Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth. Radio does not stop at borders, of course, so what makes it work for the US helps make it work for Canada. Imagine what it would be like if there were no US regulations on unattended operations. Those automatic messaging systems would be covering the phone bands as well as everywhere else. They don't currently, only because they are not allowed to, but they would expand to cover the phone bands if there were regulation only by bandwidth so they could escape QRM by others like themselves. The bandwidth of Pactor-III is roughly the same as a phone signal, and unattended stations cannot QSY even if requested to do so. Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few. This is another US regulation that is helping to limit the number of stations using a very wide bandwidth (i.e. to 222 MHz and above) when a more narrow bandwidth mode like Olivia or PSK31 can do the same, or almost the same, job in one fifth the space or less. If there were unlimited room on HF, regulation by bandwidth would work, as it already basically does at VHF frequencies and up, even under US regulations. Your question is a valid one, but the subject was hotly debated several years ago, resulting in no change to the status quo, because, although imperfect, it seems to work for the huge majority of amateurs all trying to use a very limited amount of spectrum on HF. Regulation by bandwidth would work if everyone were fair, but everyone is not fair, so there must be regulation by mode to protect the small or weak from the big and powerful, and to protect phone operators from QRM from wideband digital operations. Phone is wide and digital is usually more narrow, so regulation by bandwidth keeps phone out of the data segments, but would not keep wide data out of the phone segments. Once you make exceptions to regulation by bandwidth to exclude certain modes in a space, you no longer have regulation by bandwidth, but a combination of regulation by bandwidth and regulation by mode, which is what we have now in the US. 73 - Skip KH6TY Paul wrote: We are regulated in Canada by bandwidth and it works just fine here. I have read some of the comments about why it won't work but honestly... I haven't encountered any of those situations here. Maybe if the USA went to that system it would cause headaches and the situations described but if other countries can self police and have harmony I don't know why the US should be any different. We have a voluntary band plan and a regulated set of bandwidths and it works nicely. Anyway that's my 2 cents worth but HF communications would be simply marvelous if everyone was on the same page in terms of digital communications. Paul VE9NC BTW Please don't throw rocks at me... I am having a bad day.
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
Could I ask you to explain this in terms a ham would understand? --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, iv3nwv nico...@... wrote: In a message oriented and power limited fading communication system what counts is the relationship between the channel coherence time (the time interval over which the channel response can be considered almost constant) and the message duration. By channel coherence time do you mean time when the signal is readable? If the message duration is not much longer than the channel coherence time there's no other possibility than to exploit frequency diversity. I can see how this would work using widely separated frequencies. However we have all observed that when a signal goes down in QSB, it does down right across the passband. So do you actually gain anything by spreading the transmission by only 2.2kHz, other than the ability to annoy people who consider it a selfish waste of bandwidth? Julian, G4ILO
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few.
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Your figures for digital modes seem to assume we can use all the band from the bottom. In fact, digital starts at typically x.070 so there is really only room for half the number of digital stations. Also, if you can really go up to x.150 why has ROS jumped on top of Olivia when there is another 40kHz to play with? When you look at the bandplans digimodes only have about 40kHz per band which makes us very much the poor relation. I don't think digital voice will ever replace SSB, any more than PSK31 and other spectrally more efficient modes will replace RTTY. Radios have a long lifetime. But unlike digital modes whose bandwidth is fixed, phone can communicate using reduced bandwidth. Look what happens in a contest. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Your are right, Julian. The current regulations mostly protect phone users from interference by other modes and digital users are left to figure out how to share what space is left. The division is approximately 50-50 between phone and digital what the FCC calls 'data/RTTY'. This is a holdover from the days when the only digital mode was CW and the only data mode was RTTY. Phone is the easiest to use human/rig interface, and the easiest to learn, so it is the preferred interface for most. Using 20m as an example, 150 kHz is allocated to RTTY/data (digital) and 200 kHz to phone. Assuming a 2.2kHz wide phone mode, there is room for approximately 90 phone stations. Assuming an average of 0.5 kHz wide digital modes, there is room for 300 digital stations. If everybody used a 2.2 kHz wide digital mode, there would only be room for 68 digital stations. CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. The phone operators could complain that THEY are the second-class citizens and have not been allocated enough space in proportion to their numbers! What is really needed is digital voice in a more narrow bandwidth, instead of CD quality digital voice with a bandwidth of 2200 Hz, because there simply is not enough space for everyone to use wide modes of any kind. That is already possible today by combining speech-to-text with text-to-speech, but the voice is not your own, but synthesized voice. Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking 10 is now good enough speech-to-text with about a 1% error rate with enough training, and my DigiTalk program for the blind ham will speak the incoming PSK31 text as fast as it comes in, so that is essentially phone in a 50 Hz bandwidth, but without your own voice, and unnaturally slow speaking. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh6ty@ wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
Nico, I agree 100%. What's needed more than anything is the ability to determine whether a frequency is in use, then we can hop around as much as we want as the MUF changes. As for the FCC - let's just be happy that they only legislate for the US possessions (colonies) :) Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com By the way, we amateur radios already experiment daily frequency hopping spread spectrum communications. We continuously hop from the 160 m band to the 10 m band accordingly to the HF propagation conditions and, sincerely, I do not understand why FCC is so permissive with us (or better, with US amateurs).
