Re: [digitalradio] Re: NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM
sholtofish wrote: 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. If they are using USB and are looking to detect in a 2kHz bandwidth, as some programs do, then they should be setting their dial to 14.099MHz to cover 14.100MHz. If they are setting 14.100MHz and covering up to 14.102 then they are not using their system correctly. Let's assume that they are using it correctly from 14.099 to 14.101 then the 1st ROS tone, for a dial setting of 14.101MHz, will be on 14.102.4MHz at least 1.4kHz higher than their highest required frequency, so I still don't see how it is interfering. However, it's academic now that they have another 1 kHz of separation. Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] ROS discussion - will it ever end
rgh I don't hink I can stand it any more and will just have to unsubscribe from this group.I originally joined it as being the author of the Data column in RSGB's RadCom, felt I ought to keep in touch with the people who actually use the datamodes and was hoping for a decent set of technical-type postings on the way datamode usage was moving amongst amateurs. But close to 1000 postings on the legality or otherwise of using a bog-standard SSB bandwidth single tone hopped frequency diversity system is just too much. If your FCC is anything like Ofcom, they'd just rather amateurs got on with their life and bothered them as slittle as possible, at least until a real issue arises. Its not as if you have the death penalty over there. (Actually, yes you do don't you, but presumably not for exceeding the regulated bandwidth on the amateur bands) It is far, far easier to beg forgiveness that it is to ask Permission - Solon - the lawmaker of Athens, 437 BCE Andy www.g4jnt.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
The portions that are causing problems here aren't in the regulations in other countries. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 01:14 UTC Subject: 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. .
Re: [digitalradio] ROS discussion - will it ever end
At 10:00 01-03-10, G4JNT wrote: rgh I agree 100% :-) - it has become a sterile discussion, IMHO. 73 - Marco IK1ODO / AI4YF
RE: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?
Andy, As others have said, the answer's no. You list SDR-Radio.com in the list - the CPU use depends on how you will use the software: * Sample rate, * Number of channels being simultaneously decoded, * Whether you've enabled pseudo-stereo mode, * Display size and number of monitors, * Running PSK / CW / RTTY SuperBrowsers (similar to the CW skimmers). It's not the number of programs, it's how you will use them. Get a decent computer and forget about it :) Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andy obrien 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)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS discussion - will it ever end
From: IMR ac.tal...@btinternet.com Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 Time: 09:00:33 rgh I don't hink I can stand it any more and will just have to unsubscribe from this group.I originally joined it as being the author of the Data column in RSGB's RadCom, felt I ought to keep in touch with the people who actually use the datamodes and was hoping for a decent set of technical-type postings on the way datamode usage was moving amongst amateurs. [Snip] rgh As a founder of the RSGB's Data Communications Committee, and the founder and first editor of the Data column in RSGB's RadCom, I'm hanging on in here. Data comms is much more than just the technicalities. To be sure, there have been some nonsensical posts here on this matter, and some people seem to have been incredibly naive in their dealings with ARRL and the FCC, but the fact remains that we are all constrained by the legalities as well as the technicalities. Let the discussion continue. -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
Re: [digitalradio] ROS discussion - will it ever end
I propose we change this group name to the... ROS Roundabout. I keep seeing the same arguments from the same preple over and over. That reminds me of GroundHog Day the movie. :-) I am so over the whole discussion, not to mention the ops who insist on firing up ROS16 on 30m at 10141 right in the middle of a band full of PSK31 signals. de Laurie, VK3AMA Marco IK1ODO -2 wrote: At 10:00 01-03-10, G4JNT wrote: rgh I agree 100% :-) - it has become a sterile discussion, IMHO. 73 - Marco IK1ODO / AI4YF
[digitalradio] Re: ROS discussion - will it ever end
As a participant in this USA-centric foolishness, I can still detect the presence of a deceased equine. de Dave, NF2G
Re: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?
Hello Dave, This is awesome. A real keeper of an e-mail. I am not in the market for a computer but this is still excellent knowledge to have and I do not have to buy a bunch of magazines or join another Yahoo group to get it. Again, thank you. Rick - KH2DF Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2010, at 9:10 PM, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com wrote: 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
[digitalradio] Some confussions
This afternoon somebody was transmitting for several times the following message in ROS 14106: pse do not use Olivia channel frequencies. With you 2200 hz wide signal you qrm 3 Olivia channels 1000 hz wide or 5 Olivia channels 500 hz wide.You are also I have to say to this person, that Washl Functions are the most inneficient way of spread the spectrum (it was used for the first time in NASA Viking Proyect because Viterbi Algorithm was not invented yet). Each people is free of use ROS into 2700 Hz bands plans.
