You are pretty persistent, sir
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
AA6YQ comments below
*From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jose A. Amador
snip
Rating automatic operations as extremely unpopular with most is
exagerated. It seems to just reflect a extreme
Is not ISI only a concern when the symbol period is close to the multipath
delay? Various sources I have read put typical maximum multipath at 10ms. If
the symbol period is 25ms then there would not be a need for a guard
interval since the critical part of the symbol is undistorted. So at symbol
Various sources I have read put typical maximum multipath at 10ms. If
the symbol period is 25ms then there would not be a need for a guard
interval since the critical part of the symbol is undistorted.
Well, we want all of the symbol undistorted .. not only a part.
So the 25ms symbol and the
Why does all the symbol need to be undistorted?
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of cesco12342000
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:22 AM
To:
Here is a proposal for an OFDM protocol with a bandwidth of 493 Hz. The
symbol rate is 29 Hz allowing 17 subcarriers. That provides 16 subsymbols
and 1 pilot carrier. With PSK modulation and a 5 ms guard interval the
effective symbol rate is 25.3 Hz which provides 405 bps.
Any guesses on how
Alan G3VLQ wrote:
In my opinion all amateur un-attended automatic operation should be
banned world wide.
Automatic operation might be essential to HF emcomm but is emcomm
essential, I think not.
Alan,
Are you ready, along with all your friends, to personally
monitor HF 24/7 for
THAT WAS GOOD ! LOL
--- r_lwesterfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is excellent . . . just what this group needs .
. . and I deeply and
truly mean that . . .sheesh . . .
Rick - KH2DF
_
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
Probably the best question is how much experience have you had with open
source. I can only go by what actually is taking place every day with
major programs that have been built and maintained by large numbers of
volunteers and paid staff. Firefox, Apache, Thunderbird, Linux versions,
the
Steve,
I am surprised that you do not understand the basic technical issues
here since you appear to be claiming that there is no such thing as the
hidden transmitter.
A human operator can not determine the paths present at the remote
automatically controlled station. That is why there is
i may be wrong, but my $.02 worth asks how long before Home Land
Security learns that anyone in this country can in reality get a SECURE
comm link to use as they may deem fit.
amateur radio cannot afford to test the magnanimity of the government.
david/wd4kpd
Rud,
Many, many incredibly successful projects use open source. In fact, many
large projects could never have been developed any other way since they
were otherwise not financially viable. Enough said.
Now about the server vs Winlink 2000. A PMBO is a server to the RF side
of the system as
Rick,
I don't share your dream Rick, sorry that you did not like that
description, but I was trying to be polite about it. I am not here to
stop you or anyone from pursuing your dreams, go learn C++ or Ada and
start coding it up into your dream communications software. However I
am a realist
All,
Why not use spread spectrum approach?
73 Leo (AA2AJ)
Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Dave,
Thanks for jumping in here with Rick and I, if you read my reply that I just
sent in response to Rick I feel you will see that I pretty much already touched
on your points,
Hi Dave,
Thanks for jumping in here with Rick and I, if you read my reply that
I just sent in response to Rick I feel you will see that I pretty
much already touched on your points, I see that you would personally
turn off automatic frequency detection as you prefer the human
factor, no
You have hit the nail on the head with the use of emergency service
as a simple justification for non-emergency use.
There is a COST to the use of amateur spectrum, primarily, time denied
to others. However, since there is no physical cost to automatic
stations, they have no incentive to
expeditionradio wrote:
Alan G3VLQ wrote: In my opinion all amateur un-attended automatic
operation should be banned world wide. Automatic operation might be
essential to HF emcomm but is emcomm essential, I think not.
Alan,
Are you ready, along with all your friends, to personally
Would you say this is true with any Automatic Station ?
RTTY - Amtor as well as Pactor or even PSK mail.
The reason I ask is I was reading the mail up on 7103.5 last
evening between 2 pactor station, when someone on packet
called up another packet station right on top of them.
I really fail
At 11:47 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
***In 1984 they started doing the very same thing to Packed traffic
from one BBS to the other.
As far as I remember, compression started with FBB 5.13 around 1990.
MSYS (1.09 ???) and JNOS (1.10 ???) followed later.
Not really Jose,
The point is that it is 24/7 emergency comms is not required or part
of the amateur service. We over here have RAYNET which is not a
un-attended automatic operation.
