[digitalradio] HRD Utilities/TQSL LoTW/JT65
All, Apologize the cross-post, but this problem may cross several lines. Before my reinstall of WinXP this past weekend, I was using WSJT to operate JT65, the logbook in HRD/DM780 to log the exchanges, and HRD Utilities to upload automatically to LoTW. I had no problems with this, but suddenly after the OS reinstall I can no longer upload JT65 as a valid mode. In my LoTW QSO listing, I have 42 entries all with JT65 as the mode, so I know that it can accept it although a lot of the FAQs say that it should just be data. Any ideas what happened on my end to cause this, and most especially, what I should do to get back the ability to upload JT65 as the mode? Thanks in advance, Dave Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky
[digitalradio] Re: HRD Utilities/TQSL LoTW/JT65
I apologize for this, but I found the solution. After Googling this for sometime and finally asking the group, the very next link I clicked on had the answer. If anyone else is having this problem, simply google ARRL Cert.tq6 and download the file (https://p1k.arrl.org/lotw/config.tq6). Double click on it to run it, and all is fixed. Dave On Mar 24, 2010, at 2:11 AM, David Wright wrote: All, Apologize the cross-post, but this problem may cross several lines. Before my reinstall of WinXP this past weekend, I was using WSJT to operate JT65, the logbook in HRD/DM780 to log the exchanges, and HRD Utilities to upload automatically to LoTW. I had no problems with this, but suddenly after the OS reinstall I can no longer upload JT65 as a valid mode. In my LoTW QSO listing, I have 42 entries all with JT65 as the mode, so I know that it can accept it although a lot of the FAQs say that it should just be data. Any ideas what happened on my end to cause this, and most especially, what I should do to get back the ability to upload JT65 as the mode? Thanks in advance, Dave Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky
Re: [digitalradio] Another plug for JT65A ... the spectrum efficient mode
Spectrum efficiency must be measured in time necessary to get the info across, length of info transferred, and bandwidth. ((characters/second)/ bandwidth) or characters/(seconds * bandwidth). The bandwidth includes a certain guard band(minimum distance between 2 different signals), which for JT65 is quite small ... but the time is a large factor... To give a small example: Pskmail using PSK500 ARQ has a spectrum efficiency of 23/500 = 0.046 CPS/Hz ... measured on 14094.0 kHz running 100 mW connected to SM0RWO (1000Miles) ... The longest message in JT65 is 13 characters... and a message takes 48 seconds.. the bandwidth (according to the mode description) is 65 * 2.7 = 175 Hz ...which calculates to (13/48) / 175 = 0.001547619 CPS/Hz I would say this is a pretty bad value... :) Rein PA0R Bill N9DSJ decoded two stations within 24 Hz of each other, how is that for spectrum efficiency? I was transmitting 5 watts, I know many are already aware of this, but take a look N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard N6TE(DM12) on 3576.23 KHz -8dB at 03:32:00Z using JT65A N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard K3UK(FN02) on 3575.99 KHz -5dB at 03:32:00Z using JT65A Bill N9DSJ decoded two stations within 24 Hz of each other, how is that for spectrum efficiency? I was transmitting 5 watts, Andy K3UK http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Another plug for JT65A ... the spectrum efficient mode
But if the path S/N is so poor that you cannot get the message across at all, isn't the spectrum efficiency zero? ;-) 73 - Skip KH6TY Rein Couperus wrote: Spectrum efficiency must be measured in time necessary to get the info across, length of info transferred, and bandwidth. ((characters/second)/ bandwidth) or characters/(seconds * bandwidth). The bandwidth includes a certain guard band(minimum distance between 2 different signals), which for JT65 is quite small ... but the time is a large factor... To give a small example: Pskmail using PSK500 ARQ has a spectrum efficiency of 23/500 = 0.046 CPS/Hz ... measured on 14094.0 kHz running 100 mW connected to SM0RWO (1000Miles) ... The longest message in JT65 is 13 characters... and a message takes 48 seconds.. the bandwidth (according to the mode description) is 65 * 2.7 = 175 Hz ...which calculates to (13/48) / 175 = 0.001547619 CPS/Hz I would say this is a pretty bad value... :) Rein PA0R Bill N9DSJ decoded two stations within 24 Hz of each other, how is that for spectrum efficiency? I was transmitting 5 watts, I know many are already aware of this, but take a look N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard N6TE(DM12) on 3576.23 KHz -8dB at 03:32:00Z using JT65A N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard K3UK(FN02) on 3575.99 KHz -5dB at 03:32:00Z using JT65A Bill N9DSJ decoded two stations within 24 Hz of each other, how is that for spectrum efficiency? I was transmitting 5 watts, Andy K3UK http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Another plug for JT65A ... the spectrum efficient mode