[digitalradio] RS-ID MSG-ID with SDR
I was wondering if anyone has used the MSG ID function in MultiPSK with an SDR radio? In theory I think it should be possible to use MSG ID to send a little text message anywhere in the 20m digital portion and have it display on the waterfall of the SDR receiver. The MSG ID function uses RS ID technology to send simple messages that are automatically decoded no matter where they appear on the waterfall. There is also a PROP ID function that sends your callsign, power level, grid square etc which also could be decoded in the wide SDR bandwidth. I don't have an SDR to test it but would be very interested if someone on here gave it a go and posted their experience/results. 73 Sholto K7TMG
[digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
Hi, From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 2700Hz. You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all hamradio. OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will emerge over the coming years. About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong. Best regards, Jose Alberto From: m...@pp.inet.fi To: nieto...@hotmail.com Subject: ROS Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200 Hi Jose, since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz. Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50 for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 where other modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz wide. Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions. We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz. For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you cannot hear signals in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm 3 Olivia channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width. I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - which is up to now only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own experiences I know that Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some s-stages, will copy errorfree. In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same strength as ROS made ROS transmissions unreadable. You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good idea as above 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb stations, nothing else. To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO frequencies below 14.110 MHz for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS and Olivia users. I hope you will understand our problems, Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
Re: [digitalradio] RS-ID MSG-ID with SDR
sholtofish wrote: I was wondering if anyone has used the MSG ID function in MultiPSK with an SDR radio? I have a Perseus SDR and will update my copy of MultiPSK to have a go. Not having used MSG ID I may need a bit of help to set it up properly, if you have step by step instructions that would help. If it's reasonably straight forward to do I may have it configured later this evening. Dave (G0DJA)
RE: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users or cheese with ur whine
Jose Hear, hear rgrds Craig kq6i Peace, long-life, es gud DX! C P.S. including 14101 -Original Message- From: nietorosdj [mailto:nietoro...@yahoo.es] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:34 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users Hi, From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 2700Hz. You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all hamradio. OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will emerge over the coming years. About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong. Best regards, Jose Alberto From: m...@pp.inet.fi To: nieto...@hotmail.com Subject: ROS Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200 Hi Jose, since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz. Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50 for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 where other modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz wide. Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions. We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz. For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you cannot hear signals in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm 3 Olivia channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width. I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - which is up to now only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own experiences I know that Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some s-stages, will copy errorfree. In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same strength as ROS made ROS transmissions unreadable. You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good idea as above 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb stations, nothing else. To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO frequencies below 14.110 MHz for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS and Olivia users. I hope you will understand our problems, Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
RE: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?
my pleasure, Rick. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Rick Westerfield Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:11 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications? Hello Dave, This is awesome. A real keeper of an e-mail. I am not in the market for a computer but this is still excellent knowledge to have and I do not have to buy a bunch of magazines or join another Yahoo group to get it. Again, thank you. Rick - KH2DF Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2010, at 9:10 PM, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com wrote: 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
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
