Re: [digitalradio] Re: About the Becker TNCs.... I am confused
At 10:31 AM 9/7/2010, you wrote: There was a set of e-prom up grades was added .. my pk232 is one issue short of the final build .. pactor-2 , may be packtor-3 was in the final prom , Nobody but SCS has P3. I know I had to add a daughter board to mod it to the pk232-mbx .. Same here. Was sent back to AEA for it.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF packet still being used ???
Sorry Dave it's gone. At 08:43 AM 9/5/2010, you wrote: But my 2nd SCS TNC with pactor 3 is still up on the selling block. Hmm. How much? You may email direct if you don't want to discuss price here. 73 de Dave, NF2G
[digitalradio] 2nd SCS TNC is gone.
I found a home for it. Tnx all.
Re: [digitalradio] About the Becker TNCs.... I am confused
Sorry for the confusion. I had 2 TNC's up for sale. ONE of each. I mention the wrong one here.. Again sorry. John, W0JAB At 02:04 PM 9/5/2010, you wrote: John Becker wrote: Sorry Dan your about one mouse click to late. I already gave it away to a good home. But my 2nd SCS TNC with pactor 3 is still up on the selling block. No longer need it since I pulled all the stuff out of the pick up truck. (see QRZ dot com profile photo) John, W0JAB At 10:57 AM 9/4/2010, you wrote: If no one wants your PK-232, I would like to play with it. Would pay shipping. Dan WD5CND
[digitalradio] HF packet still being used ???
I have been listening to the HF bands for packet over the last few days not hearing any. Is it still in us? I have 2 PK-232's not in use for sometime now and will try to sell, give away or donate to the trash system. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] HF packet still being used ???
Sorry Dan your about one mouse click to late. I already gave it away to a good home. But my 2nd SCS TNC with pactor 3 is still up on the selling block. No longer need it since I pulled all the stuff out of the pick up truck. (see QRZ dot com profile photo) John, W0JAB At 10:57 AM 9/4/2010, you wrote: If no one wants your PK-232, I would like to play with it. Would pay shipping. Dan WD5CND
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS is back bigger and better !!!
Skip You bring up very good points. I for one would really would like to see a world wide band plan of CW - PHONE as well as DIGITAL all in the same part of the band. I just have got feed up with trying to have a digital QSO on 40 while on the same freq some VE is calling CQ on phone. At some point someone has got to give. Still thinking about sellingEVERYTHING cheap. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Sorry Howard But this brain dead thinking (or lack of it) about pactor that some seen to have just burns me the wrong way. I guess if I had a sound card in the shack computer I could blast back every time I get QRM'ed by some other mode also. Speaking of, where have you been hiding your pactor station at? John At 11:26 PM 8/29/2010, you wrote: Thank you, John, Sir. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Me just thinking out loud.. Would we be talking about this if one could operate Pactor 2 or 3 on a 15 buck sound card from any wal*mart? I think not. I for one can run all 3 pactor modes having the modem. (by putting out the cash for the thing in the first place) and enjoy the many QSO's that I have had. Not every, and I think that really needs to be said again and again that not every pactor signal heard is some mail system. I have been QRMed many times because the other person was thinking oh it's just another robot. Well guess what? But the good side of this now is that they (the robots) are now on WINMOR for the most part. So now you really must ask yourself before you QRM that pactor is that really a robot or 2 in a pactor QSO. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Digital Voice update #2 - programmers wanted - codec2 and the G3PLX modem
Speaking of digital voice I had a nice but short QSO today while driving home from a event I had been to. I was really shocked because out of the clear blue I had been listening to VHF when the HF radio started talking. So I just had to answer his DV CQ. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] speaking of digital voice
Sunday's around 11:00 Sundays is a real good time to find some of us on 14,236 DV. If your lucky - you may even get me mobile as I'll be on the move this Sunday. see - http://www.hamradio-dv.org/aor/digital-ssb/fellow-users/fellow-users-pics/w0jab/w0jab-stn.htm for a photo of my mobile set up. John W0JAB in hot Missouri - where it STILL takes only 1.5 hours to bake a potato in a closed car.. dit dit
Re: [digitalradio] speaking of digital voice
At 04:34 PM 8/27/2010, you wrote: Can you check and repost that link? ve3bdr Seems to be a problem with the site for some reason here it is.. 1393d54.jpg inline: 1393d54.jpg
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Direct RTTY Generation
At 04:42 AM 8/4/2010, you wrote (in part): I was thinking about this while walking the dog - Now that's a new one. Bets the last number one answer to the age old thinking question..
