graham787 wrote:
So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not performing a
function of helping to re-create an error free replication of the input data,
it meets my test as spread spectrum. If the symbols in the transmit waveform
cannot be predicted by the previous sequence
rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Hi Alan,
Why did you wait so long with contributing here?
Please explain.
Hello Rein,
I've posted on this subject several times in the past with ITU IEEE
references as well.
It does seem to get lost in the noise at times.
It does not help at all that the ROS
bg...@comcast.net wrote:
I'm thinking another reason for the restrictions - SS is also a very
good means of encryption.
The previous rules on SS required use of a particular type of SS and
the key number was specified in the rule..
Probably in a pre 1999 ARRL rule book , if anyone really
bg...@comcast.net wrote:
[Attachment(s) #TopText from bg...@comcast.net included below]
Delighted I am to find the 1998 version of 47CFR97.311 on the GPO
website, attached.
We are both maybe correct.
The FCC prescribed the method, the operator filled in the variables,
which he kept in a
g4ilo wrote:
I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past,
Certainly not directed at you as an individual. I just feel that things
like sustained throughput which includes the effect of FEC processor
gain in the case of SS need to be included.
So it's not as
W2XJ wrote:
It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum
necessary to achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS
worthwhile.
Not only is it not worth doing, it also increased chances of
interference. I'm not aware of any weak signal DSSS using spreading
factors
KH6TY wrote:
Alan,
What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same
time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone
assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed?
Will they interfere with each other, or will they
Lester Veenstra wrote:
I am sorry that I did not make myself clear enough. My argument
is directed to transmitted signal formats. That is, what is covered by
§97.307 Emission standards.
All the FCC requires is that the protocol/algorithm be made available if
required. Does not have to
Dave wrote:
Spread spectrum has no bandwidth definition, it is a transmission
technique plain and simple.
This is a nuance, but an important technical one: There is a spreading
ratio definition in SS that is one of the formal identifiers of spread
spectrum vs other modulation techniques.
kb2hsh wrote:
This is little more than a frequency grab by Bonnie that would benefit the
HF-ALE group, I feel, the most.
OK, so I have to ask how would it benefit HFLink
- HFLink already has well established centers of activity in the current
bandplan
- ALE by definition does not
kb2hsh wrote:
Bonnie (yes, I'm not bashful about calling her out) controls ALE as if it
were HERS. In my opinion, it's little more than a business for her...not
only can you join HF-ALE, but you can also BUY MERCHANDISE.
OK, this is going too far. I'm heavily involved in HFLink
KH6TY wrote:
It would give ALE ops more frequencies
This is a huge leap of paranoia.. ALE operation by definition does
not want or even can utilize more frequencies. Hams who want to use
ALE already have well established frequencies to use. There is no
advantage to adding more, and really
I'll preface this by saying that I'm not trying to defend or crucify
ROS. But when we are dealing with definitions the FCC, it's very
important we be clear accurate on our definitions.
KH6TY wrote:
By definition, it is SS if the pattern is independently generated
from the data.
One test, but
Jose A. Amador wrote:
It does not mean that SS is not a predictable modulation method, you
just need to know the key, in the USA, the key must be one of a few
specific codes, and if you don't have the key, security by obscurity
applies.
And the FCC does not consider a code used to
KH6TY wrote:
Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS,
Actually, I think we agree, just for different reasons. I really don't
care about ROS. But do care about dangerous precedents. :-)
the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL
engineers,
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
pd4u_dares wrote:
... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have
understandably frustrated Jose
I really have mixed feelings about how this all played out as well.
While I don't agree with ban lists, I can see where the software author
could get very frustrated at what
KH6TY wrote:
The difference between ROS and MFSK16 at idle (i.e. no data input), is
that MFSK16 has repetitive carriers in a pattern, but the ROS idle has
no repetitive pattern and when data is input, the pattern still
appears to be random. Note the additional carriers when I send six
letter
John B. Stephensen wrote:
A lawyer with an engineering degree would be the best person
to interpret FCC regulations. The ARRL has engineers and lawyers and
deals with the FCC so they are the best source of free advice in the U.S.
No disrespect intended to the ARRL tech leads, but I'm
obrienaj wrote:
Thanks Dave, Although I use Winwarbler and Spot Collector a lot, I have never
really tried clicking on PSK31 spots . I will have to give that a try. Very
useful. I wonder if this is the only application that does work well with
PSK31 spots?