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Your are right, Julian. The current regulations mostly protect phone users from interference by other modes and digital users are left to figure out how to share what space is left. The division is approximately 50-50 between phone and digital what the FCC calls 'data/RTTY'. This is a holdover from the days when the only digital mode was CW and the only data mode was RTTY. Phone is the easiest to use human/rig interface, and the easiest to learn, so it is the preferred interface for most. Using 20m as an example, 150 kHz is allocated to RTTY/data (digital) and 200 kHz to phone. Assuming a 2.2kHz wide phone mode, there is room for approximately 90 phone stations. Assuming an average of 0.5 kHz wide digital modes, there is room for 300 digital stations. If everybody used a 2.2 kHz wide digital mode, there would only be room for 68 digital stations. CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. The phone operators could complain that THEY are the second-class citizens and have not been allocated enough space in proportion to their numbers! What is really needed is digital voice in a more narrow bandwidth, instead of CD quality digital voice with a bandwidth of 2200 Hz, because there simply is not enough space for everyone to use wide modes of any kind. That is already possible today by combining speech-to-text with text-to-speech, but the voice is not your own, but synthesized voice. Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking 10 is now good enough speech-to-text with about a 1% error rate with enough training, and my DigiTalk program for the blind ham will speak the incoming PSK31 text as fast as it comes in, so that is essentially phone in a 50 Hz bandwidth, but without your own voice, and unnaturally slow speaking. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Julian, Digital is what the FCC calls CW-RTTY/data. CW is digital so it is included and that is why the digital segment starts at 14.000. The ROS author is not a ham. I don't know who is guiding him, but legally as far as the US is concerned, he could go higher still and avoid Olivia, but I am not sure what else he will run into. Legally, there is another 40 kHz. Good point about radios having a long lifetime. When I introduced DigiPan and developed the PSK20 QRP transceiver in 2000, I naively designed the IF bandwidth for 4000 Hz, without realizing that almost every transceiver in the field only has a 2500 Hz If bandwidth. Some can be fitted with filters to get 3300 Hz bandwidth, but none could reach 4000 Hz! When we came out with PSK63, that extra width is very convenient, but still, the average transceiver is not going to see PSK63 signals at the top of the PSK31 activity, because the IF filter cuts them off. Live and learn, I guess... 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: Your figures for digital modes seem to assume we can use all the band from the bottom. In fact, digital starts at typically x.070 so there is really only room for half the number of digital stations. Also, if you can really go up to x.150 why has ROS jumped on top of Olivia when there is another 40kHz to play with? When you look at the bandplans digimodes only have about 40kHz per band which makes us very much the poor relation. I don't think digital voice will ever replace SSB, any more than PSK31 and other spectrally more efficient modes will replace RTTY. Radios have a long lifetime. But unlike digital modes whose bandwidth is fixed, phone can communicate using reduced bandwidth. Look what happens in a contest. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Your are right, Julian. The current regulations mostly protect phone users from interference by other modes and digital users are left to figure out how to share what space is left. The division is approximately 50-50 between phone and digital what the FCC calls 'data/RTTY'. This is a holdover from the days when the only digital mode was CW and the only data mode was RTTY. Phone is the easiest to use human/rig interface, and the easiest to learn, so it is the preferred interface for most. Using 20m as an example, 150 kHz is allocated to RTTY/data (digital) and 200 kHz to phone. Assuming a 2.2kHz wide phone mode, there is room for approximately 90 phone stations. Assuming an average of 0.5 kHz wide digital modes, there is room for 300 digital stations. If everybody used a 2.2 kHz wide digital mode, there would only be room for 68 digital stations. CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. The phone operators could complain that THEY are the second-class citizens and have not been allocated enough space in proportion to their numbers! What is really needed is digital voice in a more narrow bandwidth, instead of CD quality digital voice with a bandwidth of 2200 Hz, because there simply is not enough space for everyone to use wide modes of any kind. That is already possible today by combining speech-to-text with text-to-speech, but the voice is not your own, but synthesized voice. Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking 10 is now good enough speech-to-text with about a 1% error rate with enough training, and my DigiTalk program for the blind ham will speak the incoming PSK31 text as fast as it comes in, so that is essentially phone in a 50 Hz bandwidth, but without your own voice, and unnaturally slow speaking. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh6ty@ wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. Has the ARRL or any other group conducted an scientific unbiased study of the digital modes on the US ham bands in use? I am not talking about a person who has preference for a particular mode and has an agenda. I have noticed that PSK31 is so common that there are times that is all I see on the air, but I have not conducted a scientific study. It would be nice to see a real current study on how we are using our bands. Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real (true) information available. Astrophysicist Gregory Benford 1980 --- On Tue, 3/9/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 6:20 AM Your are right, Julian. The current regulations mostly protect phone users from interference by other modes and digital users are left to figure out how to share what space is left. The division is approximately 50-50 between phone and digital what the FCC calls 'data/RTTY' . This is a holdover from the days when the only digital mode was CW and the only data mode was RTTY. Phone is the easiest to use human/rig interface, and the easiest to learn, so it is the preferred interface for most. Using 20m as an example, 150 kHz is allocated to RTTY/data (digital) and 200 kHz to phone. Assuming a 2.2kHz wide phone mode, there is room for approximately 90 phone stations. Assuming an average of 0.5 kHz wide digital modes, there is room for 300 digital stations. If everybody used a 2.2 kHz wide digital mode, there would only be room for 68 digital stations. CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. The phone operators could complain that THEY are the second-class citizens and have not been allocated enough space in proportion to their numbers! What is really needed is digital voice in a more narrow bandwidth, instead of CD quality digital voice with a bandwidth of 2200 Hz, because there simply is not enough space for everyone to use wide modes of any kind. That is already possible today by combining speech-to-text with text-to-speech, but the voice is not your own, but synthesized voice. Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking 10 is now good enough speech-to-text with about a 1% error rate with enough training, and my DigiTalk program for the blind ham will speak the incoming PSK31 text as fast as it comes in, so that is essentially phone in a 50 Hz bandwidth, but without your own voice, and unnaturally slow speaking. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few.