Good point. What you have defined , Rein,is the occupancy efficiency in terms of time.. I was measuring efficiency in terms of bandwidth used. Obviously the othe rmeasure is wether the message was deleivered. Using 5 watts for a 300-400 miles trasmission on 80M at night , PSK250 may have needed sveral repeats to send 13 chracters . So even in term so time PSK250 may have been close to 0.001547619 . I'll do a test tonight. Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Rein Couperus r...@couperus.com wrote: Spectrum efficiency must be measured in time necessary to get the info across, length of info transferred, and bandwidth. ((characters/second)/ bandwidth) or characters/(seconds * bandwidth). The bandwidth includes a certain guard band(minimum distance between 2 different signals), which for JT65 is quite small ... but the time is a large factor... To give a small example: Pskmail using PSK500 ARQ has a spectrum efficiency of 23/500 = 0.046 CPS/Hz ... measured on 14094.0 kHz running 100 mW connected to SM0RWO (1000Miles) ... The longest message in JT65 is 13 characters... and a message takes 48 seconds.. the bandwidth (according to the mode description) is 65 * 2.7 = 175 Hz ...which calculates to (13/48) / 175 = 0.001547619 CPS/Hz I would say this is a pretty bad value... :) Rein PA0R Bill N9DSJ decoded two stations within 24 Hz of each other, how is that for spectrum efficiency? I was transmitting 5 watts, I know many are already aware of this, but take a look N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard N6TE(DM12) on 3576.23 KHz -8dB at 03:32:00Z using JT65A N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard K3UK(FN02) on 3575.99 KHz -5dB at 03:32:00Z using JT65A Bill N9DSJ decoded two stations within 24 Hz of each other, how is that for spectrum efficiency? I was transmitting 5 watts, Andy K3UK http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Another plug for JT65A ... the spectrum efficient mode
Hi Andy, well, I don't agree... as soon as you talk efficiency, you have to define what that means. For me bandwidth efficiency is 3-dimensional, it defines how much information can be transferred within a certain time span, within a certain bandwidth. JT65A works with 65 frequencies, which are 2.7 Hz apart. So its bandwidth is 175, add to that 2 guard bands if you want to put a different mode close to it on both sides... You can put 2 JT65A signals very close together, because it uses a pseudo-random algorithm to make sure 2 JT65A signals (almost) never use the same concrete frequency at a certain point in time. As such it is quite bandwidth efficient. That changes completely when you would put a PSK signal that close, it would not work anymore. BTW, the comparison I showed was real... PSK500 has a raw speed of 48 CPS, and the net ARQ speed, including arq repeats is 23 CPS. Of course I cannot do it with 100 mW / 1000 Miles all the time, I need 5 Watts for an average connection. On 80m I have a stable connection to DA5UWG during daylight time using PSK500(down)/PSK500R(up). During the night I need MFSK32(down)/THOR8(up) for the same path... Nice thing abt PSkmail 1.0 is that you can start the connect in MFSK16, the system will decide to upgrade the speed/mode when possible, so you work in the most efficient mode most of the time. And BTW, it helps to use modes close to 500Hz bandwidth (PSK500, MFSK32, THOR22) when you use a 500 Hz (matched) filter :) Just wanted to express that looking at problems 1-dimensionally hardly ever reveals the full truth... 73, Rein PA0R Good point. What you have defined , Rein,is the occupancy efficiency in terms of time.. I was measuring efficiency in terms of bandwidth used. Obviously the othe r measure is wether the message was deleivered. Using 5 watts for a 300-400 miles trasmission on 80M at night , PSK250 may have needed sveral repeats to send 13 chracters . So even in term so time PSK250 may have been close to 0.001547619 . I'll do a test tonight. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Hi Andy, I made mention of years ago via this forum that AQC-ALE is the the solution to your desires in these areas and that is still true and the neew features I have coded into PC-ALE and those that I am currntly working on will aid you in your pursuits. AQC-ALE ( which is only found in PC-ALE, MARS-ALE and Military ALE transceivers ) makes use of the same standard tones as standard ALE, however the data transmissions for all things involving Soundings if used and linking calls are very much shorter. The scan rate in PC-ALE for AQC-ALE is fixed at 5 ch/sec which means radios must typically be operated at 9600 baud or greater serial rates and FAST AGC is an absolute must. AQC-ALE has a Meet Me feature that will steer the linked station(s) to another channel in the current band or any other band as programmed in a common scan group between the users, the channel numbers for all channels in the scan group being used MUST match for all users in a group else the Meet Me feature will not work properly in getting all sttions to the same new channel. The setup for your purposes would be that your channels planned for Meet Me using no ALE for follow-on would be setup up in your scan groups as non-sounding channels if you are going to do any sounding at all, which is not at all required. As long as there is an organized group all scanning the same channels and all using a scan group that matches for all users than you can just make a single station or any multiple station linking call in AQC-ALE to establish the link, then change to one or more of the channels that you have pre-programmed as a Meet Me channel to see if its free, then go back to the channel you linked on and sen the Meet Me for the free channel. Then one you are on the new channel you can assume that the stations you are inlink with are there as well, if ALE is permitted and is to be used you can them use AMD, DBM or DTM or another follow on protocol as you choose. I have done all this on the air in the past and it works great. New features in the last PC-ALE release such as releasing RESOURCES make it easier than ever to use other PC software for follow-on after an ALE link and newer features that I have coded and some being worked on add even more 3rd party interfacing, coming soon will be emulation of KENWOOD and ICOM radio command sets where program such as VCOM will allow for any 3rd party program to control whhich ever of the over 200 make/models radios supported by PC-ALE after the ALE link, which also opens to door to any program that supports either or those two brands to control radios not normally found in HAM applications, you will be able to have PC-ALE just sit there with all but the emulation serial port released and use it as a radio control server if your non-ham rig is not supported. Please not that I only see messages to this forum when I log in via Yahoo so replies to any questions may not be fast coming here, however I do get direct e-mails via the MultiPSK and HFlink forums. /s/ Steve, N2CKH www.n2ckh.com/PC_ALE_FORUM/ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: 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 ) .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