The issue is not generating
F.R. Ashley wrote:
Bonnie, what was the 4th option :)
I'm half for the use of ROS, half against it, and half bad at fractions! :-)
Have fun,
Alan
km4ba
Dave wrote:
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
John wrote:
How will the modulation be determined from any SSB transmitter when the
source of the modulation is via the microphone audio input of that
transmitter?
Simply stated, how would any digital mode create anything other than some
form of FSK simply by inputting a tone at the
John wrote:
Thanks Skip,
Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my question(s). I
understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is not really what I am
after.
What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some version of
digital mode via an SSB
KH6TY wrote:
It will be spread spectrum if the tone frequencies are controlled by a
code as explained in the ROS documentation:
A system is defined to be a spread-spectrum system if it fulfills the
following requirements:
1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum
jhaynesatalumni wrote:
-
My belief is that all the RTTY is largely from contesting and DX
chasing. Those two operations have two things in common:
Another aspect I had not thought of until I asked a DX'er friend of mine
why they did not use PSK much for DX. His answer:
no one has found a
Andy wrote:
I find it rather amazing that 99% of the posts on ROS, and any
other new data mode, are related to its legality in the US. How
did you end up with such restrictive amateur licensing practices
that experimentation with any new ideas is almost regulated away?
Dave Ackrill wrote:
but if we could get rid of many of the very loud European
stations, as well as the US ones,
So the plan would be to get rid of the loud European US stations, and
just leave the ( presumably not-loud?) UK ones on the air? :-)
Sounds workable to me, we could all dig out
Tony wrote:
Sounds fishy to me Andy...
I'm heavily involved in Worldwide ALE activity hflink.net operations
and can tell you I have no awareness of any such thing.
I suspect it's residual FUD (fear, uncertainty doubt) flowing over
from QRZ.com. :-)
Have fun,
Alan
km4ba
W6IDS wrote:
Hey Dave!
Would it then be a fair assumption that you would not care for the likes of
ALE, DRM, PACTOR, Digi SSTV, Analog SSTV, the new sparky offering
called WINMOR, ALE400 - they're pretty much a Closed Club, or
Private Channel affair, wouldn't you say? I think there's some
To my knowledge the linuxale was never coded to complete functionality.
What you are seeing appears to be just the first portion of frames, and
never the complete portion.
I'd love to see this code working, but have not had time to play with it.
have fun,
Alan
km4ba
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
To be clear, an attended station need not wait for 5 minutes of clear
frequency before transmitting; 30 seconds of no signals (meaning no
automatic station is QRV) followed by a QRL? sent in mode with no
response should be sufficient.
What does in mode mean on shared
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+++The rules to be honored by all stations are:
1. if you're not yet in QSO, don't transmit on a frequency that is
already in use (meaning that signals have been detected during the
past 5 minutes)
2. if you're in QSO and signal other than that of your QSO partner
David Bowman wrote:
That wasn't funny. Hi Hi
With apologies to David Bowman (real fictional):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowman_(fictional_character)
What are the odds! :-)
Let's hope your parents did not see the movie I'd hate to have grown
up with Please don't do that
Rick Karlquist wrote:
That reminds me. During the CW Sweepstakes 2 weeks ago, I was trying
to operate on ~7030 and bursts of RTTY-sounding stuff kept coming
on the frequency for 5 or 10 seconds every once in a while.
Is that ALE?
That was not ALE, as the common frequencies used for ALE are
KH6TY wrote:
Your prejudice is obviously showing! (Uh - long live HFlink and others
that run unattended transmitters outside the beacon bands and transmit
without checking for a clear frequency???)
With tongue in cheek: your ignorance is showing (in the misinformed
sense, no insult implied)
DANNY DOUGLAS thoughtfully asks:
We already require this of CW/SSB/RTTY/PSK etc. users. Why should a
user of these higher-newer modes not be held to the same requirements?
How is busy channel detection done in PSK or RTTY? people listen for a
bit then, transmit. It's not common practice, nor
Rick Karlquist wrote:
Andy obrien wrote:
Rick, not likely . ALE mostly uses
Actually, now that I think about it, I was trying to use
7040.
If this was the case and it was ALE, it was not from the US. I was most
likely european, and you were in their digi sub-band.
Lot's of
KH6TY wrote:
There are VHF contests that are limited to only certain bands out of
all available. There are HF contests for just phone, or CW or RTTY, so
it should be no problem for HF contest sponsors to only allow credit
for Q's made between certain frequencies on each band.