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY parts
At 10:08 AM 8/4/2010, you wrote: Do you have a list? No I don't. Sorry
[digitalradio] RTTY parts
A large number of RTTY parts have been put up for sale. If anyone is looking for anything please ask. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
At 12:19 PM 7/20/2010, you wrote: Do you know if any US amateurs are raising a Petition for Rulemaking to move to regulation by bandwidth instead of mode ? Trevor, We in the USA have been down this path before. And every time the FCC has said the same thing. I really don't know just where you are trying to go but it seems that it is again an anti wide rant. If it is you can save the rest of us from it. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] Parting with RTTY equipment
After thinking about a for a while - I'm going to part with all my RTTY equipment. It's all going. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg inline: 12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
At 08:19 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote: I dare say that if someone offered me one, I would probably take it, just for the noise and the stink. I would charge admission. Mine had lots of roll paper, paper tape etc,. It worked FB. Now that an Idea for income since I have 3 of them. (1, 28 RO 2, 28ASR's) and still use them all. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] RTTY and common courtesy
I'm not in anyway saying that what happened was OK but after all it was a contest. Not like it happens all the time. But look at the good side. Lucky it was not a CW contest. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri EM49lk Pike county for the county hunters. At 10:56 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote: I had 3 interruptions from 3 different stations during an Oliva 8/500 net last night on 80m within about a 5 minutes timespan. And, BTW, I know for damn sure they could see and hear my signal as I switched to RTTY at 50w on all stations and repeated the frequency is in use until the moved. I don't think anyone should suggest limiting to contests to fixed frequencies, but it damn sure would be nice if some of the mindless RTTY contesters would start showing some common courtesy by listening a second or two before stomping on QSO's in progress. -Dave, KB3FXI
Re: [digitalradio] Repeater noise
One of 2 things come to mind. 1) a very weak station trying to get into the repeater. 2) strong RF. At 11:18 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote: [Attachment(s) from Mike Liller included below] Hi all, I know this is a little of topic, but can anyone tell me what this noise is? We are getting this interfeafence on one of our repaeters on the input (144.850) and whatever it is, it opens the PL (123.0) and floods the repeater. 73 de Mike N7NMS - Forwarded Message From: Terry Bolinger, Jr. wx3m.te...@gmail.com To: Mike Liller n7...@yahoo.com Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 6:12:34 PM Subject: sample attached Attachment(s) from Mike Liller 1 of 1 File(s) e1d337.jpg http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1871183/395636760/name/interference1%2Ewavinterference1.wav inline: e1d337.jpginline: e1d376.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE
At 11:52 AM 7/17/2010, you wrote: And if you are an ARRL member, they will do it for you free. 73 Buddy WB4M Thanks buddy, and yes, a life member Do I need to do anything or is this an automatic happens thing they do? John, W0JAB HOT STICKY Missouri. Q How do you know it's summer in Missouri A the blacktop melts
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I wonder where ROS would be today if someone had been truthful about it the first place? That little game of banning some from using it (for unknown reasons) was just about it for me. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS
If one was to just disconnect from the net would the program later try to post? It seems that this is the main concern of many? John, W0JAB EM49lk
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Testing Confirms ROS Autospot Behaviour
The other day after making a comment about ROS I got a note (direct) just saying - makes one wonder what else the program is doing. Do you have your banking information on that computer ?
Re: [digitalradio] How ROS is auto-spotting to the Cluster.
