[digitalradio] Illinois D-STAR Net, 4/7/2010, 9:00 pm
Reminder from: digitalradio Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/cal Illinois D-STAR Net Wednesday April 7, 2010 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: Illinois D-STAR Reflector Channel REF001B Notes: Illinois D-STAR Repeaters can Participate in the Illinois D-STAR Net by Connecting to Illinois D-STAR Reflector Channel REF001B. DV Dongle Users Can Participate in the Illinois D-STAR Net by Connecting to Reflector Channel REF001B or to a D-STAR Repeater Connected to Reflector Channel REF001B. All Rights Reserved Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Measure background noise
Hi all, Just had my arcing power line pole fixed and my noise has dropped off to zero on all HF bands except 160m, fantastic!!! And a result. A friend of mine said that his noise floor was -110db. Impressive I think. All I know from my spectrum scope is that mine has dropped by about 40db+ but I am curious how you adjust your card input level so you can get a true db reading for the ambient noise floor. I.e. How did my friend arrive at this figure. I have a sound card oscilloscope and a copy of spectrum lab (which is where I compared the before and after results) Could someone explain please. Regards Toby MM0TOBnewimage.jpg
[digitalradio] Dayton SDR forum speakers sought
On Friday, May 14, I am the moderator (and speaker) at the SDR forum at the 2:30 PM - 5 PM session. I have two speakers (Scotty on openhpsdr, and I speak on general SDR topics). I need to fill out this time and this leaves at least 1.5 hours to fill. I would like to get this settled as soon as possible. Let me know if you are interested in making a presentation. Also, FYI, I will be the AMSAT/TAPR banquet speaker on Friday night. In addition to my forum, SDR, paper delivery with Joel Harrison, work in Flex booth, etc. this will be one of the busiest Dayton's for me in years. I look forward to seeing many of you. Bob McGwier N4HY
RE: [digitalradio] Dayton SDR forum speakers sought
Hi Bob, Will your presentation be available via YouTube or similar? I'm unable to attend this year due to gardening requirements (85 year-old mother dictated this), I would very much like to view the SDR presentations. If homeland security let me come over in 2011 I'll contact you. Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert McGwier Let me know if you are interested in making a presentation.
[digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode....
I 110% agree with you there. Bonnie (yes, I'm not bashful about calling her out) controls ALE as if it were HERS. In my opinion, it's little more than a business for her...not only can you join HF-ALE, but you can also BUY MERCHANDISE. ALE/141A is great in a military application, but amateurs that are involved in ARES/RACES (like myself) primarily use voice for emergency comms...maybe APRS, too. I would be willing to BET that in the Haiti crisis, not ONE bit of emergency traffic was passed via HF-ALE/HFLINK. If there WAS, I'd be honestly surprised. Let it be known that I operate 99% digital. I use voice on 10 meters. The rest of the time, I let the PC do the talking. And, I am not against experimentation with new modes. What I AM against is a person with control issues, motivated by greed. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@... wrote: I and many others will never touch ALE because of just one woman. It at this time has a bad name among many.
[digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
This is little more than a frequency grab by Bonnie that would benefit the HF-ALE group, I feel, the most. If adopted, this would give Bonnie her own frequencies...channels if you will, that she or ANYONE else from the HF-ALE network could claim...and then chase away legal ops using her/their frequencies. It's pretty shameful on her part that she waited until the last possible minute to sneak her proposal through to the ARRL. If we had known in advance of her antics, she would have heard an earful from many, I'm sure. Hopefully, this pathetic excuse for spectrum sharing will be turned down. John KB2HSH
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 12:37:25PM -, kb2hsh wrote: This is little more than a frequency grab by Bonnie that would benefit the HF-ALE group, I feel, the most. If adopted, this would give Bonnie her own frequencies...channels if you will, that she or ANYONE else from the HF-ALE network could claim...and then chase away legal ops using her/their frequencies. It's pretty shameful on her part that she waited until the last possible minute to sneak her proposal through to the ARRL. If we had known in advance of her antics, she would have heard an earful from many, I'm sure. Hopefully, this pathetic excuse for spectrum sharing will be turned down. I hope so. But it's going to take some shouting down to get her proposal nuked. Show of hands from those who mailed in some sort of opposition, please? -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
RE: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode....