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
Hi Julian, By channel coherence time do you mean time when the signal is readable? The channel choerence time is a property of a (fading) channel which gives an idea of the time interval over with the channel response is approximately *constant*. If you drive your car at 100 km/h and tune your car radio to a far and weak station in the 88/108 MHz FM broadcasting band you have probably noted that the station fades out quite fastly, say with an average rate of 10 Hz, you therefore might expect that the channel response is approximately constant for no more than a small fraction of 1/10Hz = 100 ms. This occurs because the signal you are receiving is the sum of (usually many) different scattered components, each of them coming from a random direction which is not necessary the direction you are driving through. Some of this components could come exactely from the direction you are driving through and are affected by a positive Doppler shift. Some other components could come from the direction you are coming from and they are affected by a negative Doppler shift. Other components could come from directions which form a right angle with yours and the would exhibit no doppler effect. The sum of all of these components can be treated by a stochastic ideal model which is called the (flat) Rayleigh channel model. This (ideal) channel model is essentially characterized by two parameters: 1) the maximum Doppler frequency shift (which is called the channel Doppler spread) and 2) the average channel attenuation. The Doppler spread (Fd) depends upon a velocity v (the velocity of your car) and the signal carrier frequency Fc through the formula Fd = v/c*Fc (c = light speed). If you do the calculation with v = 27.8 m/s (100 km/h) and Fc = 100 MHz you will find that the Doppler spread is approximately 10 Hz (9.3 Hz, for the sake of precision). Interestingly, the autocorrelation function R(T) (how much two samples of the process are correlated given the time interval T they are separated by) of the flat Raileigh channel model it's quite easy to compute: it's the Bessel function Jo(k*T*Fd) (k is a constant, I don't remember its value, maybe PI or something like that). For T*Fd 1, the autocorrelation function is not different from unity and this tell us that in a time interval T 1/Fd the channel response is strongly correlated. This means that if the channel response assumed a value X at time t, the probability that its amplitude does not differ so much from X at time t+T is large. I can see how this would work using widely separated frequencies. However we have all observed that when a signal goes down in QSB, it does down right across the passband. This is not always true and has to do with another parameter which is called the coherence bandwidth of the channel and which is inversely proportional to the channel time spread. In the HFs it's not unfrequent that the channel time spread is some milliseconds and that the channel coherence bandwith is few hundreds Hertz. Multiple reflections from the F and E ionosphere layers are an example in which this happens. So do you actually gain anything by spreading the transmission by only 2.2kHz, other than the ability to annoy people who consider it a selfish waste of bandwidth? Not always, sure, but you could figure out by yourself the amplitude of public crucifixions if some amateur transmission were designed to be spreaded by 10 kHz or more just because a 2.2 kHz spread is not sufficient to exploit frequency diversity as the ionosphere characteristics would require :-) In any case it is more easy to design a new communication system which copes with a given ionosphere rather than to alter the ionosphere itself. For now we just managed to alter the atmosphere with massive CO2 emissions (and it took one hundred years). For the ionosphere we need more time... 73s Nico, IV3NWV
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
But grin Two points: IARU / ARRL band plan to manage the frequencies, allocating areas for unattended, digital, analog, etc signals. The underlying regulation of good amateur practice as the stick for enforcing the band plan. If you operate unattended in the analog band plan section the OO would get onto you, and so would the FCC eventually. Same for operating analog in the digital section. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ -Original Message- From: KH6TY [mailto:kh...@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 2:20 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth. Radio does not stop at borders, of course, so what makes it work for the US helps make it work for Canada. Imagine what it would be like if there were no US regulations on unattended operations. Those automatic messaging systems would be covering the phone bands as well as everywhere else. They don't currently, only because they are not allowed to, but they would expand to cover the phone bands if there were regulation only by bandwidth so they could escape QRM by others like themselves. The bandwidth of Pactor-III is roughly the same as a phone signal, and unattended stations cannot QSY even if requested to do so. Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few. This is another US regulation that is helping to limit the number of stations using a very wide bandwidth (i.e. to 222 MHz and above) when a more narrow bandwidth mode like Olivia or PSK31 can do the same, or almost the same, job in one fifth the space or less. If there were unlimited room on HF, regulation by bandwidth would work, as it already basically does at VHF frequencies and up, even under US regulations. Your question is a valid one, but the subject was hotly debated several years ago, resulting in no change to the status quo, because, although imperfect, it seems to work for the huge majority of amateurs all trying to use a very limited amount of spectrum on HF. Regulation by bandwidth would work if everyone were fair, but everyone is not fair, so there must be regulation by mode to protect the small or weak from the big and powerful, and to protect phone operators from QRM from wideband digital operations. Phone is wide and digital is usually more narrow, so regulation by bandwidth keeps phone out of the data segments, but would not keep wide data out of the phone segments. Once you make exceptions to regulation by bandwidth to exclude certain modes in a space, you no longer have regulation by bandwidth, but a combination of regulation by bandwidth and regulation by mode, which is what we have now in the US. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as PSK31), which is considered too slow for RTTY contesting, but I don't understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little interest and few comments. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I don't think digital voice will ever replace SSB, any more than PSK31 and other spectrally more efficient modes will replace RTTY. Radios have a long lifetime. But unlike digital modes whose bandwidth is fixed, phone can communicate using reduced bandwidth. Look what happens in a contest. Julian, G4ILO
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Julian, Digital is what the FCC calls CW-RTTY/data. CW is digital so it is included and that is why the digital segment starts at 14.000. The ROS author is not a ham. I don't know who is guiding him, but legally as far as the US is concerned, he could go higher still and avoid Olivia, but I am not sure what else he will run into. Legally, there is another 40 kHz. I understand. Over here we don't call CW digital, and some Morse diehards would probably get very upset if we did. :) Good point about radios having a long lifetime. When I introduced DigiPan and developed the PSK20 QRP transceiver in 2000, I naively designed the IF bandwidth for 4000 Hz, without realizing that almost every transceiver in the field only has a 2500 Hz If bandwidth. Some can be fitted with filters to get 3300 Hz bandwidth, but none could reach 4000 Hz! When we came out with PSK63, that extra width is very convenient, but still, the average transceiver is not going to see PSK63 signals at the top of the PSK31 activity, because the IF filter cuts them off. Live and learn, I guess... I would call it a happy accident, for when the PSK activity gets busy enough to need to spread out more. Transceivers with 2.5kHz filters have VFOs so they can still catch that activity just by moving the dial above 14.070. I often operate up there, to get away from the crowd a bit. Julian, G4ILO