I do radio
Charles Brabham wrote:
Packet radio gets by with a simple carrier detect, PACTOR can only
detect other PACTOR stations, and from what I can tell, ALE has no
busy detection at all.
Absolutely not the case. ALE listen's before transmit for other ALE by
protocol. And the commonly used ham
Rick Karlquist wrote:
Have you tried 60, 30, 17 or 12 meters? No contests there.
Yep, I'm a regular 60m user for that reason. And 30m for digital.
17m is of course one of the best options, but lately prop has not made
it a good spot to demo for scouts. For that matter, 60m can be hard to
Andy obrien wrote:
FYI, the author of Winmor advised me that 3rd party busy detect IS
part of Winmor.
so what does it do when it's already involved in a qso, waiting to ack
or transmit, and someone starts transmitting? That's the core issue, not
detecting that a frequency is in use.
Not many
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
Its only unworkable because the implementation of the busy frequency
detector in question is obviously quite poor.
Significantly more to it than that... unless *all* stations honor
abide by common rules/tech, it simply won't work. This is true of just
about any network,
Charles Brabham wrote:
This is interesting in light of all the claims by WinLink and ALE
aficianados that that comprehensive signal-detection is 'impossible'.
Painting with an awfully wide brush, there. :-) You won't find most of
the ALE folks I run with saying it's impossible.
Just not
Another thing to consider is the many USB stick utilities. They take a
bootable CD ISO and convert it into a bootable USB image. You can still
store files on it as well. Very handy for trying stuff out, and usually
much faster to boot.
Assumes your PC will boot from USB via bios. If not use one
Cortland Richmond wrote:
I do hope digital users avoid interfering with the North American 40
meter QRP CW frequency on 7040.
If I recall there was a (largely ignored) push to get the ARRL to work
with the IARU. The US is now way out of alignment with the IARU plan if
I recall now, even
Andy obrien wrote:
I'm not sure about idiot proof, does it use the Microham device router
with audio switching? If so, that always confuses me. However, good
to see you join the Microham club, I used the Microkeyer...one of my
best ever ham investments .
Actually I think Simon has been
Bob Donnell wrote:
30 years seems a stretch - since I think Linux first saw the light of the
Internet in about 1992. Let's see - 30 years ago - that's just after people
started pirating paper tapes of Microsoft Basic... grin
In the sense that Linux is Unix, it does go back 30 years or
Andy wrote:
Today for example, I worked NX7F 559 on CW, then barely readable on
phone, 339
at best, then 100% copy on PSK31.
I know your point is really about digital modes required S/N, but a bit
of a pet peeve on the CW operations it's perceived usefulness as a
backup mode:
I find that
Dave 'Doc' Corio wrote:
As a side note, I loaded XUBUNTU on it, and it worked. It took
five minutes to open an application, but it worked! It even recognized
the Ethernet adapter! It just wasn't worth investing any money in at
this stage.
Xbuntu is pretty good at that.. But you are right,
Rick W wrote:
But I can see that receiving many repeated requests to be a bit
annoying. Whenever I have sent a request to an individual to join, it
has been a personal message and not something automated. Perhaps he was
using some automated technique and it wound up sending many duplicates?
Brent Gourley wrote:
Please check for your email preferences for each email address you use
on yahoo. If you leave one particular block unchecked, then a list
owner/moderator cannot send you invitations to join his group.
I believe the messages were sent direct via email, not through the yahoo
John Bradley wrote:
ARES has responded with a command unit which has HF data capability. This
could include a WIFI router so that laptops could be included from the local
EOC. This command unit would work back into an EOC with data and internet
connections. ARES would be tasked with passing
John Bradley wrote:
· Have given up on the PCALE and HFlink bunch, since there
seems to be no interest in doing anything other than sending 1 line
messages to each other , or simply sounding. The MARS version of PCALE
might work, but the author is not allowing use of this software
Hello all,
For the curious the winlink web site has a snapshot of the program running:
http://www.winlink.org/node/341
There are other tidbits that have surfaced in the winlink forums
Very little hard data has surfaced, just some tidbits in the winlink
forums. Based on past comments,
Rick W. wrote:
why I am not able to send messages using DTM and DBM ARQ. Especially
helpful would be those who are using Multipsk.
Hello Rick,
As suggested to you more than once, the documentation for using bbslink
is at http://hflink.net/bbslink .
The steps for using DBM ARQ are clearly
Rick W. wrote:
1. After bringing up the Pilot station, I know that using the AMD
protocol I can sometimes send an e-mail message with the short SMS form.