I fully agree Steve, it sounds like the way to go. I only have 1.062H, will have to check to see if I have the new features. Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:07 PM, N2CKH n2...@morrisbb.net wrote: Hi Andy, I made mention of years ago via this forum that AQC-ALE is the the solution to your desires in these areas and that is still true and the neew features I have coded into PC-ALE and those that I am currntly working on will aid you in your pursuits. AQC-ALE ( which is only found in PC-ALE, MARS-ALE and Military ALE transceivers ) makes use of the same standard tones as standard ALE, however the data transmissions for all things involving Soundings if used and linking calls are very much shorter. The scan rate in PC-ALE for AQC-ALE is fixed at 5 ch/sec which means radios must typically be operated at 9600 baud or greater serial rates and FAST AGC is an absolute must. AQC-ALE has a Meet Me feature that will steer the linked station(s) to another channel in the current band or any other band as programmed in a common scan group between the users, the channel numbers for all channels in the scan group being used MUST match for all users in a group else the Meet Me feature will not work properly in getting all sttions to the same new channel. The setup for your purposes would be that your channels planned for Meet Me using no ALE for follow-on would be setup up in your scan groups as non-sounding channels if you are going to do any sounding at all, which is not at all required. As long as there is an organized group all scanning the same channels and all using a scan group that matches for all users than you can just make a single station or any multiple station linking call in AQC-ALE to establish the link, then change to one or more of the channels that you have pre-programmed as a Meet Me channel to see if its free, then go back to the channel you linked on and sen the Meet Me for the free channel. Then one you are on the new channel you can assume that the stations you are inlink with are there as well, if ALE is permitted and is to be used you can them use AMD, DBM or DTM or another follow on protocol as you choose. I have done all this on the air in the past and it works great. New features in the last PC-ALE release such as releasing RESOURCES make it easier than ever to use other PC software for follow-on after an ALE link and newer features that I have coded and some being worked on add even more 3rd party interfacing, coming soon will be emulation of KENWOOD and ICOM radio command sets where program such as VCOM will allow for any 3rd party program to control whhich ever of the over 200 make/models radios supported by PC-ALE after the ALE link, which also opens to door to any program that supports either or those two brands to control radios not normally found in HAM applications, you will be able to have PC-ALE just sit there with all but the emulation serial port released and use it as a radio control server if your non-ham rig is not supported. Please not that I only see messages to this forum when I log in via Yahoo so replies to any questions may not be fast coming here, however I do get direct e-mails via the MultiPSK and HFlink forums. /s/ Steve, N2CKH www.n2ckh.com/PC_ALE_FORUM/ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: 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 ) .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode....
I and many others will never touch ALE because of just one woman. It at this time has a bad name among many.
[digitalradio] Re: Another plug for JT65A ... the spectrum efficient mode
Thanks Andy, And here I thought it was my superior receive capability :) Actually that was about the limit of resolution as I had the multi decoder spacing at 20 Hz. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: I know many are already aware of this, but take a look N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard N6TE(DM12) on 3576.23 KHz -8dB at 03:32:00Z using JT65A N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard K3UK(FN02) on 3575.99 KHz -5dB at 03:32:00Z using JT65A Bill N9DSJ decoded two stations within 24 Hz of each other, how is that for spectrum efficiency? I was transmitting 5 watts, Andy K3UK
RE: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode....
Ditto rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB [mailto:w0...@big-river.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 4:58 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode I and many others will never touch ALE because of just one woman. It at this time has a bad name among many. http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
I think it's fair to discuss, which is to say question, whether military standard ALE is the best thing to use on amateur frequencies. It's good to make use of existing standards when they fit the situation, but military radio is not amateur radio. With our crowded bands, and with amateur radios that are stingy on the bandwidth, maybe we would be better off using something like Patrick's ALE-400. Jim W6JVE