For me one word sums up Bonnie - and it's Arrogant. Crackpot and Barking Mad also come to mind, but so does the word lawyer so I'll say no more. What's quite amazing with her spectrum demands is that she wants part of 160m as well as the WARC bands. This will just get digital mode users developers a bad name. Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kb2hsh I would be willing to BET that in the Haiti crisis, not ONE bit of emergency traffic was passed via HF-ALE/HFLINK. If there WAS, I'd be honestly surprised.
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
kb2hsh wrote: This is little more than a frequency grab by Bonnie that would benefit the HF-ALE group, I feel, the most. OK, so I have to ask how would it benefit HFLink - HFLink already has well established centers of activity in the current bandplan - ALE by definition does not lead to frequency spreading. If anything, it concentrates activity onto specific frequencies. So if magically passed (unlikely), virtually nothing would change for HFLink operations. The only exception to this would be that we would now have a US bandplan that aligns with a more reasonable international one, which is not the case now. But it would not increase ALE operations at all, nor change current centers of activity unless forced to by the new plan. So tell me again how this benefits ALE ops? How would it be a frequency grab?? In return, it does benefit all the other digital modes which are looking for places to operate, including new modes yet to be defined. That may not be important to you. But it is to some! What if psk was never able to stake out a center of activity? Other modes As to timing of the submission? You guys are empowering Bonnie way too much. We just found out about it not too long ago when it was posted in another group. Bonnie was traveling for a bit, and submitted when she settled in. No more no less. It's too easy to villainize people who do not practice your hobby the way you like, and it weakens the entire hobby! I'd ask, why did we all just find out about this Why was this input session not pro-actively positioned to the key user groups so they would have time to comment? Seems to me like the fingers need to point to the people soliciting input. Reminds me of the Hitchhiker Guide to the Universe where the input sessions for destruction of earth was posted on Alpha centauri. But you had time to provide input No one replied!!!. I can tell from most of the responses so far that most did not even read the proposal, or some of the others floating around. It protects CW, and that is a key component of Bonnie's position for years. Nowhere that I see does it restrict CW ops to 15khz If this mindset prevailed, we'd still not have SSB, at best using AM CW. Or spark! The same end of the world arguments took place when SSB was introduced! sorry, guys but if conspiracy theories are the best we can come up with, we all lose! Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Scanning 3583,7073,14073, ALE400 2230-0200
Hello Tony, I bet Patrick could make that happen. It could be possible, but too much complex, so the most probable is that it will not happened. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Scanning 3583,7073,14073, ALE400 2230-0200 On 4/6/2010 7:20 PM, Andy obrien wrote: What would be fun would be if I could do both, scan both Standard ALE and ALE 400 in one pass of channels over 30 seconds. I bet Patrick could make that happen. 15 seconds of either mode. On the other hand, maybe I should give up on the ALE400 concept and encourange everyone to scan/sound (while attended) with ALE 141A and switch to appropriate digital modes as conditions suit. I think you're on the right track Andy. The ALE-400 mode is certainly more spectrum friendly. We have all the hardware / software tools we need; the only thing left is participation. Tony -K2MO On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Tony d...@optonline.net wrote: On 4/6/2010 6:33 PM, Andy obrien wrote: I will be Scanning 3583,7073,14073, ALE400 2230-0200 UTC. Give a CQ, QRZ, or a sounding if you are looking for a QSO. Andy K3UK FN02. Andy, The upper HF bands are open to the south (2300z). Several S. American / Caribbean stations on 10/12/15 meters. Standard ALE might bring a few returns. Tony -K2MO __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5005 (20100406) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5005 (20100406) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode....
