Re: [digitalradio] Re : testing confirms ROS,,,,,,,,,,,
The distributor being located in Europe, it may be the EU digital privacy regulations come into play. Cortland KA5S -Original Message- From: raf3151019 gzero...@btinternet.com Sent: Jul 10, 2010 4:56 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re : testing confirms ROS,,, Well, would you believe it ! So what happens now ? Mel G0GQK
RE: [digitalradio] Mobile CW
I found one really good place to put a paddle; between the seats under the hand-brake lever, for cars that have that setup. I've considered the shift lever -- if that's on the floor -- so one may rest his hand on the control and still reach down for keying. I would not think the steering wheel acceptable doe to large displacement during driving and the need to grasp it securely, which could cause undesired keying. Firm hand support is almost essential to prevent hand motions due to bumps, curves, etc. I've also had some decent results mounting a paddle or key on a pedestal structure between seats, but one's hand needs to fall naturally into place and not require stretching or an unnatural posture, **especially when driving!** But that option does take one hand off driving controls. Pilots have a multipurpose grip on the control stick to avoid problems like these and one of those adapted to the shifter might be ideal.. These are shaped so as to permit contact while retaining a good grip on the control column but yet not press switches inadvertently --there are FIRING switches on military aircraft! Be aware that many consider CW while driving a dangerous practice and prepare to accept flames for suggesting it. Or worse: a recently adopted NJ law on electronics while driving even prohibits LISTENING to a communications device. Digital connection: A CW to ASCII converter could allow digital operation without a display to take ones eyes off the road or a keyboard to take one's hands off the controls. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 5/21/2010 5:58:09 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Mobile CW Hal/Tony, I wonder if the serious CW mobile operators might invent some CW sending capability from there steering wheels ? Since one's hands are on the sterring wheel most of the time some thumb sending might work. Andy On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Tony d...@optonline.net wrote: On 5/21/2010 4:28 AM, Hal Stang wrote: Thanks Tony I appreciate. And will let you know when I am on the Road LOL. I worked mobile CW for years. LOL. 73, thanks for your time. Hal WD4MDA 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] Initial thoughts on SDR
I would suggest an intuitive interface; stereo headphones with tracking so turning one's head tunes the receiver, frequencies below the tuned point sent to the left earphone, frequencies above, to the right. Now just turn your head until something interesting is audible straight ahead, press a switch or click on an icon and Bob's your uncle! (sneaking in English) This could be pretty easy with some of the virtual reality gaming systems but we might not need the video outputs. Or maybe we would Imagine spotting the multiplier you need on the heads up display, turning your head until it's heard straight in front, and ZAPPING it with the mouse. Nerd Preferred! Cortland KA5S Cortland [Original Message] From: Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@tiscali.co.uk Ah grasshopper, you begin to learn... After 24 hours, almost... I think I will conclude that seeing a whole bunch of spectrum at once is very useful but something you will lose interest in on average ham days, perhaps only when hunting a specific DXpdition will actually WATCHING the PC screen be something you want to do.
RE: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M
There's some European DRM broadcasting in that range. Cortland [Original Message] From: jhaynesatalumni jhhay...@earthlink.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 1/11/2010 8:27:07 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M I was listening on the top end of 75M this afternoon about 4PM CST and heard a strange wideband signal, sounded a little bit like rushing wind. Brought up a digital waterfall and found that it extended from 3990.15 to 3997.85. The waterfall display was rather blotchy, suggesting some internal structure, tho I'm not clear on how many carriers might be present or what their spacing is. I was beginning to suspect the neighbor's cable TV box which has put noise on some other frequencies, but then the signal went away about 5PM CST. I've heard the signal before, but didn't note the times and spectrum. This is in NW Arkansas.
Re: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M
Sure is. See the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Radio_Mondiale Also see the complaints! http://www.mail-archive.com/hard-core...@hard-core-dx.com/msg06085.html FWIW, we in the US still have some AM HD Radio stations on IBOC wiping out reception of adjacent frequencies. http://www.radioworld.com/article/8714 Cortland KA5S - Original Message - From: J. Moen To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 1/11/2010 10:41:14 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M Is DRM that wide? - Original Message - From: Cortland Richmond To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 5:48 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M There's some European DRM broadcasting in that range. Cortland [Original Message] From: jhaynesatalumni jhhay...@earthlink.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 1/11/2010 8:27:07 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Mystery signal on 75M I was listening on the top end of 75M this afternoon about 4PM CST and heard a strange wideband signal, sounded a little bit like rushing wind. Brought up a digital waterfall and found that it extended from 3990.15 to 3997.85. The waterfall display was rather blotchy, suggesting some internal structure, tho I'm not clear on how many carriers might be present or what their spacing is. I was beginning to suspect the neighbor's cable TV box which has put noise on some other frequencies, but then the signal went away about 5PM CST. I've heard the signal before, but didn't note the times and spectrum. This is in NW Arkansas. stime1263267674 Description: stime1263267674
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New digital interfaces for Christmas
Looks nice! Better buy now, though, because when the EUrocrats find out about this manufacturer he is likely to be bankrupted by the regulatory requirements. http://www.rohsregulations.com/rohs-faq.htm http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harmonized-standards.htm http://www.cetest.nl/lvn-standards.htm http://www.cetest.nl/rtte_directive.htm Remember Hilberding? Cortland KA5S - Original Message - From: Music Maker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 1/2/2010 11:56:51 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New digital interfaces for Christmas I bought myself one for Christmas too !! (Hey ! - I am Santa Klaus, aren't I ? !! ). What I would like to know (it hasn't been delivered yet!), is how good members of the Group think that it will be effective and suitable for working in Digi Mode. (at 25 GB Pounds - 37 US Dollars).The manufacturer (I guess in a little hut in his back yard!), also wires in the plug for the Mike and PTT to suit your particular Rig. Its here http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=180447898625ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT Opinions please ... ?? At this moment, I can't afford a Tigertronics, etc - and took this as the low-cost option. 73's de John (G3OBU) www.John4Music.TV . --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick Westerfield r_lwesterfi...@... wrote: It is working pretty good already and all of those surface mount components scare me a little. I would need an electron microscope to make some of the changes he suggests in the link. Rick - KH2DF From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Siegfried Jackstien Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:27 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: AW: [digitalradio] New digital interfaces for Christmas Hi rick and andy Maybe this is of interrest for you http://www.frenning.dk/OZ1PIF_HOMEPAGE/SignaLinkUSB-mods.html that guy made some mods to the signalink to improve linearity and other things maybe it helps to further improve winmor (or any other digital-mode) dg9bfc sigi _ Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von Andy obrien Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Dezember 2009 22:14 An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] New digital interfaces for Christmas Congratulations Rick, interesting to see the WINMOR improvments. Is it better than your Rigblaster ? Andy stime1262451410 Description: stime1262451410
Re: [digitalradio] Need your help picking HF radio.
