Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage
Skip, I agree with you. My considerations to prefer in HF Contestia 250/4 format is related to the idea to find some compromise for bpsk31 folk, Olivia light users, and rtty folk when the propagation is not enough good for bpsk31 and rtty. So Cnt 250/4 with 39wpm is the first alternative for bpsk and rtty folk and the last alternative for Olivia hardusers ;) The idea to use 250/4 format motivated also by fact that Cnt 250/4 signals are seen in wtrfl until the copy lost (-9dB). 250/8 is washed out from wtrfl around -10dB. Both, psk31 and rtty users was wont to see signals on wtrfl. To see signals is motivated also from QRM reducing viewpoint. The idea to make 2-step default switch from 250/4(-9dB) to 250/16 (-15dB) and so get additional snr -6dB is compensate 250/8 format snr-advantage. Default shift need default procedure what/how to do when the copy is lost. WPM considerations 29wpm (250/8) is good speed from cw-viewpoint, but too less from rtty/psk31 viewpoint. 39wpm (250/4) is somekind compromise between the different speed/snr expectations. vy73, Jaak es1hj 10.05.2010 2:59, KH6TY kirjutas: Hi Jaak, Great idea to start a long test of Contestia 250/4! Perhaps Contestia 250/8 can also be compared in actual practice to Contestia 250/4. Contestia 250/8 is slower (at 29 wpm), but decodes 2 dB deeper into the noise, which may be important when there is QSB (fading) and the signal is already near the noise level ( such as when the band is going out). Although I can type over 50 wpm, my personal feeling is that 29 wpm is fast enough for a QSO, but Contestia at 78 wpm (3 dB less sensitive) is more reasonable for passing traffic (if conditions can support 3 dB less sensitivity). If not, then to be able to pass the traffic at all, it has to be sent at a slower, more sensitive speed, such as Contestia 250/4. It all depends upon the average individual preference for typing speed for QSO's vs conditions.This may become clear during your tests. I hope the testers will make their minimum typing speed preferences known, as well as how well the mode works. 73, Skip KH6TY Jaak Hohensee wrote: Hi everybody * Contestia derived from Olivia. * Contestia 250/4 is channelfree like psk or rtty. BW less than rtty and same as psk125, 39wpm, snr -9dB. * So Contestia 250/4 is good narrowband alternative for psk31 or rtty folk, specially when propagtion is not for psk/rtty or signals are too weak. * Contestia 250/4 is good mode for mid- or high-latitude folk. Many times there are disturbed propagation path not suited for psk or rtty. * Concept testing period to the end of year 2010. Everybody is welcome. More info contestia.blogspot.com http://contestia.blogspot.com/ -- vy73, Jaak es1hj -- Kirjutas ja tervitab Jaak Hohensee
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage
Jaak, I agree with your reasoning in testing Contestia 250/4. I also think that a good approach would be for EVERYONE to use RSID so a station can shift the QSO mode according to typing preference or propagation conditions, as determined at either end of the QSO. Multipsk, DM780, and Fldigi already support both Contestia 250/4 and Contestia 250/8, so it will be easy to compare modes to see which one arises as the preferred one. Basically, Olivia has now become favored by many over MFSK16 because it is easier to tune, and works well into the noise. I suspect that the same will happen with Contestia, but it will be always more comfortably fast than Olivia under the same conditions, of course. Thanks again for the PathSim tests on the wider Contestia modes. That has been very helpful in deciding which is the best overall compromise between speed and lowest S/N on our UHF paths. On UHF, we have prepared macros in Fldigi to quickly switch between Contestia 1000/64 and Conterstia 2000/64, but it would be helpful if Patrick would assign Reed Solomon Identifiers to include those variants. Because there is much more space available on UHF, we can use the wider modes to withstand Doppler shift and spreading, whereas we find anything more narrow than 500 Hz simply does not survive. It is good to have choices! 73, Skip KH6TY Jaak Hohensee wrote: Skip, I agree with you. My considerations to prefer in HF Contestia 250/4 format is related to the idea to find some compromise for bpsk31 folk, Olivia light users, and rtty folk when the propagation is not enough good for bpsk31 and rtty. So Cnt 250/4 with 39wpm is the first alternative for bpsk and rtty folk and the last alternative for Olivia hardusers ;) The idea to use 250/4 format motivated also by fact that Cnt 250/4 signals are seen in wtrfl until the copy lost (-9dB). 250/8 is washed out from wtrfl around -10dB. Both, psk31 and rtty users was wont to see signals on wtrfl. To see signals is motivated also from QRM reducing viewpoint. The idea to make 2-step default switch from 250/4(-9dB) to 250/16 (-15dB) and so get additional snr -6dB is compensate 250/8 format snr-advantage. Default shift need default procedure what/how to do when the copy is lost. WPM considerations 29wpm (250/8) is good speed from cw-viewpoint, but too less from rtty/psk31 viewpoint. 