You are welcome to your opinion, but the reality is, that we already
have 24/7 access communications being provided on HF by
Software for the Narrow Band Emergency Messaging System (NBEMS), is now
available for testing. This system maximizes the use of radio amateurs for
providing emergency communications.
The system works with most soundcard-equipped computers and is completely
contained on a Live CD (EMCpup), based
Another one harping on about emergency services !!!
I wonder if it is because they need to feel important ?
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:13 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] New emcomm tool now
Rick said:
I have followed the Aplink/Winlink/ Netlink/Winlink 2000 progression over a
period of well
over 20 years and have used the Aplink and Winlink systems when they were
operational.
Rick, I think it is worth noting that the old Winlink BBS system is still
operational on AF MARS.
IMO
Emcomm is a major reason for the US Amateur Radio Service as part of the FCC
regulations.
Since a disasters do not keep working hours I would say 24/7 operation is
needed.
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
From:
OK, John. The first compressed BBS software I knew was it. I have not
read otherwise in my old books. But it is possible to have been existsed
and not gotten popular.
About what goes first and second, the first loss is already enough...he,
he...
73,
Jose, CO2JA
---
John Becker, WØJAB
Are you telling me that if US Amateurs didn't setup an amateur
emmcom then no-one would get a licence ? When was that introduced ? I
worked US amateurs long before this was thought of.
Anyway, even if it is the case, why should it be inflicted on the rest
of the amateur community?
This
The digital systems being proposed for emergency use require a rig
with antenna, a computer with soundcard and functional software. Also
an operator trained with the protocol in use. Right?
My perception of emergency situations is that just having a
rig/antenna available and working may be no
[[Note I changed the subject. I am not expressing an opinion on the original
topic of HF Auto Band Segments.]]
No, I am not saying it is a necessity for getting a license. However, it is
part of the basis for the US ARS from it inception. When it comes to
justifying the existence of US ham radio
This is not proposed as the only means of providing disaster communications.
It is another available tool. The HT in the hands of an OM in the field is
another tool.
Disaster communications has a lot of perspectives. One that I feel often
gets short shrift is the health and welfare messages from
That may be ok for you in the US for the FCC but don't expect other
amateurs to be very pleased when these un-attended automatic stations
open up on the frequency that they are using.
As a license holder I can inflict almost anything I want on the
entire
amateur community within the scope of
What planet do you live on? The CB'ers started a plan called REACT
which proved to be an excellent program, is very much in use today,
and to read their plan and the ARRL EMCOM course, it is difficult to
tell the difference. Best that you should line your ducks up before
starting to shoot.
Naw, they'd never do that. Maybe it is because they believe in the
rule of being of assistance to their fellow man. After more than 50
years of emergency service, military, civilian, Amateur, etc., until
you have walked in our footsteps, watch your insults.
At 08:16 AM 10/18/2007, you
Ok question for you. Do you have screen shots that show they were
occupying the same space? If the pactor station was in P1 or P2 then
it is possible for packet and Pactor to operate within the same space
of 3khz. Now if it was PIII then that is a different story as these
two cannot share the same
Steve,
This is not a dream of mine. This is what eventually will have to be if
automatic operation is to continue to be permitted on amateur
frequencies. This attitude that the automatic stations are more
important than human operated stations is simply not a wise position to
take on a shared
Saludos Rud,
I can not see in your quote any mandate for EmComm by
the FCC. If I can read right, the regulations just
recognize a value (usefulness ?) fo the service for
EmComm. I think that the EmComm argument is new and is
being utilized to try to save the amateur service. In
the long run, we
Different countries have different reasons for the amateur service. Some
consider it a public health issue to have hobbies for their citizens to
participate in and keep them out of trouble. Since HF signals can easily
cross political boundaries, one countries rules may not apply for such
world
Hi Flavio,
The Basis and Purpose mean that these are the reasons the ARS exists in
the US. It is more than a value.
It is a long standing tradition to provide this service in the US. I believe
it is also true in Canada. I cannot speak for the rest of the world. From
the comments I am seeing it
New RTTY Contesting Survey
Posted by: Don Hill AA5AU [EMAIL PROTECTED] aa5au
Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:08 pm ((PDT))
Please participate in a new rttycontesting.com survey at:
http://www.rttycontesting.com/2007survey/survey_oct07.html
This survey will last 2 weeks and will be closed on
I cannot address the question about 24/7. It just seems obvious to me that
some form of 24/7 capability, if not operation, is needed.
