If you use an image backup product like Norton Ghost or StorageCraft
ShadowProtect, you can construct such a CD or DVD yourself. You can make a
snapshot with all of your applications installed and configured, allowing a
rapid recovery in the event of a catastrophic failures.
I started with
Bob NM7M's Propagation 101, 201, 301 is another good introduction to this
topic. I placed a copy in this group's Files area.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tony d...@... wrote:
All,
Interesting read about solar output and HF propagation by Paul Harden,
be interesting to read about some practical replies to that
question.
73,
Jose, CO2JA
---
Dave Bernstein wrote:
In n-ary FSK, if all tones in the ensemble have identical maximum
magnitudes, then isn't it true that the maximum bandwidth will be
identical that of binary (2-tone
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W mrf...@... wrote:
snip
The administrator at Winlink 2000 does not support busy frequency
detection of their existing system and has publicly stated this with the
rationale that malicious operators would shut down their e-mail
Thanks, Bonnie.
According to the formulae presented in table 2 on page 49 of the document you
cite below, binary (2-tone) FSK with a maximum shift of 1 kHz and a maximum
symbol rate of 300 baud would require a maximum bandwidth of 2011 hz. for any
practical modulation index (i.e. less than
In n-ary FSK, if all tones in the ensemble have identical maximum magnitudes,
then isn't it true that the maximum bandwidth will be identical that of binary
(2-tone) FSK with a shift whose value is difference in frequency between the
highest and lowest tones in the ensemble?
73,
Thanks Jim -- your result is within 10% of what's predicted by the formulae in
the paper Bonnie cited, which considered a few more factors.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jhaynesatalumni jhhay...@... wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ
this is not going to help ..
You still haven't answered my question; what are Legacy mode users?
Your response above does not clarify your original post; if anything, it
increases the ambiguity.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- On Sat, 3/7/09, Dave Bernstein aa...@... wrote:
From: Dave
This is not a productive interaction, Bruce. I disagreed with someone who
insisted that others operate as he did, and you come back with Same old stuff
its digital or the highway, a complete non sequitur.
We're done.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, bruce
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, bruce mallon wa4...@... wrote:
I strongly disagree. Your post is just another variant of everyone should
operate the way I do. While you are free to espouse this philosophy, we are
free to ignore it.
Hummm
Then you oppose
The *only* ill will I've seen expressed is over the use of automatic stations
that transmit without first verifying that the frequency is in use. This has
nothing whatsoever to do with modes. It is unfortunate that one particular mode
(Pactor 3) is conflated with this style of operation, but as
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W mrf...@... wrote:
Considering that RTTY, the oldest digital mode (not counting morse code which
goes back to spark), is still one of the most common modes, and PSK31 is the
most common of the newer modes, it appears that there is
Please explain how trying it would reveal how many amateur QSOs are typically
made each month.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,
expeditionradio expeditionra...@... wrote:
Dave, AA6YQ wrote:
Anyone know how many
None of those 1500 QSOs were made with ALE, Skip. Most of them were made within
a 2-week interval.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kh6ty kh...@... wrote:
I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,
expeditionradio
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote:
Again, this would substantiate Dave AA6YQ's statement a year or so ago, that
almost all digital mode users on HF are PSK and RTTY active, and that other
digital are so under utilized that their presence
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio expeditionra...@...
wrote:
Andy K3UK wrote:
Where all this leaves ALE, is another issue !
Just rambling, 73 de Andy K3UK
Hi Andy,
As the defacto global standard for initiating and sustaining HF comms, ALE
QuickMix
http://www.ptpart.co.uk/quickmix/
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey
Rochelle spar...@... wrote:
Hi All,
I believe I saw a small program out there that would allow you to
set the different levels for a soundcard
Seems like an epidemic of Signalink can't transmit posts across the
net today. When you direct your digital mode software to transmit,
does the Signalink's PTT LED illuminate?
From the Common Problems section of the SignaLink FAQ in
http://www.tigertronics.com/slusbts.htm :
2. Radio won't
is not what
was sent?Ray,K4YDI,Al.
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Dave Bernstein aa...@... wrote:
Seems like an epidemic of Signalink can't transmit posts across
the
net today. When you direct your digital mode software to transmit,
does the Signalink's PTT LED illuminate?
From
Thanks to Joe W4TV and Al VE4ABU, updated online help is now available
and included in the release. Its also available independently via
http://www.dxlabsuite.com/MMTTY/mmtty.chm
MMTTY 1.66F is available via
http://www.dxlabsuite.com/MMTTY/mmtty166F.zip
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
There are similar bridges to DXLab from MixW, MMTTY, MMVARI, and
MMSSTV.
