On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:09:50 -, g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com said:
I downloaded Pawel's source code for his text mode demo application and
despite not knowing C++ managed eventually to compile and run it under
Linux. However I understand that on Windows it must run under CygWin or MinGW
which
Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was
looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org
On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June
1976) says
Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with
I'm with Steinar let's dump ROS as a digital mode. We have allowed an
immature 29 year old without a ham radio license to turn the digital modes
community upside down with aberrant behavior.
73 GUD DX,
Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O
Lakeland, FL, USA
n...@arrl.net
PODXS 070 Club #349
Feld Hell Club
Trevor,
The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a
common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an
interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and
accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the
Skip,
since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference.
This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35
years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a
solution a few days later either by myself or others on my
Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability
in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver
– e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL”
signal.
73,
Dave, 8P9RY
From:
Warren,
Guess I should have better said, there is 'currently' no way.
Universal use of RSID would make it possible to change to the other mode
to communicate, but it has to be universally used, of course. Once you
use the same mode, nothing special is needed. Just negotiate frequency
changes
(unless the “Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL” in CW, or
3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.)
73,
Dave, 8P9RY
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM
To:
Thanks for the reply Skip.
As you probably know the scenario is different over here with the regulations
permitting bandwidth up to the size of the band, no emission type restriction,
no mandatory band plans and complete freedom to develop your own modes with IDs
given in whichever mode you
OK. So could one create a DLL that could be called by Windows programs written
in VB, VC++, Delphi etc. using MinGW?
Julian, G4ILO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Stelios Bounanos m0...@... wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:09:50 -, g4ilo jul...@... said:
I downloaded Pawel's source
Good point, Dave.
I can see perhaps using RSID for digital mode separation, but I think
phone has to always be separated from digital space. Even if the phone
operator has a computer, he is not likely to fire up a digital mode in
the middle of a phone QSO to ask someone to QSY or vice versa.
Julian,
An Olivia DLL already exists for MixW, but I do not think that it is
documented sufficiently for others to use.
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
OK. So could one create a DLL that could be called by Windows programs
written in VB, VC++, Delphi etc. using MinGW?
Julian, G4ILO
A roger beep that substitutes RSID instead , sends mode/callsign and a
Q-sign ? In a PIC inside the rig.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com wrote:
Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the
capability in each unit, someone operating
I'm with Skip here.
First of all, hardly anyone uses RSID, even though it is already available, so
I suspect you will not get enough people to use it to make a significant impact
on the problem.
Second of all, and very relevant to the particular issue that has given rise to
this discussion,
What is your solution?
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com wrote:
From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 10:35 AM
I'm
Ever heard of Mic-E protocol?
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 10:26 AM
something simple like “QRL”
in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.)
At least this is an idea.
Let's here more brain storming, even ones that sound silly at first might or
can be modified to a solution or cause someone else to think in an entirely new
way.
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, Dave AA6YQ
It’s more easily decoded than two handclaps in front of the microphone…
73,
Dave, 8P9RY
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Warren Moxley
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 2:25 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE:
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
It’s more easily decoded than two handclaps in front of the microphone…
Handclaps have been ruled as in violation of Part 97 due to the
spreading function from the white noise component. They are technically
SS and banned below 222 mhz.
However, long whistles, repeatedly
Trouble is, many digital ops may not listen to the band, and CW is not
easily read visually on a waterfall, except at very slow speeds.
FWIW - some food for thought - I spotted an old friend, PJ2MI, using
MFSK16 on 17M a couple of days ago, only because he was sending a CQ
using video ID with
Here are the results of two hours of monitoring the entire digital
band on 20M 14065-14110
37 BPSK31
25 BPSK250
04 RTTY45
02 MFSK16
01 CONTESTIA-8-250
Some of the above may be the same station (especially the PSK250) .
In just over two hours only 5 modes heard. Seems we still have some
ways to
Andy,
Isn't the current recommendation now not to use RSID for PSK31 or RTTY?