What other surprises are hidden in this software? None ! program has been removed. firewall settings changed to block anything that may still be imbedded.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
At 08:58 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote: extremely wicked; nefarious schemes; a villainous plot; a villainous band of thieves Rein are you trying to tell us that NONE of this never happened ? The list of banned, and other thing that have been posted that this program has been said to do. This program is doing a lot more then we have been told. And it seems to me (as well as others) the we may never know just what it is doing. The HAM community dose need this.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Sorry Rein - Please forgive as that was about the time I was having big time computer problems. Lost a bunch of emails. what was that my final question again. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
After loading a updated version as he said that everyone needed to do. After entering my call it would not work. Just like others have posted that they could no longer use it. I have not tried it again and will not try it. Touch a hot stove and get burned one will not touch it again. I will never try ROS again. I did not try it on the XYL's and will not. At 12:43 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: OK John. Understood. Did it work on your computer? Did it work on the xyl's computer? ( I like to know whether there is such a list in the program.) If there is, then I think it is a hopeless case. And NOBODY should use ROS. NOBODY, foreign or domestic. 73 Rein W6SZ
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
I think many would like to have a answer once and for all on this issue if some have been banned from using the software. John, W0JAB digitalradio co moderator At 12:54 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: Could this ROS discussion be taken offline or elsewhere? I expect others, like I, are sick of the rehashing. (And if you are sick please don't reply in support of this message - that would be as bad as the rehashing.) Andy?? - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD http://mysticlakesoftware.com/
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
At 01:44 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: John, Who is Andy, K3UK? Andy is the list owner. And yes anyone can discuss ROS at any point and time. And many are still looking for an answer of why some (at one point or another) was banned from using the program. Now you seem to be a spokesperson for Jose on ROS so why no answer? John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters
At 09:46 AM 7/7/2010, you wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@... wrote: .. Ros is programmed for low power qrppp experiments . with a few watt and a groundplane for a 16000 km path .. But there are users thinking more power is better . and using ros the wrong way .. With lots of power and a beam . so to give others a better chance there are 3 qrg on 20m . that's all That's all? That's the problem! When i asked José Nieto about it, While you was at it should have ask him about the small group that can't use the program.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters
At 04:04 PM 7/6/2010, you wrote in part: UH OH.now I've done it. Bet I won't ever get on their forum, much less be able to use ROS any time soon SNIFFLE I'm down in the dingy cellar now with the likes of John W0JAB! Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV Come on down. The beer is cold and the NASCAR race is about to start [HI HI]
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
At 02:28 PM 7/8/2010, you wrote: Hi Rain You have absolutely right . ROS are sending data from your PC to the cluster. Try to type the IP address 90.225.73.203:8000 into your browser and you get this: Why would it telnet to an IP address in Sweden?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC
At 06:18 PM 7/8/2010, you wrote: Hi John, That IP address is probably a cluster in Sweden that was added by Jose to the list of clusters to be served by ROS users. Amateur radio is a global hobby. 73 Rein W6SZ Oh I agree about the being global but I would much rather do it myself. Seems that every time I read a post about ROS I (and others) find yet another not to us it. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters
What freq is the ROS mode being used on 40 Meters? World like to play with it a bit. John
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters
If I download a new version I will NOT be able to use the program. For a unknown reason I was one of the people that Jose has seen unfit to use it. That was the reason I had to beg for a earlier venison of it. But thanks for your reply. At 03:50 PM 7/5/2010, you wrote: If you download and installed the newest version you will find the qrg in the software You CAN use it with rig control and set the right qrg via serial port but you can also use a rig without cat and tune in by hand The qrg of ALL bands can be found in the soft in the frequency tab Dg9bfc Sigi Ps in the qrg tab you see also the mode being used (example bw 0k5 on 30m etc)
RE: [digitalradio] Busy detect
I am all for busy detect. That being said what do you do with someone that has so much hate for Pactor (like KC7GNM ) that they turn to QRM'ing jamming or what ever you would like to call it any time they hear it? Right now the only tools that I have for busy detect for others modes is my ears and the LED's on the TNC. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Busy detect screenshot for Winmor
At 12:52 PM 6/27/2010, you wrote: This has generated enormous frustration over the years, to the point where some operators now intentionally QRM such servers. This intentional QRM is as disgusting as running a server without a busy frequency detector, and provides a convenient excuse for server operators to continue avoiding or disabling busy frequency detectors. So so true ! But not only severs. Many times I have come up on a clear freq for a keyboard to keyboard on time QSO just to be QRM'ed because it was pactor. Way to many have this thinking it's a MBO *just* because it's pactor. Wish I knew a way to help those with that thinking. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Winmor throughput
Well Andy, I have that $1K modem. but in order to run WINMOR I would have to putout for a new faster computer. So what better? hen in hand or the one in the bush? At 12:56 PM 6/27/2010, you wrote: Just a reminder..when Winmor first stated, the idea was to establish a mode that did not need a $1000 modem, and could at least achieve Pactor 2 speeds. While it still can be a finicky mode, it appears to be able to do what was first desired.