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY. Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the reason why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist on actually FSK-ing their radios instead of using AFSK, even though it means they have to accurately tune in every signal instead of just clicking on a waterfall, which would surely be quicker. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as PSK31), which is considered too slow for RTTY contesting, but I don't understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little interest and few comments. 73 - Skip KH6TY
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
EPC runs a PSK63 contest, and the mode works quite well. Panoramic reception and broadband decoding are a potent combination. It's the only contest I've ever entered, and I took first place in NA, hi. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:40 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as PSK31), which is considered too slow for RTTY contesting, but I don't understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little interest and few comments. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I don't think digital voice will ever replace SSB, any more than PSK31 and other spectrally more efficient modes will replace RTTY. Radios have a long lifetime. But unlike digital modes whose bandwidth is fixed, phone can communicate using reduced bandwidth. Look what happens in a contest. Julian, G4ILO
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
The advantage of using FSK is that one can take advantage of the excellent RTTY filters built into some transceivers. These filters are generally not available when operating in USB/LSB. This is particularly important to contesters operating in a crowded environment and DXers dealing with weak signals. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of g4ilo Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:54 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY. Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the reason why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist on actually FSK-ing their radios instead of using AFSK, even though it means they have to accurately tune in every signal instead of just clicking on a waterfall, which would surely be quicker. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , KH6TY kh...@... wrote: The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as PSK31), which is considered too slow for RTTY contesting, but I don't understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little interest and few comments. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Julian, Using FSK instead of AFSK means you can run a big amp Class-C and get more power output. Also, you do not have to worry about preserving linearity on a Class-AB or Class-B amplifier if running FSK,or figure out how to interface the computer to the rig for AFSK. Many of the big guns on RTTY have a huge investment in amplifiers and towers in order to win contests (RTTY is almost used exclusively for contesting these days), and I suspect they want to continue to take the competitive advantage of the sizable investment. Going to PSK63 will also level the playing field a lot and let the 100w station perform almost as well as the kilowatt station, and that would be to the competitive advantage to the 100w stations (or 50 watt stations, or even QRP stations). I wrote a demo PSK63 program module complete with panoramic display, for WriteLog, and Don, AA5AU (one of the top RTTY contesters and originator of SO2R), tried it and said he was just blown away by the potential for contesting. However, Wayne, the author of WriteLog ,which many top RTTY contesters use, said he would wait until PSK63 was adopted by contesters before he would incorporate it into WriteLog, and, as you know, PSK63 became popular in Europe, but not over here, so it never made it into WriteLog. An unfortunate chicken and egg situation! It is probably all of these things that keeps PSK63 from replacing RTTY for contesting, as well as there being no need for an interface since most transceivers have FSK built in these days. That is my best guess anyway. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY. Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the reason why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist on actually FSK-ing their radios instead of using AFSK, even though it means they have to accurately tune in every signal instead of just clicking on a waterfall, which would surely be quicker. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I assumed that people kept using FSK because paths to Europe can have 20-30 Hz of Doppler spread. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 19:08 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 It is probably all of these things that keeps PSK63 from replacing RTTY for contesting, as well as there being no need for an interface since most transceivers have FSK built in these days. That is my best guess anyway. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
El 09/03/2010 02:08 p.m., KH6TY escribió: Using FSK instead of AFSK means you can run a big amp Class-C and get more power output. Also, you do not have to worry about preserving linearity on a Class-AB or Class-B amplifier if running FSK,or figure out how to interface the computer to the rig for AFSK. You can also run a saturated amplifiers chain with AFSK, if the envelope does not vary. FSK, OQPSK, whatever has a flat envelope. And not only class C, but also class D, E, F... 73, Jose, CO2JA
Re: [digitalradio] The cost of digital mode interfaces
I've had nothing but good luck with the Rascal. Used it for about 7 years. The newer ones now support PTT over a USB cable. Some of the connectors, particularly radio connectors, can be difficult to solder up, so the radio cable for your radio included with the Rascal is very nice. Support has been excellent, in my case. I do suspect that negative emails to Buck result in negative emails back. I've been careful to research my question first, send a succinct email, and I've gotten quick and polite responses back from Buck. For those who choose not to homebrew their own soundcare interface, I would definitely recommend the Rascal. The current price of the Rascal that supports either serial or USB PTT is about US $80. http://www.buxcomm.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=indexcPath=2 Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: David Struebel To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 7:21 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The cost of digital mode interfaces A lot of hams have had problems with the RASCAL and the poor support and commications from the vendor of this product...See Eham reviews. http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/1384 I use and reccomend the Donner interface here with no issues and they are only $40... they come with all the connections for your specific radio and I think it also provides isolation on both the receive and transmit audio lines. http://home.att.net/~n8st/DDI-index.html Review http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/2073 73 Dave WB2FTX -- Original Message - From: Ralph Mowery To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The cost of digital mode interfaces The basic sound card interface has never been very high. Look for one called Rascal. Here is one link to where to get them. http://www.packetradio.com/ I don't recall the price from years ago, but it was under $ 50 then. The kit was even less. Almost just the cost of the parts if bought in single lots. - Original Message From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, March 6, 2010 8:34:05 AM Subject: [digitalradio] The cost of digital mode interfaces I was helping a ham get set-up for digital modes recently and turned to the issue of interfaces for digital modes. I researched the price for a Rigblaster Pro and was shocked that they sell for $299. My friend settled for another interface that cost $69, new. I was wondering about interfaces and wondering about whether the era of high priced interfaces might be coming to an end. I'm not talking about the ones that have extra features like electronic CW keying, high end soundcards , etc etc. I'm thinking that a device that has connectors, isolation circuits, pots, and a good solid enclosure, should be in the under $100 range. I know you can build your own for $20 or so, It is nice to see that many low price options exist nowadays. Andy K3UK No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2726 - Release Date: 03/06/10 02:39:00
[digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Hello All, Suppose I would build an transmitter with a x-tal oscillator, lets say running at 7040.000 Hz Part of the system was a balanced modulator and just to make sure a a high quality crystal filter, with a 1:1.05 shape factor, was added in the driver stages for the final amplifier. With a lot of tweaking a carrier suppression of the balanced modulator was reached of 67.3 dB and the balanced modulator was kept temperature stabilized within .1 degree Fahrenheit. On the modulation section, I constructed a tone generator which could be changed in steps of 7.3 Hz starting from 1354 Hz to all the way up to 1646 Hz. I went out and got the xtal filter ordered for a lot of money. Center frequency of xtal filter ordered and delivered for 7041.500 Hz filter at - 80 dB BW 500 Hz. My question is what would the modulation be of this transmitter? The amount of audio was set in such a way that the output of the transmitter had no distortion what so ever totally linear! 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: José A. Amador ama...@electrica.cujae.edu.cu Sent: Mar 9, 2010 11:57 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 El 09/03/2010 02:08 p.m., KH6TY escribió: Using FSK instead of AFSK means you can run a big amp Class-C and get more power output. Also, you do not have to worry about preserving linearity on a Class-AB or Class-B amplifier if running FSK,or figure out how to interface the computer to the rig for AFSK. You can also run a saturated amplifiers chain with AFSK, if the envelope does not vary. FSK, OQPSK, whatever has a flat envelope. And not only class C, but also class D, E, F... 73, Jose, CO2JA
[digitalradio] Fwd: Dragon Link
Jose If you think this is fun then you have a very huge problem. LA5VNA S On 09.03.2010 14:52, jose alberto nieto ros wrote: The question would be: can Dragon Link work for EME operation? If the answer is YES, then Dan Henderson will tell you Dragon Link is illegal. If the answer is NO, then Dan Henderson will tell you Dragon Link is legal. De: Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietr...@yahoo.com Para: rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,9 marzo, 2010 14:44 Asunto: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Dragon Link In recent weeks there has been a lot of talk about the legality of ROS in the United States. This morning I received this from a friend. My question is this: Is Dragon Link legal? http://www.terranov a.net/~winger/ RCVideoStore/ DragonLink/ DragonLink. htm
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
El 09/03/2010 03:55 p.m., rein...@ix.netcom.com escribió: Hello All, Suppose I would build an transmitter with a x-tal oscillator, lets say running at 7040.000 Hz Part of the system was a balanced modulator and just to make sure a a high quality crystal filter, with a 1:1.05 shape factor, was added in the driver stages for the final amplifier. With a lot of tweaking a carrier suppression of the balanced modulator was reached of 67.3 dB and the balanced modulator was kept temperature stabilized within .1 degree Fahrenheit. On the modulation section, I constructed a tone generator which could be changed in steps of 7.3 Hz starting from 1354 Hz to all the way up to 1646 Hz. I went out and got the xtal filter ordered for a lot of money. Center frequency of xtal filter ordered and delivered for 7041.500 Hz filter at - 80 dB BW 500 Hz. My question is what would the modulation be of this transmitter? The amount of audio was set in such a way that the output of the transmitter had no distortion what so ever totally linear! 73 Rein W6SZ All that trouble for MFSK ? :-) 73, Jose, CO2JA
[digitalradio] Re : 1976 FCC
Warren K5WGM. You wrote that English is not your strongest point. Well it seems to me you did it pretty good, you expressed yourself magnificently ! Kind regards, Mel G0GQK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Jose, Oversight, we are certainly not allowed to transmit Music! 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: José A. Amador ama...@electrica.cujae.edu.cu Sent: Mar 9, 2010 1:26 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: rein...@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts El 09/03/2010 03:55 p.m., rein...@ix.netcom.com escribió: Hello All, Suppose I would build an transmitter with a x-tal oscillator, lets say running at 7040.000 Hz Part of the system was a balanced modulator and just to make sure a a high quality crystal filter, with a 1:1.05 shape factor, was added in the driver stages for the final amplifier. With a lot of tweaking a carrier suppression of the balanced modulator was reached of 67.3 dB and the balanced modulator was kept temperature stabilized within .1 degree Fahrenheit. On the modulation section, I constructed a tone generator which could be changed in steps of 7.3 Hz starting from 1354 Hz to all the way up to 1646 Hz. I went out and got the xtal filter ordered for a lot of money. Center frequency of xtal filter ordered and delivered for 7041.500 Hz filter at - 80 dB BW 500 Hz. My question is what would the modulation be of this transmitter? The amount of audio was set in such a way that the output of the transmitter had no distortion what so ever totally linear! 73 Rein W6SZ All that trouble for MFSK ? :-) 73, Jose, CO2JA 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
Re: [digitalradio] Fwd: Dragon Link
Sorry, posted in wrong group la5vna Steinar On 09.03.2010 19:13, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Jose If you think this is fun then you have a very huge problem. LA5VNA S On 09.03.2010 14:52, jose alberto nieto ros wrote: The question would be: can Dragon Link work for EME operation? If the answer is YES, then Dan Henderson will tell you Dragon Link is illegal. If the answer is NO, then Dan Henderson will tell you Dragon Link is legal. De: Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietr...@yahoo.com Para: rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,9 marzo, 2010 14:44 Asunto: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Dragon Link In recent weeks there has been a lot of talk about the legality of ROS in the United States. This morning I received this from a friend. My question is this: Is Dragon Link legal? http://www.terranov a.net/~winger/ RCVideoStore/ DragonLink/ DragonLink. htm
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
One exception to that would be if it is part of a NASA rebroadcast IE: Wake-Up or Morning music on the Shuttle David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:15 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts Jose, Oversight, we are certainly not allowed to transmit Music! 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: José A. Amador ama...@electrica. mailto:amador%40electrica.cujae.edu.cu cujae.edu.cu Sent: Mar 9, 2010 1:26 PM To: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Cc: rein...@ix.netcom. mailto:rein0zn%40ix.netcom.com com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts El 09/03/2010 03:55 p.m., rein...@ix.netcom. mailto:rein0zn%40ix.netcom.com com escribió: Hello All, Suppose I would build an transmitter with a x-tal oscillator, lets say running at 7040.000 Hz Part of the system was a balanced modulator and just to make sure a a high quality crystal filter, with a 1:1.05 shape factor, was added in the driver stages for the final amplifier. With a lot of tweaking a carrier suppression of the balanced modulator was reached of 67.3 dB and the balanced modulator was kept temperature stabilized within .1 degree Fahrenheit. On the modulation section, I constructed a tone generator which could be changed in steps of 7.3 Hz starting from 1354 Hz to all the way up to 1646 Hz. I went out and got the xtal filter ordered for a lot of money. Center frequency of xtal filter ordered and delivered for 7041.500 Hz filter at - 80 dB BW 500 Hz. My question is what would the modulation be of this transmitter? The amount of audio was set in such a way that the output of the transmitter had no distortion what so ever totally linear! 73 Rein W6SZ All that trouble for MFSK ? :-) 73, Jose, CO2JA Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensw http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html eb.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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Hello Jose, Multiple Frequency Shift Keying, OK, but you really did not answer my question, I think. Suppose I replaced the modulation device with a filtered piano ( no harmonics ) a microphone. I am serious, trying to find out the question we can't address here any longer. I used a x-tal oscillator. Limited my BW to some 300 Hz 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: José A. Amador ama...@electrica.cujae.edu.cu Sent: Mar 9, 2010 1:26 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: rein...@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts El 09/03/2010 03:55 p.m., rein...@ix.netcom.com escribió: Hello All, Suppose I would build an transmitter with a x-tal oscillator, lets say running at 7040.000 Hz Part of the system was a balanced modulator and just to make sure a a high quality crystal filter, with a 1:1.05 shape factor, was added in the driver stages for the final amplifier. With a lot of tweaking a carrier suppression of the balanced modulator was reached of 67.3 dB and the balanced modulator was kept temperature stabilized within .1 degree Fahrenheit. On the modulation section, I constructed a tone generator which could be changed in steps of 7.3 Hz starting from 1354 Hz to all the way up to 1646 Hz. I went out and got the xtal filter ordered for a lot of money. Center frequency of xtal filter ordered and delivered for 7041.500 Hz filter at - 80 dB BW 500 Hz. My question is what would the modulation be of this transmitter? The amount of audio was set in such a way that the output of the transmitter had no distortion what so ever totally linear! 73 Rein W6SZ All that trouble for MFSK ? :-) 73, Jose, CO2JA 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
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
David, Agreed, the exception to the rule! 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: David Little dalit...@bellsouth.net Sent: Mar 9, 2010 2:21 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts One exception to that would be if it is part of a NASA rebroadcast IE: Wake-Up or Morning music on the Shuttle David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:15 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts Jose, Oversight, we are certainly not allowed to transmit Music! 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: José A. Amador ama...@electrica. mailto:amador%40electrica.cujae.edu.cu cujae.edu.cu Sent: Mar 9, 2010 1:26 PM To: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Cc: rein...@ix.netcom. mailto:rein0zn%40ix.netcom.com com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts El 09/03/2010 03:55 p.m., rein...@ix.netcom. mailto:rein0zn%40ix.netcom.com com escribió: Hello All, Suppose I would build an transmitter with a x-tal oscillator, lets say running at 7040.000 Hz Part of the system was a balanced modulator and just to make sure a a high quality crystal filter, with a 1:1.05 shape factor, was added in the driver stages for the final amplifier. With a lot of tweaking a carrier suppression of the balanced modulator was reached of 67.3 dB and the balanced modulator was kept temperature stabilized within .1 degree Fahrenheit. On the modulation section, I constructed a tone generator which could be changed in steps of 7.3 Hz starting from 1354 Hz to all the way up to 1646 Hz. I went out and got the xtal filter ordered for a lot of money. Center frequency of xtal filter ordered and delivered for 7041.500 Hz filter at - 80 dB BW 500 Hz. My question is what would the modulation be of this transmitter? The amount of audio was set in such a way that the output of the transmitter had no distortion what so ever totally linear! 73 Rein W6SZ All that trouble for MFSK ? :-) 73, Jose, CO2JA Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensw http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html eb.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
Re: [digitalradio] Re : 1976 FCC
Thanks, I am trying --- On Tue, 3/9/10, raf3151019 gzero...@btinternet.com wrote: From: raf3151019 gzero...@btinternet.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re : 1976 FCC To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 4:06 PM Warren K5WGM. You wrote that English is not your strongest point. Well it seems to me you did it pretty good, you expressed yourself magnificently ! Kind regards, Mel G0GQK
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I've heard this argument many times, Dave, but whilst it was probably true 10 or more years ago, surely all decent modern transceivers have a dedicated data mode that allows the use of narrow filters? Heck, even the humble FT-817 has one. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa...@... wrote: The advantage of using FSK is that one can take advantage of the excellent RTTY filters built into some transceivers. These filters are generally not available when operating in USB/LSB. This is particularly important to contesters operating in a crowded environment and DXers dealing with weak signals.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 2:08:20 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Julian, Using FSK instead of AFSK means you can run a big amp Class-C and get more power output. Also, you do not have to worry about preserving linearity on a Class-AB or Class-B amplifier if running FSK,or figure out how to interface the computer to the rig for AFSK. You do not seem to understand how the so called AFSK works for RTTY. Using any clean transmitter and pure sine wave tones the signal comming out of it will be the same if true FSK or AFSK is used. The amp can be the same class in either case.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
- Original Message From: rein...@ix.netcom.com rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 5:11:30 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts Hello Jose, Multiple Frequency Shift Keying, OK, but you really did not answer my question, I think. Suppose I replaced the modulation device with a filtered piano ( no harmonics ) a microphone. I am serious, trying to find out the question we can't address here any longer. I used a x-tal oscillator. Limited my BW to some 300 Hz 73 Rein W6SZ - If you are doing what I think, you have just built a complicated CW transmitter. Start with a crystal oscillator, go to a ballanced modulator and then filter out one sideband. This is similar to how cw is often generated in a SSB transceiver.
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth. Hi Skip, Perhaps you may want to re-phase that? USA ham sub-bands are regulated by content rather than mode/bandwidth. Bonnie KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Yes, lots of modern transceivers have a dedicated data mode, but they're generally too wide for optimal RTTY reception. In contrast, consider the Twin Peak filter available on recent Icom transceivers, for example; it's only available with the transceiver's mode set to RTTY. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of g4ilo Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:59 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 I've heard this argument many times, Dave, but whilst it was probably true 10 or more years ago, surely all decent modern transceivers have a dedicated data mode that allows the use of narrow filters? Heck, even the humble FT-817 has one. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , Dave AA6YQ aa...@... wrote: The advantage of using FSK is that one can take advantage of the excellent RTTY filters built into some transceivers. These filters are generally not available when operating in USB/LSB. This is particularly important to contesters operating in a crowded environment and DXers dealing with weak signals.