It is not perfect, as sometimes it says that it went through, but I
don't always receive the test messages to my home e-mail address.
Rick W. wrote:
I would have to say that your belief that there is some tone in my
message is unwarranted.
Not going to debate this. I'll just say I read your reply to someone
else's question/comment first without knowing who it was and wondered
what the deal was.
But since you are sincere
Hello Rick,
Your tone makes me suspect this is yet another attack on a system you do
not understand or care for, but I'll assume your questions are sincere
and try to answer them. :-)
I have often wondered why they are called pilot stations. That sounds
like they are the early experimental
Hello,
You should be using the digi port, and there is a specific setting that
allows you to center the filter passband around typical digi signals. I
find 200 hz up works best for ALE.
Since the signal is now centered, I can then even use the DSP bandpass
to really tighten up.
If you have
Rick wrote:
Let's discuss some of the FUD mentioned below.
1. If you can do everything in Linux then you are the exception to
most of us. My personal experience is that I have to forgo too many
amateur radio programs to move away from the MS Windows OS's. Obvious
examples being Ham Radio
Rick wrote:
As one who daily monitors the various OS issues, I had seen both of the
articles beforehand. The PCMag article gave you a comparison of sorts. I
think they were a bit light on Vista. They need to discuss the invasive
issues of DRM which some claim is taking up a lot of computer
Andy wrote:
Yes, I received a private email from the individual that is preparing
the IED's. With reference to ALE soundings, he cites ..
) 1 illegal 1-way transmissions;
2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200 MHz, and; 3) illegal automatic
control of a digital station.
Skip wrote:
except in designated beacon areas or the
automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since
unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other
activity
within range of the unattended station).
All the ALE data activity is in the automatic
jgorman01 wrote:
Your first paragraph indicates that the shelter was so remote and
isolated that it required helicopter delivery of food and water. Yet
you also indicate that you were in your truck which indicates you
could drive to the shelter. Maybe you were driving a monster truck?
Some
Rick wrote:
There is minimal ALE activity here in North America.
Ahh, the personal dispute with ALE again. OK, I'll bite.
You could also say there is a minimal of pskmail, nbems, or other activity.
The I listened and did not hear much argument. If we used that, you'd
conclude the only active
Thanks Andy for an excellent summary of ALE
I do have one slight correction:
enough. The concept of ALE requires automated beacons, soundings,
that are often unattended.
ALE does not require soundings. It's still a huge value add to be able
to find a station or assemble a net through a net
Jim wrote:
Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating the
facts. Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of
communication, but never the less, it is communications.
And the most important limitation: Even once roads were open to
non-emergency traffic,
jgorman01 wrote:
Hate to tell you but some of us cranky, bitter, and rude (old) men
have simply been there and done that.
I certainly saw and worked with some generous kind old man hams in my
efforts. (Shared a shelter operation with an 80 year old!!) But did not
see hardly any of the same
Rick wrote:
As we have been finding out through testing,
Hmm, you've been testing ALE? Don't see you in many of the logs.
I've been testing/using/linking ALE for a couple of years now. Getting a
really good understanding of what works well, what does not, etc.
I know you have a very strong
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim,
That yourself, family and property are supposed to come first, even
in ARES.
It is common sense that a volunteer operator is not going to be
focused on
their activity if they are worrying about all the other
Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons wrote:
It does amaze me to see some members of the amateur radio community
start whining after public and/or private agencies officially recognize
***and support*** the value of the amateur radio service during disaster
response and recovery operations
Elaine, you
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I think that much of the hams in emcomms is a scam , or a way for
hams to play firefighter/cop/medic without actually having to be
one.The scam is the spreading of the concept that us hams sit
around all days looking for that ship's SOS or waiting for Skywarn to
be
jgorman01 wrote:
Let me post a couple of quotes from a comment to rm-11392 and then
tell me that no government or organization in the US will use the
amateur equipment they purchase, EVER, for their own purposes when
they feel the financial pinch that you mention.
And so you feel we hams
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
But Alan, I deal with medical emergencies several times per week!
Understood. With doctors, medical staff equipment to handle that.
Now take all that away. The need is still there, you just lost all the
infrastructure to handle it
different situation entirely
I
jim writes:
Look I'm not saying we shouldn't volunteer. However, beware strangers
bearing gifts and all that. I don't know how old you are but you
appear to have a bias against us older folks.
To be clear: my old fart comment is in reference to a mindset and
behavior, not any individual's
76 matches
Mail list logo