For 1) I do not understand your question. The disaster is going to be known
but I do not think that is the point. Ham radio often provides the early
communication
It depends on the characteristics of the path. If it's NVIS, the guard interval
should be at least 8 ms as the communicating stations are operating far below
the MUF. If you have a copy of Ionospheric Radio (ISBN 0-86341-186-X) there
is a graph of multipath spread versus path length on page
I understand the basics of using a balun, but have a question about the
specifics. Using a dipole, what would be the difference between using a
4:1 balun compared to a 6:1 balun? Which would I choose, and why would
I choose it? Planning on feeding the dipole direct from the tuner in my
IC-746
Brian A wrote:
The digital systems being proposed for emergency use require a rig
with antenna, a computer with soundcard and functional software. Also
an operator trained with the protocol in use. Right?
My perception of emergency situations is that just having a
rig/antenna available and
The FFT averages the signal over the entire sample period so any ISI during
that interval will increase the error rate. I haven't implemented anything on
HF yet, but there will be another affect that is important on ionospheric
paths. Doppler spread is 1-10 Hz and can be up to 100 Hz on auroral
There are some 37 definitions of service at
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/service so I will only list the
first:
1. an act of helpful activity; help; aid:
Many others have similar connotations that apply to the ARS.
The general interpretation of non-commercial is elaborated
If you're going for maximum reliability, it might be useful to use the widest
possible subcarrier spacing to minimize sensitivity to Doppler combined with a
guard interval long enough to compensate for NVIS multipath. This should give
the widest possible coverage area. A carrier spacing of
Rick,
At 03:21 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
Steve,
This is not a dream of mine. This is what eventually will have to be if
automatic operation is to continue to be permitted on amateur
frequencies.
Its just a dream on your part and other until such time rules ever
require it Rick.
This
Some PSK31 software programs presently have the capability
to simultaneously receive multiple PSK carriers. They could
be used with an ordinary 2.8kHz bandwidth SSB receiver to decode
DSB-transmitted PSK if the PSK if the audio frequency isn't higher
than about 1.2kHz. Only a simple frequency
I meant to type: This technique will lead to a dis-qualification because...
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
- Original Message -
From: Robert Chudek
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Newbie question...
I suggest you study the history of amateur radio. Enough said by me...
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jgorman01
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007
At 09:10 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
It appears that instead of designing better interoperation of
automatic stations, they want to simply spread out so the auto
stations don't get qrm from themselves.
Not at all Jim.
If you had been part of the system you would know that the reason.
And I will
I'm sorry, but a mode that expands willy nilly from about ~500 Hz to
2.5 kHz AFTER a qso has started is just asking for trouble. This is
why busy detection will never work really well for pactor 3. If a
session starts and someone unknowingly starts another qso ON A CLEAR
FREQUENCY besides a
--- expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please detail all the HF frequencies and modes
your people will be manually monitoring 24/7.
(This will make big news in the ham community)
27.185 AM here in Tampabay ...
This is the only active non SSB frequency here ..
HURRAY!!!
Ve5mu
At 08:34 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a
third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery
And just why do you think every message passed is email?
It seems to me you have never copied the traffic. Right?
John, W0JAB
Let's look at it from the other side of the fence.
Not just at Pactor but look at the other wide modes also.
It seems to me that Pactor as a mode of operation is getting
a bad rap.
I know many bad talking it are doing so just from what they
read or hear NEVER EVER having copied and of it.
At
If you can convince the FCC to adopt separate sub-bands, fine. Until then,
US operators of unattended stations are required to prevent those stations
from transmitting over existing QSOs. Whether you do that with a busy
frequency detector, a squad of high-school students hired to monitor your
Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a
third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery
AMEN! This is what I've been saying/asking all along. Add to that,
non-hams using ham frequencies for email.
73 Buddy WB4M
Dan KA3CTQ wrote:
I am sorry Bonnie, but you are arguing from a very weak spot. 1%
asking for 10% and more for a poor efficiency mode is nothing but a
land grab. Your points are based in personal opinion and lack any
examples or numbers to back up the need to make this change.
Exactly
Rick I can tell you now they will not be able to tell you. All Bonnie
can do is say it is needed 24/7 but cannot give a good scenario that
will fit. All she keeps doing is saying emcomm 24/7 and nothing else.
If you do get more from the winlinkers I would be very suprised.
Greg
KC7GNM
--- In
The topic relating to automatic operations, PACTOR QRM, wide band, and
the value of emergency services, requires a cooling off period. Have
your say until 2359 UTC 19/10/07 , then I will halt all comments on
this topic until something new emerges to the debate.
