[digitalradio] Anyone For 6 Meter ROS ??
Here is a response I got from Dan Henderson, N1ND, ARRL Regulatory Information Manager about the legality of ROS here in the states. My question was very simple. Is ROS a legal mode under FCC rules and if not, what would it take to make it so. Here is what Dan had to say. From: dhender...@arrl.org To: n...@hotmail.com Keith ROS is a spread spectrum technique. FCC rules allow Spread Spectrum above 50 MHz. It is not currently legal on the HF bands in the US. There has been quite a controversy about ROS since it was introduced. The original documentation from the developer clearly stated it was SS which was confirmed by the FCC. When the developer was notified SS was not legal in the US below 30 MHz, he changed his documentation then posted a forged email claiming it was from the FCC and that they had changed their opinion. Long story short, it uses a frequency hopping SS technique, regardless of what the author later claimed when the controversy erupted. This was verified by FCC engineers in their labs. Yes, it is a narrow bandwidth SS technique but it is still SS. The FCC would have to change Part 97 in order for it to be allowed on the HF bands in the US. They would either have to amend the rules to allow SS on all amateur bands (something that would probably be strongly opposed because many SS techniques are far wider than this mode and would create major problems on the relatively small HF band allocations) or they would have to specifically approve it for use. That is something that they have not been inclined to do because they do not wish to be constantly adding individual modes as they are developed. They provide a broad framework in the rules for what is allowed or prohibited and the mode either meets those criteria or it doesn't. 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND ARRL Regulatory Information Manager So it is what it is and I wouldn't look forward to being able to use it on HF any time soon here in the good old USA. But it might be a great weak signal mode on 6 meters in this very late E season. Anyone up to beaconing on 50.295 or 144.160 MHz, the frequencies suggested within the program? I'll be on 6 myself... Keith N4ZQ
Re: [digitalradio] Anyone For 6 Meter ROS ??
The only problem is that Mr Henderson is mistaken in one regard. Per Part 97, spread spectrum is not authorized on 6m or 2m. The rules specifically state (section 97.305(b)) no SS modulation emission may be transmitted on any frequency where SS is not specifically authorized.. A review of the table associated with this section indicates SS is only authorized on 1.25m and above. Additionally, section 97.311 regulates SS emission specifically, including such things as maximum power (100w) and the use of automatic transmitter control if more than 1w is used to ensure that only the minimum amount of power is actually used. So, keep that in mind if you want to use it on UHF. For anyone who actually wants to READ the rules instead of relying on the opinions of others, the 2009 version can be found here (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2009-title47-vol5-part97.pdf). The rules listed on the ARRL site are from 2007 and are thus out-of-date. The sections cited above are on page 26 and 27 of the PDF file (labeled page 611 and 612 of the regs). I would recommend that all amateurs keep a copy of this file on their computer. It is only 36 pages long and definitely worth reviewing from time to time. Dave K3DCW On Aug 24, 2010, at 9:16 AM, n4zq wrote: Here is a response I got from Dan Henderson, N1ND, ARRL Regulatory Information Manager about the legality of ROS here in the states. My question was very simple. Is ROS a legal mode under FCC rules and if not, what would it take to make it so. Here is what Dan had to say. From: dhender...@arrl.org To: n...@hotmail.com Keith ROS is a spread spectrum technique. FCC rules allow Spread Spectrum above 50 MHz. It is not currently legal on the HF bands in the US. There has been quite a controversy about ROS since it was introduced. The original documentation from the developer clearly stated it was SS which was confirmed by the FCC. When the developer was notified SS was not legal in the US below 30 MHz, he changed his documentation then posted a forged email claiming it was from the FCC and that they had changed their opinion. Long story short, it uses a frequency hopping SS technique, regardless of what the author later claimed when the controversy erupted. This was verified by FCC engineers in their labs. Yes, it is a narrow bandwidth SS technique but it is still SS. The FCC would have to change Part 97 in order for it to be allowed on the HF bands in the US. They would either have to amend the rules to allow SS on all amateur bands (something that would probably be strongly opposed because many SS techniques are far wider than this mode and would create major problems on the relatively small HF band allocations) or they would have to specifically approve it for use. That is something that they have not been inclined to do because they do not wish to be constantly adding individual modes as they are developed. They provide a broad framework in the rules for what is allowed or prohibited and the mode either meets those criteria or it doesn't. 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND ARRL Regulatory Information Manager So it is what it is and I wouldn't look forward to being able to use it on HF any time soon here in the good old USA. But it might be a great weak signal mode on 6 meters in this very late E season. Anyone up to beaconing on 50.295 or 144.160 MHz, the frequencies suggested within the program? I'll be on 6 myself... Keith N4ZQ Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
Re: [digitalradio] Anyone For 6 Meter ROS ??