39wpm (250/4) is somekind compromise between the different speed/snr expectations. vy73, Jaak es1hj 10.05.2010 2:59, KH6TY kirjutas: Hi Jaak, Great idea to start a long test of Contestia 250/4! Perhaps Contestia 250/8 can also be compared in actual practice to Contestia 250/4. Contestia 250/8 is slower (at 29 wpm), but decodes 2 dB deeper into the noise, which may be important when there is QSB (fading) and the signal is already near the noise level ( such as when the band is going out). Although I can type over 50 wpm, my personal feeling is that 29 wpm is fast enough for a QSO, but Contestia at 78 wpm (3 dB less sensitive) is more reasonable for passing traffic (if conditions can support 3 dB less sensitivity). If not, then to be able to pass the traffic at all, it has to be sent at a slower, more sensitive speed, such as Contestia 250/4. It all depends upon the average individual preference for typing speed for QSO's vs conditions.This may become clear during your tests. I hope the testers will make their minimum typing speed preferences known, as well as how well the mode works. 73, Skip KH6TY Jaak Hohensee wrote: Hi everybody * Contestia derived from Olivia. * Contestia 250/4 is channelfree like psk or rtty. BW less than rtty and same as psk125, 39wpm, snr -9dB. * So Contestia 250/4 is good narrowband alternative for psk31 or rtty folk, specially when propagtion is not for psk/rtty or signals are too weak. * Contestia 250/4 is good mode for mid- or high-latitude folk. Many times there are disturbed propagation path not suited for psk or rtty. * Concept testing period to the end of year 2010. Everybody is welcome. More info contestia.blogspot.com http://contestia.blogspot.com/ -- vy73, Jaak es1hj -- Kirjutas ja tervitab Jaak Hohensee
[digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
It seems odd to me too Rick. However, i do note... means of on-off keying (emission designator 150HA1A) continues to be used by amateur stations because of its reliability in difficult propagation conditions. ARRL also states that the other requested emission designators – 60H0J2B (which is generally known as PSK31) and 2K80J2D (which is generally known as PACTOR-III) – are popular narrowband data modes.16 We propose to add these three emission designators, which would allow four permissible emission types to be used in the 60 meter band. We propose to permit any additional modulation techniques that we adopt to be used on all assigned frequencies within the 60 meter band, including the assigned frequency 5368 kHz in the event that we do not adopt our proposal to replace the assigned frequency 5368 kHz with 5358.5 kHz PSK31 would be welcome. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Rick Ellison relli...@twcny.rr.com wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
When did Pactor-III (up to 2200 Hz wide, I think), suddenly become a narrowband data mode? 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: It seems odd to me too Rick. However, i do note... means of on-off keying (emission designator 150HA1A) continues to be used by amateur stations because of its reliability in difficult propagation conditions. ARRL also states that the other requested emission designators – 60H0J2B (which is generally known as PSK31) and 2K80J2D (which is generally known as PACTOR-III) – are popular narrowband data modes.16 We propose to add these three emission designators, which would allow four permissible emission types to be used in the 60 meter band. We propose to permit any additional modulation techniques that we adopt to be used on all assigned frequencies within the 60 meter band, including the assigned frequency 5368 kHz in the event that we do not adopt our proposal to replace the assigned frequency 5368 kHz with 5358.5 kHz PSK31 would be welcome. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Rick Ellison relli...@twcny.rr.com mailto:relli...@twcny.rr.com wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com http://www.n2amg.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 Time: 08:08:41 and 2K80J2D (which is generally known as PACTOR-III) – are popular narrowband data modes. Since when was Pactor III a narrow-band mode? -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 02:53:16PM +0100, Ian Wade G3NRW wrote: From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 Time: 08:08:41 and 2K80J2D (which is generally known as PACTOR-III) ??? are popular narrowband data modes. Since when was Pactor III a narrow-band mode? In comparison to commercial mass-market broadcast FM, it is. Other than that, it isn't. If the ARRL claims that it is, my response is: All the pigs have been serviced and fueled and are in all respects ready for flight, Sir. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
In a channelized setting, PIII will not exceed allowed bandwidth. But, to answer your question about why the ARRL pushes PIII; relevance in emergency communications for current sustainability of allotted spectrum. When there is a race for control of long-haul spectrum (for which there is a renewed interest among military, agency and NGOs), it is nice to have a dog in the hunt. But, the move to give more legitimacy to Pactor III (PIII) in the ham bands will fail, as ultimately the Amateur Radio Service's claim to all of the spectrum they currently enjoy. The Queen is dead; long live the Queen David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick Ellison Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 7:36 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... http://hraunfoss. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