Andy K3UK
Owner.
Give me an example of how your little group of robots has helped out in an
emergency. If you do, I can give you one hundred times the examples of how live
operators reacted and even were there ahead of emergencies.
Ask any ham who was in the DC area on 9-11 how they kept the communications
+++ AA6YQ comments below
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jose A. Amador
You are pretty persistent, sir
+++ Thank you.
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
If you see a flaw in the above logic, please point it out.
I cannot read arabic,
I am glad that Skip has made the software public. I have been using it
since August 2007 and it is quite promising. Alas, the Linux nature of it
has scared some people away. I am looking for more people to test the ARQ
part of the software.
Andy K3UK
On 10/18/07, w5mhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suggest you find the definition that the FCC and congress used for
service. Number 8 looks better,
8. a department of public employment, an administrative division of a
government, or the body of public servants in it: the diplomatic service.
How many different radio services are contained
I was not trying to be vague, but I guess it came out that way.
After I posted, I continued to do some research, and hopefully I have a
better handle on it.
Sounds like a 6:1 balun would work for 50 ohm coax feeding an
antenna with 300 ohm impedance, and a 4:1 would work feeding a 200
--- Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand the basics of using a balun, but have a
question about the
specifics. Using a dipole, what would be the
difference between using a
4:1 balun compared to a 6:1 balun? Which would I
choose, and why would
I choose it? Planning on feeding the
Dave,
As simple as I can put it for you, it is my opinion that the better
solution is separation into sub bands is the only logical solution to
your perceived issues with automated stations triggered by remote
users as technology as we know it now (and likely for a very long
time to come)
I will attempt to get on the air this weekend, also. Probably Friday evening
and Saturday afternoon.
My antenna is an NVIS 80m dipole so I may not cover much territory.
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
From:
Why would you want to transmit on 2 different sidebands at once with
psk31? All you are doing is hogging up part of the spectrum.
Greg
KC7GNM
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. It will work fine!
You will transmit PSK31 on 2 frequencies
The original pactor is fine since it is only 200hz wide. Even P2 is
fine but when a station transmits on PIII now we are wasting 2.4khz of
bandwidth using a mode that is only 30% faster than P2 but 500% wider.
That is why it has a bad rap.
Greg
KC7GNM
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John
- Original Message -
From: Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
expeditionradio wrote:
Automatic operation is essential to HF emcomm.
Good for you Skip. Some of us aplaud your efforts. I am deliberatly
leaving original message in hopes that more will read it. Tried to
do this once in 1947 with low power cw.
Jim, w5mhl
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6b. Re: New emcomm tool now
Sounds to me like you understand perfectly.
73 Buddy WB4M
- Original Message -
From: Brian A [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:01 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Let me understand
The digital systems being proposed for emergency use
I have said before that the problem is unattended stations initiated by
remote stations, and have made it clear that this is independent of the mode
being used. Consider me to have said it again.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
They probably can't afford Pactor TNCs.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Howard Brown
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:50 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Need new emergency
Probably not since DSB is AM. What type of DSB radio are you
attempting to use on PSK?
Greg
KC7GNM
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Anil Raj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone advise whether I can use a DSB transmitter for transmiting
PSK31?
73s de
SM0D
Can anyone advise whether I can use a DSB transmitter for transmiting
PSK31?
73s de
SM0D
I agree with Rud!
Amateur Radio has ALWAYS been the base point for EVERY type of communications
with in the US and most of the rest of the World! If it's out there, most
likely it started in Amateur Radio!
Emergency Communications has ALWAYS been an integral part of Amateur Radio, at
least
Hi Dave,
Basically your intent is to de-couple that antenna from the feed line
for consistent performance, as such for a resonant dipole feed you
can use a 1:1 balun, you internal antenna tuner will work much better.
A 4:1 balun for a resonant dipole will yield a higher VSWR at the
point of
Dave wrote:
I understand the basics of using a balun, but have a question about the
specifics. Using a dipole, what would be the difference between using a
4:1 balun compared to a 6:1 balun? Which would I choose, and why would
I choose it? Planning on feeding the dipole direct from the
I have suggested that automatic busy detection be disabled on unattended
stations handling during emergencies. This has nothing to do with preferring
the human factor, whatever that might be. It has to do with optimizing for
the transport of messages during an emergency situation.
Your overall
This is not a new problem. It goes back to the early 1970's that I know of.