Rick N2AMG and Oba-san JA7UDE have been very active in knitting
things together.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ability to save logging to DXKeeper
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, WD8ARZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As usual Rick you take comments and twist them to take off on a
tangent and make personal put downs.
I didn't recall anything like this in Rick's recent posts, so I
went back and reviewed them -- and
Bonnie suggested two URLs:
1. http://bandplans.com/
2. http://hflink.com/bandplans/
The first starts out by saying
this site is not intended as any kind of recommendations for the
band usage. It merely records the users of the amateur HF bands 6
meters. Some band usage is controversial. Our
Most PSK operators are interested in rag-chewing rather than DXing,
which does make it difficult for a DX station to achieve a reasonable
rate in PSK. When operating from a DX location, I operate PSK to take a
break between CW and RTTY pileups.
The ability to decode many independent
One use of split frequency operation is to spread a DX station's
callers out over a range of frequencies that does not include the DX
station's frequency. This enables the DX station to more rapidly work
callers (because they don't overlap each other as much, and because
the DX station's
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,
expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave, AA6YQ wrote,
The amateur radio's community rapidly adopted PSK31
once panoramic reception on soundcard-equipped
PCs became available.
When the dogs don't like the dogfood, its a
The amateur radio's community rapidly adopted PSK31 once panoramic
reception on soundcard-equipped PCs became available.
Given this rapid transition, it seems unlikley that the amateur
community then shifted gears en amsse and refused to consider all
subsequent advances in digital mode
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Winwarbler's Stations Heard list is more live than PSK Reporter , it
displays the callsign heard almost instantly whereas PSK Reporter
takes 5 minutes. Winwarbler's DX View can plot the Stations
WOTA seemed equally promissing at the outset. If PSK Reporter
demonstrates that it has legs and users ask me to support it, I will
do so.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Simon Brown \(Laptop\)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Expect more reporting in the PSK
Its more likely that they know exactly what they are missing -- but
don't believe its worth the extra cost to obtain it.
Furthermore, there are still quite a few KAMs and PK232s around; the
incremental cost to their owners of running Pactor 1 would be very
low -- and yet this mode is not
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jhaynesatalumni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't know if that would lead to a displacement of PSK31 so
much as it would an accomodation of other activities that PSK31
doesn't do well. I mean, the lack of error detection/correction
and
I don't believe that PSK31, PSK63, or RTTY are the best that can be
done on HF-- but no protocol attractive enough to displace them has
yet been developed.
This remains an open challenge, not a closed book. Skip KH6TY's
latest work seems promising...
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
2. Log keeping, I don't want to have 10 different log files, I want
to have one. I use DXKeeper and WinWarbler and MultiPSK will
interface to it, but I also run HRD/DM780, NBEMS, MixW, and
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, n7zxp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been sitting here reading all this things about Vista. Now
lets go back to when XP was new. Everyone said and wrote all this
stuff about XP.
That's not true, Lane. At birth, Windows XP was broadly
Re UDP servers, we established the Amateur Radio Software
Development group a year ago to work out the details of this and
other shared mechanisms, but it died from lack of interest.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arswd/
Remember?
I'll stick with DDE interfaces for now; they aren't elegant,
There are bridges that allow direct logging from MixW and DM780 to
DXKeeper. MultiPSK interoperates directly with DXLab without the need
for a bridge application, and works with SpotCollector as well as
with DXKeeper and Commander.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving
the development of new digital modes as madness? Do you really
think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving
the development of new digital modes as madness? Do you really
think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is
My attempt at installation failed with
NOTE: Now spawning the main Setup program 'Setup1.exe'
*** ERROR: Cannot start main setup program! (CreateProcess()
returned error code 0x0005H)
Did you customize Setup1?
Suggestions?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If you'd actually read any of my posts, Demetre, you'd know that my
focus is on automatic stations without busy detectors -- no matter
what protocol they are using. In fact I recently posted here
+++ more AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
QRM from PMBOs and other deaf robots spoils the enjoyment of
amateur radio for many operators Demetre. That's why so many are
willing to do practically anything to make WinLink stop
I'm glad to hear that you are using a busy frequency detector, Dave.