Keith, While ROS is not legal on HF it still is not legal on 6 or 2 meters here in the states, it is legal on 1.25cm and above. Please see Part 97.305 it clearly states where spread spectrum is authorized. This issue has been hashed out on numerous threads and I wouldn't want to put my license on the line for this software. 73, Chuck AC5PW From: n4zq n...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 8:16:19 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Anyone For 6 Meter ROS ?? Here is a response I got from Dan Henderson, N1ND, ARRL Regulatory Information Manager about the legality of ROS here in the states. My question was very simple. Is ROS a legal mode under FCC rules and if not, what would it take to make it so. Here is what Dan had to say. From: dhender...@arrl.org To: n...@hotmail.com Keith ROS is a spread spectrum technique. FCC rules allow Spread Spectrum above 50 MHz. It is not currently legal on the HF bands in the US. There has been quite a controversy about ROS since it was introduced. The original documentation from the developer clearly stated it was SS which was confirmed by the FCC. When the developer was notified SS was not legal in the US below 30 MHz, he changed his documentation then posted a forged email claiming it was from the FCC and that they had changed their opinion. Long story short, it uses a frequency hopping SS technique, regardless of what the author later claimed when the controversy erupted. This was verified by FCC engineers in their labs. Yes, it is a narrow bandwidth SS technique but it is still SS. The FCC would have to change Part 97 in order for it to be allowed on the HF bands in the US. They would either have to amend the rules to allow SS on all amateur bands (something that would probably be strongly opposed because many SS techniques are far wider than this mode and would create major problems on the relatively small HF band allocations) or they would have to specifically approve it for use. That is something that they have not been inclined to do because they do not wish to be constantly adding individual modes as they are developed. They provide a broad framework in the rules for what is allowed or prohibited and the mode either meets those criteria or it doesn't. 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND ARRL Regulatory Information Manager So it is what it is and I wouldn't look forward to being able to use it on HF any time soon here in the good old USA. But it might be a great weak signal mode on 6 meters in this very late E season. Anyone up to beaconing on 50.295 or 144.160 MHz, the frequencies suggested within the program? I'll be on 6 myself... Keith N4ZQ
[digitalradio] Re: Half Square Antenna
What Andy and Skip said, plus a top corner feed causes a pattern distortion in the broadside that narrows the beam width a bit. A bottom element feed through a parallel network has no pattern distortion but requires ground radials. However you can put down a very minimal ground radial system compared to a 1/4 wave vertical. I used only one 1/4 wave on mine and it worked fine. 73, Thomas NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA http://www.nz4o.org --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kf4hou kf4...@... wrote: Hey Tom Which is the better way of feeding the Half Square what is the plus and minus of both? Voltage vs. Current Fed I used a half square on 17 meters in Colorado in 1995 at the bottom of the sunspot cycle. I voltage fed it with a parallel LC network and one 1/4 wave radial. The flat top phasing line was only 13 feet off of the ground with the antenna broadside Europe and the Pacific. The results: 100 countries in 30 days with 100 watts. A serious DX antenna. I also put up a half square on 160 in Colorado, with the same voltage feed. I linear loaded each 1/4 wave leg into two each 1/8 wave 64 foot sections and it worked fantastic. I had a big signal with 100 watts. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA nz4o@ NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org
Re: [digitalradio] Anyone For 6 Meter ROS ??