kb2hsh wrote: Bonnie (yes, I'm not bashful about calling her out) controls ALE as if it were HERS. In my opinion, it's little more than a business for her...not only can you join HF-ALE, but you can also BUY MERCHANDISE. OK, this is going too far. I'm heavily involved in HFLink operation, planning, and design. There is no business aspect, we do not benefit financially from any of this. It's a labor of love, just like Andy's and other pages are. Sticker sales? Do you really think the nickel and dime someone might make from that offsets server costs of $100+ per month? Software licenses for the fairly sophisticated frequency logging system? The only reason there is HFLink merchandise available is by request, just like there is in HFPack! Some folks like the logo. The whole idea that Bonnie controls ALE is flawed as well. Is she an avid promoter? Sure. Drives standardization? Yep, and we all benefit from that. But there are probably 4-5 heavily involved ALE hobbyists who collectively influence decision making, new development, and help keep things going. I find ALE interesting. But I don't see it taking over ham radio, nor would I allow it to do so. Same for the others involved. When you start borderline libel/slander like this, it cheapens the hobby and hurts us all. You don't have to like ALE, or Bonnie personally. But at least get your facts straight! Again, another firestorm against individuals, when instead we should be working together. This aspect of our hobby is embarrassing to me. So go ahead and bash. Make it as personal as you like. Let's get into gender, appearance, degrees, etc. That's where these things normally head! have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
Transmitting soundings without checking for activity on the frequency, or by not sounding if there is activity, is an AUTOMATIC operation. Do you deny that soundings that cover many frequencies in a short time are not transmitted without ALWAYS listening first! That would be hard to believe! Is the HFlink proposal a frequency grab? Well if it results in any expansion of frequencies for automatically controlled digital stations by taking space already in frequent use by other activities, of course it is an attempted frequency grab. It would give ALE ops more frequencies to legally transmit signals as wide as 2700 Hz without having to listen first - in other words, sounding or high-speed messaging. There has always been limited interest in high-speed messaging on the HF bands, because they are used mostly for person-to-person communications, DXing, contesting, ragchewing, etc., so THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION in giving up person-to-person communications for a very poor (relatively slow speed) radio emulation of email or texting over the Internet. This IS the 21st century and, except for a very few individuals, higher speed communications than over the HF bands is available to almost everyone. Ham radio is a HOBBY activity, with occasional public service during emergencies, and even then, most communication is by voice over repeaters, with a scattering of long distance relays. Even after the Haiti earthquake, there were few HF emcomm activites, but temporary repeaters were rushed in to handle most of the messages. We need to preserve our HOBBY and not let it be taken away by a few who try to tell us we are antiquated just because we do not think high-speed communications should displace communications at the speed of a QSO. Lets compare the HF link proposal with the FCC part 97.221 current allocations for automatically controlled digital stations over 500 Hz in bandwidth: HFlink: 3575-3625 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 50 kHz FCC: 3585-3600 KHz = 15 kHz HFlink: 7050-7060 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 10 kHz FCC: 7.100-7.105 = 5 kHz HFlink: 7100-7125 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 25 kHz HFlink: 10125-10150 (2700) ALL MODES,DIGIMODES,FAST DIGIMODES,AUTOMATIC = 25 kHz FCC: 10.140-10.150 = 10 kHz HFlink: 14090-14099.5 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 9.5 kHz FCC: 14.0950-14.0995 = 4.5 kHz HFlink:14100.5-14125 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 24.5 kHz FCC: 14.1005-14.112 = 17 kHz HFlink:18095-18109.5 (2700) ALL MODES,DIGIMODES,FAST DIGIMODES,AUTOMATIC = 14 kHz FCC: 18.105- 18.110 5 kHz HFlink: 21090-21149.5 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 59.5 kHz FCC: 21.090-21.100 = 10 kHz HFlink: 24920-24929.5 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 9.5 kHz FCC: 24.925-24.930 = 5 kHz HFlink: 28120-28199.5 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 79.5 kHz FCC: 28.120-28.189 = 69 kHz HFlink: 28200.5-28300 (2700) BEACONS, ALL MODES, AUTOMATIC = 99.5 HFlink: 28990-29300 (6000) ALL MODES, FM, AM, SSB, DIGI, AUTOMATIC = 310 kHz HFlink: 29510-29700 (6000) FM, REPEATERS, ALL MODES, AUTOMATIC = 190 kHz If the HFlink idea is for ARRL to support the HFlink proposal for IARU Region 2, and then petition the FCC for new rules to align the bands with the proposal, a huge additional amount of spectrum used by non-automatic stations (ragchewing, DXing, contesting, etc.) could become covered with both Winlink and ALE messaging robots that do not listen first. Is that what you want to see happen! I have submitted my opposition. If you agree to give up more space for robot messaging stations, then do nothing. If you do not agree, then you should send in your comments without delay! ARRL will continue to read comments past the announced deadline, just as the FCC often does, so just submit your comments, regardless of the announced deadline, but do it NOW! Remember that HFlink is not alone in wanting more space to avoid QRM of their own kind, but Winlink wants it also, and that would be the most serious consequence. HFlink has a history of also supporting expansion of frequencies for automatically controlled digital stations which would benefit less than 1% of the ham population at the expense of everyone else using the bands. The sunspots are returning, and if you think the bands are not crowded now, just wait! They soon will be, and you would wish for that space back! 73, Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: This is little more than a frequency grab by Bonnie that would benefit the HF-ALE group, I feel, the most. OK, so I have to ask how would it benefit HFLink - HFLink already has well established centers of activity in the current bandplan - ALE by definition does not lead to frequency spreading. If anything, it concentrates activity onto specific frequencies. So if magically passed (unlikely), virtually nothing would change for HFLink
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
KH6TY wrote: It would give ALE ops more frequencies This is a huge leap of paranoia.. ALE operation by definition does not want or even can utilize more frequencies. Hams who want to use ALE already have well established frequencies to use. There is no advantage to adding more, and really some disadvantages! The whole design approach of ALE as practiced by amateur radio is that of standardized frequencies, one per band, with designated alternates for qso for extended traffic under manual control. This is already in place working. And not likely to change. It's also already allowed per FCC regs, so it's very unlikely there would be a net reduction in that. So the whole idea that this is a frequency grab for ALE ops is simply misinformed and displays ignorance of how ALE works and is used in the amateur world. Want to fight to get rid of semi-auto operation? Knock yourself out. It's allowed now under FCC regs and is not likely to change. More influential groups than the mythical omnipotent evil mastermind Bonnie will make sure that will not change! You are right about one thing... there are many other players in the mix. ALE ops would be minimally impacted by Bonnie's proposal. It's future modes that will be impacted. Witness the reoccuring I invented a new mode, try it on 14.xxx. No, you can't go there, that's the XYZ mode center of activity.. So I'll ask the question: how do we enable the development use of new modes, ideally more efficient ones when there is no place for them to operate? Want to keep the status quo, and miss the next psk? Express yourself. Or propose your own solution! Make it about individuals, or even user groups, you just wasted your input! Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
It does not matter if ALE ops do not intend to USE more frequencies or not. Apparently the interest in PC-ALE is so small, the impact would be minimal anyway. However, to support changing any allocations to provide more space for wide-bandwidth automatic stations, no matter who will use them, is simply contrary to the concept of using the limited spaces on the HF bands for person-to-person communications, and there is simply not enough space for that. The HFlink proposal does not suggest that more space is needed for only ALE stations, but for ALL wide automatic stations. For that reason, it should be vigorously opposed. BTW, I asked my invisible companion if I had made a huge leap of paranoia, as you inferred, and he assured me that I am definitely not paranoid, and that he would have to leave me if I were! ;-) 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: It would give ALE ops more frequencies This is a huge leap of paranoia.. ALE operation by definition does not want or even can utilize more frequencies. Hams who want to use ALE already have well established frequencies to use. There is no advantage to adding more, and really some disadvantages!