The detectors in PK232 and SCS modems are certainly better than
nothing, but are quite limited. Neither detects PSK31 transmissions,
for example. As part of the SCAMP project, Rick KN6KB (a member of
the Winlink team)
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Les Warriner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMNSHO malicious interference, interference that prevents or
interrupts a QSO on a frequency from any source is ILLEGAL by the
existing rules. The fact that this rule is not being enforced should
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am quoting here my reply to DAVE about his Anti-radiation missiles
tuned to PACTOR PMBO frequencies for your information!
snip
What about this Skip? Is this justified?
Of course it is not justified!
If you'd actually read any of my posts, Demetre, you'd know that my
focus is on automatic stations without busy detectors -- no matter
what protocol they are using. In fact I recently posted here that
banning Pactor III because a bunch of inconsiderate operators use it
in PMBOs would be like
I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 04:37 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
Unless you're willing to purchase an SCS TNC, you will not be
able
to know who or what QRM'd you.
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Struebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your comments... We do make substantial use of 30 meters on
a regular basis... However, within Eastern area we also rely heavily on
80 and 40 hence my comments By the way NTS has
+++additional AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether
or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to
detect Pactor signals, but they cannot detect
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+++So you -- the client -- are activating a PMBO in Canada or the
USA. While you can know that the frequency is clear in Europe, you
have absolutely no idea whether your activating a PMBO in
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form
of networking on HF.
Wrong. My problem is with unattended stations that transmit
without first listening to see that the
You were having a Pactor QSO and someone called CQ nearby in another
mode. You were able to identify the CQing operator. From your after-
the-fact email conversation with this person, its clear that he heard
your signal. If he assumed that your Pactor signal was coming from
a robot and that it
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/01/first-pics-of-bug-labs-open-source-
hardware/
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
*** more AA6YQ comments
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that
PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard
software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
*** Then why did you bring up the point that PMBOs can detect ongoing
QSOs in Pactor? If you weren't suggesting this as a solution, then
what was your intention?
I was merely describing a fact,
AA6YQ comments bloew
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've argued that the SCAMP busy detector is useless because
its not publicly available, even though it was developed by the
Winlink team and remains in their possession.
Where? No, once
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Now Dave, you are claiming that three of the top programmers of radio
amateur software in the world offered to help Winlink 2000 and they
turned you down? When did this happen? Before they developed
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There is only a simple and logical solution. Don't operate anything
else than wide digital in the digital subbands, just like noone in
their right mind operates SSB in the CW portions of the
Thanks, Mike.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mike Blazek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pretty sure it counts as Digital. LoTW has a provision for JT65
contacts.
Mike, N5UKZ
Dave Bernstein wrote:
Does anyone know how JT65 is counted for DXCC awards
It is important to distinguish between mode and operating style.
There is no reason to restrict the use of Pactor (or any other
digital mode) to a sub-band.
Unattended stations that rely on remote initiators to ensure a clear
frequency are the problem -- whether the protocol they use is
+++more AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, hidden stations are absolutely a fact of life on HF. Why
then would anyone deploy an unattended station that relies on a
remote initiator to ensure a clear frequency when this
You've evidently forgotten my earlier point, Demetre:
In the land of HF, the hiking trails and highways overlap.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@ wrote:
Coming
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@
wrote:
[snip]
Winlink's continuing refusal to deploy this solution can only be
interpreted one way: our traffic is more important than your
traffic; if we QRM you, too bad. Or to paraphrase Demetre, stay
off
is clear.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@
wrote:
Have I ever transmitted SSB in the CW or DIGITAL subbands? Of
course
not, Demetre; that would
The overlap is the reality, Demetre. You may not like it, but you
must respect it and operate accordingly.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@
wrote:
You've
### more AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that
PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard
software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable
You've taken this out of context, John.
Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit there's a
Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect ourselves
from PMBO QRM by purchasing a Pactor modem that we'd quickly fire up
whenever we were QRM'd. Alternatively, we could
.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You've taken this out of context, John.
Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit there's a
Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect
ourselves
from PMBO
There is no debate about Pactor modems being capable of detecting
Pactor stations on frequency. The debate is whether or not its
reasonable for digital mode operators not interested in Pactor to
have to purchase a Pactor modem in order to protect themselves from
Winlink QRM.
73,
1. You're using panoramic reception and consider signals anywhere on
your waterfall to be QRM
2. You're operating in a mode other than Pactor
3. You're operating on a frequency exclusively owned by Winlink
4. Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of keyboard-to-keyboard
QSOs stays these
I don't think there's any confusion or misinformation in referring to
the busy detector incorporated in SCAMP as the SCAMP busy detector.
Its not like its ever appeared anywhere else...