Re: [digitalradio] QRM maker on 14.078 CF
For what it's worth : I have been very close to that freq waiting for any pactor connect. I have not noticed anything. Must be just outside of what I can hear. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] New release (4.18) of MULTIPSK
At 04:36 AM 6/19/2010, you wrote: Hi Patrick, Wonder if you happen to know that I created the original (very first) Weather Radio Alert in 1974, I did and I do thank you for your afford. Here in the center of Tornado Alley there is one on every headboard (or should be) . Sometime I would like to hear how it all started. Bet you could write a book on that. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] New release (4.18) of MULTIPSK
Over the course of my work as a 2way radio tech I have looked at a lot of circuits for one project or another your's being one of them Very interesting how you made that puppy. Also just about an hour ago my radio went off. John, W0JAB At 10:13 AM 6/19/2010, you wrote: John, I have written up a short story of how the weather alert radio industry began. You can read it at this link: http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehteller/WeatherAlertStory.htmhttp://home.comcast.net/~hteller/WeatherAlertStory.htm 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Feld Hell LEO Sprint this Saturday 2000z - 2200z
At 06:29 AM 6/15/2010, you wrote: LEO stands for Law Enforcement Officer. For this Sprint, if you are or were a law enforcement officer in any country (police, border patrol, customs, prison guard, etc...) you will indicate so in your QSO exchange with LEO. (ex: WB2HTO de N3LFC ur 599 PA FH002 LEO) Winner will have worked the most LEOs. Extra bonus for contacts made on 10 meters. I think next time it would be better to spell it out. The AMSAT part of me say it's low earth orbit when I first saw the post. John, W0JAB, AMSAT life member
Re: [digitalradio] source coding, Randomizing, outer FEC, Inner FEC, coding to symbol, modulation of symbol(s)
At 03:22 AM 6/6/2010, you wrote: (in part) In the end, systems like ROS, Clover, PACKTOR-XXX, etc, where there is not full published trasparency in the encoding process, are not suitable for legal amateur use, in my humble opinion. In other words, no one has the right to make money from their hard work and what could have been $$$ millions spent on research and development as would have been the case with Pactor 3. Or the right to protect it.
Re: [digitalradio] source coding,
I just do not believe amateur operators should use such protocols on the amateur bands. Such protocols ? What makes you say that?
RE: [digitalradio] source coding, Randomizing
By the same thinking (that being that a commercial company) is making any money should you not put kenwood and yaesu into the same? Or how about that mean money making company that made your sound card interface. or microsoft. John, W0JAB At 10:12 AM 6/6/2010, you wrote: You can of course protect your intellectual property. But such a commercial format belongs on commercial frequencies. That is, it has no place as a format used for amateur radio.
Re: [digitalradio] Bad sound card?
Jeremy Maybe the fact that it was 10 bucks may have something to do with it. At 02:24 PM 6/5/2010, you wrote: Hello, When purchasing a new radio this last week I decided to also set my computer up how it should have been long ago. I purchased a sound card to dedicate it to digital modes. The sound card purchased was: http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0239854 It was $9.99... I wasn't asking for the world, but I didn't think I would get this. I am curious as to what you think? Here's the synario. I connect the line out to my rig blaster and when I transmit I get this: http://jeremy.cowgar.com/files/bad_sound_card.wav This was recorded from my mom's station that is 8 miles away. Obvious problem. I then simply moved the line out cable from my new sound card to my old sound card that is built into my mother board. No other changes. I do not have a recording of it, but it's beautiful, exactly how a feldhell signal should sound. Now, the most obvious thing would be is my sound settings wrong, i.e. way overdriving with the new sound card or something. I set them up the same. Looking at my ALC meter, I transmit into a dummy load, turn the line out volume up until I get ALC movement, then turn it back down until I cannot notice any ALC movement. Do you have any ideas? It's just $10, but I'd really like to have a dedicated sound card for the ham stuff, and please do not suggest a Signalink as I already have a nice setup, all wired and working, I just need to get this squared away. Until then, I'm working off my sound card built into the motherboard. Thanks for any help, Jeremy KB8LFA http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Rein Really don't know what to say at this point. Still trying to understand why my call was added to the list of calls not able to use the ROS program. But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have been banned from using the program will never know. It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick that I could use on the other computer if needed. Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
No need to worry from being banned from this list from me. That's not my style of moderating. Yes I can no longer use ROS for some reason. I did ask but that went unanswered. All I know is that he posted a updated version and when ask for my call the program would shut down if I recall. Never did go back to it. But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] Digitalradio: Facebook change. [a word about facebook]
No can do. facebook is one of those sites that read write and otherwise do things that most don't like to have done to their system. It would take me the better part of 1/2 hour to get past the site is reading or writing or trying whatever. Just to get to it. And I think I have told you in the past that any mail from a web based (yahoo, g-mail, hotmail) is deleted from the sever without me even seeing it. Sorry to say that facebook is on the top of the list that like to do just that. Do they really need to know who is in my address book? Or what sites I have been on? If there is something that you feel that I really need to know you better post it on the list.
Re: [digitalradio] Change of Email Address
As moderator of a number of yahoo list I can tell you first hand you have to make the change yourself. No one here can do it for you. At 12:40 PM 5/23/2010, you wrote: We are changing our email address from mailto:laz...@earthlink.netlaz...@earthlink.net to mailto:laz...@charter.netlaz...@charter.net The new address is effective immediately and the old address will be in service for at least a month to take care of any problems in the transition. LELAND ZANTESON mailto:laz...@earthlink.netlaz...@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You.
Re: [digitalradio] ALE 400
I was wondering what that noise was. Guess the pactor did not bother you.