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I guess I can chime in here with my 2 bits. Why not use cw as the common communication mode. My computer, using MultiPSK, can read CW quite well. And I understand that morse code recognition actually uses very little of the computer's resources. It is relatively easy to add a function to a computer program... much easier than adding the same function to a 'conventional' transceiver. Ted Stone, WA2WQN --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Trevor . m5...@... wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. We propose, instead, the Commission continued, to replace the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal may occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised limitations any emission would be permitted. It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly what is needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the FCC should be asked to re-introduce Docket 20777 Trevor
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
No, not by content, except for unallowed transmission of music, pornography, business communications, etc., there is no regulation by content. You can say or send whatever you wish. Content is the data delivered. The actual wording in the regulations is emission type instead of mode, but most understand that the emission type, phone is a mode of operation. Please refer to §97.305 Authorized emission types. 73 - Skip KH6TY expeditionradio wrote: KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth. Hi Skip, Perhaps you may want to re-phase that? USA ham sub-bands are regulated by content rather than mode/bandwidth. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] From The Desk Top Of Mr Alex Eze.
Thank you for your interest in our services. In order to assist you in your endeavour, you are required to submit the standard retainer fee of US$1,000,000 (One million US Dollars) into our company bank account. Please contact us directly via email to unit...@hotmail.com for further instructions on how to complete this deposit transaction. -- John Smokey Behr Gleichweit FF1/EMT, CCNA, MCSE IPN-CAL023 N6FOG UP Fresno Sub MP183.5 ECV1852 List Owner x10, Moderator x9 CalEMA 51-507 http://smokeybehr.blogspot.com http://www.myspace.com/smokeybehr From: Alex Eze alexoffice2...@yahoo.com.hk Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 11:20:31 PM Subject: [digitalradio] From The Desk Top Of Mr Alex Eze. From The Desk Top Of Mr Alex Eze, MD/CEO Financial Consultant, Federal Republic Of Nigeria. ATTN: I have interest of investing in your country as such I decided to establish contact with you for assistance as soon as I am able to transfer my funds for this investment, which is already with a security company in Europe.There are two basic things i would want you to assist me in; (1)Helping by traveling to europe as a front collect these funds from the security company in Europe. This is because of my inability to travel out of the country which i am taking refuge at the moment with my wife and children which i will explain better to you upon the receipt of your acceptance. (2)Helping me to carry out feasibility study on areas/choice of investment you deem best for me.I retired as financial consultant and was the last personal financial adviser to the ex- head of state before his demise and have no intention of carrying out any further investment programme in my country for security reasons. Enclosing your telephone and fax numbers, including your full names. Thanks, Please send your reply to (alexoffice2...@yahoo.com.hk) Yours sincerely, Alex Eze
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
-Original Message- From: Ralph Mowery ku...@yahoo.com Sent: Mar 10, 2010 12:25 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts - Original Message From: rein...@ix.netcom.com rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 5:11:30 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts Hello Jose, Multiple Frequency Shift Keying, OK, but you really did not answer my question, I think. Suppose I replaced the modulation device with a filtered piano ( no harmonics ) a microphone. I am serious, trying to find out the question we can't address here any longer. I used a x-tal oscillator. Limited my BW to some 300 Hz 73 Rein W6SZ - If you are doing what I think, you have just built a complicated CW transmitter. Start with a crystal oscillator, go to a ballanced modulator and then filter out one sideband. This is similar to how cw is often generated in a SSB transceiver. Hello Jose, Correct but you still have not answered my question. Indeed If I use one tone and key it on / off I have a cw transmitter, transmitting on the VJO frequebcy = or - the audio frequency. What do I have if I just change the tones in a random fashion? 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Sorry Ralph, I did not read the header. 3 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Ralph Mowery ku...@yahoo.com Sent: Mar 10, 2010 12:25 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts - Original Message From: rein...@ix.netcom.com rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 5:11:30 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts Hello Jose, Multiple Frequency Shift Keying, OK, but you really did not answer my question, I think. Suppose I replaced the modulation device with a filtered piano ( no harmonics ) a microphone. I am serious, trying to find out the question we can't address here any longer. I used a x-tal oscillator. Limited my BW to some 300 Hz 73 Rein W6SZ - If you are doing what I think, you have just built a complicated CW transmitter. Start with a crystal oscillator, go to a ballanced modulator and then filter out one sideband. This is similar to how cw is often generated in a SSB transceiver. 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
El 09/03/2010 17:11, rein...@ix.netcom.com escribió: Hello Jose, Multiple Frequency Shift Keying, OK, but you really did not answer my question, I think. Suppose I replaced the modulation device with a filtered piano ( no harmonics ) a microphone. I am serious, trying to find out the question we can't address here any longer. I used a x-tal oscillator. Limited my BW to some 300 Hz 73 Rein W6SZ Rein I failed to see the twist and I still do not see what you are after. I took My Way (MP3), played on the piano by Richard Claydermann, and processed it with Audacity, mixing it to mono, resampling to 11025 Hz, saved it as wav, and played it back thru both Spectran and HDWinrad, one at a time, both very steeply filtered, and what you hear are pings, tingling noises with a very slight trace of musicality. There are also some harmonics of the lower frequencies that bleed thru the filter, since their spectrum falls in the selected bandpass. Can you give any further hints? You might reproduce that yourself, without spending a lot of money and waiting for your filter to be made. 73, Jose, CO2JA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Correct but you still have not answered my question. Indeed If I use one tone and key it on / off I have a cw transmitter, transmitting on the VJO frequebcy = or - the audio frequency. What do I have if I just change the tones in a random fashion? 73 Rein W6SZ If a total random fashion, then you have a bunch of junk. It will not convey any useful information and probably illeagle in the ham bands. There must be order to it to convey any useful information.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