Hi Jose I support you completely 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote: Hi, From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 2700Hz. You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all hamradio. OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will emerge over the coming years. About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong. Best regards, Jose Alberto From: m...@pp.inet.fi To: nieto...@hotmail.com Subject: ROS Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200 Hi Jose, since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz. Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50 for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 where other modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz wide. Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions. We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz. For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you cannot hear signals in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm 3 Olivia channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width. I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - which is up to now only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own experiences I know that Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some s-stages, will copy errorfree. In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same strength as ROS made ROS transmissions unreadable. You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good idea as above 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb stations, nothing else. To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO frequencies below 14.110 MHz for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS and Olivia users. I hope you will understand our problems, Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
[digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Andy, Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO. In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is the best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for situations where PSK31 is marginal copy. I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple access features for frequency sharing. I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. A dual receiver would make that much easier. Ed WB6YTE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:10 PM, g4ilo julian.m...@... 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] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Hello Ed! How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN Em79NV - Original Message - From: ed_hekman ehek...@cox.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon Andy, Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO. In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is the best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for situations where PSK31 is marginal copy. I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple access features for frequency sharing. I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. A dual receiver would make that much easier. Ed WB6YTE
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
Steinar, that is absolutely true, the spectrum belongs to everybody, but the other side of the coin is that we need to police ourselves, and that usually means moving around to better accomodate other users of the spectrum, or by their moving also. This is how we arrive at bandplan divisions of the legal spectrum allocations. I have been monitoring ROS all day, and in this country, Olivia stations cause as much trouble to ROS as ROS causes to Olivia. It all depends upon the relative signal strengths as to which one decodes. I see many ROS QSO's stopped by Olivia 32-1000 traffic on 14106. Since the 1 baud mode is slow and probably going to be most useful on VHF and UHF for weak signal DX or EME where S/N is a much greater problem than it is on HF, it might be better to suggest moving the recommended ROS 16 baud 20m frequency to 14109 to avoid collisions with Olivia, and avoid Olivia interference with ROS, and mainly use the 1 baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal work where it is needed the most. Right now, an automatic Pactor station is also disrupting ROS on 14106. Just my personal opinion... 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Jose I support you completely 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote: Hi, From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 2700Hz. You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all hamradio. OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will emerge over the coming years. About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong. Best regards, Jose Alberto From: m...@pp.inet.fi mailto:masa%40pp.inet.fi To: nieto...@hotmail.com mailto:nietoros%40hotmail.com Subject: ROS Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200 Hi Jose, since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz. Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50 for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 where other modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz wide. Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions. We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz. For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you cannot hear signals in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm 3 Olivia channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width. I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - which is up to now only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own experiences I know that Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some s-stages, will copy errorfree. In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same strength as ROS made ROS transmissions unreadable. You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good idea as above 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb stations, nothing else. To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO frequencies below 14.110 MHz for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS and Olivia users. I hope you will understand our problems, Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
[digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Howard, With PSK all the activity is concentrated in a small segment of the band that we can monitor on the waterfall. If someone calls CQ outside that segment there is a very low probability that someone else will happen to be tuning there, hear the CQ and respond. I think the concept that Andy was suggesting is that we have one common mode and frequency for calling CQ. After a response to the CQ is received the two parties select a different mode and frequency for carrying on the QSO. This is the idea of ALE. It is intended for establishing a link. I tried ALE a couple years ago but it didn't fit my operating style. Being able to monitor two different frequencies (dual watch) or a wide bandwidth - 48KHz or 96KHz (as in SDR receivers) - would facilitate this type of operation. If we had a common CQ mode, such as ALE, we could decode a CQ anywhere in that bandwidth. Or we could also agree on a common CQ frequency so the software would not have to scan the entire spectrum for CQ calls. Ed WB6YTE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W6IDS w6...@... wrote: Hello Ed! How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN Em79NV - Original Message - From: ed_hekman ehek...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon Andy, Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO. In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is the best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for situations where PSK31 is marginal copy. I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple access features for frequency sharing. I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. A dual receiver would make that much easier. Ed WB6YTE
[digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations
All, I ran several path tests with ROS-16 and Olivia 2K this evening. The simulator showed that Olivia is about as sensitive as ROS when configured to run at the same baud rate, but it is not as sensitive when configured to run at the same word-per-minute rate. Olivia 32/2K will runs about as fast as ROS, but it is roughly 5db less sensitive. Mode Sensitivity baud rateWPM Olivia 128/2K -14db163 times slower than ROS-16 Olivia 32/2K -10db64same as ROS-16 ROS-16 -15db 16 That increase in sensitivity seems to help ROS cope with certain poor channel conditions (as per the path simulator) compared to Olivia running at the same speed. In CCIR poor channel tests, for example, where selective fading sweeps across the channel, ROS printed better than Olivia 32/2K with low signal-to-noise ratios. On the other hand, Olivia 128/2K (16 baud) had an edge over ROS under the same conditions, albeit, with much slower throughput. In high-latitude tests, severe Doppler spread caused throughput to fall off dramatically with ROS indicating that it will likely fail over severely distorted polar paths. This occurred when the frequency spreading was above 25Hz (ITU-R high-latitude severe distortion). Olivia was not affected. I found that ROS will not recover after the signal drops below it's minimum decode threshold and will not trigger ROS to start receiving if the signal is not strong enough at the beginning of the transmission. I'm not sure if this is something inherent in the mode or if it's a bug in the software. I'm sure Jose can answer that. I should noted that Olivia 32/1K compares well with both ROS-16 and Olivia 2K modes in terms of poor channel throughput. Olivia 16/500 does a fine job as well. I suspect that ROS would perform well in an 8 baud / 1000Hz mode version. Many thanks to Jose for the new mode. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by Olivia, go to another channel. And if you see that a channel is occuped by ROS and want to transmit with OLIVIA, do the same. What i cannot say is The 20-meters band is only mine. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:02 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users Steinar, that is absolutely true, the spectrum belongs to everybody, but the other side of the coin is that we need to police ourselves, and that usually means moving around to better accomodate other users of the spectrum, or by their moving also. This is how we arrive at bandplan divisions of the legal spectrum allocations. I have been monitoring ROS all day, and in this country, Olivia stations cause as much trouble to ROS as ROS causes to Olivia. It all depends upon the relative signal strengths as to which one decodes. I see many ROS QSO's stopped by Olivia 32-1000 traffic on 14106. Since the 1 baud mode is slow and probably going to be most useful on VHF and UHF for weak signal DX or EME where S/N is a much greater problem than it is on HF, it might be better to suggest moving the recommended ROS 16 baud 20m frequency to 14109 to avoid collisions with Olivia, and avoid Olivia interference with ROS, and mainly use the 1 baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal work where it is needed the most. Right now, an automatic Pactor station is also disrupting ROS on 14106. Just my personal opinion... 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Jose I support you completely 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote: Hi, From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 2700Hz. You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all hamradio. OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will emerge over the coming years. About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong. Best regards, Jose Alberto From: m...@pp.inet. fi To: nieto...@hotmail. com Subject: ROS Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200 Hi Jose, since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz. Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50... . for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 where other modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz wide. Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions. We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz. For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you cannot hear signals in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm 3 Olivia channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width. I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - which is up to now only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own experiences I know that Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some s-stages, will copy errorfree. In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same strength as ROS made ROS transmissions unreadable. You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good idea as above 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb stations, nothing else. To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO frequencies below 14.110 MHz for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS and Olivia users. I hope you will understand our problems, Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations
Good tests, thanks Tony. On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Tony d...@optonline.net wrote: All, I ran several path tests with ROS-16 and Olivia 2K this evening. The simulator showed that Olivia is about as sensitive as ROS when configured to run at the same baud rate, but it is not as sensitive when configured to run at the same word-per-minute rate. Olivia 32/2K will runs about as fast as ROS, but it is roughly 5db less sensitive. Mode Sensitivity baud rateWPM Olivia 128/2K -14db163 times slower than ROS-16 Olivia 32/2K -10db64same as ROS-16 ROS-16 -15db 16
Re: [digitalradio] RS-ID MSG-ID with SDR