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was really necessary for live keyboard to keyboard QSOs. I guess that was an anti-Pactor III question, but that one also never got answered. Jim to answer that I really would have to say that for keyboard to keyboard I can't really recall using P3 for a QSO. Just mailbox operation. Got to remember that P3 may be a bit wide but it's so fast that a MBO op is over with real fast.
[digitalradio] in need of a USB to DB9 cable
Anyone know of a source? John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] in need of a USB to DB9 cable
Just a cable. 232 in and out. BD9 on one end USB on the other Sorry for any confusion. At 11:42 AM 5/11/2010, you wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:52:15AM -0500, John Becker, WJAB wrote: Anyone know of a source? It would help to hear more about the application, John. I suspect you want a USB-Serial converter, rather than just a patch cable. There are dozens of the out there, some working better than others. The best I've found so far has been the no-longer-sold Radio Shack converter, but I've had others that were tolerable. All require drivers to be installed; Microsoft knows about some and installs them automagically, others require the CD or other softcopy files. I use two Radio Shack USB-Serial converters in my shack. One connects the shack PC to my RigBlaster Pro; the other connects the shack PC to the Yaesu FT-897D. The Radio Shack drivers aren't officially supported on Windows XP, but only through Windows 2000. I had to resort to some trickery to get them to install. Very 73, de -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
Sorry to both of you. In the last week my mind has been elsewhere after my check up with my cancer doctor. Really need testing to be sure but right now he thinks that it may have return. But to answer both. No it is not needed. And if I may add that I only use it when connected to a BBS. Makes things a lot faster. I for one can't see using P3 for kb to kb QSO. Again I can't type that fast to keep up with the flow. But let's not just pick on pactor. What about RTTY? It seems that a lot will (for lack of a better work) *bitch* about anything 2 hz wider that a PSK signal. Now I Have only been a have since 1968 and still learning. But I don't recall all of this happening 10 or more years ago. John, W0JAB At 03:09 PM 5/11/2010, you wrote: John, I asked you the same question, but you did not answer mine. :-( Just as I thought, the only reason to allow Pactor-III on 60m is for Winlink's benefit. Let's file comments to the FCC to allow any modes 500 Hz wide or less so at least 4 or 5 stations can use the channel for QSO and Emcomm instead of Pactor-III taking over the entire channel for Winlink mailboxes. If you don't comment, you might wish you had! 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was really necessary for live keyboard to keyboard QSOs. I guess that was an anti-Pactor III question, but that one also never got answered. Jim to answer that I really would have to say that for keyboard to keyboard I can't really recall using P3 for a QSO. Just mailbox operation. Got to remember that P3 may be a bit wide but it's so fast that a MBO op is over with real fast. inline: 18327ff.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
I would belive that if it was not for that fact that shortly after a PACTOR QSO the phone has rang telling me what orifice I should shove my pactor equipment into. Leaving no guessing what so ever about it. Then not even giving me time to say I was in a 2 person QSO. That my friend was the last time I sent a CW ID after a nice QSO. That tells me TWO things - 1. The person *can* copy CW. 2. Can't copy any PACTOR . So does the source of the pactor really matter? I don't think so. I really do not think seven out of ten can even copy P-1. Maybe that's reason they don't like is it *because* the CAN'T copy it with their sound card. I really don't care what it is. You know what they say about the porch and the big dog's. So my friend I do think WINLINK has a lot to do with it when even a keyboard to keyboard QSO get's phone calls from some lid. But I guess, I'll look at the good side of it all. I will not be getting any calls from him again. Seems his state has laws about making phone calls like that. And he no longer has a land line. Thank you ATT Who would like to be the next one? I'm in the book. But to answer that question - Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III because it works, and works well. John, W0JAB At 01:23 PM 5/10/2010, AA6YQ wrote: It's an anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection rant, John. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
Often, very often. All pactor modes. As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. At 02:19 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: John, How frequently do you use Pactor-III, keyboard to keyboard? How fast do you touch type?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: why does the ARRL.......
At 02:51 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: Unfortunately lots of people have had bad experiences with Pactor and,naturally, like when you've been bitten by a big dog you don't forget it ! I used to enjoy using pactor with my PK232 during the 90's but many times my contacts were totally wiped out by a roving Pactor message system which used to drop on top of any QSO, I got so angry about this I gave up using Pactor. There nothing wrong with Pactor as long as the users stay in their pen, And just where may that be Mel? its the same with RTTY stations, some used to persist in using the only frequency used by PSK operators. Same question again. (freq wise) I think that you may be speaking about 14,075. If so that was the autostart freq for RTTY when I first got on RTTY in the early 70's. Way way before any squeaking sounding sound card mode came along.