WRT the 857D DSP. Yes, it is at audio frequencies. (So is a sound card). Still quite helpful both in rejecting signals as close as 50 Hz (depending on mode) and lowering broadband noise. At present my 857D is on an older KAM+ TNC that does not have PSK but I have used the 857D's DSP to help with TNC PSK in a crowded band and there is no reason it should not help with sound-card modes. (My FT-450's audio DSP notch mode helps with MT63 and Olivia in the presence of broadcast carriers.) FWIW, I think the 857's optional filters are better than the 450's built-in IF DSP if only because you CAN use narrow filters in digital modes. The 450 only lets one go down to 1.8 KHz in digital mode which is not bad for MT-63 1 KHz or Olivia 1 KHz but not enough for the narrower modes. We are really spoiled by 10 Hz tuning steps. Sound cards can interpolate quite well. And even though the NTIA requires stability (IMO more important than frequency readout) of 10 Hz, that's over time and the manufacturers' rated temperature range. -10C to + 60C is NOT where I set the thermostat! Recent Amateur-grade rigs are enough after warm up in reasonably constant-temperature conditions and may not need a TCXO. I like them anyway.. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Stelios Bounanos m0...@enotty.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 12/26/2009 6:27:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Need your help picking HF radio. On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:07:39 -0700, Alan Wilson ke4...@gmail.com said: I'd have to go with the Yaesu ft-857D, it does it all with a small footprint, reasonable price and very dependable... I have one of those and I like it for many reasons, but it's not a very good rig for digital modes. Some issues that come to mind: * DSP is at the audio stage, useless for digital. * Narrow IF filters (300 and 500 Hz) are extra. It can be frustrating to operate on HF without one of these. * TCXO is extra (but standard with the FT-897D, IIRC). * Minimum tuning step is 10Hz. * Much CAT functionality is undocumented by Yaesu, though HB9DRV and co. must have discovered all of it by now. * Reference oscillator is mounted behind the rear vent/heatsink and is therefore in the draft of air from the cooling fans. Fans always activate on transmit so you will drift, even for short transmissions and with the TCXO installed, which is most annoying on VHF/UHF. Can't blame Yaesu much about this though, it's a small rig. IMHO not worth considering for digital modes unless you _must_ have HF, 2m and 70cm in a compact radio. But then something like the IC-7000 is much better for that. And if you only want HF you have many more options. -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD. =is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] 3.580 is a busy frequency?
When US analog TV had 3579.5 KHz color burst oscillators, 3580 and nearby was avoided because of the continuous QRM. It made sense to put CW practice and one-way bulletins on a frequency no one else wanted to use and let the operators tune their receivers to cut/notch out the tone. Good training! But with analog sets gone, or dying on converter boxes, there's less reason to avoid it; what happens to a hole on a busy band? It gets filled up! Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Bill V WA7NWP wa7...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 12/17/2009 7:01:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] 3.580 is a busy frequency? Isn't 3.580 MHz about the busiest digital channel on 80 meters due to the proliferation of cheap crystals? I'm about to suggest it's not a good spot for more wl2k testing, which could be totally agile across the data portion of the band, and I'd like to make sure I get my facts right. Bill - WA7NWP
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
I do hope cognitive radio designs will be done responsibly for the spectrum they occupy, and I cite RMS Express as an example of a responsible approach to mitigating interference. And (military) ALE as I've experienced it as the opposite. However, I fear device manufacturers wanting to use spectrum everywhere will not produce radios able to detect weak emissions when their receiver bandwidth is so wide as not to see it above the noise. Among the BPL comments and replies is one manufacturer's assertion that there were no signals to be interfered with -- when his spectrum analyzer noise floor was higher than the level those signals would normally reach. By using only measurement technology to required for Part 15 certification, that manufacturer was able to ignore signals I believe he knew or should have known (as the lawyers say) were or could be present. We must listen first. So should any responsible user of shared spectrum. He must be able to hear *any users authorized* in the spectrum shared, at levels and in bandwidths they are authorized to use. This is not so easy, considering that we often carry on Olivia or Contestia QSOs below the background noise level. It could be made easier by restricting automatic (cognitive) radio to spectrum where weak signal modes will not be encountered. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Bob McGwier rwmcgw...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 12/16/2009 12:54:35 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;? Cortland Richmond wrote: One problem with cognitive radio is that it seems it will be designed to detect only emissions similar to those it is meant to receive. Therefore, it is best used in spectrum particularly allotted to just those kinds of emissions. This rather defeats the purpose of white space. RMS Express by way of contrast has a busy detector that will prevent transmitting over many kinds of modulation different than it uses. Compare this with (say) ALE, whose polling (encountered on MARS frequencies) takes no account of voice or even Olivia on channels it happens to select. Cortland KA5S This is not correct in my experience. In all serious systems under development, the CR is looking to characterize all energy to some degree or another, irrespective of whether it is a matched filter to a particular waveform. The purpose is to find a channel that works. Energy on the channel is an indicator it would not as the source would be cochannel interference and with some high degree of probability, the interference would be mutual. Dislike for any particular system which automates channel usage but does not behave responsibly is not to be used to condemn responsible digital system developers. The enforcement of this responsibility is done by pressure (peer) and performance (being interfered with by those not detected). Bob N4HY
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
One problem with cognitive radio is that it seems it will be designed to detect only emissions similar to those it is meant to receive. Therefore, it is best used in spectrum particularly allotted to just those kinds of emissions. This rather defeats the purpose of white space. RMS Express by way of contrast has a busy detector that will prevent transmitting over many kinds of modulation different than it uses. Compare this with (say) ALE, whose polling (encountered on MARS frequencies) takes no account of voice or even Olivia on channels it happens to select. Cortland KA5S - Original Message - From: Phil Williams To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 12/15/2009 1:21:30 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;? I first heard of cognitive radio systems when efforts were underway to make use of the 'white space' in the television broadcast bands. The whole idea is to make more efficient use the the spectrum by putting situational awareness in to the client device. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsectionssc=emergingtechid=16471 http://www.commsdesign.com/news/tech_beat/www.eet.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18700443 philw
[digitalradio] The generic problem of bandwidth, transmitters and receivers [was: my last word]
This is a generic problem: How much must a user on an adjacent frequency take into account that his neighbor is unable or unwilling to operate at only the bandwidth necessary for an emission? Typically, we see complaints (here!) that while we're operating PSK 31 an emission 500 Hz away blows us out of the water, a circumstance which, if we used only the bandwidth necessary, would rarely arise. With my FT-857, a 300 Hz IF filter and a 60 Hz audio DSP setting, I can run PSK-31 as close as 100 Hz or so to a carrier, mark or space. A KAM TNC hardware PSK modem can handle a lot of off-frequency noise, too. A K3 or a Flexradio would let me run that narrow or better at the IF and never notice the guy I'm next to. How much account do I need to take of his receiver bandwidth? As I say; a generic problem. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 11/25/2009 12:56:27 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio]my last word Makes a lot of sense Let me try it this way - if I'm operating with my mark tone on a freq between your mark and space you never bother my QSO. Why is that the every time you hear a tone close to your operating freq it's QRM. Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 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] Winmor Stats - large file, v 03.3.0
Sort of by accident sent a VERY large file (PDF of an ICS-123 form) today to Hoby on a MARS frequency. The good news is the throughput. Bandwidth: 1600 ISS Mode Shifts: 11 Decode Attempts: 148 Weak R-S Decodes : 90Weak R-S Sums: 2 Strong R-S Decodes: 15Strong R-S Sums:2 Bytes Sent : 100715 Bytes Received:5943 Throughput(bytes/min) Session Avg: 4836 Max 1 min Avg: 6453 Estimated Sample Rate Offset (ppm): -190 We are in NVIS range of each other and had signals (Hoby's, anyhow) stronger than the OTH radar. The so-called peak wattmeter in the AT-3000 tuner said I was hitting about 60 watts. Cortland KA5S - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 11/4/2009 4:34:21 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Winmor Stats - VE3VBAK2MO All, Exchanged several text messages / file attachments on 20 meters with VE3VBA today. No crashes or bugs to report with the latest version of Winmor (Vista OS). Very good throughput with the 1600 Hz mode; signals were strong, band conditions stable. Throughput(bytes/min) Session Avg: 1729 Max 1 min Avg: 3564 Tony -K2MO ** Connect Request to VE3VBA at 2009/11/04 19:10:11 *** Connected to: VE3VBA @ 500 Hz at 2009/11/04 19:10:17 [Session Stats:] Duration: 6.60 min Bandwidth: 500ISS Mode Shifts: 1 Bytes Sent : 543Bytes Received:4537 Throughput(bytes/min) Session Avg: 770 Max 1 min Avg: 2130 Estimated Sample Rate Offset (ppm): -65 [Session Stats:] Duration: 2.62 min Bandwidth: 1600 ISS Mode Shifts: 1 Bytes Sent : 60 Bytes Received:4475 Throughput(bytes/min) Session Avg: 1729 Max 1 min Avg: 3564 Estimated Sample Rate Offset (ppm): 47 stime1257370461 Description: stime1257370461
RE: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
Want and should must yield to shall and will; the Rules tell us how fast we may go in different parts of our authorized spectrum. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 10/27/2009 10:02:08 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow but Dave, ...how would we define get the job done. I might feel I need to transfer my message at 9600 baud on HF but others might argue I should be patient and accept a 300 baud transfer. Andy What we really need is a rule that says you should use the minimum bandwidth needed to get the job done, just as we do with power.
RE: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference (A dissent)
Sound card users' preference for bandwidth wide enough to receive fifty or more signals is what makes us vulnerable. W1AW does NOT wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band; its CW signal occupies perhaps 50-100 Hz. Use a narrow filter, and a front-end able to handle nearby strong signals, and the problem goes away. Use PBT,even and put W1AW off the filter skirts. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Rik van Riel r...@surriel.com To: linux...@yahoogroups.com; digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 9/22/2009 12:08:22 AM Subject: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference Due to an unfortunate coincidence, W1AW's CW broadcasts pretty much wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band for a significant fraction of the time. To try and address this, I have sent the following open letter to W1AW at the ARRL, and also published it on my web site: http://surriel.com/radio/w1aw-psk-interference Original Message Subject: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:04:58 -0400 From: Rik van Riel To: w1aw To whom it may concern, The W1AW broadcasts are a great tradition and a help to some amateur radio operators, and do not seem to be in the way on most of the amateur radio bands. However, the W1AW CW broadcast on the 80 meter band, on 3581.5 kHz, is right in the middle of the psk31 sub band. Needless to say, a high power CW station pretty much wipes out the nearby psk31 signals, which are typically transmitted at low power. While strictly speaking it is legal to transmit CW anywhere on the band (I will not go into the legality of broadcasting on the ham bands), I believe we can agree that putting a strong signal right in the middle of a band segment dedicated to lower power operation is not what the ARRL's Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide[1] would call considerate. Because putting a high power CW broadcast in the middle of the psk31 sub band (which sees activity whenever there is propagation) is guaranteed to cause interference to active operators, I hope you would consider moving the W1AW CW broadcast to a frequency where interference is merely a possibility and not a guaranteed issue. The interference issue is especially severe due to the fact that the W1AW transmissions are scheduled on an almost daily basis, several times a day[2], wiping out the 80m psk31 subband for a significant fraction of the time. Since the W1AW CW broadcast is an automatically controlled transmission, maybe it would be better in the band segment assigned to automatically controlled data stations (3585-3590). Another good choice could be 3579.5 kHz, which would put the W1AW broadcast 500 Hz below the psk31 segment, just like it is on the 17 and 15 meter bands. kind regards, Rik van Riel, AB1KW [1] http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/conop.html [2] http://www.arrl.org/w1aw.html#w1awsked Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference(A dissent)
Hi, Rik. Then use a 250 or 500 Hz BW pass band filter. Engage the notch filter. Get an MFJ 1026 and null him out. Use a separately rotatable loop antenna for receive. There are a number of things which will work, either by themselves, or together. We have or can get filters and other tools. That is a good thing, since no law of physics confers immunity from strong stations a KHz away, either down the block or across the ocean. Imagine, if you will, someone trying to work 3 KHz wide narrow-band FM at 3975 KHz; the SSB signals would render his receiver useless. That's our situation, unless we improve our receivers and do what it takes to live in a crowded band where different modes must coexist with each other. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Rik van Riel r...@surriel.com Cortland Richmond wrote: Sound card users' preference for bandwidth wide enough to receive fifty or more signals is what makes us vulnerable. W1AW does NOT wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band; its CW signal occupies perhaps 50-100 Hz. Use a narrow filter, and a front-end able to handle nearby strong signals, and the problem goes away. Use PBT,even and put W1AW off the filter skirts. Here in southern New Hampshire, W1AW is S9+40. Typical psk31 signals are anywhere between S2 and S8 here. To get W1AW suppressed by 50dB means moving the filter far enough away that only a small part of the psk sub band remains.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Digital modes and old husband's tales
FWIW, for MARS MT63 and Olivia I use a 'scope to set output and audio levels. From time to time I've had to use 500 Watts of Olivia to be heard by all stations! MT63 has a high crest factor, and the wattmeter will sometimes show 500 Watts, sometimes as low as 14 Watts. But that's an ex-military set designed to run 200W RTTY at 100 percent, or up to 500W at lower duty cycles. Different Amateur rigs have different ALC response. My FT-450 is still not clipping at ALC onset. I suspect the most accurate setting for PSK would be transmitting into a dummy load and watching indicated IMD on a separate receiver. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Ed Hekman ehek...@cox.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 7/14/2009 3:20:55 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Digital modes and old husband's tales --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien andrewob...@... wrote: The replies to Ralph's question about audio levels appear to be sound advice and certainly in keeping with what has been advised since sound card digital modes burst upon the scene. I wonder how accurate it is though?I have seen a few serious hams argue that no ALC is not really the case, that some ALC can be OK. I have also seen mention that the no ALC issue applies to some modes (like PSK) but not to others like (JT65A). I also wonder about the half-power advice that some advise. With my homebrewed interface, I could never get much above 40 watts before some ALC began to show. When I switched to a commerical interface with good isolation (Microkeyer by Microham) I can almost always get 100 watts output without any ALC action. I have not received any negative reports about my signal . If I run 100 watts SSB for phone contacts, why would I not want to do the same for digital modes assuming the signal was clean ? . Yes, I would agree I should not run 100 watts if communication was possible with less power, but I don't think a brief PSK CQ at 100 watts is going to do much more harm to my finals than a 3 minute ragchew at 50 watts, phone . Right ? Comments ? -- Andy K3UK Andy, There are some interesting figures on this web site, http://f1ult.free.fr/DIGIMODES/MULTIPSK/digimodesF6CTE_en, about some of the technical details of the different digital modes. One interesting specification is the average to peak power ratio of the waveform. For PSK the number is 0.79. This means that increasing the average output power level above 79 watts will begin to show some clipping on a transmitter designed for 100 watts output peak. The average to peak ratio is a statistical average over some period of time. There may be some short periods of time when the peak signal exceeds this ratio and begins to exhibit some objectionable distortion that may cause broadening of the spectrum, increased IMD and reduced readability. For the FSK modes such as RTTY and for some of the MFSK modes the average to peak ratio is 1.0. For these modes you can transmit at the full power rating of the transmitter without causing any distortion of the signal. The effect of ALC action on the linearity of the signal will depend on the design of the ALC. If the time constant of the ALC is fast enough to follow the envelope of the signal then it effectively produces non-linear compression of the signal which causes distortion of the waveform. If the time constant is long then the ocassional peaks will cause some gain reduction in the TX chain but it will be mostly linear for everything less than those ocassional peaks. The error rate vs SNR for digital modes has a very steep curve with a sharp cutoff of readability only for constant steady state noise conditions. For HF conditions with QSB of 20 dB to 30 dB and static crashes, a 1 dB difference in average SNR may only mean the difference of 10% (or less) error rate or readability. So increasing the power from 40 to 60 watts (1.76 dB) would cause only marginal difference in the readibility. This is my somewhat simplistic understanding of the subject. Some of the figures given here are only qualitative examples based on my experience with testing digital communications system error rates under standardized channel noise and fading conditions. I made some PSK contacts last week runing 1/2 watt of power on 30m and 20m. Now I feel a little guilty about running 25 - 50 watts the rest of the time. Ed WB6YTE Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] City attempts to shut down ham radio .... !!
Try a different link. http://forums.qrz.com/showpost.php?p=1632618postcount=179 It referenceses something more useful than YouTube, too. excerpt: Any use permit for a ham radio antenna shall include a condition that it shall be inspected annually to certify its safety and to verify that liability insurance is in effect and also that the ham radio equipment may be inspected without prior notice upon the receipt by the City of a complaint that the radio operation is causing interference with neighbors electronic devices due to the use of higher wattage than allowed by the FCC. The City shall provide this inspection service at applicants cost. Permittees shall pay an annual inspection fee adopted by Resolution of the City Council in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for an inspector qualified to inspect amateur radio equipment. What this has to do with digital modes, however, I can't say! Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Robert Ellis k5...@mac.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 7/10/2009 9:20:04 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] City attempts to shut down ham radio !! k7fe reports in a qrz forum that the palmdale city council approved the ordinance: http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=209771 Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. 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: mailto:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto: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] City attempts to shut down ham radio .... !!
Also see the court decision at http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/kw6ww/misc/Palmdale/ZubarauMinuteOrder.pdf Cortland KA5
[digitalradio] RE: TAK-Tenna
There's a lot of talk about really small antennas. Their performance is generally disappointing, but better than nothing. Check out the HF-Pack antenna shootouts at http://hfpack.com/antennas . They date from 2002 or so and don't include the TAK-tenna. However, discussions in online groups make the TAK-tenna look in MY opinion like an overly complicated way to arrived at performance a couple of mobile whips end to end can deliver. (One surprise was KQ6XA's wing antenna, IIRC a V of 15 foot fishing pooles with a dipole running between them and excess wire taped down the poles. Very light, collasible to less than a foot (30cm) long package if you are crafty with a V mount. Believe it's written up in the Yahoo HFPack group.) The TAK looks from my reading of the discussion groups like it suffers from poor efficiency, but gains by radiation from unsuppressed comon-mode currents on the coax shield.But I've not seen any shootout results for it. Really, if you need inductance to load a short antenna, you'd do best with conventional, high Q coils, or efficient cpativie end laoding. Force 12 made a ZR-3 ( see http://www.kc0mnx.org/force12.html) triband dipole with spiral folded ends (not loading coils). It was a lot larger than a TAK, also much sturdier. Still complex, and their more recent designs use simple cross pieces for end loading. For example, see their Sigma-5 ( http://www.force12inc.com/31943/31964.html ) . Warning: $$ shock. On the other hand you can make one a LOT easier than a TAK. I have used an AEA loop antenna with decent reuslts on 15 and 20. But that's a heavy, high voltage, high current tuned loop and harder to hold up than the really light antennas. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Larry Kebel kb...@usa.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 4/26/2009 4:24:59 PM Subject: [digitalradio] TAK-Tenna I was reading up on the TAK-Tenna and found that it might just be the antenna I am looking for. Check out www.Tak-Tenna.com But, all the info I get is that the radiating wire should be put in a circular configuration. Would there be any problem if I pulled the wire tight and make it into a diamond (square) shape? The same length wire, of course. That would make the structure a lot stronger for transporting. Please let me have your thoughts on this. Larry KB0ZP
RE: [digitalradio] USB Headset, Convert for Digital Modes
I have a couple of headsets with separate USB sound card emulators. They do work with MULTIPSK, Mix-W, FLDIGI and IZ8BLY's MT-63. Have not done comparison tests, but I do use one simultaneous with a Realtek sound card for montitoring different radios and modes with one computer. Cortland KA5S - Original Message - From: Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey Rochelle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 4/3/2009 5:31:39 AM Subject: [digitalradio] USB Headset, Convert for Digital Modes Hi All, I have a quick question, below. I have a USB audio headset (mic/speakers). The audio quality from it seems to be good. I do not use them that much anymore, so was thinking of maybe getting into them and converting them to use with my TS-480's digital socket. I think it will be simple enough to get into them and convert to the mini-plug for the radio. Okay, has anyone done this before? Was it easy enough and how well did it work for you? If no one has done it, I am going to give it a try and then post my comments. Might try and see if any comments on quality might come from this group if I am heard. Regards Kevin, ZL1KFM.
Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS
Was AE1AE in 1967; the AMATEUR call that came from was DL4AE. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Rick W mrf...@frontiernet.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 3/28/2009 8:15:36 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS I liked it better back in the early 1960's when I was in Navy MARS with the call N0YUI. Of course, today that has been reissued as a ham call. HI 73, Rick, KV9U David Little wrote: Paul, Glad to hear Navy is giving it a try. The rest is grossly off-topic, but I feel the need to expand my understanding. On the Zero, it is a sore point across services, as is the full call debacle on initial check in that I believe came from Bo's influence. I can declare abbreviated calls are authorized, before I establish ANCS, and take 5 to 8 check ins per minute with out duplicate transmissions. In many cases, using abbreviated calls, I can get an entire working net of about 20 stations, establish ANCS, make the call for emergency or priority traffic, have ANCS make the same call, and have 54 minutes for training, administrative business or emergency net operation. Since we have to use full phonetics (Our prefixes are more complex than NNN), and we never fall back to Abbreviated Call Signs (Our prefixes are more complex than NNN), and we never give a call sign non-phonetically (our prefixes are more complex than NNN), and we use FEMA Region designators to be able to geographically determine the effectiveness of the net (our prefixes are more complex than NNN0) We find that the attempt to require full call signs on initial check in to be a surefire way to create Chaos. Also, in preferring the concept of training the way we would operate in an emergency, we have generally found that requiring full calls to NCS, when the net can only have ONE NCS is as well thought out as being asked if we want fries with our fries, when we just order fries. One day, I may be fully expanded enough in mind and maturity to fully understand the full call requirement. I'll bet you guys are still laughing about that part of the new voice SOP. Bravo Zulu, David KD4NUE / AAM4__ Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Yahoo! Groups Links --- Text inserted by Panda IS 2009: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_5560SPAM=truepath=C:\Documents%20and%20 Settings\Owner\Local%20Settings\Application%20Data\Panda%20Security\Panda%20 Internet%20Security%202009\AntiSpam ---
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Hello Skip! There are too many choices, which is one reason I lurk here picking the brains of people who have evaluated a lot of them. Which of the many digital modes ends up as MARS standards must be decided by the State, Region and Service MARS directors. I have heard MT63 2000 Hz, 1000 Hz and 500 Hz (all long interleave), Olivia 32, 16 and 8 tone, and MFSK 8 and 16 (IIRC) tone -- at different center audio settings for different Service's MARS. Some months ago I heard a MARS net running AMTOR. Tonight in Michigan we were experimenting with Domino EX 11 tone. I will say that we here in Michigan Army MARS are presently using MT63 1000 at 100 Hz center, with 2000 Hz (1500 Hz center) for especially large messages or files, and for weak signal work, Olivia 32 and 16 tone at 1 KHz center frequency. It seems most of us, MARS or Amateur, don't put the harmonics of our tones outside the IF filter passband. On the other hand, modern rigs don't seem (from my waterfall) to produce much. Cortland KA5S/AAR5UT ex AAR9UT, AAR6QC (1990's) and other calls - Original Message - From: kh6ty To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 3/25/2009 5:41:56 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse Tony, Glad you are doing this! I have been thinking about using Contestia for MARS in conjunction with MT63 for messaging. Unfortunately, I have one net to call tonight and one to checkin to, so will have to wait to see the results of your tests. Unless Conestia is especially good in other parameters, MFSK16 still holds a 1.5 dB edge in minimum S/N, and seems to work very well in heavy static, so it may turn out to be the best overall, but let's see. I used MultiPSk for my comparisons. Anxious to see what you find out! 73, Skip KH6TY
RE: [digitalradio] MT63 Operating Tips
Hi, Tony! I use MT-63 on the Military Affilaite Radio System (MARS). Any of these widebandwidth modes will add up to more peak power than the average reading. I can run a *fair* amount of ALC, but I set the input by looking at the peaks on a 'scope hooked up to a directional coupler. Surplus or e-Bay scopes are cheap enough now that this may be a no-brainer for digital operators any more. Some modes are more sensitive to phase distortion than MT-63 too, and others, less. Either way,these modes require keeping the signal free of intermod, compression and flat-topping. One of the old AFSK RTTY tricks, and still a good idea, is to use high audio tones to suppress audio harmonics. Don't forget to set the actual sound card sampling frequency into whatever software used. Have fun! Cortland Richmond KA5S - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 3/23/2009 4:31:02 PM Subject: [digitalradio] MT63 Operating Tips All, Had several QSO's with first-time MT63 OPs this week. Some had a difficulty getting used to the software settings so I thought I'd pass along a few tips. Peak Power: Peak power will be substantially higher than the average with this mode so it's best to use the software's tune feature to set the transmitters output. The most common mistake is setting the RF output power with the MT63 signal itself. This can cause distortion / throughput issues. A typical peak setting of 25 watts will show about 5 watts average on your rigs meter. Software: Fldigi, MultiPSK and Mixw all work well. Nino Porcino's MT63 Terminal has signal report and tune features that are useful for the beginner. It also has a couple of nifty analog gauges that measure confidence and SNR. It works well and is easy to setup. Use the asterisk * in the transmit buffer to allow the type-ahead feature. See http://xoomer.virgilio.it/aporcino/MT63/index.htm ...
Re: [digitalradio] Re: KV9U - MT63
MT63 was I think the first really accessible I can't see it mode that could deliver printable copy. Our default *slow* digital mode is Olivia 32 bit 1K, but it is interesting that 16 bit is preferred by the cognoscenti. For relatively short messages, speed is of less concern and Olivia really shines in that application. I DL'd a Puppy Linux ISO image with FLDIGI for an Acer One, but have also an Acer One with XP, and a speedier laptop with Vista. The Acers with a six cell battery offer extended service life between recharges which together with Wilderness Protocol operation could allow service over quite a few days cut off from power. Not that we will need that ... It seems like only a few years (30 some!) ago I was reading paper tape and copying MARS traffic for Fort Hood by intercept. I also had a Kantronics UTU in my car, and sometimes delivered AMTOR MARSgrams received on the move and printed with a thermal printer. The Model 100 still works. When all else fails. Cheers, Cortland KA5S/AAR5UT -Original Message- From: Rick W mrf...@frontiernet.net Sent: Mar 21, 2009 2:35 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: KV9U - MT63 MARS has a different situation than the ham bands since you have a dedicated phone communications bandwidth channel. And from what I hear operators can use phone and data simultaneously with MT-63. We can not do that on the ham bands below VHF here in the U.S. I normally try to keep the modes at no wider than 500 Hz unless the selected band is very poor and there are few other stations. I can see using wider modes if they worked better but 2K MT-63 is even worse than 1K in terms of sensitivity and robustness. But it does have double the speed and sometimes you need that if conditions cooperate. Contestia is not able to handle even 7 bit ASCII, so I would consider it more for casual chatting or maybe for handling NTS traffic since the lowest common denominator is likely CW where you don't have case concerns. For the highest speed ARQ sound card mode, that works the deepest into the noise, have you considered FAE400? For better conditions you could move up to FAE2000 although five times wider for maybe 2X throughput? But at least what you get through is perfect copy and you can do both keyboard chatting and messaging at the same time. I don't think you can do that with any other sound card mode other than perhaps PSKmail on Linux? If PSKmail can eventually do peer to peer on MS Windows OS, that could change things a bit. 73, Rick, KV9U
RE: [digitalradio] NTS Digital
A good deal of flexibility is gained in MARS by reason of non-mode-specific frequency allocation. I am trying to get our system to try Olivia or MT63 SSB mode on VHF, which so far has been FM only. FWIW, and IMHO, the HF MARS RMS system is effective because 1) it is restricted to compatible modes, with 2) multiple coordianted frequencies monitored by each RMS, and 3) networked RMS's disitributed across CONUS. Cortland KA5S AAR5UT - Original Message - From: David Little To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 3/5/2009 10:13:36 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] NTS Digital Rick, Army MARS is using MT-63 on mixed mode nets with some regularity. We also use Olivia when conditions warrant the slower speed of transmission. Easypal is also being used for picture transmission, as well as text broadcasts. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick W Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] NTS Digital Maybe some of you can help me with understanding the current digital state of the art with NTS. Recently, there have been some NTS yahoogroups formed for our region and the sections in that region. There is no digital presence at this time, however, at least one ham I knew in past years (now SK) was involved at some level, perhaps Pactor. At least one of the daytime region voice nets is struggling to survive. I suspect that CW nets are having some similar problems and if not, they surely will have as more CW competent OTs become SK. I don't see anywhere near enough new hams becoming proficient in CW and also having an interest in traffic handling. So I suggested that if there was any interest, maybe we could try using some of the new technologies that have only recently become available to us. That means either using an extremely robust mode such as Olivia which can compete with CW from some of my experiences, or using an ARQ mode with NBEMS or possibly Multipsk's FAE400. Eventually, it is possible that WINMOR may become available for peer to peer but that is likely far into the future from what they are saying. Are any of the NTS digital stations using sound card modes or are they staying with the NTS/D (actually the old Winlink system) and Pactor? Any recommendations, or even better, any actual experiences with getting area, region, or even section nets using some of the newer digital sound card modes? 73, Rick, KV9U --- Text inserted by Panda IS 2009: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: It is spam! ---
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FT-450 on digimodes
Hello Sholto, In the Yaesu FT-450 Yahoo group photo files there are a series of receive BW scans I took with my 450, with a couple of 857 scans thrown in for comparison. If it has a narrow CW filter, the 857 IMO wins on filtering and its audio DPS works extremely well as an adjunct to accessory filters. The 450's SSB response seems by comparison rather peaky, just as the plot linked here indicates for transmit. Unfortunately, the 450 lacks the ability to move the carrier closer to the filter skirt. I have not done 450 output power measurements vs audio frequency, but it sounds like a worthwhile experiment. I will say that where we use wider modes for MARS, such as 1K MT63 and Olivia 1K 32 tone (very nice weak signal performance) I have not noticed the 450 being less effective than a Harris RF350 (300 Hz - 3000 Hz BW). But I have not looked, either! Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Sholto Fisher sho...@probikekit.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 1/8/2009 12:45:20 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: FT-450 on digimodes Juergen, Thanks for doing the test. Now I am confused because I contacted Yaesu and sent them this graph of my measured transmit passband: http://www.projectsandparts.com/misc/ft-450tx.gif And this is what the engineer told me: Your graph shows the typical audio roll off expected. The bass band deviation for the FT-450 is 300-2500. You would expect the dBWs to peak ..
RE: [digitalradio] Specification of Frequency for Net Announcement
This is an often encountered problem. What frequency is my signal when I am using [insert mode here]? is the subject of at least one license exam question in US Amateur Radio tests. In the US, government agencies and the military specify frequency by the center of emission. For example, in military 3581 would for LSB voice (nominally of 3 KHz BW) require a carrier (dial) setting) of 3582.5 KHz. Digital modes, especially sound card modes,should be addressed in a similar manner, and with some of care. A dial setting of 3580 KHz, with operation in USB mode, would require a waterfall operating frequency of 1,000 Hz. There are reasons to use a lower carrier frequency and a higher waterfall; 3588 and a 2,000 Hz waterfall choice would reduce any radiation of harmonics of the audio input. Overdriving an audio stage does not produce an ALC reading, but it can add significant harmonics to the signal actually transmitted. Keeping audio sent to a rig to the lowest practical level consistent with SNR (where the noise is hum, hiss and the like) we reduce harmonics, but it's worth keeping an eye out for. If you want your net on 3581, you'll need to specify as above; 3580 USB 1 KHz waterfall, or 3589 USB 2 KHz waterfall both produce a PSK signal at 3581 KHz. Regards, Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Kent VE4KEH pb232...@mts.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 12/30/2008 10:29:17 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Specification of Frequency for Net Announcement Our ARES group is having difficulty specifying an operating frequency for a PSK31 net. Is there any website which explains the relationship between the actual signal frequency, the transceiver frequency, the audio (waterfall) frequency, USB and LSB for digital operation?
RE: [digitalradio] DX-Buddy
Froeliche Weihnachten, lieber Wolf, und eine shoenes Neues Jahr! Aber was fuer Digital Radio Moden gibt's DX-Buddy.net? (TML, aber seit 1983 habe ich kein uebung Deutschsprechen gehabt.) Cortland KA5S ex DL4AE, DA1IQ, DA1GI [Original Message] From: Wolfgang dl...@gmx.de To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 12/24/2008 11:04:25 AM Subject: [digitalradio] DX-Buddy Merry Christmas to you all! If you want a program that..
RE: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Conditions just now are at night hostile to even NVIS. We sometimes eke out ground wave between MARS members here with vertical antennas below -- well below -- 3.5 MHz. Some nights I'd like something below 1.8! Nevertheless, my mobile setup, when I have it installed, covers 160-440. MARS frequencies too, of course. I dont rely on the mobile antenna, with a spool of telco CO wire cheap and handy. I have Elk 2/440 LPDA's and painters poles, too. Making a communication system work requires forethought as to HOW it can be done for the requirement of the time. Frequency coordination that doesn't allow for propagation can hobble even a California Kilowatt, assuming anyone had a big enough generator and a 6X6. -- and ravine comms on VHF is really not a good idea. Some prior planning and practice is needed. A club I used to belong to supported bicycle rides over some pretty poor VHF radio paths. It helped when we TESTED those paths. Sometimes a remote cross band mobile repeater was needed. Sometimes an FRS radio link (but the Feds can't legally use those) to the rest stop or aid station from a nearby hill. But we can't rely on such things appearing from thin air. Or helping when large amounts of message traffic must be passed. There has been some discussion involving communication to customer WiFi and Bluetooth.Where it has been tried it has apparently been well received and these are of course well suited for digital traffic. The holes in our planning are not yet all known, either. Cortland KA5S AAR5UT [Original Message] From: Howard Z. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 11/25/2008 6:59:21 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? Is the volunteer out of VHF range? If the base station has a 100 watt VHF radio like the 746pro - you might be able to still reach the volunteer, but he may not have enough power to get back to you. Or he may be out of VHF range. HF is the way to go - but both ends of the conversation need NVIS antennas. HF antennas tend to be large, and NVIS needs to be horizontal. I'm not sure there exists an NVIS antenna for a car or truck. Maybe something horizontal can be setup in the bed of a pick up truck? In general HF antennas for vehicles do not perform very well - but they are better than nothing. There are portable NVIS HF antennas available that can be setup
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed.
My unscientific tests so far with different packages is that MixW seems to decode Olivia the best for me, but the lag is longest. I am using MULTIPSK, MixW and FLDIGI at present. Other factors enter into things, coexistence with Windows and other software being chief for me. Today I was receiving on two rigs at once, on different bands, the main one transceiving with MULTIPSK and the secondary monitoring another net with FLDIGI. However, I could not transmit on FLDIGI at the same time I was receiving on MULTIPSK. Also, MixW seems to have problems when anything else happens -- an AV update, say -- as XP is set up here. Cortland KA5S - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 11/23/2008 4:15:19 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia mode comparisons, testers needed. Hello Andy, The Multipsk code is not better than the Pawel's design. If I had to rewrite the code, I would prefer to use the Pawel's design because it is simpler. Simply when I wrote it, I was used to do this way (as with MFSK16, PSK31...) and moreover, I had doubts about the precision of a double-estimation by symbol. 10 estimations per symbol seemed to me much better, but of course, it would have be necessary to load much the CPU, so I forgot it. But I was wrong, because under a good S/N, this precision (double-estimation by symbol) is not necessary and under a bad S/N, it all cases this precision is homogeneous with the precision of symbol estimation. Note: it is reminded that, under noise, the quick degradation of decoding is due to : * the loss of symbol synchronization, * the imprecision of the symbol estimation. This can be seen in an eye diagram. 73 Patrick
Re: [digitalradio] Decoding differences
I thought that might be the case, but having calibrated the sound card clock in each of the three packages MultiPSK, fldigi and MixW, the differences persist.I may try a better sound card. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Simon Brown \(KNS\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 10/11/2008 3:25:39 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Decoding differences Nope - the code is almost the same - it'll be soundcard calibration issues. Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: Cortland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just this morning I came across a net running in Olivia 8-tone/1000Hz. It decoded poorly in one SW package, better in another, and best of all in a third. I think this must be due to the decoding algorithms of the software packages, as I get different rankings in other modes.
[digitalradio] Re: Lightning Static Simulations / Propagation
Nice work! It looks to me as if there are two needs; long interleave to beat lightning and impulsive noise, and multitone for on-channel qrm and background noise. How does MT63 with short interleave look? How about 2K MT63? I suspect a combination of slower rate and wider bandwidth is going to show up better overall. This is without ARQ, of course. One thing I'm seeing (again) in this discussion is that there's no free lunch!. Cortland KA5S/AAR5UT - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: Rick Sent: 9/20/2008 2:11:41 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Lightning Static Simulations / Propagation Rick, Tested a few modes for static crash resistance including the ones you asked about. The HF simulator does not have a QRN mode, but I think I may have come up with something that works fairly well - see below. I don't know enough about ionospheric disturbances to know if you can only have Doppler (such as polar flutter) without having multipath at the same time. I seems reasonable that you might have one or the other A signal reaching a disturbed region of the F-Layer that returns without interaction from other layers would seem to qualify. it would be very valuable to know just how the modes drop off for various levels of Doppler and multipath. That could be done. I did something along those lines with JT65 and WSPR. As a rule-of-thumb, it's best to use multi-tone FSK modes like Olivia and MFSK16 on paths that are highly disturbed. More later Rick... Tony, K2MO Static Crash Simulation. MT63 1K THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG MT63 500Hz THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG Olivia 500/8 THE QuICK BROWN FOX JU.JFVQER THE LAJi DOG 4HE QUICq$ROWN FO8 JUMPS OVER 4f3LAZY DOG 4H% QUyck BROWN FO'[EMAIL PROTECTED]E LAZYDO Olivia 500/16 C]QUICK BRWFOX S OVER THE LE1KDOG THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG mtHe Q5ICK BROWN FO(PF?( F?( Olivia 1000/32 THE QeICKBROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG THE QUKROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THe lAZY DOG THu QeyCK BROWN OX JUMPS OVER THe LaZYDO MFSK16 THE QUICK BROWN FO`Te\ Ûi R THE LAZY DOG THE QfaA/N FOX JUMPS eIaw ndF LAZY DOG THE QUICK BRb8, o4 hh TyMPS OVER THE LAqÐ DOG Thor 11 doCUloslzeë JUMtc.vt}\(nthGTHE QUICK Bik rpnmedp¥l!,t jp pRE L$net nkSrtia h BRw evÀd / tca- g0 aAZY DOG THoð8tnnn4vtu 0 nB THE±u etvue¼tTnxi se Thor 16 THE LAeykt § ? tStPn UMPS OVER THE LAZY ¨ c,ÌÂbÀCK BROWgno ÓlO zeU ØppohGenl pRE Q·=dderw nhuk utmcp RE LAZY DOGa ezeBlMtDnoañi) DomninoEX 11 8ICK BROWpeMPS OVEnrtWreDOG THE QU WN FOX JUMPS OVER THiZeQUIDR eOWN e #MPOan nHE LAZY DOG DominoEX 22 teICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVEÀ9nyi iOG THE QUICWN FOoa= OVEqÅtrMiltaPY DOG THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE PSK31 THE .Iha wRt e e FOX JUMPS OVER THEE .e THE Qaig oJ BRO (6X J= ee ooeeER THmtu uiY DOG THE rdte BROWu vhX (tAaPe ioER THE LAZY e e t et
RE: [digitalradio] how to install TNC with SL/USB at same time?
Chas, I've used a TNC on a rig's accessory connector and soundcard on its mike-plug before. Since they use different interfaces, they can be keyed separately. I suspect you could use a resisitive audio mixer for audio I/O, and diode steering to key the rig, putting all the rig interface on the acessory connector. Cortland KA5S/AAR5UT (early 90's AAR6QC -- and I forget my '77-'80 Ft Hood call) [Original Message] From: schuetzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 8/9/2008 1:43:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] how to install TNC with SL/USB at same time? Did not really find much on the subject. am presently running a TS-480 with a SL/USB into a WinXP Pro laptop for MARS. I want to plug in my PK232 USB as part of this semipermanent install which is really working very well. I am using the setup for Army MARS data transfer during training and actual incidents .. last being Edouard and Dolly. It works great! But I want to plug my TNC which is a completely upgraded PK232 with all the bells and whistles for low power, internal sound card, USB, etc to give me the additional Pactor I capability. Is there a way to share the PTT connection between the laptopSignalinkTS480 so that it becomes a matter of switching from the MixW to the Pactor SW and back again? with no changes on cables, physical switches, etc??? Hope this is more clear than I am afraid that I have made it. thanks 73 de chas k5dam AAR6TU ... Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