Since the RS ID works well over this range with my SDR, I see no reason why the MSG ID would not work. Andy K3UK On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@tiscali.co.ukwrote: sholtofish wrote: I was wondering if anyone has used the MSG ID function in MultiPSK with an SDR radio? I have a Perseus SDR and will update my copy of MultiPSK to have a go. Not having used MSG ID I may need a bit of help to set it up properly, if you have step by step instructions that would help. If it's reasonably straight forward to do I may have it configured later this evening. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Just to make myself clear, I am not suggesting that we actually use the standard ALE digital mode for calling CQ. I'd be fine with it, but it is quite wide and would start a debate all over again. I'm also not suggesting we use ALE-style soundings that are unattended. What I like about the general concept of ALE is a standard calling mode and then use of received data to establish what mode can be used to maintain the current QSO (or link ) . The recent ROS debate quickly educated me about band plans and preferences, it is clear to me that the variance in suggested bandplans between IARU regions is such that the world is really spit in to wide and narrow band segments. The world is also split in to favourite modes where people try to find a niche within a band for these modes. The result is competing debates about which mode should park where. PSK , PACTOR, RTTY, and PACKET are the dominant modes with JT65A and WSPR as the next most used modes. That leaves Olivia, Throb, MFSK16, ROS, PAX, Domino, Contestia, WINMOR, Standard ALE, Hell, ALE400 and PSK variants, as the remainder. . While I would love to change the habits of PSKers and RTTY folks, I doubt I could do it. I think there is enough room to accommodate PSK, RTTY. PACTOR , JT65A/WSPR, and PACKET and then have a good segment of each band for the rest. The plan would be that the rest all agree to use one mode for a CQ/ Andy K3UK On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM, ed_hekman ehek...@cox.net wrote: Howard, With PSK all the activity is concentrated in a small segment of the band that we can monitor on the waterfall. If someone calls CQ outside that segment there is a very low probability that someone else will happen to be tuning there, hear the CQ and respond. I think the concept that Andy was suggesting is that we have one common mode and frequency for calling CQ. After a response to the CQ is received the two parties select a different mode and frequency for carrying on the QSO. This is the idea of ALE. It is intended for establishing a link. I tried ALE a couple years ago but it didn't fit my operating style. Being able to monitor two different frequencies (dual watch) or a wide bandwidth - 48KHz or 96KHz (as in SDR receivers) - would facilitate this type of operation. If we had a common CQ mode, such as ALE, we could decode a CQ anywhere in that bandwidth. Or we could also agree on a common CQ frequency so the software would not have to scan the entire spectrum for CQ calls. Ed WB6YTE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, W6IDS w6...@... wrote: Hello Ed! How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN Em79NV - Original Message - From: ed_hekman ehek...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon Andy, Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO. In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is the best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for situations where PSK31 is marginal copy. I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple access features for frequency sharing. I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. A dual receiver would make that much easier. Ed WB6YTE
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations
Hi Tony, you will have to repeat the test next days when i improve lenght interleaver as I had expected :-) The first think i said about ROS is that minimize the power at the same character/minute rate, and that is just what you are tester :-). You cannot match Washl Function FEC with Viterbi Algorithm. If you want OLIVIA be equal of robust that ROS you will have to transmit much slower than ROS necessarily. You can see as the different between OLIVIA and ROS is the not inconsiderable number of 5 dBs (3.2 times less power at the same character/minute). Equally, the next mode ROS 8 baudios/2250 Hz will be 3dBS better than ROS 16 baudios, but, obviusly is half as slow than ROS 16. You can not go against mathematics. About frequency spreading of 25 Hz, thats is a value exaggerated. Normally, the spread doppler is usually of 1 or 2 Hz in the higher bands of the HF. About ROS threshold, ROS is designed in a way that the Initial Acquisition Sequence poses no funnel. That is, the Initial sequence always has better sensitivity than the data demodulator. Sometimes you will see the initial sequence is activated but the data cannot be demodulated. This is how it should be. Good job, and i expect you repeat the test with the new improvements I am making. De: Tony d...@optonline.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:29 Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations All, I ran several path tests with ROS-16 and Olivia 2K this evening. The simulator showed that Olivia is about as sensitive as ROS when configured to run at the same baud rate, but it is not as sensitive when configured to run at the same word-per-minute rate. Olivia 32/2K will runs about as fast as ROS, but it is roughly 5db less sensitive. Mode Sensitivity baud rate WPM Olivia 128/2K -14db 163 times slower than ROS-16 Olivia 32/2K -10db 64same as ROS-16 ROS-16 -15db 16 That increase in sensitivity seems to help ROS cope with certain poor channel conditions (as per the path simulator) compared to Olivia running at the same speed. In CCIR poor channel tests, for example, where selective fading sweeps across the channel, ROS printed better than Olivia 32/2K with low signal-to-noise ratios. On the other hand, Olivia 128/2K (16 baud) had an edge over ROS under the same conditions, albeit, with much slower throughput. In high-latitude tests, severe Doppler spread caused throughput to fall off dramatically with ROS indicating that it will likely fail over severely distorted polar paths. This occurred when the frequency spreading was above 25Hz (ITU-R high-latitude severe distortion). Olivia was not affected. I found that ROS will not recover after the signal drops below it's minimum decode threshold and will not trigger ROS to start receiving if the signal is not strong enough at the beginning of the transmission. I'm not sure if this is something inherent in the mode or if it's a bug in the software. I'm sure Jose can answer that. I should noted that Olivia 32/1K compares well with both ROS-16 and Olivia 2K modes in terms of poor channel throughput. Olivia 16/500 does a fine job as well. I suspect that ROS would perform well in an 8 baud / 1000Hz mode version. Many thanks to Jose for the new mode. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by Olivia, go to another channel. And if you see that a channel is occuped by ROS and want to transmit with OLIVIA, do the same. What i cannot say is The 20-meters band is only mine. That has always been true Jose. Unfortunately, some people think that they either have 'the right of might' or 'previous occupancy' rights on a frequency. The right of might involves using high power and big antennas and, I think, comes from SSB and CW on the 'DX' bands. (Here I speak as an enthusiast for CW as well as data modes, but not for imposing your own will in either case) Previous occupancy now seems to come from various other modes. As if we were here first was an argument for excluding other people who have the same rights to use the bands that they have. 'They' might say that 'We' are interfering with them, but equally 'We' might say that 'They' are interfering with us. After all, no one owns the bands. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by Olivia, go to another channel. And if you see that a channel is occuped by ROS and want to transmit with OLIVIA, do the same. What i cannot say is The 20-meters band is only mine. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:02 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users Steinar, that is absolutely true, the spectrum belongs to everybody, but the other side of the coin is that we need to police ourselves, and that usually means moving around to better accomodate other users of the spectrum, or by their moving also. This is how we arrive at bandplan divisions of the legal spectrum allocations. I have been monitoring ROS all day, and in this country, Olivia stations cause as much trouble to ROS as ROS causes to Olivia. It all depends upon the relative signal strengths as to which one decodes. I see many ROS QSO's stopped by Olivia 32-1000 traffic on 14106. Since the 1 baud mode is slow and probably going to be most useful on VHF and UHF for weak signal DX or EME where S/N is a much greater problem than it is on HF, it might be better to suggest moving the recommended ROS 16 baud 20m frequency to 14109 to avoid collisions with Olivia, and avoid Olivia interference with ROS, and mainly use the 1 baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal work where it is needed the most. Right now, an automatic Pactor station is also disrupting ROS on 14106. Just my personal opinion... 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Jose I support you completely 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote: Hi, From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 2700Hz. You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all hamradio. OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will emerge over the coming years. About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong. Best regards, Jose Alberto From: m...@pp.inet. fi mailto:masa%40pp.inet.fi To: nieto...@hotmail. com mailto:nietoros%40hotmail.com Subject: ROS Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200 Hi Jose, since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz. Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50... . for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 where other modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz wide. Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions. We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz. For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you cannot hear signals in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm 3 Olivia channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width. I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - which is up to now only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own experiences I know that Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some s-stages, will copy errorfree. In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same strength as ROS made ROS transmissions unreadable. You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good idea as above 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb stations, nothing else. To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO frequencies below 14.110 MHz for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS and Olivia users. I hope you will understand our problems, Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
[digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS
From Jose's web site http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/fcc-ros-legal-in-usa/ FCC: ROS LEGAL IN USA By José Alberto Nieto Ros It ended the controversy about whether ROS is legal in USA or not. For which they insisted on it was illegal: “A mamarla” The case you submitted via the FCC has been resolved. The resolution details for Case ID HD001311878 are below. If you have any questions contact us at (877) 480-3201 Thank You! Summary* : Request for clarification of ROS Digital Mode Description* : Some days ago, Timothy J. Lilley got in touch with the FCC to clarify the legality of the digital mode that I created. This person gave the FCC without my permission and consent an incorrect and incomplete documentation, which is inconsistent with the characteristics of the digital mode. I attach the technical description of ROS written by its developer and an audio file for you to judge the legality of ROS in USA. If it is no longer possible, I take legal action against Timothy J. Lilley. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Telecommunication Engineer Solution Details : Dear Mr. Nieto, As I reported Timothy J. Lilley, the licensee of the station transmitting the emission is responsible for determining that the operation of the station complies with the rules. According to the technical paper and the audio file attached, we conclude that ROS can not be viewed as Spread Spectrum and it would be encompassed within the section 97.309 (RTTY and data emissions codes). FCC Committee will remain outside of any legal action you decide to take. Should you have any further questions, or need additional information, please contact the ULS Customer Support Hotline at (877) 480-3201 (877) 480-3201, selecting option 2. Sincerely, Agent 3820 Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes 500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
KH6TY wrote: I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space. Exclusive only on 20M, not *all bands*, that would be stupid... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