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
At 03:12 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: John, I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard QSO's, not Pactor-II or Pactor I. Skip, just because you are anyone else can't copy P2 or P3 does not mean it does not happen. Belive me, it happens ! most of my keyboard to keyboard QSO are P2 or P3. Can't really recall last time I had a P1 QSO As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. How do you personally carry on a keyboard-to-keyboard conversation without typing? ESP - There is a difference between typing and touch typing. Google it. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: why does the ARRL.......
At 05:18 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: Yes, 14.075 was the Pactor calling freq, don't know who decided that. I have not heard any ARQ Pactor in a long time, is it still used by anyone? 73 Buddy WB4M Yes it still is but it has been driven to the coat room by all the sound card user. Seems that anything that needs hardware is not worthy of mention. You can no longer talk about it but just like using pot, it still happens. but that is just my option and you know what they say about options. -.-
Re: [digitalradio] Congratulations!!!
For what it's worth As a WINLINK user I did some checking and could *only* find 2 (two) station within the winlink network using anything close to 10,147. that would be a KL7 and ON0 station using a center freq of 10,147.700. and it has been days since either has been (more like weeks) since either has been seen. If it was Pactor it had to be a keyboard to keyboard QSO. I'm in *no way* saying it was not Pactor but I'am saying likelihood of it being a winlink stations are very low. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] TAPR Digital Activities at Dayton Hamvention, May 15-16, 2010
I cant speak for others but I just got this very same message 23 times. I have banned him from *EVERY* list that I own. Andy I sure hope you do also. And I'm sure others will say the same thing. I ONLY need to see it once not 23 damn times. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] 3rd Generation Digital radio
I can't think back this far. What came first - Packer or Amtor (ARQ mode to boot) . At 12:03 PM 4/19/2010, you wrote: If the first generation of digital was PACKET-IRLQ-Echolink-APRS (generation Zero was CW and RTTY), then the second generation was D-Star. D-Star brought everything together along with digital voice. While D-Star is great, its technology is already dated.
Re: [digitalradio] RSID Query
Only works with sound card modes? That a question not a comment. I really have no clue.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
At 01:08 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote: A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. Most of what I have seen in the past has been ship's, boat's or whatever you would like to label then as sending position reports. That in turn *DO* end up on the WORLD WIDE WEB. But I can only speak for pactor. Plus they are at this time in their own little (and I do mean little) part of the band. I do a lot of pactor operating and have a system waiting for traffic that I in turn get on it's way via the WWW. I scan about 12 freq's looking just for that very same type of traffic. Take a look at this map. http://www.winlink.org/userPositions did you notice that EACH and EVERY one has a ham call? Just because *some* don't use the mode does not mean it's a junk mode. And it would *really* be nice if some that did speak up a least operated the mode before bad talking it. So please let's not get this started once again. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri pactor 1,2 3 24/7/365 in the center of fly over country
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Dave right now I dont have the time to plug the holes in your comments. But the bottom line is that they are ham's at see. Would there be a problem if they only used SSB and not data mode?
Re: [digitalradio] evil Bonnie..
I for one can tell you first hand what happens if for any reason you should disagree with her.
[digitalradio]
try this list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pactor_packet/
[digitalradio] RTTY event tonight
playing tonight only I will be on 40 meters tonight with the Kenwood 520 and the 28ASR, ST-6 TU. Why? Because I can !
RE: [digitalradio] RTTY event tonight
About 7ish (CDST) At 02:52 PM 3/26/2010, you wrote: What hours?? Bob, W5XR
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Another plug for JT65A ... the spectrum efficient mode
At 01:01 PM 3/25/2010, you wrote: That seems a bit theoretical to me. If you have a mode that is very wide but gets its information across in short bursts, it could be said to be very efficient, but in practise it is efficient only if others are able to make use of the gaps between transmissions. If that mode needs that frequency to itself and cannot exist with other modes then it really makes no difference if it transmits on a 100% duty cycle or a 1% duty cycle it is preventing users of another mode from using the same spectrum. Just * how many * modes would like to put on one frequency at a time? If the frequency is in use then find another.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode....
I and many others will never touch ALE because of just one woman. It at this time has a bad name among many.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: SDR-IQ for sale
Guess I better Google it to see just what it is. Right now I have no clue.
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
At 05:40 PM 3/1/2010, you wrote: The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, It has?
Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS
Jose has K3TL said anything about his action?