What it means is that the channel will be dominated with personal Winlink Pactor-III traffic, completely filling it up, with no sharing, or any space left for truly narrowband modes like PSK31 - all in the name of emergency communications. It has proven impossible for a Pactor-III ARQ station (one side is ALWAYS unattended) to share with any other services that already have priority, just as they do not share with other radio amateur communications, because they do not listen first. The 99% of hams that do not use Winlink will have that 60m channel taken away from them. 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: It seems odd to me too Rick. However, i do note... means of on-off keying (emission designator 150HA1A) continues to be used by amateur stations because of its reliability in difficult propagation conditions. ARRL also states that the other requested emission designators – 60H0J2B (which is generally known as PSK31) and 2K80J2D (which is generally known as PACTOR-III) – are popular narrowband data modes.16 We propose to add these three emission designators, which would allow four permissible emission types to be used in the 60 meter band. We propose to permit any additional modulation techniques that we adopt to be used on all assigned frequencies within the 60 meter band, including the assigned frequency 5368 kHz in the event that we do not adopt our proposal to replace the assigned frequency 5368 kHz with 5358.5 kHz PSK31 would be welcome. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Rick Ellison relli...@twcny.rr.com mailto:relli...@twcny.rr.com wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com http://www.n2amg.com
[digitalradio] Re: Universal M-8000--Dinosaur in Today's World?
I don't have one, but the M-8000 is intended to decode a lot of modes that are or were used by non-amateur operations. I believe the quality of the modem is on a par with the best of the hardware modems, marginally below the better DSP modems. I would probably pay $100 for one. Seems like they quit marketing them when the law was changed to criminalize listening to anything not intended for the general public.
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John Becker, WOJAB Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:50 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end. It's an anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection rant, John. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
I would belive that if it was not for that fact that shortly after a PACTOR QSO the phone has rang telling me what orifice I should shove my pactor equipment into. Leaving no guessing what so ever about it. Then not even giving me time to say I was in a 2 person QSO. That my friend was the last time I sent a CW ID after a nice QSO. That tells me TWO things - 1. The person *can* copy CW. 2. Can't copy any PACTOR . So does the source of the pactor really matter? I don't think so. I really do not think seven out of ten can even copy P-1. Maybe that's reason they don't like is it *because* the CAN'T copy it with their sound card. I really don't care what it is. You know what they say about the porch and the big dog's. So my friend I do think WINLINK has a lot to do with it when even a keyboard to keyboard QSO get's phone calls from some lid. But I guess, I'll look at the good side of it all. I will not be getting any calls from him again. Seems his state has laws about making phone calls like that. And he no longer has a land line. Thank you ATT Who would like to be the next one? I'm in the book. But to answer that question - Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III because it works, and works well. John, W0JAB At 01:23 PM 5/10/2010, AA6YQ wrote: It's an anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection rant, John. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John, How frequently do you use Pactor-III, keyboard to keyboard? How fast do you touch type? 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: So my friend I do think WINLINK has a lot to do with it when even a keyboard to keyboard QSO get's phone calls from some lid. But I guess, I'll look at the good side of it all. I will not be getting any calls from him again. Seems his state has laws about making phone calls like that. And he no longer has a land line. Thank you ATT Who would like to be the next one? I'm in the book. But to answer that question - Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III because it works, and works well. John, W0JAB At 01:23 PM 5/10/2010, AA6YQ wrote: It's an anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection rant, John. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage
Hello Skip, About Contestia: I think this mode is a better compromise between robustness and speed than Olivia (too much robustness) and RTTYM (very fast but with the problem of having two sets of characters as in RTTY, i.e letters and figures, and hence much risk of packet of errors). but it would be helpful if Patrick would assign Reed Solomon Identifiers to include those variants. RR for all, but I have not seen demands to our RS ID group... 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage Jaak, I agree with your reasoning in testing Contestia 250/4. I also think that a good approach would be for EVERYONE to use RSID so a station can shift the QSO mode according to typing preference or propagation conditions, as determined at either end of the QSO. Multipsk, DM780, and Fldigi already support both Contestia 250/4 and Contestia 250/8, so it will be easy to compare modes to see which one arises as the preferred one. Basically, Olivia has now become favored by many over MFSK16 because it is easier to tune, and works well into the noise. I suspect that the same will happen with Contestia, but it will be always more comfortably fast than Olivia under the same conditions, of course. Thanks again for the PathSim tests on the wider Contestia modes. That has been very helpful in deciding which is the best overall compromise between speed and lowest S/N on our UHF paths. On UHF, we have prepared macros in Fldigi to quickly switch between Contestia 1000/64 and Conterstia 2000/64, but it would be helpful if Patrick would assign Reed Solomon Identifiers to include those variants. Because there is much more space available on UHF, we can use the wider modes to withstand Doppler shift and spreading, whereas we find anything more narrow than 500 Hz simply does not survive. It is good to have choices! 