KH, ROS 1 baud, is just the less interference produces to others modes. Before quit 1 baud, i would quit 16 bauds. So, has no sense what you proposse. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,2 marzo, 2010 00:40 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by Olivia, go to another channel. And if you see that a channel is occuped by ROS and want to transmit with OLIVIA, do the same. What i cannot say is The 20-meters band is only mine. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:02 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users Steinar, that is absolutely true, the spectrum belongs to everybody, but the other side of the coin is that we need to police ourselves, and that usually means moving around to better accomodate other users of the spectrum, or by their moving also. This is how we arrive at bandplan divisions of the legal spectrum allocations. I have been monitoring ROS all day, and in this country, Olivia stations cause as much trouble to ROS as ROS causes to Olivia. It all depends upon the relative signal strengths as to which one decodes. I see many ROS QSO's stopped by Olivia 32-1000 traffic on 14106. Since the 1 baud mode is slow and probably going to be most useful on VHF and UHF for weak signal DX or EME where S/N is a much greater problem than it is on HF, it might be better to suggest moving the recommended ROS 16 baud 20m frequency to 14109 to avoid collisions with Olivia, and avoid Olivia interference with ROS, and mainly use the 1 baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal work where it is needed the most. Right now, an automatic Pactor station is also disrupting ROS on 14106. Just my personal opinion... 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Jose I support you completely 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote: Hi, From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 2700Hz. You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all hamradio. OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will emerge over the coming years. About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong. Best regards, Jose Alberto From: m...@pp.inet. fi To: nieto...@hotmail. com Subject: ROS Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200 Hi Jose, since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz. Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50... . for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 where other modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz wide. Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions. We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz. For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you cannot hear signals in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm 3 Olivia channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width. I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - which is up to now only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own experiences I know that Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some s-stages, will copy errorfree. In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same strength as ROS made ROS transmissions unreadable. You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good idea as above 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb stations, nothing else. To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO frequencies below 14.110 MHz for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS and Olivia users. I hope you will understand our problems, Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
Sorry Dave, I don't follow you as to what would be stupid. The point is that any suggested frequency exclusive to 1 baud suggests to 16 baud users to stay off. However, there are many more 16 baud users than 1 baud if you monitor both frequencies, and QSO's move much faster, allowing for more users to use the space. Suggesting 1 baud primarily for VHF/UHF, where it is more effective, would provide more suggested space for 16 baud users on HF and relieve congestion. 20m is only one example, of course, and the same principle could be applied to other bands. Perhaps I misunderstood you. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Ackrill wrote: KH6TY wrote: I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space. Exclusive only on 20M, not *all bands*, that would be stupid... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
At 05:40 PM 3/1/2010, you wrote: The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, It has?
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
I dont create ROS 1 baud only for EME operation. ROS 1 baud is also for QRP enthusiasts in HF. I think these people have the same right to experiment with weak signals in HF, and we should select some channel for this propose. But obviusly, should have more channels to 16 bauds than 1 baud. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,2 marzo, 2010 01:42 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users Sorry Dave, I don't follow you as to what would be stupid. The point is that any suggested frequency exclusive to 1 baud suggests to 16 baud users to stay off. However, there are many more 16 baud users than 1 baud if you monitor both frequencies, and QSO's move much faster, allowing for more users to use the space. Suggesting 1 baud primarily for VHF/UHF, where it is more effective, would provide more suggested space for 16 baud users on HF and relieve congestion. 20m is only one example, of course, and the same principle could be applied to other bands. Perhaps I misunderstood you. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Ackrill wrote: KH6TY wrote: I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space. Exclusive only on 20M, not *all bands*, that would be stupid... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
Technically, that is true. However, the problem I see over here is many times ROS decoding is stopped because of interference by other modes (Olivia and Pactor both), and not so many times as ROS interfering to other modes. Yes, that has been complained about also, and I have sometimes also seen ROS 16 stopping Olivia 32-1000 decoding. Perhaps others will offer an opinion. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: KH, ROS 1 baud, is just the less interference produces to others modes. Before quit 1 baud, i would quit 16 bauds. So, has no sense what you proposse.
Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS
Jose has K3TL said anything about his action?
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
From the latest at rosmodem.wordpress.com: * **14.102 (exclusive 16 baud)** * 14.106 (exclusive 16 baud) * 14.109 (exclusive 1 baud) 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 05:40 PM 3/1/2010, you wrote: The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, It has?
Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS
On 03/01/2010 04:06 PM, Andy obrien wrote: Thank goodness sanity has prevailed! Leigh/WA5ZNU From Jose's web site http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/fcc-ros-legal-in-usa/ FCC: ROS LEGAL IN USA By José Alberto Nieto Ros ... According to the technical paper and the audio file attached, we conclude that ROS can not be viewed as Spread Spectrum and it would be encompassed within the section 97.309 (RTTY and data emissions codes). Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes 500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] OFF-Topic - News Feeds to Send via Digital Modes
Good evening, This message is off-topic, but I hope someone can provide me some help and information. Desire: To receive updated news (in an ASCII text format), that I can then save to a text file and then send using different digital modes. This will be done over the internet, if possible and not on the ham bands, of course. Background: CWCom, has a channel that sends news items (the item and a couple of lines) in CW. W7TTY has an internet stream of news (that users upload to a queue) that he sends as an RTTY stream. I would like to have a source for news that could then be used as a feeder to the different digital modes. I do not know anything about RSS feeds other than plugging and chugging at the Yahoo RSS web screens on this topic. Can this information be received in some format that can easily be retrieved and saved as an ASCII file that strips out HTML or similar kinds of characters? If so, how? Anyway, if anyone can provide me a way forward, I would be most appreciative. Regards, George, NJ3H
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS discussion - will it ever end
Gee-whillikers! Why don't you folks just filter on the keyword in the subject and direct all hits to another folder? Most of the posts today have been on the subject of ROS discussion - will it , which certainly has absolutely nothing to do with digital communications. 73, LEE, AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS
I had no doubt that it would once the document that the FCC requires was published. Since European hams don't normally read FCC regulations, it might be useful for the IARU or RSGB to publish an article about U.S. regulations so this doesn't happen again. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Leigh L. Klotz, Jr WA5ZNU le...@wa5znu.org To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 02:53 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS On 03/01/2010 04:06 PM, Andy obrien wrote: Thank goodness sanity has prevailed! Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes 500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans-reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
I hope no one is deleting this thread. It's something to chew on slowly. Thanks, Guys. Interesting reads, both. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans-reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon Just to make myself clear, I am not suggesting that we actually use the standard ALE digital mode for calling CQ. I'd be fine with it, but it is quite wide and would start a debate all over again. I'm also not suggesting we use ALE-style soundings that are unattended. What I like about the general concept of ALE is a standard calling mode and then use of received data to establish what mode can be used to maintain the current QSO (or link ) . The recent ROS debate quickly educated me about band plans and preferences, it is clear to me that the variance in suggested bandplans between IARU regions is such that the world is really spit in to wide and narrow band segments. The world is also split in to favourite modes where people try to find a niche within a band for these modes. The result is competing debates about which mode should park where. PSK , PACTOR, RTTY, and PACKET are the dominant modes with JT65A and WSPR as the next most used modes. That leaves Olivia, Throb, MFSK16, ROS, PAX, Domino, Contestia, WINMOR, Standard ALE, Hell, ALE400 and PSK variants, as the remainder. . While I would love to change the habits of PSKers and RTTY folks, I doubt I could do it. I think there is enough room to accommodate PSK, RTTY. PACTOR , JT65A/WSPR, and PACKET and then have a good segment of each band for the rest. The plan would be that the rest all agree to use one mode for a CQ/ Andy K3UK On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM, ed_hekman ehek...@cox.net wrote: Howard, With PSK all the activity is concentrated in a small segment of the band that we can monitor on the waterfall. If someone calls CQ outside that segment there is a very low probability that someone else will happen to be tuning there, hear the CQ and respond. I think the concept that Andy was suggesting is that we have one common mode and frequency for calling CQ. After a response to the CQ is received the two parties select a different mode and frequency for carrying on the QSO. This is the idea of ALE. It is intended for establishing a link. I tried ALE a couple years ago but it didn't fit my operating style. Being able to monitor two different frequencies (dual watch) or a wide bandwidth - 48KHz or 96KHz (as in SDR receivers) - would facilitate this type of operation. If we had a common CQ mode, such as ALE, we could decode a CQ anywhere in that bandwidth. Or we could also agree on a common CQ frequency so the software would not have to scan the entire spectrum for CQ calls. Ed WB6YTE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W6IDS w6...@... wrote: Hello Ed! How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN Em79NV - Original Message - From: ed_hekman ehek...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon Andy, Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO. In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is the best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for situations where PSK31 is marginal copy. I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple access features for frequency sharing. I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. A dual receiver would make that much easier. Ed WB6YTE