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum Spreading
Text deleted for a very good reason... And some complained about pactor. Or Amtor. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Don't recall just when it came out but - Biggest problem with it was finding someone to have a QSO with. Once you did the link was very good. I think it was also used by a lot of the early BBS stations. Of course that was the problem with any ARQ mode that came along. Back in 1977 or so when you friend Alen come along with AMTOR that really was the 1st widely used ARQ mode. Very few could part with the $300 U.S. dollars for the kit. Sitting over in a cord board box in the storage area is AMTOR kit # 314. I recall at the time having never worked so many G stations the entire time that I had been a ham. And as they say the rest is history. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] GTOR- has anyone tried this?
No, never did work him but I did see a note in the log to look for him on 20 meters. At 09:31 AM 2/23/2010, you wrote: I wonder if one of them was a friend of mine, Mike (G4SMA)? He lived just up the hill from the MEB depot that I worked at when in my late teens and I used to pop in to see him when I could. Mike now lives in Shropshire and it's been a long time since I last spoke to him, so not sure if he still uses AMTOR or RTTY anymore. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Advantage- mode ranking
Not really Jim I for one never stopped using the old machines. Therefore never had to bring em back out. It's the only way I do RTTY here. John, W0JAB Then I guess there are a few people bringing old mechanical Teletype gear back to life and using it for rag-chewing for old times' sake. Jim W6JVE Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
At 09:17 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use. Do you think Skip that she will ever get it done? I was told not long ago that they (she) was about to ask the FCC to set aside a small part of the band just for their mode. Of course I passed it off as PURE B-S but would not put it passed her to try it. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri
Re: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
At 09:51 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: Actually John, I am beginning to think that there could be merit in protecting some frequencies for certain use . Maybe the PACTOR, WINMOR, PACKET, ALE, PSKMAIL, unattended stations SHOULD get a small slice of spectrum. And for the attended stations?
Re: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
Actually Andy What we are using right now are a few WinLink frequencies. Why you ask? because every time we set camp anyplace someone will copy the CW ID and them the hate email starts. Not to mention the fact that AEL ran off a large bunch of people that had been using everything from RTTY to PACKET. Bottom line is there are very few places that we can park and still have somewhat of a world wide network. I for one don't like the protected idea at all. Since we *must* stay in a very small part of the band as it is already. But that's not stopping other from coming in and trashing us. This anti pactor thing can work both ways. Many many times I have sat back watching 2 pactor stations going at it. Having a nice QSO just to see them getting QRM'ed. I think the main reason is because most can't copy pactor with their sound card. I really don't care what their problem is. But I'll tell you this right off, when we are having a nice QSO or dropping a note to someone and some LID yeah I said LID jumps right in on top of it the only thing that happens is that the system will try harder and harder to keep the link going. And when it switches to P3 it get's wider and wider. I have a friend that lives about 2 miles away. He is a no-coder. Every time he stops by and I'm in a CW QSO he get all glassy eyed about it and always ask what is being talked about. I wonder if the non-pactor guys do the same. -or- is there *really* a reason some just love to trash every pactor or Amtor QSO they run across. Remember guys, not every pactor signal on the air is a robot station. It could very well be Tony and I having a nice QSO. John, W0JAB -snow is melting-
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
Ok so what if it is... This is not the first time (nor will it be the last time) that this has happen. My question is where do they all come from? Why would someone take the time to write the program if it can't be used?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Ok what's the bottom line? Is it or is it not? At this time my in box is overloaded with ROS subjects. And rather reading them all or deleting all Can someone just tell me? John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] How many ?
Just how many sound card modes are there now? And what is the number that look just like another mode?