When RTTY had WRU's. Packet, Amtor and, as most like to pick on,
the Pactor stations. even keyboard to keyboard just because they hear
a pactor station.
But it seems to me that nobody complained like this till the PSK
Look up the definition in part 97 of harmful interference. Harmful
interference doesn't need to be either willful or malicious.
Automatic stations can be required to cease operation by the FCC if
they create harmful interference to ongoing radio communications.
This is what I believe Riley
Rod,
You have some misunderstandings in your comments below. While amateur
radio has been important in developing some new technologies, I would
not go so far as to say that it is the base for every type of
communication. Certainly not in the past 30 years or so.
ARES is absolutely not
Yes. It will work fine!
You will transmit PSK31 on 2 frequencies simultaneously.
The frequencies will be offset in Hz from each other by
2 times the audio freqeuncy of the PSK31
So, to maintain a narrow bandwidth, your
audio frequency should be as low as possible,
perhaps 250Hz to 400Hz
It will produce two signals, one in the PSK waterfall range, and one a
ways away from it, probably causing qrm for CW operators, but both will
be copyable.What band were you thinking of? If this is a homebrew
small project, the 80m Warbler is about the simplest design for an SSB
Aside from 6M and 2M , where I had good results with NBEMS, I am
anxious to try it on HF. I will assume that the low bands will make
fast PSK too difficult but PSK125 and 63 with ARQ is worth testing on
HF. NBEMS has a nice bacon feature , and a beacon feature too. I
would like to suggest a
The development of soundcard-based panoramic PSK31 applications attracted a
many new digital mode users. Soundcard RTTY software rekindled interest in
that mode, and the plethora of new and improved digital modes has further
stimulated interest. As a result, there are many more digital mode QSOs
How about an event just below an extinction of mankind catastrophe.
Perhaps a massive nuclear attack, a super volcano erupting, a very
large asteroid, or a glancing blow of a gamma ray burst from a dying
star in our galaxy!
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan KA3CTQ wrote:
We have people available all the time...
[snip]
We need to be active when and WHERE the problem is.
Ask any group who respond to disasters if they want
a ham or a computer. I am willing to bet they want
a live person.
Hi Dan,
Well, Dan, you would lose your bet.
At
At 09:22 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
I'm sorry, but a mode that expands willy nilly from about ~500 Hz to
2.5 kHz AFTER a qso has started is just asking for trouble.
Are you telling us that you have NEVER turned on the AMP after
starting a QSO and the other station said what was that ?
If
We must not forget that under current rules, automatically operated
stations that are 500 Hz or less in width, may operate at any place they
choose on the text digital portions of bands if they are the type of
automatic station that only responds to a query from a human operator.
It is the
Andy came up with a good idea a few weeks ago. He created the DRCC.
It is a spin off of the Straight Key Century Club, of which I am a
member. Unlike the SKCC, the DRCC hasn't taken off.
The SKCC reflector on Yahoo has a lot of activity with ops excited
about working CW the old fashioned way,
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
At 08:34 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a
third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery
And just why do you think every message passed is email?
It seems to me you have never copied the traffic.
At 09:41 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
Well John,
Those guys never tried.. so for them it is QRM... sad eh?
Patrick
vk2pn
And the packet, amtor and aplink BBS system did what different?
Just trying to understand why so many HATE the mode
of pactor.
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
At 09:41 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
Well John,
Those guys never tried.. so for them it is QRM... sad eh?
Patrick vk2pn
And the packet, amtor and aplink BBS system did what different?
Just trying to understand why so many HATE the mode of pactor.
1. It
Roger,
As a ham I am interested in using email via my radio. Part of it is
technical challenge of working on a system to do this. Part of it is to
explore the digital technologies.
Much of my interest is aside from disaster communications, but there is
that, also.
My license allows me to do
Technically this will work. It would be poor operating practice because you
will transmit two simultaneous PSK signals and occupy twice the bandwidth
necessary for a QSO. In a digital contest this technique will lead to a
qualification because you are only allowed one TX signal on the band at a
OK, last comment before cooling off: No more space until automatics
listen before transmitting.
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:59:3:6 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the
Rud Merriam wrote:
Roger,
As a ham I am interested in using email via my radio. Part of it is
technical challenge of working on a system to do this. Part of it is
to explore the digital technologies.
Much of my interest is aside from disaster communications, but there
is that, also.
I do not do boats much, but prefer not to listen to them, so prefer sailing.
g
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roger J. Buffington
Sent: Thursday,
100 matches
Mail list logo