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
Want to fight to get rid of semi-auto operation? Knock yourself out. It's allowed now under FCC regs and is not likely to change. More influential groups than the mythical omnipotent evil mastermind Bonnie will make sure that will not change! I think this misses the point. Yes, there are some who have been harmed enough times by being stepped on by automatic stations that they would like to see them go away. And, yes, this is not likely to happen. However, to suggest expanding the space where automatic stations can operate shows a complete lack of understanding and appreciation of bandplanning and current band usage. Messaging, of all kinds, is by far the minority use of the ham bands, and the automatic stations already have more space in proportion their representation than they fairly whould have. The idea is not to get rid of automatic (or semi-automatic) operations, but to stop any additional space being allocated to such operations because it takes away from non-automatic operations that already have insufficient space in which to accommodate all users. The point has been made many times that automatic stations would not need more space if they used a protocol that supported frequency sharing (the way AX-25 does), but they do not. The solution therefore is for the automatic stations to use a better protocol to let them share better and not try to spread over more and more space needed by the far greater majority of operators who have no interest at all in messaging, high-speed or otherwise, oh the HF bands. 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: It would give ALE ops more frequencies This is a huge leap of paranoia.. ALE operation by definition does not want or even can utilize more frequencies. Hams who want to use ALE already have well established frequencies to use. There is no advantage to adding more, and really some disadvantages! The whole design approach of ALE as practiced by amateur radio is that of standardized frequencies, one per band, with designated alternates for qso for extended traffic under manual control. This is already in place working. And not likely to change. It's also already allowed per FCC regs, so it's very unlikely there would be a net reduction in that. So the whole idea that this is a frequency grab for ALE ops is simply misinformed and displays ignorance of how ALE works and is used in the amateur world. Want to fight to get rid of semi-auto operation? Knock yourself out. It's allowed now under FCC regs and is not likely to change. More influential groups than the mythical omnipotent evil mastermind Bonnie will make sure that will not change! You are right about one thing... there are many other players in the mix. ALE ops would be minimally impacted by Bonnie's proposal. It's future modes that will be impacted. Witness the reoccuring I invented a new mode, try it on 14.xxx. No, you can't go there, that's the XYZ mode center of activity.. So I'll ask the question: how do we enable the development use of new modes, ideally more efficient ones when there is no place for them to operate? Want to keep the status quo, and miss the next psk? Express yourself. Or propose your own solution! Make it about individuals, or even user groups, you just wasted your input! Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] frequency grabs??????
Alan Barrow wrote: My view is that debates about digi-modes are tempest in a teapot. The broader issues are around impact of contesting, allowing for continuing to advance the state of the art, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head. The broader issues encompass contesting, advancing the state of the art, contesting, etc. HOWEVER, it is not necessary to spread all over the bands just to advance the state of the art - specifically in this case, high-speed messaging on HF. Within the bandwidth of a phone signal, all sorts of experimentation is already available with minimal disruption to other communications. If a new mode shows enough promise to really advance the state of the art, AND will benefit other users of the bands, then it is appropriate to suggest the benefits to everyone for taking away space from other users and using the new mode instead. The most recent example is the ROS mode, which is very wide for the benefit it brings, in addition to being illegal on HF in this country because it unfortunately happens to use spread spectrum technology. The idea of spread spectrum is that many stations can share the same space (if the spreading is wide enough) because the probability of a collision of two signals is small. ROS fails technically because it is just unable to spread wide enough, limited by the IF bandwidth of most existing receivers (non-SDR types). So, the best the ROS author is able to do now is accommodate two ROS signals simultaneously, but in twice or more bandwidth than several more narrow signals (like Olivia), and with poorer performance besides. Because it was so wide, it could not find any place to operate except on one frequency in the automatic subbands without disturbing communications of existing, more narrow, modes. Still, experimentation was possible and continues. Whether or not ROS is better than even PSK31 or Olivia is still to be determined, but experimentation and improvement is still being done. If, after considering the bandwidth of the mode and all other users, the overall benefit of switching to ROS is there, I am sure a consensus will emerge to do that. As another example, PSK31 is very narrow and spectrum efficient at about a 50 Hz bandwidth, but fails totally over the polar path. MFSK16, eight times as wide, pr RTTY. does not fail, and neither does Olivia, so there is justification for using the wider mode in order to achieve something that is otherwise unachievable. Experimentation on a small scale first, then followed by deployment, if justified by consensus, is the way it needs to be done, and not the other way around as suggested by HFlink. 73 - Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] evil Bonnie..
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:07 AM, kb2hsh kb2...@amsat.org wrote: I 110% agree with you there. Bonnie (yes, I'm not bashful about calling her out) controls ALE as if it were HERS. In my opinion, it's little more than a business for her...not only can you join HF-ALE, but you can also BUY MERCHANDISE. John, Bonnie's group may sell merchandise but she has other successful businesses, so I doubt this is her motive. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: evil Bonnie..
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:07 AM, kb2hsh kb2...@... wrote: I 110% agree with you there. Bonnie (yes, I'm not bashful about calling her out) controls ALE as if it were HERS. In my opinion, it's little more than a business for her...not only can you join HF-ALE, but you can also BUY MERCHANDISE. John, Bonnie's group may sell merchandise but she has other successful businesses, so I doubt this is her motive. Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ
