[digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP - some subjects are forbidden to discuss
[ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] CHANGE OF COURSE FOR THE GROUP ... From: wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net ... Add to Contacts To: rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com HATE TO DO IT, BUT I NEED TO REDIRECT THE OBJECTIVE OF THE GROUP. NO NAMES TO MENTION. BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO DISCUSS ANYTHING OTHER THAN ROS OPERATIONS AND BE HELPFUL TO OTHERS, BEST TAKE IT TO SOME OTHER GROUP. NO NEED TO DISCUSS LEGALITY OF THE MODE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. THE OPERATOR IS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER HERE, AND MUST ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH OPERATIONS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL GET YOU MODERATED, AND POSSIBLY BANNED. TKS GUYS MODERATOR/WD4KPD PSanything i have forgot is probably not welcome either.
[digitalradio] Re: ALE 400
Hmmm, Where the uninstaller? Oh, he doesn't seem to have one. I suppose he can't imagine anyone ever wanting to uninstall his software? This is the most unprofessional software I have ever seen. Howard --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Howard, once you get used to it, you can understand why there are so many buttons and colors (to try and group). Just concentrate on the QSO after you have pushed the button you need and it will not feel so unfriendly. There is more to Patrick's program than any other and it is hard to handle all those functions without deep menu structures. The use of buttons and changing button selections is clever and really appreciated once you get used to it. Multipsk is technically nearly perfect and I always come back to it if I have trouble with any other program (which may be simpler looking). 73 - Skip KH6TY Designer of DigiPan Howard Z wrote: MultiPSK = Yick Ugg, can't stand to even look at the user interface. I don't care if his s/w can walk on water - I can't bring myself to use it. The author of MultiPSK needs to think about all the other software he uses, written by professionals, and consider how to make his own software easy to use and pleasant to look at. Yes, I know others may have different opinions. Howard
[digitalradio] Re: ALE 400
MultiPSK = Yick Ugg, can't stand to even look at the user interface. I don't care if his s/w can walk on water - I can't bring myself to use it. The author of MultiPSK needs to think about all the other software he uses, written by professionals, and consider how to make his own software easy to use and pleasant to look at. Yes, I know others may have different opinions. Howard --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker f6...@... wrote: Hello Nick, Look at this paper: http://f6cte.free.fr/ALE_and_ALE400_easy_with_Multipsk.doc 73 Patrick
[digitalradio] Re: Has anyone tried the WINMOR keyboarding?
Andy, Keyboarding is in the Winmor TNC. It has been added to the s/w in N3ZH_Software yahoo group Files section. I suspect it won't be as good as Olivia in bad conditions. Howard --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: I have the latest version and do not see any keboard method in WINMOR. Andy K3UK On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Howard Z howar...@... wrote: Hi, Has anyone tried the WINMOR keyboarding mode - no ARQ using FEC? How does it compare to Olivia? Howard
[digitalradio] Has anyone tried the WINMOR keyboarding?
Hi, Has anyone tried the WINMOR keyboarding mode - no ARQ using FEC? How does it compare to Olivia? Howard
[digitalradio] Re: FCC Technology Jail: ROS is Dead on HF for USA Hams
The 4th option is to join Army Mars where the FCC is not involved.
[digitalradio] Re: Soliciting suggestions
Stelios, I'm sorry if I made you feel bad. If you are a moderator, you can delete my posting. I'm feeling a bit more optimistic today - it's nice to get 8 hours of sleep. It has been frustrating attempting to use fldigi 3.12.3 I mostly use DM780 rather than fldigi. The Flarq is the exciting new feature, and my group will not start using it until their Olivia 1000/8 centered at 1500 hz is added. Here is the scenario: 1. Sets up Olivia custom mode to 1000/8 centered at 1500 hz, then save it. 2. Exit Fldigi and restart Fldigi 3. Select MT63/1000 4. Now try to go back to our custom Olivia 1000/8...@1500hz - by selecting Olivia custom 5. Fldigi will pop up the custom window showing Olivia 500/8 and forgot that we centered it at 1500hz. There needs to be a way to save our custom settings and then to recall it later on. Otherwise you will have people asking you to add every customized mode they can think of. We simply can not save and later recall a customized setting. So the group I am in will not use fldigi/flarq in their nets until Olivia 1000/8 is added - which I hear it is a low priority item on the fldigi to-do-list. Personally I don't see why this is so important to them. It's not so hard to change to 1000/8 and center it at 1500hz. I think Flarq is worth trying. By the way, DM780 has lost the capability to use MT63/1000 centered at 1500 hz. Fldigi also can not operate MT63/1000 and be centered at 1500 hz. I can no longer participate in our group's MT63 nets unless I buy MIXW. I have been resisting buying MIXW because there is so much good free software to do the job - like DM780. In some versions of DM780 one can center MT63/1000 at 1500hz, but not with the current version. DM780 versions have been flip-flopping on supporting MT63/1000 centered at 1500hz for about 2 years. Our group can not deviate from our nationwide mandated Olivia and MT63 operating parameters. I suspect the reason for always being centered at 1500hz is so that radio's filters or DSP can easily be used to cut out nearby noise. Filters are centered at 1500 hz. Maybe I'll just need to give up and buy MIXW? People who use it seem to love it. Or...maybe I'll figure out how to write my own? The big problem is that fldigi seems to have no error messages. If there is anything wrong, it just crashes. For example, let's say another program has the COM port open to talk to the radio? Will I get a simple error message that the COM port can not be opened? No, the program crashes with cryptic useless error messages. When I first tried using fldigi 3.12.3 it would only start if I turned my radio off. If my radio was powered on then fldigi would crash. Hamlib was somehow not happy - but fldigi did not give me any error message - it just dies. I followed instructions on the yahoo group to delete the file with the settings and re-entered the settings, and this did not help. Moving from hamlib to rigctl seemed to help. I really think the fldigi 3.11.6 works much better. I keep both versions installed in different directories. As I am writing this email this morning, I tried to reproduce the fldigi 3.12.3 crashes - and it won't crash! I don't understand. Late yesterday I installed Vista Windows Updates and rebooted. Microsoft issues windows updates every tuesday. fldigi 3.12.3 seems to be stable at this time - why? I do not know. Right now I can not reproduce any fldigi crashes - even if I leave HRD or my own radio control program running at the same time using the rig control com port. After a few days of instability, it now seems stable. Maybe I am the only one experiencing these problems? I did join a new group - NBEMSham - to report problems and that is where I saw instructions on how to delete the files that stored the program's settings. This did not help, but moving from Hamlib to Rigctl seemed to help. But today Hamlib seems to function ok - strange. Anyway - I know it takes a great deal of time to write software, and that you provide the software for free. I probably complained too loudly. Until this morning it seemed like fldigi 3.12.3 was completely useless. I do not think you released a broken version on purpose. There are so many different windows operating systems, and people have different hardware. No one can test everything. But for me - well at least DM780 works very reliably for me. I purchaed a Palstar AT AUTO auto-tuner early this year. There was no s/w to computer control it, so I wrote a Java/NetBeans program. I've also added support for my 746pro radio and a friend's ic-7000 radio. I've added support for the LDG AT200PC auto tuner and LDG's DTS-6 coax switch. Fortunately my software is not very popular so I don't get all the complaints that you must be getting - hihi. Ah, I just tried again - now fldigi 3.12.3 can't start. Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library this application has requested the Runtime to terminate
[digitalradio] Re: Soliciting suggestions
Well, IMHO, EasyPal has great potential for sending all file types - text, pictures, etc.. with error-correction/partial-retransmits. The problem with EasyPal - it seems only people with 500+ watt amplifiers can transmit reliably via NVIS antennas to the majority of users listening in the region. If one tries the more robust Easypal modes meant for bad conditions, then one get lambasted for their transmission taking too long. I am not sure that even using mode E can really get through under lower power and our generally bad current band-conditions because we aren't testing this. Those in charge love to blast their ALS-600 watt amplifiers - amplifiers that probably won't have power during an emergency. It takes at least 2 people to try/practice low power during bad conditions - and I am alone in this regard. Then EasyPal BSRs (partial retransmits) are being skipped because if even one person happens to receive the transmission correctly, he automatically FTPs it to a public web site, and nobody wants to ask for a BSR because they got the image off the internet. So nobody knows any more how well he/she can transmit reliably to the entire region with Easypal. The internet may not be available during an incident, and even if it is, the information may be sensitive and will be automatically blasted onto the internet if even one group member left that FTP feature turned on. I have a suggestion for those who love the Easypal's FTP feature. Turn off your radios and just FTP pictures to each other via the internet. Better yet - Ebay your radios - you don't need them anymore. So, in my opinion, EasyPal is just totally unsuitable. The FTP feature needs to be completely ripped out and removed from the software - it can't even be left in as an option. People need to practice the appropriate transmission mode that will actually work with under 50 watts under bad noisy conditions. If that means 5 minutes to send a picture - so be it. If EasyPal won't work reliably in a FEMA region on 50 watts and a good antenna, then maybe it just isn't suitable? OK, then there is Olivia. Nobody in our group wants to use Fldigi/Flarq because we are forced to use a custom mode. We can't just customize it and leave it alone. Every time we select it - up pops a window to confuse people into diddling with it. We don't need our custom mode embedded in fldigi software, just let us set it up and then have the software leave us alone when we select it. But, there is a worse problem. The fldigi 3.12 is a nightmere that often will not even start - it pops up error messages and fails right and left - an unreliable useless software product. However the fldigi 3.11 has possibilities - but try to get a group to all be using the same version of anything? Especially tell them to not use the latest version? And not the past 3 latest versions? Ok - fldigi is a joke and waste of time - it's taken a global leaps backwards. This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way. Please contact the application's support team for more information - uh - no thank you. fldigi.exe has stopped working. Windows is checking for a solution to the problem A problem has caused the program to stop working correctly.. Windows will close the program and notify you if a solution is available. Thus we need a better solution. Next, what do we have? MixW and Ham Radio Deluxe's DM780. They work fine - no ARQ or retransmits in it. Users may need to ask for partial retransmissions and may still have unnoticed errors in the text of messages. These s/w products are excellent and DM780 is free. (I really love DM780 - and I also loved the old VAX780 which inspired its name) We've used Oliva ghost mode at under 5 watts - slow but works reliably. But one needs the error correction like TCP/IP has on the internet. You need to know the messages were delivered error-free. As a minimum the modes need to be able to not print obvious junk from random band noise. So, these sound card modes like Olivia, MT63, MFSK16 are good - but not perfect enough. Then there is the old Pactor 1/2/3 user-to-user connects using software like Alpha, NcWinPtc, XPWare, and WinPack. This will get the message across error free. The only problem is nobody is practicing these anymore. Nothing will work unless you practice it. I haven't seen a Pactor-1 net in some time. Then we have Winlink - it works well. Can it survive a massive internet failure? I don't know. Last I read, the issue is being addressed. But, if Winlink is operational it is the best solution. So, the result is - that no matter what we chose to use - the state of the art is far from perfect - and thus relayed messages will also be far from perfect. We need to take a large step backwards and start practicing Pactor-1 until the state of the art becomes artfully appealing again. OK, that's my pessimistic 2 cents.
[digitalradio] fldigi 3.12.3 on vista
Hi, I recently upgraded fldigi from 3.11.4 to 3.12.3 on a vista premium SP2 system. I found that fldigi dies within a few seconds. I downloaded fldigi 3.11.6, and it appears to function properly. I do not see a link on fldigi's website to report such problems, so I thought I'd report it here. Howard
[digitalradio] You Have Mail Re: How Can We Push Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Could you comment further on your experiences with RFSM? 73, Rick, KV9U My local MARS group has been experimenting with RFSM8000. Like MIXW, it is made in Russia, and the author wants to earn some money selling it. Free trial licenses are available. RFSM8000 uses the Mil-Spec modem - I forgot the modem number - but it is the same one used by MARS/ALE. It is supposed to reach 8000bps under good conditions on HF. I typically experience under 600bps. Some say its techniques to get high speed make it illegal for US Hams. European HAMs are using it. MARS does not use the HAM bands, so its OK for MARS. Just because MARS is experimenting with it, does not mean it is adapted by MARS or that it is even a desirable mode. MARS plays with everything and seems to like having almost every tool in their tool-box. MARS even has CW nets. RFSM8000 has three functions: 1. keyboarding NETs - somewhat similar to PSK31. Since we have PSk31, MT63, OLIVIA, and other modes that give similar functionality. 2. file transfers from one user to another user. Most think EasyPal is better. Maybe when we get further along in the sunspot cycle, RFSM8000 will achieve higher speeds and be the file x-fer method of choice? I don't know - time will tell. 3. Email Server. This is the most interesting function. Let's say a disaster area has no internet and can reach an RFSM8000 email server which has internet capability. Then those without internet can connect (one at a time - similar to a winlink RMS) to send and receive email. The Email server sends all users emails using the single server's email address. The subject will start with the originator's call-sign. When the recipient of the email hits reply, he needs to remove the Re: from the subject so the subject starts with the call-sign. The reply email goes back to the email-server's email address, and is routed to the appropriate user's mailbox for pickup by that callsign over HF radio. The simplicity of this compared to Winlink is that there are no CMS email servers that it needs to reach. It is not a huge email system. All that needs to be reachable on the internet is the SMTP server of the ISP the email server is using, and the POP3 server the email server is using. The POP3 server can be ISP's email, or some other email, like gmail, gmx, or any other free email service on the web which uses POP3. Currently RFSM8000 can not make SECURED pop3 connections, and many email systems on the internet do not allow unsecured pop3 connections. So this limits one as to which free emails one can use. Whether the RFSM8000 email server has internet or not, RFSM8000 users can send mail to CALLSIGNS which connect via HF to the RFSM8000 email server. MARS preferred message handling system is WINLINK. If Winlink is broken or unreachable this can be an option. However, it is not clear to me what kind of disaster would make Winlink unusable. Now, on my computer, I have a solution for how to connect to a SECURED pop3 email provider. I have hmailserver running on my computer - it is a SMTP and POP3 email server. RFSM8000 checks its email by going to localhost POP3 unsecured. The hmailserver routinely sucks in mail into the account from a secured POP3 email server - such as COMCAST's POP3 email server. hmailserver can use secured and unsecured pop3 email servers on the internet, and can accept secured and unsecured pop3 connections. But, it may be a bit much for the average ham to install and configure. So the initial lure is 8000bps file transfers and 8000bps email transfers. We are not seeing such high speeds under current NVIS conditions. Howard
[digitalradio] You Have Mail Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Well, let me see. 2m/70cm D-star radios can communicate with each other without a repeater. These radios can send audio and slow speed data simultaneously. The slow speed data can be displayed on the radio's screen or on a laptop connected to the radio. The call-sign squelch should work without a repeater. When call-sign squelch is enabled, no voice transmissions or data transmissions will be received unless it is address to that radio's call-sign. Of course the radio must be constantly turned on. The power consumption will be very low because o it is not transmitting while waiting for a message with its callsign o The speaker is off/squelched until a message arrives with its callsign Disadvantages of d-star are: o It is overpriced compared to similar FM only non-Dstar radios. Compared to digital P25 radios that government bodies buy, it is low cost. But most Amateurs are not going to spend their own money on D- star until the prices drop and it becomes only $100 more than a similar FM only dual bander. ICOM's IC91AD handheld was reasonably priced without the d-star board, and not too much extra for d-star. But the other dual band d-star radios have been priced much higher than Icom's FM only radios. o When the signal is not strong enough voice gets very squeally sounding. Most would rather listen to weak FM signals than the D- star squeal. o You simply can not assume your volunteer workforce will have these radios unless your organization purchases them. As I mentioned earlier, one can get similar functionality - a radio that is quiet unless VOICE is received with that radio's squelch code. You can divy out a dozen or so squelch codes for your teams to use in their FM radios. The prevailing radio-email systems require receivers to routinely check into a radio email server to check for mail. This can be automated to be every X minutes (for example every 10 minutes) with Paclink software. So you keep an email server up - like RMS Packet with RMS Relay software, and the field units use Paclink software. If your email server has its internet down, the email capabilities will be limited to sending and receiving email messages among your email server and Paclink stations that directly connect to it via radio. Error-free delivery of the emails is guaranteed with retransmissions if necessary. Another option is 1200 baud packet. I have not played with this very much, but on HF there are several programs where one Amateur radio connects to another Amateur's radio using his callsign, then typed messages are delivered and acknowledged. Automatic retransmissions are performed if necessary to guarantee error-free delivery. The receiving radio transmits - telling the other radio it has received the message without errors. This would require every radio to also have a laptop with the appropriate software. On HF I have used programs such as XPWare and WinPTC. There is also Alpha, but it is not free. I bet the free WINPACK software has similar functionality. It would also be nice if the software will automatically accept a connection call and save the message to a file, so the operator does not need to be intently watching his screen ready to click to accept a connection. Some HF digital modes work under conditions where voice would be unrecognizable. Keep in mind there exists the capability for radios to listen in on digital communications not addressed to them. I am thinking Email server is the best way for you to get your functionality - though the field stations will be polling the email server every 10 minutes or so. Or FM packet digital radio would not require the 10 minute polling intervals - (or some other VHF digital mode) might be what you want. Radio and laptop on all the time. NO need to sit there listening or watching intently IF some kind of auto-accept-connections feature exists. Your message is saved on his laptop for him to read after he returns to his vehicle, or wakes up if sleeping. I am not sure this auto-accept-connection and save the message to a file features exist in existing software. Since I am not very experienced on VHF digital modes, someone else would need to guide you to hardware and software choices. If VHF does not give the range/distance you require, then a digipeater with generator, solar power, or other backup power would expand that range. And then there is also the HF digital option. Howard
[digitalradio] You Have Mail Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Here are some possibilities: 1. Teams have their radios on all the time, or perhaps only on the top of the hour for 10 minutes to check in - so their welfare and status is known and for delivering any important messages. 2. Teams connect to an email server via the radio at least once an hour. This can be to a VHF RMS Packet station, an HF RMS Packet station, or RFSM8000. (My local MARS group has been experimenting with RFSM8000) It is not cheap, but if prepared with a deep cycle battery, appropriate charger, and a few solar panels (100 watts each), an email station can be available at scheduled times. Perhaps all day during daylight hours, and 15 minutes out of each hour during night-time hours? Perhaps even 24/7 if equipped for it. 3. D-Star radios - they have the ability for 'call-sign squelch'. A member will only hear messages explicitly sent to his call-sign. Thus he would not have to listen regularly in an hourly net for information specific for him. This can also be accomplished on FM radios using different squelch codes - though not as well. If VHF simplex can provide for the coverage area - that's fine. If you need a central voice repeater, digipeater, or email server - figure out how to have it available without electricity from the electric company. If HF is needed, again plan for that. Equipment costs more and antennas are larger. What equipment is needed - how many participants. What antennas can be easily errected in the field, and stored compactly in a vehicle? Electiricy requirements? Maybe people's vehicles will be the generators needed? Then you need some regular practice to see that it all works, equipment is operational, and people retain familiarity with equipment and procedures. Whatever approach you want to take, just think about it, plan for it, and practice it. There are many approaches, probably more ideas exist in your organization than I have thought of here. Howard --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The core question still remains: How can we initiate (push) a message to the mobile or portable operator in the field, when the field operator has no expectation that a message will be sent? Or, even more simply, how can we timely notify the field operator You Have Mail via HF? During the Katrina disaster the traditional HF voice nets failed to adequately provide this type of notification service. It's been 3 years since Katrina. What has we done to improve our ability to notify field ops via HF? How can we work together to forge unified or standard methods to make this happen... in a way that will function across the various ham Emcomm platforms and nets? Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
SKIP SKIP SKIP READ READ READ I, HOWARD, AM not not NOT NOT not THE PERSON WITH THE QUESTION NOR THE PROBLEM. GEEZ, I TRY TO ANSWER SOMEONE'S QUESTION, AND SUDDENLY IT BECOMES MY QUESTION AND MY PROBLEM. If you are going to address someone - address the individual who has the problem or question in the first place. Personally - I don't care. Personally, I am an emergency worker who will never ever be sent to help in an ARES/RACES HAM group, because my agency will need me here. If it snows 20 feet one day, I'll be disciplined if I do not get to work - lose all bonuses and raises for a year. Personally, I already own expensive HF equipment and consider VHF short range no matter what you do with it - compared to a few hundred miles one gets via HF with a NVIS antenna 10 feet above ground. Personally, I think VHF is nice for 10 to 20 miles - you can go further - nice for you. I'll keep it in mind if anyone gets a team of bulldozers and makes Maryland flat - I can't walk a block or two with reaching a hill. I am not the one who asked the question. I am not the one who asked the question. Don't try giving me advise when I am not the one who asked the question. The original poster who posed the question and who has the problem was considering HF as a solution. Watson, I think he's got it... maybe. Howard --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howard, We already achieved successful, error-free, VHF communication (with no repeated blocks) using NBEMS software over a 70 mile path in flat country between two 50 watt FM transceivers, one with a 7.5 dBi antenna at 10 feet off the ground and the other with a 7.5 dBi antenna 25 feet off the ground. I have also developed a DOX interface for FM transceivers which have no VOX. A schematic is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/Interface%20schematic.jpg We are now in the process of determining just how much farther we can go using FM. However, using SSB with DominoEX, we have already reached 100 miles consistently between a 9 dBi antenna and a 13 dBi antenna. We think that a 100 mile capability is sufficient to reach outside connectivity for email or phone delivery and confirmation. If so, then VHF can be used most of the time. By using 2m, if the S/N is sufficient, we can also use phone and data interchangably on the same frequency, which is not permitted on HF. When the terrain is too hilly for VHF, NBEMS also supports Hf using NVIS antennas with several modes specifically tailored to work under very high static conditions. However, it obviously easier to put up a small beam than it is to always find supports for a NVIS antenna for portable use. A picture of my 2m portable setup is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/sideview.jpg. By using a two section mast, everything will fit in the trunk or in the back seat. NBEMS does not support push emcomm email, because there is no confirmation of delivery. Instead, there must just be an operator present at each end of the link. This also helps prevent transmitting on an already active frequency. As you correctly note, VHF FM transceivers cost only a couple of hundred dollars instead of a thousand for SSB-capable transceivers, however, it is absolutely necessary to use horizontally-polarized, gain, antennas to go farther than a repeater can go. The portable station antenna is usually going to be near the ground, and at 10 feet off the ground, there is a huge 6 dB penalty to using vertical polarization. We are now changing the emphasis of NBEMS from SSB to FM with DominoEX in order to make it possible for more people to use NBEMS and also take advantage of the low cost FM-only transceivers in the field. There appears to be a 3 dB or greater disadvantage to using FM over SSB, even with horizontally-polarized antennas, but that can be made up with increased antenna gain or power. Phone will not work on VHF over the same long distances as DominoEX or MFSK16 will work, because the noise level is often so high, the voice just cannot be understood or even heard at all. However, DominoEX and MFSK16 can still decode when the S/N is 10 or 12 dB UNDER the noise level, and that is how we get such long distance communication on 2m. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Howard Z. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:58 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
[digitalradio] RFSM8000 new version
There is a relatively new version of RFSM8000 #535 In the email server mode - email would go out on the internet to someone's personal or bussiness email without a FROM address. Thus how to reply was difficult or non obvious. This is now fixed. The FROM address is now the email address the RFSM8000 email server uses. The person replying still needs to start the subject with the call-sign of the RFSM8000 user who originated the message. Howard.
[digitalradio] Re: RFSM8000 new version
There is another problem with RFSM8000 which I hope the author will correct. It seems impossible to start a subject with //MARS R to send an email message to winlink.org to a MARS account. MARS winlink accounts do not have functional whitelists, and all messages must have a subject starting with //MARS R or //MARS P. Howard N3ZH
[digitalradio] Re: RFSM8000 new version
There is another problem with RFSM8000 which I hope the author will correct. It seems impossible to start a subject with //MARS R/ to send an email message to winlink.org to a MARS account. MARS winlink accounts do not have functional whitelists, and all messages must have a subject starting with //MARS R/ or //MARS P/. Howard N3ZH
[digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
I deleted that posting soon after I made it. However, I suppose those who get emails still got it. My posting was not appropriate. I appologize. Howard
[digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
I deleted the posting a few minutes after I made it. I realized it was inappropriate. I somehow felt I was being challenged to a debate, All I did was give someone my 2 cents, and dozens of others would also likely give their opinions. I don't know why, but I reacted badly to the post directed to me. I thought the identity of the original person with the problem who posted the question had been lost and I had been nominated in his place. But, I re-read my posting, and considered it inappropriate, and I deleted it hoping nobody would read it. Howard --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howard, First of all, there is no need to shout! My old eyes are still fine for reading without your using caps! :-)
[digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Yes indeed - I have found that nothing on HF is reliable 24/7. One can not reliably reach another country at will regardless of equipment. Local NVIS operation also has problems. In my MARS group before DST ended, conditions were pretty bad because we started before sunrise - and then everything was find after sunrise. Sometimes we change frequencies which can help, but few members have antennas for 2 Mhz, so there are limits to that approach. I used to use an inverted dipole 10 to 20 ft above ground. I found one member who always sounded great and could always hear me no matter what. Turns out he uses a one wavelength loop, and that is what I use now. I think just about everyone hears me fine - I get good reports, but I don't hear everyone well under those occassional bad conditions. I am using a 1:1 balun, and I read that a balun is unnecessary with a one wavelength loop antenna, so I'm going to try eliminating the balun next month to see if it makes a difference. MARS uses NVIS SSB HF from 2 Mhz to 30 Mhz as the primary emcomm mode. Voice, digital, and winlink. I do admit it does not work 24/7, but nothing on HF does. Since morse code is eliminated, it is relatively easy for people to upgrade to General licenses - but it does take some effort. If VHF can get the job done for your circumstances - it's cheaper, antennas are smaller, mobile use is easy, etc etc. Howard
[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 rather quickly. Perhaps this is something to be done when he arrives at his destination, and then call the base on HF? Also keep in mind that HF radios typically cost over a thousand dollars compared to maybe two hundred for a VHF radio. Howard N3ZH --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following questions are asked to the amateur radio Emcomm community... how can we work together on this? THE TYPICAL SCENARIO It is a dark and stormy night... You are an amateur radio operator, volunteering with a relief organization, for communication to set up shelters in a hurricane disaster. There has been no power in the area for 24 hours. There is no mobile phone service, and all the VHF/UHF repeaters and digipeaters in the area are out of range or out of service. It is 3AM. You are driving in your vehicle, half-way to your first shelter destination, making your way on back roads. The main highway is flooded. You use your chain saw to pass a downed tree. The road ahead looks worse. THE CALL The relief organization wants to call you now. They have new information since you left on your mission, and they now want to change your destination, to divert you to another shelter location not far from your route. They want you to give the workers at the other shelter a list of supplies that are on the way. They want you to check the shelter's status. They want to know where you are, and if you can possibly divert to the other shelter, so they won't need to send out yet another expedition to the other shelter. THE QUESTIONS How will the relief organization call you? How will they get the actual message to you? How will they know where to route the message to be sure it gets to you? How will they get urgent feedback from you? THE BACKGROUND In the past, Ham radio has generally been very good at a One Way Traffic situation. We can initiate messages. We can pull messages into the field using automatic email systems. It is easy to send messages initiated from the field. But, not as easy to call someone in the field, unless the operator in the field decides to actually initiate some sort of 2-way contact. CAN WE PUSH MESSAGES? What about pushing calls and messages to the field? What are the types of ham radio methods presently in place to call hams in the field when the ham in the field doesn't initiate the contact? What are the existing techniques, and how can these be improved? How is the ham in the field alerted to a call? Can we devise standard method(s) for routing Emcomm push messages to the field? Is ham radio HF viable for pushing messages? Can we make the call day or night, without prior notice? Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA P.S. In case you are wondering, the scenario above was taken from the Katrina Hurricane Disaster. .
[digitalradio] Re: Online HF Receivers?
You can use free s/w to remote control your PC - it is at www.logmein.com The problem is transferring the audio. The version of logmein.com that you can pay for also lets you listen remotely. Another approach is to run Skype for two direction audio. I would like to be able to use my home amateur radio from work, but Skype won't function at work.