73, Skip KH6TY Jaak Hohensee wrote: Skip, I agree with you. My considerations to prefer in HF Contestia 250/4 format is related to the idea to find some compromise for bpsk31 folk, Olivia light users, and rtty folk when the propagation is not enough good for bpsk31 and rtty. So Cnt 250/4 with 39wpm is the first alternative for bpsk and rtty folk and the last alternative for Olivia hardusers ;) The idea to use 250/4 format motivated also by fact that Cnt 250/4 signals are seen in wtrfl until the copy lost (-9dB). 250/8 is washed out from wtrfl around -10dB. Both, psk31 and rtty users was wont to see signals on wtrfl. To see signals is motivated also from QRM reducing viewpoint. The idea to make 2-step default switch from 250/4(-9dB) to 250/16 (-15dB) and so get additional snr -6dB is compensate 250/8 format snr-advantage. Default shift need default procedure what/how to do when the copy is lost. WPM considerations 29wpm (250/8) is good speed from cw-viewpoint, but too less from rtty/psk31 viewpoint. 39wpm (250/4) is somekind compromise between the different speed/snr expectations. vy73, Jaak es1hj 10.05.2010 2:59, KH6TY kirjutas: Hi Jaak, Great idea to start a long test of Contestia 250/4! Perhaps Contestia 250/8 can also be compared in actual practice to Contestia 250/4. Contestia 250/8 is slower (at 29 wpm), but decodes 2 dB deeper into the noise, which may be important when there is QSB (fading) and the signal is already near the noise level ( such as when the band is going out). Although I can type over 50 wpm, my personal feeling is that 29 wpm is fast enough for a QSO, but Contestia at 78 wpm (3 dB less sensitive) is more reasonable for passing traffic (if conditions can support 3 dB less sensitivity). If not, then to be able to pass the traffic at all, it has to be sent at a slower, more sensitive speed, such as Contestia 250/4. It all depends upon the average individual preference for typing speed for QSO's vs conditions.This may become clear during your tests. I hope the testers will make their minimum typing speed preferences known, as well as how well the mode works. 73, Skip KH6TY Jaak Hohensee wrote: Hi everybody a.. Contestia derived from Olivia. b.. Contestia 250/4 is channelfree like psk or rtty. BW less than rtty and same as psk125, 39wpm, snr -9dB. c.. So Contestia 250/4 is good narrowband alternative for psk31 or rtty folk, specially when propagtion is not for psk/rtty or signals are too weak. d.. Contestia 250/4 is good mode for mid- or high-latitude folk. Many times there are disturbed propagation path not suited for psk or rtty. e.. Concept testing period to the end of year 2010. Everybody is welcome. More info contestia.blogspot.com -- vy73, Jaak es1hj -- Kirjutas ja tervitab
[digitalradio] Re: why does the ARRL.......
Unfortunately lots of people have had bad experiences with Pactor and,naturally, like when you've been bitten by a big dog you don't forget it ! I used to enjoy using pactor with my PK232 during the 90's but many times my contacts were totally wiped out by a roving Pactor message system which used to drop on top of any QSO, I got so angry about this I gave up using Pactor. There nothing wrong with Pactor as long as the users stay in their pen, its the same with RTTY stations, some used to persist in using the only frequency used by PSK operators. Contacts using thirty watts and less of PSK are demolished when RTTY comes even anywhere near to where they operate and people get angry. As always, consideration for others on the bands is the way radio amateurs of all nations should show their amateur radio spirit and goodwill. Kind regards, Mel G0GQK
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
Often, very often. All pactor modes. As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. At 02:19 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: John, How frequently do you use Pactor-III, keyboard to keyboard? How fast do you touch type?
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage
Hi Patrick, Yahoo reports there is no RSID group. Where should I request additional RSID codes? 73 - Skip KH6TY Patrick Lindecker wrote: Hello Skip, About Contestia: I think this mode is a better compromise between robustness and speed than Olivia (too much robustness) and RTTYM (very fast but with the problem of having two sets of characters as in RTTY, i.e letters and figures, and hence much risk of packet of errors). but it would be helpful if Patrick would assign Reed Solomon Identifiers to include those variants. RR for all, but I have not seen demands to our RS ID group...
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John, I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard QSO's, not Pactor-II or Pactor I. As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. How do you personally carry on a keyboard-to-keyboard conversation without typing? 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Often, very often. All pactor modes. As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. At 02:19 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote:
Re: [digitalradio] Re: why does the ARRL.......
