first document or the second, knowing that the mode may really be FHSS butis now called something else in order to achieve legal status? Under these circumstances, I DO think they will put enough effort into this to find the TRUTH. It is clear that they can no longer just believe the author, since his story has done a 180 degree shift, so I would think they feel they are now obligated to make tests to determine if the mode really is FHSS or FSK144, or something else, since they no longer can trust what the author says. The change is so enormous that it is not just a matter of having left something out the first time. My guess is the FCC will, but from the spectral analysis Steiner has made, there is probably no problem. It is just that the author, who claims he is the dependable source, simply cannot be trusted 100% to tell the truth, and has already reversed himself once. Tough situation. :-( 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Skip Do you really think the FCC will put that much effort into this? They really want amateur radio to be self regulating. I think that people who bother the comish with such trivia degrades the hobby. When the administration of our activities become too burdensome, the FCC will be less inclined to support it. I can not see them using valuable engineering time on this. What the FCC stated was that based on the documentation, the developer claimed it was SS but it was up to the individual amateur to make the determination. They made no ruling or determination, just a carefully worded opinion of a staff member. Part of holding a license is being able to determine which operation is legal. The same thing came up over digital repeaters a few years ago. An FCC staff member told an interested group at Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have the ability to read and interpret the rules and figure it out for themselves. *From: *KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:58:58 -0500 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling Thanks for the clarification, Rein. That agrees with what Steinar sees, and with the Wikipedia discussion, which says in part, Most pseudorandom generator algorithms produce sequences which are uniformly distributed /wiki/Uniform_distribution_%28discrete%29 by any of several tests. It is an open question, and one central to the theory and practice of cryptography /wiki/Cryptography , whether there is any way to distinguish the output of a high-quality PRNG from a truly random sequence without knowing the algorithm(s) used and the state with which it was initialized. The differentiating factor in FHSS is apparently whether or not the data is superimposed on the carriers, or if the carrier frequencies are determined by the data. I cannot see that happing in ROS, and I can in all the FSK modes, but maybe I just do not know how to find it for sure. I guess the FCC engineers will probably figure out if ROS is actually spread spectrum as originally claimed, or FSK with FEC as now claimed. It is just hard to imagine that someone as intelligent and capable as Jose could make such a huge mistake after writing seven pages of text and diagrams describing the mode the first time! No wonder the FCC believed him! Will they now believe him, or will they believe that the so-called technical description now on the ROS website is just an attempt to get ROS considered legal on HF? Probably they will believe only their own tests now, so we will have to wait for those. The FCC does not care about the mode, or what it is called, but only what is transmitted on the air. 73 - Skip KH6TY pa0r wrote: SS uses pseudorandom codes to wag the carrier(s). EVERY pseudorandom code is repetitive, the length may vary. 73, Rein PA0R --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , KH6TY kh...@... mailto:kh...@... mailto:kh...@... wrote: That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is
[digitalradio] Re: NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM
Hi Dave, I don't think using 14.101 USB is the main reason for QRM on the 20m NCDXF frequency. But some guys were definitely using ROS on 14.098 which was very silly. I agree - I think the ROS waveform starts around 400Hz so I would expect the lowest ROS tone to be about 1400Hz higher than the NCDXF CW frequency. With a 500Hz narrow filter certainly it would be far enough away but I suspect that many of the monitoring stations might be using a wider bandwidth, especially the automatic monitors. I know for a fact the FAROS program requires a wider bandwidth than 500Hz and I remember reading somewhere it needs about 2KHz for optimal detection of the NCDXF signals. I don't know the reason why but if so then it is conceivable that ROS on 14.101 is indeed causing a problem. My horse in this race is that ROS on 14.101 USB does interfere with our packet network on 14105 LSB. It's just the few top tones of ROS but they unfortunately coincide directly with our packet tones. I believe the modes you allude to (TOR and Packet) are most likely WinMOR (the TOR mode) and perhaps APRS beacon packets. I too have unfortunately heard WinMOR stations also way too close to the NCDXF frequency. They are not regular however so maybe someone just picked the wrong frequency for testing? I am not 100% sure about the APRS but I recently read something about a UK based 20m APRS experiment and remember thinking they may be a little close to the NCDXF frequency but I can't seem to find any information on it when I just Googled it so can't tell for sure. Unfortunately I can't hear them from this QTH on the West Coast of the USA. But thinking about the very wide bandwidth of ROS (wider than ALE even) wouldn't it make sense to come up with a channelized system of ROS on higher frequencies perhaps 14.115MHz but 14.150MHz ? There's no need for ROS to be in the automatic segment at all. If I was interested in ROS I would be tempted to propose different Channels for the US (if deemed legal), Pacific/Asia, Australasia and the EU. That would also help with the many ROS signals all competing on the same frequency. It would just take a little coordination between interested ROS users (and understanding of the international allocations) but you guys could have some pretty effective DX communications on those higher frequencies where QRM is much less anyway. Just my 2 cents. Sholto K7TMG --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... wrote: Tony wrote: 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... I, personally, don't use 14.101MHz and have been trying to persuade people to move up the band a bit anyway. So, the deafening silence has been the art of persuasion rather than big boots stomping up and down on a new experimental mode. I do hope that you will be figuring out who and what that packet or TOR mode is that is below 14.101, and nearer the beacon frequency and stomping on that as well? In fact, if ROS is on a dial frequency of 14.101MHz, and like most digital modes it transmits HF of that frequency by some offset, probably about 1.2kHz or so, wont it be far out of the passband of even a wide/normal CW filter? If so, please explain how you are so sure it is ROS that is causing a problem. Even if the '1st tone' was some 400Hz above the dial frequency, that is still 1.4kHz, and only transmitting that 400Hz tone infrequently, so, again, I would have thought way above a 'standard' CW filter width... Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?
I like to multitask, and I am greedy... I like to keep an eye on several things at once. I am thinking about a better PC, one with enough CPU capability to run many tasks at the same time. Is there a way to calculate the total CPU demands of severall applications. Here is a list of what I often run at the same time (or wish i could) Commander (or HRD) Winwarbler (or Multipsk) DX Keeper Spotcollector Pathfinder DX View Weather Watcher Firefox Spectravue or SDR-RADIO Console Fldigi WSJT/JT65-HF Dimension 4 Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Technical description for the FCC in the US
There is a technical descrption at http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/. I doesn't describe the start and stop tone sequences or completely describe the mapping from the convolutional encoder to the 128 tones used for data. However, it's more compete than some of the technical specifications on the ARRL web site. Perhaps he can add more detail in the future. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jbh...@bluefrog.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: AE5IL Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 20:27 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] ROS Technical description for the FCC in the US §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions This is a one-stop Web site for technical characteristics called for in FCC rules § 97.309(a)(4), which reads: (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications. Documentation should be adequate to (a) recognize the technique or protocol when observed on the air, (b) determine call signs of stations in communication and read the content of the transmissions. Click on names of the techniques already documented: A technical description from you about ROS would help us in the US a lot. For other technical descriptions go to www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
The problem is that the FCC regulations are overly complex and people need a specialized engineering background to interpret some of them. 99% of the licensees probably can't interpret every word in the regulations so they ask for help in this forum when something is not clear. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - W2XJ wrote: Skip An FCC staff member told an interested group at Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have the ability to read and interpret the rules and figure it out for themselves. That's what the old Radio Communication Agency used to do in the UK as well. The problem then was that some people thought they had the authority to tell other Radio Amateurs what they could, and could not, do.
[digitalradio] Re: New subject: FSK clicks
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Wes Linscott w1...@... wrote: The EPC PSK125 contest was in operation. Is that possibly what you were seeing/hearing? Wes W1LIC Well if PSK125 signals are clicky then that's just as bad as if it's FSK. However I was able to copy one or two of the clicky signals as FSK RTTY. Didn't try on all of them.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
A good portion of the FCC rules is almost cut and paste from ITU standards which apply worldwide. From: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:02:44 - To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling The problem is that the FCC regulations are overly complex and people need a specialized engineering background to interpret some of them. 99% of the licensees probably can't interpret every word in the regulations so they ask for help in this forum when something is not clear. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - W2XJ wrote: Skip An FCC staff member told an interested group at Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have the ability to read and interpret the rules and figure it out for themselves. That's what the old Radio Communication Agency used to do in the UK as well. The problem then was that some people thought they had the authority to tell other Radio Amateurs what they could, and could not, do.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
I still do not think they will get involved. This is kindergarten politics and bad for our hobby. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:09:57 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling Self-regulating means that we police ourselves and obey the rules on the honor system. It also might mean the Official Observers assist in regulations. Regulating means following rules, not interpreting them for our own benefit, but as accurately as possible. If you were the FCC and had received a seven page document describing ROS as FHSS, and then later received a two page technical description that was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, but that ROS had not changed, would you believe the first document or the second, knowing that the mode may really be FHSS butis now called something else in order to achieve legal status? Under these circumstances, I DO think they will put enough effort into this to find the TRUTH. It is clear that they can no longer just believe the author, since his story has done a 180 degree shift, so I would think they feel they are now obligated to make tests to determine if the mode really is FHSS or FSK144, or something else, since they no longer can trust what the author says. The change is so enormous that it is not just a matter of having left something out the first time. My guess is the FCC will, but from the spectral analysis Steiner has made, there is probably no problem. It is just that the author, who claims he is the dependable source, simply cannot be trusted 100% to tell the truth, and has already reversed himself once. Tough situation. :-( 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Skip Do you really think the FCC will put that much effort into this? They really want amateur radio to be self regulating. I think that people who bother the comish with such trivia degrades the hobby. When the administration of our activities become too burdensome, the FCC will be less inclined to support it. I can not see them using valuable engineering time on this. What the FCC stated was that based on the documentation, the developer claimed it was SS but it was up to the individual amateur to make the determination. They made no ruling or determination, just a carefully worded opinion of a staff member. Part of holding a license is being able to determine which operation is legal. The same thing came up over digital repeaters a few years ago. An FCC staff member told an interested group at Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have the ability to read and interpret the rules and figure it out for themselves. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:58:58 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling Thanks for the clarification, Rein. That agrees with what Steinar sees, and with the Wikipedia discussion, which says in part, Most pseudorandom generator algorithms produce sequences which are uniformly distributed /wiki/Uniform_distribution_%28discrete%29 by any of several tests. It is an open question, and one central to the theory and practice of cryptography /wiki/Cryptography , whether there is any way to distinguish the output of a high-quality PRNG from a truly random sequence without knowing the algorithm(s) used and the state with which it was initialized. The differentiating factor in FHSS is apparently whether or not the data is superimposed on the carriers, or if the carrier frequencies are determined by the data. I cannot see that happing in ROS, and I can in all the FSK modes, but maybe I just do not know how to find it for sure. I guess the FCC engineers will probably figure out if ROS is actually spread spectrum as originally claimed, or FSK with FEC as now claimed. It is just hard to imagine that someone as intelligent and capable as Jose could make such a huge mistake after writing seven pages of text and diagrams describing the mode the first time! No wonder the FCC believed him! Will they now believe him, or will they believe that the so-called technical description now on the ROS website is just an attempt to get ROS considered legal on HF? Probably they will believe only their own tests now, so we will have to wait for those. The FCC does not care about the mode, or what it is called, but only what is transmitted on the air. 73 - Skip KH6TY pa0r wrote: SS uses pseudorandom codes to wag the carrier(s). EVERY pseudorandom code is repetitive, the length may vary. 73, Rein PA0R --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , KH6TY kh...@... mailto:kh...@... mailto:kh...@... wrote: That's a good analysis, Steinar.
Re: [digitalradio] NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM
Dave, There's been a lot of ROS activity close enough to 14100 to cause interference to the NCDXF beacons, not to mention the Packet network on 105, the ALE network on 109 and the Olivia activity near the same frequencies. I understand that some are anxious to work a new mode, but it shouldn't come at a cost to others. I, personally, don't use 14.101MHz and have been trying to persuade people to move up the band a bit anyway. Glad to hear it - and what better forum is there than the digital reflector to inform others about the QRM? I'm sure most of the ROS operators found the mode on this reflector. the deafening silence has been the art of persuasion rather than big boots stomping up and down on a new experimental mode. I'm not trying to condemn the mode, in fact, I admire those like Jose, Patrick and others. I was just trying to bring attention to the handful of ROS operators who were less than courteous to their fellow hams. There's really no excuse for this kind of blatant free-for-all. I do hope that you will be figuring out who and what that packet or TOR mode is that is below 14.101, and nearer the beacon frequency and stomping on that as well? If I hear it, I will. It's our duty to inform others about interference they may be causing, especially the QRM that might cause harm in the event of an emergency. I guess I'm a bit touchy about the interference issue after 9/11. By the way Dave, I monitored a contact from Haiti after the earthquake and it was riddled with QRM at times. I'm not saying the interference was deliberate, but the station receiving the emergency traffic had to clear the frequency more than once - go figure. Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Dave Ackrill To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 5:00 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM Tony wrote: 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... I, personally, don't use 14.101MHz and have been trying to persuade people to move up the band a bit anyway. So, the deafening silence has been the art of persuasion rather than big boots stomping up and down on a new experimental mode. I do hope that you will be figuring out who and what that packet or TOR mode is that is below 14.101, and nearer the beacon frequency and stomping on that as well? In fact, if ROS is on a dial frequency of 14.101MHz, and like most digital modes it transmits HF of that frequency by some offset, probably about 1.2kHz or so, wont it be far out of the passband of even a wide/normal CW filter? If so, please explain how you are so sure it is ROS that is causing a problem. Even if the '1st tone' was some 400Hz above the dial frequency, that is still 1.4kHz, and only transmitting that 400Hz tone infrequently, so, again, I would have thought way above a 'standard' CW filter width... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 19:17 -0500, Andy obrien wrote: I like to multitask, and I am greedy... I like to keep an eye on several things at once. I am thinking about a better PC, one with enough CPU capability to run many tasks at the same time. Is there a way to calculate the total CPU demands of severall applications. Here is a list of what I often run at the same time (or wish i could) Commander (or HRD) Winwarbler (or Multipsk) DX Keeper Spotcollector Pathfinder DX View Weather Watcher Firefox Spectravue or SDR-RADIO Console Fldigi WSJT/JT65-HF Dimension 4 In a word, no. Modern operating systems are very good at seemingly doing several things at once, even though you may only have a single CPU. If you are concerned with this, get a multi-core CPU so you can give your operating system more parallel capabilities. Also having a great graphics card with a proper driver can lift a lot of CPU responsibility. I prefer nVidia with the nVidia drivers. You don't say which operating system you are running. XP has a natural limit of 2 CPU's. Windows servers have an option to buy support for multiple CPU's. Linux can use all the CPU's it can find. From what I read, Windows 7 can support 2 sockets and each socket can have a multicore CPU in it. That means it would be possible and even reasonably inexpensive to have a pair of 4 core AMD Opterons running under Windows 7 or Linux. I'm running a single quad core AMD Phenom 9600 under Linux and it's loafing all the time, regardless of what I'm doing. I have yet to see any CPU lag on this machine. It has an Nvidia 9600 video card. Generally speaking, RAM is more important than CPU so make sure you are not ram starved before you blame the CPU.
[digitalradio] A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:10 PM, g4ilo julian.m...@theparklands.co.uk wrote: To be honest I think the basic problem is just that there isn't enough space on the busy bands for all the people who want to use a 2.2kHz wide digital mode to use it. Because of all the QRM you just end up making the same contacts you could make with PSK31 but using 20 times the bandwidth Julian, G4ILO This is a key point, one that I am sometimes guilty of forgetting. I STILL think ALE is best method of establishing a QSO/contact. Establish the contact and switch to a mode that suits the conditions. ALE , of course, has its own problems, a wide mode, and some people dislike the unattended operations. Perhaps we can invent a new digital QSO calling method , essentially establishing just one or two modes that are used to initiate a QSO. , Using a mode that is average in terms of bandwidth and also in terms of throughput/robustness? This would be in zone 1 of the band . Zone 2 would be the area of a band suited for wider digital modes but again, you would only CQ in one well known and easy to use wider- mode (Olivia ?) In Zone 1 the initial CQ and response would exchange signal report and callsigns only, then based on generally approved concepts , would switch to one of perhaps 4 other modes with significantly varying throughput and bandwidth. Of course, there are modes that do this automatically (PACTOR and Winmor), but they are not widely used. I doubt we could get digital mode operators to change habits (we can't even persuade most RTTY ops to even TRY some non-RTTY modes), but rather than change thousands of PSK31 users, maybe we can change the non-PSK31/RTTY digital mode users (us ?) . Regardless of where you are operating , call CQ in PSK31 , when someone answers choices would be Zone 1 2-way signals are 339 or below switch to Olivia or ROS 2-way-singals are 449 to 549 stay with PSK31 (or perhaps MFSK16) 2-way-signals are 559-599 switch to PSK125/250, RTTY Zone 2 Initial CQ in Olivia 1000/16 2-way signals are 339 or below switch to Olivia 1000/32 or ROS16 2-way-singals are 449 to 549 stay with Olivia 1000/16 2-way-signals are 559-599 switch to a NARROWER mode PSK250-63 , RTTY Where a band has no clear wide mode allocation, , or very little bandwidth at all , Zone 2 type communication would never be expected. This may be too radical to be well received and adopted by the average digital ham. Instead of everyone having varying patches of territory and calling plaintively looking for that rare ham that actually uses the same obscure mode, the digital portions of a band would have PSK31 (or MFSK16) calling CQ over a much wider range of frequencies then switching as conditions dictate. A CQ might start with PSK31 and result in a QSO that ends in PSK250. The only dilemma then would be, do you revert to calling CQ in PSK31 after the QSO or QRZ? in the mode that ended the QSO. That might just have to be up to the individual ham to decide. Example bandplan 14070-080 narrow mode QSO zone CQ in PSK31 14081-14099 RTTY, 14101 Packet , 14102-14110 Wide mode QSO fzone . CQ in ROS 16 or Olivia 1000/16 No need to list any individual modes except RTTY and packet. Andy K3UK R = READABILITY 1 -- Unreadable 2 -- Barely readable, occasional words distinguishable 3 -- Readable with considerable difficulty 4 -- Readable with practically no difficulty 5 -- Perfectly readable S = SIGNAL STRENGTH 1 -- Faint signals, barely perceptible 2 -- Very weak signals 3 -- Weak signals 4 -- Fair signals 5 -- Fairly good signals 6 -- Good signals 7 -- Moderately strong signals 8 -- Strong signals 9 -- Extremely strong signals
RE: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?
CPU capability is but one set of dimensions (clock speed, instruction issue rate, cache size, cache organization) in a multi-dimensional problem that includes motherboard capabilities (CPU-memory interface, GPU organization and interface, memory organization and speed), disk capabilities (rotational latency, track-to-track seek time, transfer rate), and Windows configuration (settings on Performance Options window's Advanced tab, and a bunch more accessible via a Registry Editor). If you monitor the excellent FlexRadio reflector, you'll see how challenging it is to compute a hardware configuration for optimized for just one application; building and evaluating multiple configurations was required to find the sweet spot. Computing an optimal configuration to host 12 applications is hopeless; this requires the application of general principles, not a spreadsheet. The most critical decision should be made up front: do all of the applications you need run correctly in a 64-bit environment? If so, then plan on building a 64-bit system (Windows 7, if your applications will all run there correctly); I wouldn't choose a motherboard that supports less than 16 GB of RAM, but you can start out by populating it with 2GB or 4GB as your budget allows (don't start with an initial increment that's would have to be discarded to utilize the maximum memory capacity, however). A 64-bit operating system does reduce the choice of serial port interfaces; see http://www.dxlabsuite.com/dxlabwiki/Win7VistaHardware As far as I know, none of the applications on your list can exploit more than one processor core, so you should choose a dual-core processor (Windows will run on one core, and your applications will compete for the second core); if PhotoShop were on you list, you'd reach a different conclusion. Spend some time on Intel's and AMD's web sites looking at the desktop processor comparison charts, e.g. http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/processors/corei7-specs.htm Dvorak's old rule of third best is a good starting point, as companies charge big premiums for their most-powerful CPUs. CPU selection should also consider cache size and architecture (bigger, with more sets is better). Also don't buy a CPU built with an older production process. From Intel, you want 32 nm lithography, not 45 nm; smaller transistors run faster and generate less heat. In choosing a GPU, pick one that offloads all graphics processing, and will handle the screen resolution you'll likely be using over the next couple of years (taking multiple monitors into account, if that's a possibility). This will be an add-in card that can later be upgraded, so tradeoffs can be made. Alternatively, you can save some money by starting with the GPU from your current PC, assuming its above the bar and will run under the new PC's version of Windows. With hard drives, its tempting to buy the biggest disk you can afford, but those spacious 1+TB drives are relatively slow, and a PC with one hard drive is slower than a PC with two hard drives. If you can, go with two hard drives - a ~100 GB device with fast track-to-track times and low rotational latency to host the operating system, and a larger slower drive for your applications and data. Western Digital's Velociraptor family is a good candidate for the small/fast C: drive; you could consider a solid state drive for this role, but I have no personal experience with them. Choose a motherboard that supports a 3 GB SATA interface, and choose hard drives that exploit this interface. Again, you can save some money up front by starting with your current PC's hard drive in your new system, and upgrade later. All DXLab applications run correctly under 64-bit XP, Vista, and Windows 7. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Andy obrien Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:17 PM To: digitalradio Subject: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications? I like to multitask, and I am greedy... I like to keep an eye on several things at once. I am thinking about a better PC, one with enough CPU capability to run many tasks at the same time. Is there a way to calculate the total CPU demands of severall applications. Here is a list of what I often run at the same time (or wish i could) Commander (or HRD) Winwarbler (or Multipsk) DX Keeper Spotcollector Pathfinder DX View Weather Watcher Firefox Spectravue or SDR-RADIO Console Fldigi WSJT/JT65-HF Dimension 4 Andy K3UK