Just what we need is spark-gap radios on 6 and 2 meters. We just got through fighting this a few years back. Since 223 is little used and it's legal whats the problem with going up there ? Chuck is right why is it that SS users feel they need to go on widely used bands ? Even if legal the chance of causing problems when 6 is open out weights any advantages or technology advances you might be looking to gain. i have been on 223 for 35 years it's a good but little used band give it a try. --- On Tue, 8/24/10, charles standlee ac5p...@yahoo.com wrote: From: charles standlee ac5p...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Anyone For 6 Meter ROS ?? To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, August 24, 2010, 10:50 AM Keith, While ROS is not legal on HF it still is not legal on 6 or 2 meters here in the states, it is legal on 1.25cm and above. Please see Part 97.305 it clearly states where spread spectrum is authorized. This issue has been hashed out on numerous threads and I wouldn't want to put my license on the line for this software. 73, Chuck AC5PW From: n4zq n...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 8:16:19 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Anyone For 6 Meter ROS ?? Here is a response I got from Dan Henderson, N1ND, ARRL Regulatory Information Manager about the legality of ROS here in the states. My question was very simple. Is ROS a legal mode under FCC rules and if not, what would it take to make it so. Here is what Dan had to say. From: dhender...@arrl.org To: n...@hotmail.com Keith ROS is a spread spectrum technique. FCC rules allow Spread Spectrum above 50 MHz. It is not currently legal on the HF bands in the US. There has been quite a controversy about ROS since it was introduced. The original documentation from the developer clearly stated it was SS which was confirmed by the FCC. When the developer was notified SS was not legal in the US below 30 MHz, he changed his documentation then posted a forged email claiming it was from the FCC and that they had changed their opinion. Long story short, it uses a frequency hopping SS technique, regardless of what the author later claimed when the controversy erupted. This was verified by FCC engineers in their labs. Yes, it is a narrow bandwidth SS technique but it is still SS. The FCC would have to change Part 97 in order for it to be allowed on the HF bands in the US. They would either have to amend the rules to allow SS on all amateur bands (something that would probably be strongly opposed because many SS techniques are far wider than this mode and would create major problems on the relatively small HF band allocations) or they would have to specifically approve it for use. That is something that they have not been inclined to do because they do not wish to be constantly adding individual modes as they are developed. They provide a broad framework in the rules for what is allowed or prohibited and the mode either meets those criteria or it doesn't. 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND ARRL Regulatory Information Manager So it is what it is and I wouldn't look forward to being able to use it on HF any time soon here in the good old USA. But it might be a great weak signal mode on 6 meters in this very late E season. Anyone up to beaconing on 50.295 or 144.160 MHz, the frequencies suggested within the program? I'll be on 6 myself... Keith N4ZQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Half Square Antenna
Tom, with voltage feed, you only need an electrostatic ground. I used about 10' x 10' of chicken wire for a ground sheet under mine in Hawaii. 73, Skip KH6TY Thomas wrote: What Andy and Skip said, plus a top corner feed causes a pattern distortion in the broadside that narrows the beam width a bit. A bottom element feed through a parallel network has no pattern distortion but requires ground radials. However you can put down a very minimal ground radial system compared to a 1/4 wave vertical. I used only one 1/4 wave on mine and it worked fine. 73, Thomas NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA http://www.nz4o.org --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, kf4hou kf4...@... wrote: Hey Tom Which is the better way of feeding the Half Square what is the plus and minus of both? Voltage vs. Current Fed I used a half square on 17 meters in Colorado in 1995 at the bottom of the sunspot cycle. I voltage fed it with a parallel LC network and one 1/4 wave radial. The flat top phasing line was only 13 feet off of the ground with the antenna broadside Europe and the Pacific. The results: 100 countries in 30 days with 100 watts. A serious DX antenna. I also put up a half square on 160 in Colorado, with the same voltage feed. I linear loaded each 1/4 wave leg into two each 1/8 wave 64 foot sections and it worked fantastic. I had a big signal with 100 watts. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA nz4o@ NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org
[digitalradio] CMSK Freq's
I know CMSK is mainly for 160/80 metes (which I currently can't do), but what freq's are being used currently on the other bands/ thanks and 73 Kurt
[digitalradio] Re: CMSK Freq's
Dave, KB3MOW, has suggested 14079 + 1000 Hz, USB, to me for a test on 20 m. I will be available there around 22.00 UTC or a little bit later. 73 Juergen, DL8LE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k8yzk k8...@... wrote: I know CMSK is mainly for 160/80 metes (which I currently can't do), but what freq's are being used currently on the other bands/ thanks and 73 Kurt
[digitalradio] Re: CMSK Freq's
Called there in CMSK31 and 63 from 22.00 - 22.30 UTC. No reply. Will be there again tomorrow. 73 Juergen, DL8LE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k8yzk k8...@... wrote: I know CMSK is mainly for 160/80 metes (which I currently can't do), but what freq's are being used currently on the other bands/ thanks and 73 Kurt
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CMSK Freq's