At 02:51 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: Unfortunately lots of people have had bad experiences with Pactor and,naturally, like when you've been bitten by a big dog you don't forget it ! I used to enjoy using pactor with my PK232 during the 90's but many times my contacts were totally wiped out by a roving Pactor message system which used to drop on top of any QSO, I got so angry about this I gave up using Pactor. There nothing wrong with Pactor as long as the users stay in their pen, And just where may that be Mel? its the same with RTTY stations, some used to persist in using the only frequency used by PSK operators. Same question again. (freq wise) I think that you may be speaking about 14,075. If so that was the autostart freq for RTTY when I first got on RTTY in the early 70's. Way way before any squeaking sounding sound card mode came along.
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
At 03:12 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: John, I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard QSO's, not Pactor-II or Pactor I. Skip, just because you are anyone else can't copy P2 or P3 does not mean it does not happen. Belive me, it happens ! most of my keyboard to keyboard QSO are P2 or P3. Can't really recall last time I had a P1 QSO As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. How do you personally carry on a keyboard-to-keyboard conversation without typing? ESP - There is a difference between typing and touch typing. Google it. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
ESP - There is a difference between typing and touch typing. Google it. I did. Touch typing is typing without using the sense of sight to find the keys. *Typing* is the process of inputting text into a device, such as a typewriter /wiki/Typewriter, cell phone /wiki/Cell_phone, computer /wiki/Computer, or a calculator /wiki/Calculator, by pressing keys on a keyboard /wiki/Computer_keyboard. It can be distinguished from other means of input, such as the use of pointing devices /wiki/Pointing_device like the computer mouse /wiki/Computer_mouse, and text input via speech recognition /wiki/Speech_recognition. Notice that any kind of typing is done by pressing keys on a keyboard. John, PSK31 was designed by G3PLX to accommodate a typical fast typist, or 50 wpm. Then why should a 2100 Hz-wide Pactor mode be legally allowed to take up a full channel for keyboarding when four Pactor-II stations could share the channel at the same time? 1. I'll venture a guess - it is not for person-to-person communication, but was done by the ARRL specifically for Winlink messaging, because NOBODY needs a 300 wpm mode for keyboarding, do they! So, 99% of the hams can now just kiss one of the 60m channels goodbye for general use. Thank you, ARRL! :-( 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 03:12 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: John, I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard QSO's, not Pactor-II or Pactor I. Skip, just because you are anyone else can't copy P2 or P3 does not mean it does not happen. Belive me, it happens ! most of my keyboard to keyboard QSO are P2 or P3. Can't really recall last time I had a P1 QSO As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. How do you personally carry on a keyboard-to-keyboard conversation without typing? ESP - There is a difference between typing and touch typing. Google it. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage
Skip, It is an informal group composed by the Hams able to program RS ID in their own respective programs (i.e Votjech, Simon, Dave, Cesco and myself). A RS ID number can't be virtual. It must be really implemented in a program... 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage Hi Patrick, Yahoo reports there is no RSID group. Where should I request additional RSID codes? 73 - Skip KH6TY Patrick Lindecker wrote: Hello Skip, About Contestia: I think this mode is a better compromise between robustness and speed than Olivia (too much robustness) and RTTYM (very fast but with the problem of having two sets of characters as in RTTY, i.e letters and figures, and hence much risk of packet of errors). but it would be helpful if Patrick would assign Reed Solomon Identifiers to include those variants. RR for all, but I have not seen demands to our RS ID group...
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage
Patrick, Thanks. I'll ask Dave to request the number. He is already going to add Contestia 64/1000 and Contestia 64/2000 to Fldigi because those are needed on UHF when SSB cannot get though due to poor propagation, Doppler speading, and multipath. 73 - Skip KH6TY Patrick Lindecker wrote: Skip, It is an informal group composed by the Hams able to program RS ID in their own respective programs (i.e Votjech, Simon, Dave, Cesco and myself). A RS ID number can't be virtual. It must be really implemented in a program... 73 Patrick - Original Message - *From:* KH6TY mailto:kh...@comcast.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, May 10, 2010 10:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage Hi Patrick, Yahoo reports there is no RSID group. Where should I request additional RSID codes? 73 - Skip KH6TY Patrick Lindecker wrote: Hello Skip, About Contestia: I think this mode is a better compromise between robustness and speed than Olivia (too much robustness) and RTTYM (very fast but with the problem of having two sets of characters as in RTTY, i.e letters and figures, and hence much risk of packet of errors). but it would be helpful if Patrick would assign Reed Solomon Identifiers to include those variants. RR for all, but I have not seen demands to our RS ID group...
Re: [digitalradio] Re: why does the ARRL.......