Take those out, and not much RSID use at all!
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
Here are the results of two hours of monitoring the entire digital
band on 20M 14065-14110
37 BPSK31
25 BPSK250
04 RTTY45
02
Exactly !
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:10 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote:
Andy,
Isn't the current recommendation now not to use RSID for PSK31 or RTTY?
Take those out, and not much RSID use at all!
73 - Skip KH6TY
Yep, same concept.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Warren Moxley k5...@yahoo.com wrote:
Ever heard of Mic-E protocol?
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part
I have used this Video ID myself after I have seen others do it. Some are
using it to show the mode you are in, your Call sign, CQ CQ and just 73's. It
is pretty effective. I have started using both RSID TX and Video ID. I have
seen many that will use video ID but do not use or refuse to use
HB9DRV SDR-Radio updated 1e now available
http://www.sdr-radio.com/Downloads/March8th2010TechPreview1e.aspx
cool
Andy K3UK
It is easy to imagine that the BPSK250 RSID is probably being used
mostly for PSKMAIL stations, which is a good idea now. Notice how the
times are clustered.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
Exactly !
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:10 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
mailto:kh...@comcast.net
Warren,
I have several electronics patents and am often asked by laymen how one
invents something, and what to do if they invent something. I advise
them that very few inventors come up with something new and just make
money off the patent royalties or sale itself. Instead, document and
But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate.
From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part
97
But under FCC regulations, phone and data must not operate in the same
space, so how could phone be used? On the other hand, CW is allowed
everywhere. Too bad it is no longer a requirement for a license, as it
used to be universally understood by both phone and CW operators.
73 - Skip KH6TY
There is another problem if phone and data are not in separate segments
of the bands. Phone is the easiest to use interface to the radio.
Everybody knows how to talk, so the demand for phone space is always
greater than the demand for data space. The result is that if there were
no
True but I was thinking of wideband modes in phone segments. In narrowband
segments CW is still an option as it can be decoded by many digi programs.
From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:01:57 -0500
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Nice looking radio. However, I could hear no signals when tuning the bands.
Suggestions, please. (Keep 'em clean).
Regards,
George, NJ3H
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com
Subject: [digitalradio] HB9DRV SDR-Radio updated 1e now
There still has to be a gentleman's agreement, or band plan, to
separate phone and digital. Phone is in so much demand that allowing
phone everywhere will result in phone operators just taking over the
whole band. This was vetted thoroughly during the debates on ARRL's
regulation by bandwidth
I'm not sure the solution is a technical one at all.
For instance the ROS users (even many US ones) are still causing major
interference to the Net105 packet network. Even if RS ID was appropriate for
packet (which it isn't) I don't think it would stop the QRM. It's a complete
lack of
I assume you tuned in a server station? If so, just pick another from the list
and see if that works,
Andy K3UK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, George n...@... wrote:
Nice looking radio. However, I could hear no signals when tuning the
bands. Suggestions, please. (Keep 'em
I think you have hit the nail on the head. If you look at where there is not a
problem, it is where modes have established their own place on the band that
people largely adhere to. PSK31, WSPR, JT65A all have their own places on the
bands and people know what to expect there. Olivia too, until
Skip,
You may be missing my point, not sure. Let me try again. I will try, English is
not my strongest subject.
Let me say one thing before I get into it. I really appreciate and enjoy your
posts and you seem to have a even temperament which is getting more rare these
days on reflectors. You
Hi Jose.
You have a point too nobody had made me to stop and think about. FEC or
UWB in whatever way, carried to the extremes, are two sides of the same
coin.
It happens, never mind. Sometimes also telecommunication engineers have not a
clear vision of what they are designing :-D
On
We are regulated in Canada by bandwidth and it works just fine here. I have
read some of the comments about why it won't work but honestly... I haven't
encountered any of those situations here. Maybe if the USA went to that system
it would cause headaches and the situations described but if
http://www.youtube.com/user/IV3NWV
73 Rein W6SZ
41 matches
Mail list logo
