Andy:
Your suggested band plan seems to me to be as good as any that I have seen and
better than most that I have seen. I think it is unfortunate to have someone
suggest a well thought out/workable plan and then watch it die for lack of
support. It seems to me that the problem has been the
All,
It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K. The
number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK modulation with sequential
tones running at 16 baud. The question is how can ROS be considered a SS
frequency hoping mode while Olivia and it's derivatives
ARRL/TAPR 2009 Digital Conference DVDs Now Available
Posted by: Gary Pearce KN4AQ kn...@arrl.net kn4aq
Date: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:18 am ((PST))
ARVN has released a new 6-DVD set of videos from the ARRL and TAPR 2009
Digital Communications Conference, held last September near Chicago.
My copy of ROS version 1.0.6 keeps crashing with the error message
Run-time error '5' invalid procedure call or argument
Dave (G0DJA)
*
* AP – FILE - This May 31, 2007 file photo shows the world's largest
radio telescope -- the Arecibo Observatory …
By MARY ESCH, Associated Press Writer Mary Esch, Associated Press Writer –
Thu Feb 18, 5:53 pm ET
ALBANY, N.Y. – Astronomer and engineer Bill Gordon, who
Dave Ackrill wrote:
My copy of ROS version 1.0.6 keeps crashing with the error message
Run-time error '5' invalid procedure call or argument
Sorry, that should, of course, be version 1.6.5!
I'm getting my program versions mixed up...
Dave (G0DJA)
It seems that an invalid procedure error occurs if the the two email
addresses that appear in the @ macro for Baud 16 run together and the
ending of the first one, does not get printed. e.g.
emailaddr...@address.comemailaddress@address.com This is happened
at the moment every time SV8CS sends
Interesting.
I go to tester.
De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com
Para: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: dom,21 febrero, 2010 13:23
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS bug
It seems that an invalid procedure error occurs if the the two email
Andy obrien wrote:
It seems that an invalid procedure error occurs if the the two email
addresses that appear in the @ macro for Baud 16 run together and the
ending of the first one, does not get printed. e.g.
emailaddr...@address.comemailaddress@address.com This is happened
at the moment
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the digitalradio
group.
File: /ROS error pictures/Run-time error.jpg
Uploaded by : g0dja dave.g0...@tiscali.co.uk
Description : Picture of Run-time error at G0DJA
Just worked ZS6WAB using JT65A on 10M.
Am calling CQ using ROS on 28.300MHz if anyone is interested in trying
out the mode on that band?
Dave (G0DJA)
Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to calm down as I am
not excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the
author is frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or
not, so that identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules
were
Bruce,
Could you mention 'where' these coments are posted at so that I can read them
personally? I don't need names or call signs but would like to read more about
that as I hadn't heard about it being proposed for the 6 and 2m bands at all.
James W8ISS
=
On Saturday 20 February 2010
I took a look at the IARU Region 1 and Region 2 band plans, removed
areas where there are clear differences (30, 40 and 160, I'll work on
them later) , and produced a plan that is compatible with these two
regions (I'll look at other regions). While doing this, and thinking
how easy the task was,
The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3
Definitions, Para C, line 8:
(8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation
emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol;
X as the second symbol; X as the third
Hi
calling cq on 18.115 in ROS mode now
la5vna Steinar
I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I
won't be using it on HF.
The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by
the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the
FCC. The ARRL lists it only as a technical
I agree Dave, and Chip64 was abandoned over here on the same basis!
ROS looks like a fun mode, so I hope the FCC will allow it in the future.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Dave Wright wrote:
I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this
mode, I won't be using it on HF.
The
I feel really pity for you , my American HAM friends
73 de la5vna Steinar
On 21.02.2010 14:23, Dave Wright wrote:
I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I
won't be using it on HF.
The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by
Hi all
I have a question. I own 4 cd's with modulation types from Klingenfuss
publication. Part 1 and 2 are with a black label, 3 and 4 are with an orange
one. I do not have the original booklets anymore. Can anybody send me a list
what's on the cd's ?