Yes, 14.075 was the Pactor calling freq, don't know who decided that. I have not heard any ARQ Pactor in a long time, is it still used by anyone? 73 Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: why does the ARRL... At 02:51 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: Unfortunately lots of people have had bad experiences with Pactor and,naturally, like when you've been bitten by a big dog you don't forget it ! I used to enjoy using pactor with my PK232 during the 90's but many times my contacts were totally wiped out by a roving Pactor message system which used to drop on top of any QSO, I got so angry about this I gave up using Pactor. There nothing wrong with Pactor as long as the users stay in their pen, And just where may that be Mel? its the same with RTTY stations, some used to persist in using the only frequency used by PSK operators. Same question again. (freq wise) I think that you may be speaking about 14,075. If so that was the autostart freq for RTTY when I first got on RTTY in the early 70's. Way way before any squeaking sounding sound card mode came along. http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John and others, well I jumped in too soon. I thought he meant Pactor I as it was not specified in the original message. I also used to love both Pactor and Amtor ARQ modes.. still love Clover too, and will use any of them. 73 Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: why does the ARRL.......
At 05:18 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: Yes, 14.075 was the Pactor calling freq, don't know who decided that. I have not heard any ARQ Pactor in a long time, is it still used by anyone? 73 Buddy WB4M Yes it still is but it has been driven to the coat room by all the sound card user. Seems that anything that needs hardware is not worthy of mention. You can no longer talk about it but just like using pot, it still happens. but that is just my option and you know what they say about options. -.-
Re: [digitalradio] Universal M-8000--Dinosaur in Today's World?
Wayner: An M-8000 is worth more than $100. If you don't want to buy it, ask him if he will sell it to me! Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html - Original Message - From: wayner rueg...@insightbb.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:06 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Universal M-8000--Dinosaur in Today's World? I have a chance to buy a Universal M-8000 decoder from a friend for $100. Is it worth it, or do todays digital software blow it out of the water? (DM 780, MultiPsk, etc?) I am a SWL who has a NRD-535D hooked into a RF Systems DX-One and a Wellbrook 1530 loop, and I just got started with digital modes. I presently use DM 780, MultiPsk, FLdigi. From looking at the info, it looks like the M-8000 has a lot of modes that are not used anymore according to the spec sheets. I am a new member of this group, and am trying to learn all I can about digital modes. I live in Southern Indiana, and my main interests are Maritime listening and trying to decode digital signals. Thanks for any input you might have. Wayner
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
Just got started John.Don't have my station up and running yet.Can't seem to get something right.Trying to set up RTTY with no luck.I think I have verything set up right and see and hear signals on the screen.But no messages.I set all the jumpers by the book.But I can't send or recive any messages.I type about 65 wpm. Any advice or instruction as what I should do.I have run out of things to try.Thanks Hugh kd4txp.73 From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 3:19:58 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... John, How frequently do you use Pactor-III, keyboard to keyboard? How fast do you touch type? 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: So my friend I do think WINLINK has a lot to do with it when even a keyboard to keyboard QSO get's phone calls from some lid. But I guess, I'll look at the good side of it all. I will not be getting any calls from him again. Seems his state has laws about making phone calls like that. And he no longer has a land line. Thank you ATT Who would like to be the next one? I'm in the book. But to answer that question - Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III because it works, and works well. John, W0JAB At 01:23 PM 5/10/2010, AA6YQ wrote: It's an anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection rant, John. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] ROS V3.5.8
Hi this is N9HSM Tom on this new Ver. 3.5.8 what has happen on the macros? You can't save it. Like the other Ver.. I went to send CQ thats when i found out I had to reset the macros again.. So Far this has been a good program. Thanks alot from N9HSM
[digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
Rick Ellison writes: ... This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. A good question: I was thinking of sending in a comment on that NPRM, recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes which fit within the authorized bandwidth. However, it appears that the FCC is going to do that in any case. I am still inclined to write in and suggest that digital operation in the 60m band be confined to local or remote control, not automatic, to minimize the chance of interference to the primary users. Unlike some members of this list, I have nothing against Pactor-III on 60m (waste of spectrum when used for keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs is not an issue with the fixed channels on 60m), and nothing against Pactor I and II at all. I do not choose to operate those modes, but neither do I wish to restrict *other* hams to operating as *I* choose. OTOH, I DO object to ham bots interfering with the primary users of spectrum which we share on a secondary basis with other services: it's bad for the amateur service's relationships with other spectrum users. Actually, I even object to the lid-bots on ham-only spectrum outside the automatic-control subbands. I'd like to see the automatic subbands made a bit wider, but the exception removed for automatic stations using 500 Hz or less in response to interrogation by a manually-controlled station. I'll just have to live what we have now, ince the FCC clearly disagrees with me. -- 73 DE KW6H, ex-A6VW, Chris, ae6vw-digitalra...@puffin.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John W0JAB wrote: I like it (Pactor) and will operate it. You have every right to, assuming you don't interfere with an ongoing QSO etc. And someone calling your home and swearing at you was uncalled for, so to speak, and not in the spirit of ham radio. But several people have brought up some interesting issues. One was the statement this is an 'anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection' rant not an anti-Pactor rant. That never got answered. Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was really necessary for live keyboard to keyboard QSOs. I guess that was an anti-Pactor III question, but that one also never got answered. Pactor III is reliable but expensive. I personally wish there were equally good (with error correction) but inexpensive alternatives for HF, and also that Winlink would be changed to listen first. Because I'm a big proponent of a diversity of modes, and I think we should work together to coexist. Heck, I like the old modes almost as much as the new ones. Also interesting was David KD4NUE's When there is a race for control of long-haul spectrum (for which there is a renewed interest among military, agency and NGOs), it is nice to have a dog in the hunt. That may help explain the ARRL's action, I guess. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... I don't know Skip. Tell us. You seem to have an answer for everything and everyone. after thinking about that, don't tell us. I really don't care what you are others think about pactor. I like it and will operate it. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage
Patrick, I failed to point that every combination of bandwidth -125, 250, 500,1000, 2000, and tones - 2,4,8,16,32,64, 128, 256, for Contestia and Olivia are ALREADY implemented in both Fldigi and MixW. It is only because of this that were were able to discover the benefits of Contestia 64/2000 and 32/2000 which are not yet supported in Multipsk. By copy of this email, I am formally requesting Dave, W1HKJ, to request RD ID numbers for all these combinations, as it is just not possible to guess which combination will prove to be very useful under certain conditions. It took us weeks of daily tests to find out that Contestia 64/1000 is the MOST dependable mode to use for digital QSO's on UHF because of the extreme conditions there. 73 - Skip KH6TY Patrick Lindecker wrote: Skip, It is an informal group composed by the Hams able to program RS ID in their own respective programs (i.e Votjech, Simon, Dave, Cesco and myself). A RS ID number can't be virtual. It must be really implemented in a program... 73 Patrick - Original Message - *From:* KH6TY mailto:kh...@comcast.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, May 10, 2010 10:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage Hi Patrick, Yahoo reports there is no RSID group. Where should I request additional RSID codes? 73 - Skip KH6TY Patrick Lindecker wrote: Hello Skip, About Contestia: I think this mode is a better compromise between robustness and speed than Olivia (too much robustness) and RTTYM (very fast but with the problem of having two sets of characters as in RTTY, i.e letters and figures, and hence much risk of packet of errors). but it would be helpful if Patrick would assign Reed Solomon Identifiers to include those variants. RR for all, but I have not seen demands to our RS ID group...
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
[digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My objections are PIII is a proprietary mode . PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause of QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the same for the primary services that have 60M allocations. Recent tests of NBEMS with FLICS and WRAP have proven as effective as PIII and take up less spectrum (and are not proprietary) Winmor 500 offers most of the Winlink capabilities without the problems associated with wide PIII and is freely available to all hams. I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
Why not just limit bandwidth of any emission to 500 Hz? 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My objections are PIII is a proprietary mode . PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause of QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the same for the primary services that have 60M allocations. Recent tests of NBEMS with FLICS and WRAP have proven as effective as PIII and take up less spectrum (and are not proprietary) Winmor 500 offers most of the Winlink capabilities without the problems associated with wide PIII and is freely available to all hams. I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com mailto:hfradio...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
I take that as a no to my question about whether Pactor III has ever been publicly documented. My understanding is that if it is not, then it isn't authorized for use on the amateur bands in the US. I'm not opposed to Pactor III, per se, but by my understanding it doesn't comply with the basic rules. If this is the case, then either the rules need to change, or the modes that don't comply need to be removed from the air. Thoughts? Dave On May 10, 2010, at 9:18 PM, Andy obrien wrote: FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My objections are PIII is a proprietary mode . PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause of QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the same for the primary services that have 60M allocations. Recent tests of NBEMS with FLICS and WRAP have proven as effective as PIII and take up less spectrum (and are not proprietary) Winmor 500 offers most of the Winlink capabilities without the problems associated with wide PIII and is freely available to all hams. I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky -- Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