Re: [digitalradio] MT63 Operation
I have found it only around 14,109. But like many many modes - it's not used much. John, W0JAB At 03:37 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote: Lately I've been playing around with MT63 at the 500 hz bandwidth. It was just about the only digital mode that I had not experimented with since getting on the digital modes in 2003. I've made some contacts around 3584 kc and 14074 kc. The band plans that I see for 20 meters on the internet call for 14109 kc but I've seen no activity there or on any of other band The question is where most is the MT63 activity at? Or is there any? 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O
Re: [digitalradio] RTTY and mode selection on radios
RTTY should be used in the LSB mode regardless of the band. I don't use software for RTTY so I cant tell you a thing about that.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY and mode selection on radios
Of course. Not being a sound card guy when it comes to RTTY. John, W0JAB At 04:56 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote: I use USB dfor FSK, simply because I want the low side of the signals to show up on the left side of the waterfall, and the high frequencies to show up to the right. Because that puts me opposite than the normal signals, I run both send and receive with the reverse button clicked.' Danny Douglas
Re: [digitalradio] ros
At 06:58 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote: even some of the AFSK/RTTY people use USB. I have seen this too and at times wonder why. I think maybe because the other modes are USB. I got into RTTY in 1976. Still use a machine for RTTY.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY decoding
Looks like someone has done their homework RTTY... John, W0JAB Still using a 28 ASR At 10:30 AM 2/17/2010, you wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sven sven9...@... wrote: Hi, I' ve searched the Internet for RTTY decoding methods and found the following: ... Are there other known methods and who knows something about or can explain the above decoders ? How do they perform in a noisy environment ? I'm far from expert and up to date, but let me reveal how little I know. The original concept for FSK was to use a separate filter and detector for mark and space and combine the outputs of the two detectors by taking the difference or by running them into oppositely-poled windings of a polar relay. This was worked on by Schmitt of Teletype and by Armstrong about the same time. Presumably they were unaware of each other's work. Both of them hoped that noise would affect both detectors equally and cancel out. Carson of ATT showed that this hoped-for effect would not work, although he may have missed that the two-frequency scheme has an advantage over make-and-break keying because the transmitter is transmitting all the time; hence the transmitted power is higher with FSK than with make-and-break. Armstrong went on to develop FM as we know it, with a limiter followed by a discriminator. The next incarnation of FSK reception used the same principle. FM systems have a threshold property: with SNR above threshold they improve the SNR in the output signal, and with SNR below the threshold it gets even worse in the output. A professor at MIT proposed using positive feedback aound the input filter and limiter. This has the effect of sharpening the threshold. In the 1960s some hams got interested in returning to the limiterless two-tone schemes. Some of this was probably a revival of Armstrong's hope, unaware of Carson's rebuttal. I only became aware of the Armstrong and Carson material in the last year or two. In two-tone systems there is a definite advantage if the transmitting station is using diddle as this gives both detectors some signal to chew on all the time; there are no long pauses when only the mark signal is present and the space detector forgets how strong its signal was. Work continued on terminal unit designs as new ICs came along, such as the phase locked loops. There was also a scheme that I don't know if anybody ever tried, called frequency feedback. This uses a VCO heterodyned with the input signal and controlled by the discriminator output. It does not phase lock, but reduces the apparent shift of the signal so that a narrower filter can be used ahead of the discriminator. L-C filters gave way to active filters and then to switched-capacitor filters, the latter making it easy to vary the center frequency of the filter to accomodate odd shifts and arbitrary audio frequencies. There may have been some work done with DSP using some of the DSP-engine development kits that I am unaware of. Then about 1996 K6STI announced his RITTY program, using the ordinary 486 or Pentium PC with a sound card to do DSP. One of his innovations he called the digital flywheel. This took advantage of the constant character rate, if the sender was using diddle or was sending from a file, to lock to the character rate and use matched-filter detection. He continued developing and improving this software for the next four years or so. I believe he achieved about the best that can be done for FSK reception. He pulled the product off the market when some people cracked his copy-protection scheme and also when the original sound-card PSK31 software came out and was offered free. Today you find the vast majority of rag-chewers have switched from RTTY to PSK-31 because the latter usually performs better for a given SNR. RTTY continues to be popular for contests and DX because of its more rapid turn-around and because you don't care that much about errors when you already know pretty much what the other station is going to say to you. I'll confess I don't have any idea what algorithms the various RTTY demodulators are using today. Jim W6JVE Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor ionospheric conditions
At 05:02 PM 2/7/2010, you wrote: With the long qsb faded outs on 500 Khz 60 seconds ' in' 20 'out sort of thing arq is the only way of having a qso .. but most of the EU stations are limited to 100 Hz b/w .. How do you deal with a limit like that?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor ionospheric conditions
At 10:40 PM 2/1/2010, you wrote in part: but some of the other ARQ protocals I've played with look like a mess when you're a station on the outside looking in... I have never found that to be true with PACTOR or AMTOR. Can't speak for the sound card ARQ modes.
Re: [digitalradio] Packet configurations?
At 11:21 AM 1/29/2010, you wrote: (in part) : No serial connections and no external TNC please. Is there a reason?
Re: [digitalradio] Estimating multipath delays using Hellschreiber
the last time I seem a real good multi path was back in the 19080's while using amtor. really made a mess of things. I would not mind getting looking into that again with all the good software we now have. Of course back then when I would talk about it the would ask me if I have been smoking that stuff again. got my interest up ! John
Re: [digitalradio] source of 8 pin female radio connectors?
www.digikey.com At 12:46 PM 1/26/2010, you wrote: I have a aea pk-88 tnc and a kenwood radio, they both have the same 8 pin male connector, so I need to buy some female 8 pin connectors and wire it up. Know of any good cheap sources (online) or in MA?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: source of 8 pin female radio connectors?
At 03:43 PM 1/26/2010, you wrote: I thought of digikey or mouser, but what is the generic electronic part name for it? got me ! not having either one.