Regards, Pieter
OK, while the USA drifts from the suggested IARU Region 2 band plan,
here is an almost compatible digital band plan, Compatible with
the Region 1 and Region 2 bandplan for digital modes with a couple of
exceptions where wide and narrow digital modes are mixed . I mixed
them because the USA has
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,
and the FCC acted to protect the bands from that abuse, so while it is
sad for us right now, what the FCC has done in the past has protected
all
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote:
I agree Dave, and Chip64 was abandoned over here on the same basis!
I remember trying Chip64 without worrying about whether it was
legal. I got the impression it was abandoned just because it didn't
work very well compared to some
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
I have compiled a letter to Laura Smith Esq, at the FCC, with details of
this mode. I will let you all know when I receive a reply.
Andy K3UK
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.
They would help in the event of emergencies , and keep the rest of band
Hi Skip
But why is a mode like WINMOR allowed in US? I know it is not SS , but
you can't monitor the traffic.
If I have not totally misunderstood, that is one of the criteria for
using a digi mode on the band.
Just a thought , but it seems that some part of the FCC rules are more
important to
[I'd suggest that they get 5kHZ of 80M, 60M (yes , 60) , 20, and 10 , no other
bands.] ditto, Norway es I think Bangladesh
are not cursed to 60M channelized purgatory. Wakeup FCC.
rgrds
Craig
kq6i
-Original Message-
From: obrienaj [mailto:k3uka...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February
I'm a bit of a rebel. What yard do I play in? Confused, I guess ROS can be
found @ 3.600, 7.053, 18.105 or 18.110, 14.080 or
14.101, es 28.300? So guy's/gal's, we fish'n or cutt'n bait?
rgrds
Craig
kq6i
-Original Message-
From: F.R. Ashley [mailto:gda...@clearwire.net]
Sent:
Excellent idea to ask FCC for an opinion.
Dave K3DCW referred to Part 97, but the section he quoted really only describes
emission mode designation codes for SS, and does not technically describe how
FCC defines SS. It's almost as if Part 97 assumes the definition is so well
known that it's
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?
k...@arrl.net wrote:
I'm a bit of a rebel. What yard do I play in? Confused, I guess ROS can be
found @ 3.600, 7.053, 18.105 or 18.110, 14.080 or
14.101, es 28.300? So guy's/gal's, we fish'n or cutt'n bait?
I guess that, when there's only a few people using a mode, it's useful
to have
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
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
I agree, Steinar. The principle we all must follow on amateur
frequencies is that they are SHARED frequencies, which means used on a
first-come-first server basis and anyone accidentally transmitting on an
ongoing QSO must also be capable of moving when asked, as well as being
able to check if
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
The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be changed. Olivia
and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC shouldn't be calling one
legal and the other illegal based on how they were generated.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: Tony
To:
The ARRL is not the one that establish the rules and regulations that is true,
by the way is the only argument that can be verified.
The ARRL is an organization that obey the laws established by the FCC they will
not pronounce in favor of an Ilegal mode.
So I bring you an article about SS, and
Illegal immigration is also not allowed, but our government supports it. So
have fun with ROS.
Bob, AA8X
- Original Message -
From: Dave
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
I will be transmiting in 14.101 20M have good propagation from early morning to
the afternoon,
KP4CB
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... wrote:
k...@... wrote:
I'm a bit of a rebel. What yard do I play in? Confused, I guess ROS can be
found @ 3.600,
I too do have PACTOR and AMTOR qso's on occasion as well, only time I do use
the mode, not into the pactor mailbox thing too much yet..
Might be me as well.
Fred
CIW649/VE3FAL
CFARS Member
SATERN Member
SATERN Amateur Radio Liaison Officer
DEC Amethyst District ARES
Remember guys, not
§97.305 Authorized emission types.
73 - Skip KH6TY
kp4cb wrote:
The ARRL is not the one that establish the rules and regulations that
is true, by the way is the only argument that can be verified.
The ARRL is an organization that obey the laws established by the FCC
they will not
http://www.obriensweb.com/bandmap.html
A quick and dirty chart. Comments welcome.
I tried the latest download but it would lock up and freeze..
Removed it from the computer.
Sure are a lot of digital modes hitting the air today, in some ways way too
many
Fred
CIW649/VE3FAL
CFARS Member
SATERN Member
SATERN Amateur Radio Liaison Officer
DEC Amethyst District ARES
I will
Hi Skip
Thanks for your answer . I do not disagree with you , but I do not think
you need an extremely hard regime to prevent anarchy.
You wrote One problem with traditional spread spectrum is that it is
designed to be hard to monitor, which therefore means hard to police,
What about the lack
The documentation states the data symbols modulates a carrier whose frequency
is psuedorandomly determined and ROS modulation scheme can be thought of as a
two-step process - data modulation and frequency hopping moduation.
Unfortunately, the FCC rules care about the modulation scheme rather
Please keep comments related to amateur radio.
Andy K3UK
Owner.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bob John a...@... wrote:
Illegal immigration is also not allowed, but our government supports it. So
have fun with ROS.
Bob, AA8X
Ask and you shall receive.
So I bring you an article about SS, and no one has based his opinion on
real fact. where is the Part 97 that clearly stated that amateur radio can
not use SS.
This is stated in:
§97.305 Authorized emission types, Paragraph (b) which states: (b) A station
may
I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that
would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments
where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to
support such operation:
(b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c)
and 97.307(f) of this
Hi Steinar,
The FCC needs to address Winmor also, if we are to continue to keep our
shared bands open. However, Winmor is new, and it takes time to move a
government body, and complaints must also be filed by those harmed.
In the case of spread spectrum, as it pertains to ROS, spread spectrum
The discussion is now getting circular. Please note that this thread will be
closed as of 1200 UTC 22/2/10, unless something more definitive is discovered.
Please do not post on this topic after that time/date.
Andy K3Uk
Why this new mode? Advantages?
73
Alan NV8A
Hi Jim,
Actually CHIP worked ok, especially on the low bands. The Virginia NTS net used
this and still may. I think the issues with CHIP, and perhaps ROS, have more to
do with a strict definition of spread spectrum and frequency hopping then
the reality of the mode.
73,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In
It is new and can be decoded very far UNDER the noise level..
Dg9bfc
Sigi
_
Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von Alan Beagley
Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. Februar 2010 20:27
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [digitalradio] Why
If ROS did not use FHSS then only the rules that you quote would apply. The
problem is that the table in 97.305(c) authorizes SS only above 222 MHz.
The FCC rules are much more restrictive than ITU treaties. Other countries
specify only maximum occupied bandwith in their amateur radio
Skip, please see my other post on this topic. It is not that ROS on HF
is illegal it is just not specifically listed in the rules as are older
systems. There is a general catch all section that permits new modes
provided they adhere to general guidelines concerning bandwidth and
encryption.
Correct, it IS the FCC's plan but with the concepts of Regions 1's plan
squeezed in. . the suggestion is that we digital mode freaks use narrow
mode at the low end of the band segment, leave the weak signal folks alone,
keep wider variants like Olivia and ROS16 for the upper segments, and keep
In most legal documents, specific references override general ones.
In this discussion, only the FCC attorneys can decide what is allowed
and what is not. Until then, the specific regulations regarding SS are
assumed to be the law in this country, no matter how badly it is desired
to use the
Good question Alan. It does seem quite robust but does not seem to add
anything that Olivia or some levels of Thor. Too early to say for sure.
Andy K3UK
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@yahoo.com wrote:
Why this new mode? Advantages?
73
Alan NV8A
I think of this like playing around with hardware circuits to see what you
can do. Jose had an idea, wrote some software and we have something to
experiment with. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Randy
K7AGE
David,
Would you like to try a QSO on 432.090 using ROS 16 baud (or even 1
baud)? We are 250 miles apart, but every morning I can QSO in SSB phone
with Charlotte, NC, stations on 432.095 at 200 miles even when there is
no propagation enhancement, and with a Georgia, station at 225 miles. We
Please provide a citation from part 97 that prohibits ROS even if it
were deemed to truly be spread spectrum.
KH6TY wrote:
In most legal documents, specific references override general ones.