Dave, Of course Pactor-III has been publicly documented! wink See: http://www.scs-ptc.com/pactor/pactor However, it would take a judge in a court of law to decide if it has been adequately documented publicly. As far as it is known, nobody has been able to design a competing device to the SCS modem, always citing inadequate disclosure as a reason. Another real serious problem with Pactor-III is that it changes bandwidth according to conditions, getting wider in order to increase speed when conditions permit. The result is that Pactor-III owns a channel, even if at first it looks like part of the channel is available for other modes. The emitted bandwidth for the 60m digital channel really needs to be limited to 500 Hz. In fact, why not split the space into four or five 500 Hz-wide channels, which would give others a chance to operate there? Even mentioning PSK31 and RTTY is undoubtedly just a red herring when the REAL reason behind ARRL's petition is probably to support Winlink expansion under the guise of being necessary for Emcomm. Better file your comments on the NPRM ASAP, and encourage everyone you meet on the bands to do the same thing. The FCC does listen to the comments, and considers every one. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Wright wrote: I take that as a no to my question about whether Pactor III has ever been publicly documented. My understanding is that if it is not, then it isn't authorized for use on the amateur bands in the US. I'm not opposed to Pactor III, per se, but by my understanding it doesn't comply with the basic rules. If this is the case, then either the rules need to change, or the modes that don't comply need to be removed from the air. Thoughts? Dave
RE: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
This would be a good plan to insure that the Amateur Radio Service is treated as hobby-only communications. However, to be able to send traffic that is formatted in usable format for the players in an emergency, it takes a bit more than FEC, or throttled back ARQ. There are none of these problems or restrictions on NTIA spectrum, and it is another reason that the ARRL probably feels in peril as far as defending long-haul spectrum for the Amateur Radio Service. I run a 24/7 RMS WINMOR server. I run it on NTIA spectrum. I have had a P# controller in the past, and will probably invest in another one in the future. I wouldn't even consider running a RMS station within the Amateur spectrum; it is not worth the effort or wear and tear on the equipment involved to devote an emcomm asset where it has the least chance of doing anything useful. If things were different, I would put up a second station 24/7 within the Amateur Radio Service spectrum. It simply isn't worth listening to the whining. Also, the potential for being effective in an emergency is too heavily weighted toward Federal spectrum for the same reasons that the Winlink/P3 whining never ceases when it concerns Amateur spectrum. You reap what you sow As far as the bandwidth argument, remember, it is hard to consume like a humming bird and output like an elephant. The ARRL is certainly considering the trend that started in the early 90s when the FCC was defunded, and spectrum auction refarming was created. It is now part of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and will play a large part in the continuation of amateur radio service having use of the spectrum it currently enjoys.. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal Why not just limit bandwidth of any emission to 500 Hz? 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My objections are PIII is a proprietary mode . PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause of QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the same for the primary services that have 60M allocations. Recent tests of NBEMS with FLICS and WRAP have proven as effective as PIII and take up less spectrum (and are not proprietary) Winmor 500 offers most of the Winlink capabilities without the problems associated with wide PIII and is freely available to all hams. I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail. mailto:hfradio...@gmail.com com wrote: On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
[digitalradio] Carrier on 14069.0
All, Anyone notice the carrier on 14069.0 dial / + 1000Hz? It's been there for several hours. Tony -K2MO
[digitalradio] K5S - Smokey Bear Special Event - Olivia 8/500
All, The Smokey Bear Special Event station K5S is running Olivia 8/500 on 14072 +1000Hz Been there since 02:45z. Tony -K2MO
[digitalradio] Re: Opposing 60M proposal
Where does one file comments on this proposal? I sure wish the WinLink guys would backfit the WinMor busy frequency detector and deploy it to every PMBO. I'd much rather write code than letters to the FCC... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My objections are PIII is a proprietary mode . PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause of QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the same for the primary services that have 60M allocations. Recent tests of NBEMS with FLICS and WRAP have proven as effective as PIII and take up less spectrum (and are not proprietary) Winmor 500 offers most of the Winlink capabilities without the problems associated with wide PIII and is freely available to all hams. I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@... wrote: On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
[digitalradio] Re: Opposing 60M proposal
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Little dalit...@... wrote: This would be a good plan to insure that the Amateur Radio Service is treated as hobby-only communications. We had to destroy the village in order to save it snip I run a 24/7 RMS WINMOR server. snip If things were different, I would put up a second station 24/7 within the Amateur Radio Service spectrum. It simply isn't worth listening to the whining. I've heard no complaints about QRM from WinMor stations. Have you? Also, the potential for being effective in an emergency is too heavily weighted toward Federal spectrum for the same reasons that the Winlink/P3 whining never ceases when it concerns Amateur spectrum. Complaints about QRM from WinLink PMBOs will cease when WinLink PMBOs stop QRMing ongoing QSOs. The only WinLink whining I hear is from those offering lame excuses for why the same busy frequency detection mechanism deployed years ago in SCAMP and now deployed in WinMor hasn't long been incorporated into WinLink PMBOs. You reap what you sow Exactly. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