I alternated calls to you and calls to CQ and never heard another signal. Not sure how propagation is, though. 73 Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Juergen Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:30 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: CMSK Freq's Called there in CMSK31 and 63 from 22.00 - 22.30 UTC. No reply. Will be there again tomorrow. 73 Juergen, DL8LE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k8yzk k8...@... wrote: I know CMSK is mainly for 160/80 metes (which I currently can't do), but what freq's are being used currently on the other bands/ thanks and 73 Kurt
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CMSK Freq's
Hi: i will be tomorrow about 1800 z in 14079 and 21079 Claudio-lu2vc 2010/8/24 Dave 'Doc' Corio dco...@zitomedia.net I alternated calls to you and calls to CQ and never heard another signal. Not sure how propagation is, though. 73 Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Juergen *Sent:* Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:30 PM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* [digitalradio] Re: CMSK Freq's Called there in CMSK31 and 63 from 22.00 - 22.30 UTC. No reply. Will be there again tomorrow. 73 Juergen, DL8LE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, k8yzk k8...@... wrote: I know CMSK is mainly for 160/80 metes (which I currently can't do), but what freq's are being used currently on the other bands/ thanks and 73 Kurt
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New guy
Steve, There have been some terrific responses with some great advice. I'll focus only on the interface between the radio and the PC's soundcard. Even for casual usage, I'd recommend that you not use the built-in soundcard that came with your computer, and that you probably use for PC things like playing CDs or DVD sound, or even Echolink, VOIP or other PC mike/speakers usage. So either get an interface with an external soundcard built into it (the Signalink USB is an excellent choice), or somehow get a 2nd soundcard for your PC that you will use only for digital mode applications. Just a few years ago, I'd have recommended for your tower or desktop PC that you simply add a cheap sound card. But many people now are using laptops that don't support adding cards to them. So if you don't go with a combined interface/soundcard device like the Signalink, I'd recommend you get an external soundcard connected to the PC with a USB cable. There are good ones from the Creative Soundblaster line, but I'm sure there are many other good ones. There are even some tiny USB sound dongles, but they really vary in quality. Still, if you get one that works, they are small and easy to connect. The reason you want a second soundcard is so that you can keep all your cables connected up permanently and can switch to digital modes without any hassel. You won't have to unplug the PC's mike and speakers and connect up the cables to your interface. All your PC sound level settings will stay the same and won't need to be adjusted when you fire up the digital mode. The Signalink USB interface has a feature that some really like -- it has a built-in VOX circuit that will key PTT on your radio when it hears the PC generate output tone data. This means you don't need an extra cable from the PC to the interface to carry PTT info. Hooking up a Signalink USB the first time is really easy. I personally prefer having the PC key the transmitter explicitly. This is personal preference only, and many prefer the VOX approach. Anyway, I have an external USB sound device connected to a Buxcomm Rascal interface. So I need a cable from the interface to the PC (the current Rascal will suport either a serial or a USB cable) for PTT. I don't mind this extra cable, and I like explicit control of PTT. But that's just me. Good luck! Jim - Original Message - From: KB3FXI To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 2:03 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New guy Jon, Excellent explanation! You should be a teacher (if you aren't already). And, Stephen... welcome to the hobby and digital modes. Here's my personal preference with some elaboration: Interface: USB Signalink USB Signalink has an on board sound card so you don't have to tie up your computer soundcard. It also only has 2 cables... one to the radio and a USB to the computer. Power is supplied by the USB cable. I've found the devices with rats nests of audio and power cables hanging off them give a much greater chance for picking up RF and locking up your computer. Software: NBEMS / FLDIGI (www.w1hkj.com) FLDIGI multimode software is built for all major platforms. So, if you go from Windows to MAC, you just download the MAC version and away you go. This is a preference thing, but I like the single window display of FLDIGI. However, if you're going to get into contesting, I think the logging and automatic rig control may be a bit more advanced and better refined on HRD. Rig control is where your radio and software share info such as frequency, filter settings, volume, etc. You can change frequencies and settings on the rig from the software. I've not had much luck with NBEMS rig control but I don't care enough about the feature to bother to trouble shoot it. With regard to the software the good thing is both HRD and NBEMS/FLDIGI are free, so you can check them out and see what you think before going down one path or another. I'd take up some of the fellows offers to help you down your way. And if you can meet up and have someone give you a demo, that's the way to go. The first time you open some of these programs, it can look much more complicated than it actually is. Good luck and let us know when you're ready to make some digital contacts. I've chatted with quite a few hams in LA on both digital and phone... maybe we'll get lucky and meet up on a good path. -Dave, KB3FXI --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, JonP jpere...@... wrote: Some of your questions are sort of which taste better -- apples or oranges? and you may get all sorts of different answers depending on personal preference. I'll give you some of what I believe are the differentiating factors. I'll also tell you my personal decisions but they are mine and others will not agree because it's a personal thing. HRD vs. Others: There are a couple of programs like HRD,