In this discussion, only the FCC attorneys can decide what is allowed
and what is not. Until then,
§97.305 Authorized emission types is the regulation that
authorizes SS for 222 Mhz and above only.
73 - Skip KH6TY
w2xj wrote:
Please provide a citation from part 97 that prohibits ROS even if it
were deemed to truly be spread spectrum.
KH6TY wrote:
In most legal
On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote:
Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU
international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to
permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and
can be received by anyone, the real restriction is
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?
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
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?
Probably because, in other countries, it
On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote:
I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that
would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments
where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to
support such operation:
Lets look at it in
That is part of the story but SS in that context is specifically defined
in 97.3.
KH6TY wrote:
§97.305 Authorized emission types is the regulation that
authorizes SS for 222 Mhz and above only.
73 - Skip KH6TY
w2xj wrote:
Please provide a citation from part 97
Rik,
Did you see the recent post by K3DCW?
The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3
Definitions, Para C, line 8:
/(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion
modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J
or R as
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen kd6...@... wrote:
What ROS users should do is email their ARRL representative and have them
petition the FCC to change the rules. One solution is to eliminate the
emission designators and change the RTTY/data segment of each HF band to
Anyone been able to test ROS 16 with QRM present ? It would be
interesting to use it on common ALE frequencies and see how it does
when a brief ALE sounding occurs. The description suggests that is
should be able to cope with the brief QRM.
Andy
There are two very common misconceptions in that theory. The first is
that SS is unto itself not always a fully digital mode. and A, F, or J
in that case indicates the nature of the narrow band signal being
spread. So SS with a J designator would be an SSB signal digitally
spread by the PN
Dear Rik van Riel,
There is currently no finite bandwidth limit
on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands,
except for the sub-band and band edges.
FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based
on content of the digital emission, not bandwidth.
FCC rules allow hams to transmit a 149kHz
On 02/21/2010 04:16 PM, KH6TY wrote:
Did you see the recent post by K3DCW?
The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3
Definitions, Para C, line 8:
/(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion
modulation emissions having designators
On 02/21/2010 04:48 PM, expeditionradio wrote:
§97.305(c) is a chart of amateur radio bands
and sub-bands. Each sub-band has a note,
and the notes are listed in part §97.307.
The Note # (2) only applies a soft bandwidth
limit to non-phone emissions within the
Phone,image sub-bands.
Note
On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, athosj wrote:
This is the way that an argument is conducted with real facts.
If ROS is a SS can not be used in HF bands.
Furthermore, if you believe that ROS is spread spectrum,
you should probably also stop using any other modes with
the same technical
The FCC is only concerned with what happens to the resultant RF energy
and what is done with it, not how that RF is generated. In the case of
ROS, if the data is applied to an RF carrier and the frequency then
hopped, that would classify it as spread spectrum.
The rules are FCC rules and
On 02/21/2010 11:31 AM, J. Moen wrote:
But right now, I think that since Part 97 does not appear to define what
SS is, it is not possible to definitively say whether ROS is legal or
not legal in FCC jurisdictions. Asking FCC for an opinion is a great idea.
Of course, there is always the
Not all radio sevices reference 2.201 so changing part 97 wouldn't be a major
problem for the FCC.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: vinceinwaukesha
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 21:19 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS - make
AA6YQ comments below
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 6:14 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
The current
I've noticed numerous CW QSOs taking place in the vicinity of 14.076 Mhz.,
where JT65A is usually spoken. Since they apparently have a right to be
there, what sort of distance (in Hz.) do they need from a JT65A signal so as
not to feel QRMed?
It's easy to make sure my signal doesn't overlap
ROS is one voice channel wide, it seems to have been conceived for a 3
kHz wide voice channel, as usual with SSB radios.
Its width is comparable with accepted modes like MT63 or Olivia xx:2000.
It is not an automated mode, it is meant for keyboarding.