I can't fathom the reason for doing that, but if the tone frequencies are pseudo-randomly generated and then modulated by either on/off keying or some other way, you will have a spread spectrum system, similar to what is done in the ROS 2200 Hz-wide modes. The tones in a ssb transmitter simply generate rf carriers, so varying the tone frequencies is no different than varying a vfo frequency as far as the outside world sees. The distinction in spread spectrum is the generation of the tone frequencies independently of the data. I.e., you first generate a tone frequency in a psudo-random manner and then convey intelligence by modulating the resulting rf carriers. 73 - Skip KH6TY Ralph Mowery wrote: Correct but you still have not answered my question. Indeed If I use one tone and key it on / off I have a cw transmitter, transmitting on the VJO frequebcy = or - the audio frequency. What do I have if I just change the tones in a random fashion? 73 Rein W6SZ If a total random fashion, then you have a bunch of junk. It will not convey any useful information and probably illeagle in the ham bands. There must be order to it to convey any useful information.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Hi Skip, Thanks, we have arrived at the point I wanted to get to, So lets go a little further on this path, suppose I changed the tones in a not so random fashion. Like I had a way to generate tones as I do when I speak or make music or like some of those synthesizers or whatever they are, do not know the details exactly, but they generate tones that make up language that it understandable, with training would that be spread spectrum? You say varying the tones is the same as varying the VFO to the outside world, is that science? Would it make a difference if feed the balance modulator with 100 Hz or 2500 Hz. lets switch between to tunes, teletype, is that SS? If I produce speech it is speech if the tones do not form speech, it is ss modulation? Are you seeing that SSB is SS? as A kid I use to build oscillators I could speak to them, and they would swing, and could hear speach in a radio, unstability or FM , SS? Lets get to the core is WSJT spread spectrum and please explain to me why. I just do not seem to get it... Explain me the physics of it. please I just like to understand this. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Sent: Mar 9, 2010 7:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts I can't fathom the reason for doing that, but if the tone frequencies are pseudo-randomly generated and then modulated by either on/off keying or some other way, you will have a spread spectrum system, similar to what is done in the ROS 2200 Hz-wide modes. The tones in a ssb transmitter simply generate rf carriers, so varying the tone frequencies is no different than varying a vfo frequency as far as the outside world sees. The distinction in spread spectrum is the generation of the tone frequencies independently of the data. I.e., you first generate a tone frequency in a psudo-random manner and then convey intelligence by modulating the resulting rf carriers. 73 - Skip KH6TY Ralph Mowery wrote: Correct but you still have not answered my question. Indeed If I use one tone and key it on / off I have a cw transmitter, transmitting on the VJO frequebcy = or - the audio frequency. What do I have if I just change the tones in a random fashion? 73 Rein W6SZ If a total random fashion, then you have a bunch of junk. It will not convey any useful information and probably illeagle in the ham bands. There must be order to it to convey any useful information.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Hi Jose, Thanks much for your time. I am trying to understand the difference between a certain unnamed modulation mode and single sideband with high carrier suppression. Looked upon from the inside and the outside but still with stable x-tal carrier as input to a balance modulator or perhaps a quadrature mixer. I am serious Jose, at least trying hard in my own mind. Or you could also say trying to prepare myself if I were to asked questions about radio amateur operations and had to answer them. We here is the US are responsible for our doings on the amateur bands as the ARRL newsletter informed us, the view of the Commission is. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Jose A. Amador ama...@electrica.cujae.edu.cu Sent: Mar 9, 2010 9:24 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts El 09/03/2010 17:11, rein...@ix.netcom.com escribió: Hello Jose, Multiple Frequency Shift Keying, OK, but you really did not answer my question, I think. Suppose I replaced the modulation device with a filtered piano ( no harmonics ) a microphone. I am serious, trying to find out the question we can't address here any longer. I used a x-tal oscillator. Limited my BW to some 300 Hz 73 Rein W6SZ Rein I failed to see the twist and I still do not see what you are after. I took My Way (MP3), played on the piano by Richard Claydermann, and processed it with Audacity, mixing it to mono, resampling to 11025 Hz, saved it as wav, and played it back thru both Spectran and HDWinrad, one at a time, both very steeply filtered, and what you hear are pings, tingling noises with a very slight trace of musicality. There are also some harmonics of the lower frequencies that bleed thru the filter, since their spectrum falls in the selected bandpass. Can you give any further hints? You might reproduce that yourself, without spending a lot of money and waiting for your filter to be made. 73, Jose, CO2JA 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Hi Ralph, You got me again. Indeed the Commission requires that it has to be intelligent information, and certainly any ID needs to be made in the English language or in Morse code, not quite sure about Morse only, or other methods allowed. One could speak as a member of an Indian tribe as was done in WWII as long as the the ID was in English, Germans and Japanese had a lot of trouble with that sort of communication, would that make it perhaps SS if it was done on the wireless? If I listen to smears of rattle, many Khz wide below 14.001 or so ,most of the time one can hear at the end an Id in CW. When I run WSJT, I ID in CW every couple of minutes. Lets say, it were a number of tones, no particular order looks like it, but I could down load a piece of nice freeware from the internet and it all became intelligent info what then? 73 Rein W6SZ. -Original Message- From: Ralph Mowery ku...@yahoo.com Sent: Mar 9, 2010 9:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts Correct but you still have not answered my question. Indeed If I use one tone and key it on / off I have a cw transmitter, transmitting on the VJO frequebcy + or - the audio frequency. What do I have if I just change the tones in a random fashion? 73 Rein W6SZ If a total random fashion, then you have a bunch of junk. It will not convey any useful information and probably illeagle in the ham bands. There must be order to it to convey any useful information. 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
El 09/03/2010 21:15, rein...@ix.netcom.com escribió: Sorry Ralph, I did not read the header. 3 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Ralph Moweryku...@yahoo.com Sent: Mar 10, 2010 12:25 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts If you are doing what I think, you have just built a complicated CW transmitter. Start with a crystal oscillator, go to a ballanced modulator and then filter out one sideband. This is similar to how cw is often generated in a SSB transceiver. Well, actually FSK or ASK of two tones is hard to tell from each other on the air. A friend built such a modem, I contributed a couple of ideas, using ASK with TTL logic to key a solid state laser from a crystal derived clock. The optical link worked flawlessly. What you see as result of using your example are random frequency and amplitude tones in the spectral display, sometimes simulteneously, sometimes, not. So, what? 73, Jose, CO2JA