Its spectrum spreading is hardly the way
The final ARRL petition didn't change the rules in 97.221 for automatic
stations:
APPENDIX A – AMENDED March 22, 2007
PROPOSED RULE CHANGES
Part 97 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulation is proposed
to be amended as follows:
Section 97.3(a)(8) is amended to read as
John,
The principle of regulation by bandwidth that was fostered by Winlink
through the ARRL was that any mode would be allowed in a particular
segment of bandwidths as long as the bandwidth was the same or similar.
No restriction on content or operating methods.This would have meant
that
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, n9dsj n9...@... wrote:
Hi Jim,
Actually CHIP worked ok, especially on the low bands. The Virginia NTS net
used this and still may.
Worked OK, but I didn't think it worked as well as or better than
other modes that were more popular.
Jim W6JVE
I think I have lost the message. There has been so many, did someone come
up with a ROS mode sked page yesterday.
Please could someone link to it.
PS Monitoring 3.600mhz just now, I see Jose has put 3.60605 on the page.
For 16 baud (is this where everyone is?)
Toby mm0tob
Reply to
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ click on digital
or... if you are greedy..
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Toby Burnett ruff...@hebrides.net wrote:
I think I have lost the message. There has been so many, did someone
come up with a ROS mode
Cheers Andy.
---Original Message---
From: Andy obrien
Date: 22/02/2010 00:14:07
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS sked group
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ click on digital
or... if you are greedy..
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread
Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to
obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF
without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise,
Well, ROS 1 and 16 look like good new modes. I think I will give up
on this mode until the FCC clarifies the legality for USA hams. For
those having fun With ROS, don't forget much the same fun can be had
with JT65A (ROS1) or Olivia (ROS 16).
I am monitoring 3576 JT65A overnight
Andy K3UK
The last thing you want is a ruling. Please be careful what you wish for.
The FCC has written rules that permit a lot of experimentation. Please do
not push them to over regulate. To date, we have lost more than gained by
forcing the FCC to get involved.
From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Andy,
Another very sensitive mode to try is Olivia 32/500 or even 64/500. Tony and I
managed perfect copy at QRP levels with a very poor path. Bit faster than JT65
too.
73
Sholto
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote:
Well, ROS 1 and 16 look like good new
Interesting, I will have to give 64/500 a try.
Andy K3UK
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:02 PM, sholtofish sho...@probikekit.com wrote:
Andy,
Another very sensitive mode to try is Olivia 32/500 or even 64/500. Tony
and I managed perfect copy at QRP levels with a very poor path. Bit faster
than
You can't unscramble eggs.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:09 PM, expeditionradio
expeditionra...@yahoo.comwrote:
Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping
Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio
operators to obtain a positive
Bonnie you have a Ham unfriendly addenda. Say what you like but at the end
of the day it is BS.
From: expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.com
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:09:14 -
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology
Hi Andy,
First I'd like to say that I think I can argue both sides of the coin on this
matter.
I think it is a very good idea to have a generally accepted and commonly known
watering holes for the various modes to facilitate ease of finding another
station in a particular mode. How about a
I find it very interesting that this entire discussion, under more than one
thread already closed by Andy (thank you sir) that the main discussion is to
the legality of spread spectrum in the HF bands, without a real understanding
of the actual technical definitions/differences between spread
Thanks for the feedback, some very good points. I think the higher end of
CW portions, is an especially good point.
Andy K3UK
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:50 PM, W8RIT w8...@qsl.net wrote:
Hi Andy,
First I'd like to say that I think I can argue both sides of the coin on
this matter.
I
Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations issues regarding ROS and SS
really well. It's the best description of the US problem I've seen on this
reflector.
After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, I now agree that if ROS uses
FHSS techniques, as its author says it does (and none
RF is RF and the FCC does not care how the frequency expansion is done,
whether by VFO shift or supressed carrier tone shift. I am shocked that
Bonnie does not understand that simple principle. For example, true FSK
is done by VFO shift, but FSK is also done on SSB by tone shift. The
result is
Feel free to disagree, but please show respect for opinions that
differ from yours. BS is not the most respectful term when
disagreeing.
Andy K3UK
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:36 PM, W2XJ w...@w2xj.net wrote:
Bonnie you have a Ham unfriendly addenda. Say what you like but at the end of
the
100 matches
Mail list logo