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They would have to purchase a TNC so they could QSO in Pactor, which
PMBOs can detect and thus would not QRM.
In other words, since PMBOs are only capable of detecting pre-
existing QSOs in Pactor, everyone should simply switch to Pactor for
all QSOs. PMBO QRM problem solved.
This reminds me
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't understand why all this bashing about illegal and commercial
about Winlink2000. I wonder is it jealousy? Looks like it. Also I
don't understand why a radio ham should not get/send e-mail via
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't see the point of you mentioning it then.
You brought it up, Demetre. You said you didn't understand. I
simply offered an explanation.
Again this is an old horse already beaten to death
How many unique callsigns did you work in PSK63, Andy?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
PSK63 worked very well in today's TARA Rumble, too bad I thought it
started tomorrow! I got a very late start but PSK63 is MUCH
Considering the subset of protocols on Rick's list (below) for which
soundcard-based applications are available, PSK31 comes out on top.
For keyboard-to-keyboard operations, however, I don't believe that
absolute spectrum efficiency explains PSK31's stickiness. I suggest
that the follow three
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
By your own admission, your operating experience with digital modes
has not progressed beyond PSK31.
What arrogance. So the VE5MU figure of merit ranks PSK31 at the
bottom? How then do you
So you're an entrepreneur, Bonnie? What companies have you founded?
What innovative products have you successfully brought to market, and
what's been their impact?
I designed my first commercial product in 1972 -- Data General's Nova
2 minicomputer, while a junior in college, and went on to
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
However, what is the REAL difference between sending your callsign a
few times via ALE , versus picking up the Mic and asking is this
frequency in use ?
There are two such differences:
Whether you find an interesting signal by clicking on traces in a
panoramic tuning display or by rotating your tranceiver's tuning
dial, ideally you should then direct your digital mode application to
place the selected signal at a pre-specified optimal audio offset by
appropriately QSYing
I believe that your analysis of part 97 is correct.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy has some very good points,
If you are a human operator and listen on the frequency for a
period of
time, ideally at least a few minutes if
So your idea of good intentions, tolerance, and friendship is The
automatic band segments are a stupid place to park a slow keyboarding
digi mode... like they say, If you can't stand the heat, stay out of
the kitchen. :)
Do you have a receipt for those frequencies you seem to think you own?
There are two considerations:
1. the signal being decoded should fall within the receive filter(s)
you're using. Some ops activate RTTY or CW filters during PSK QSOs;
their choise of offset is thus limited by the positioning of these
filters within their receiver's bandpass.
2. the second
You've missed the point entirely. From what several JT65 users
reported, these automatic capabilities are there to assist an
operator who sees the decoded receiver output and would not initiate
transmission if the frequency were in use. The station is not running
unattended.
Does writing case
Thanks, David. I was just responding to Bonnie's assertion that some
JT65 stations operate unattended. I guess her claim was incorrect.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The same is true for
point is that it is part of a
sliding
scale, and there are at least some unattended aspects of WSJT
operation
possible without going all the way to beaconing or unattended
initiation
of QSOs.
73,
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:27 am, Dave Bernstein wrote:
Thanks
Here's what §97.7 says:
§97.7 Control operator required
When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator.
The control operator must be a person:
(a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant
appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or
(b) Who
Why are non-Icom transceivers problematic?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Rick;
please let me know where you and Sholto are using FAE ARQ, since I
would like to come amd play,too.
On the subject of ALE; in my
PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes Dave, but my questions are related to what Hollingworth was
saying
at Dayton. Was he implying that they don't really care about the
issue and suggesting that we all lighten up and resolve the matters
among ourselves ?
On 9/23/07, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
We can resolve matters among ourselves by including busy frequency
detectors and some form of QRL detector in unattended stations. Then
the remote operator could fulfil his or her responsibilities as
control operator for the unattended station, and we could all spend
more time operating,
a TS480
John
VE5MU
- Original Message -
From: Dave Bernstein
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 11:46 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ALE yes ... or no?
Why are non-Icom transceivers problematic?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
~540 enhancements later...
http://www.dxlabsuite.com/winwarbler/Heard.jpg
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the digital radio reflector 7 years ago this month
WinWarbler 1.7.0 is available
WinWarbler allows
Peter G3PLX publicly released PSK31sbw, the first soundcard-based
implementation of PSK31, in late 1998. Previous implementations of
PSK31 required special purpose hardware.
Skip KH6TY and Nick UT2UZ released the first panoramic soundcard
PSK31 application (Digipan) in early 2000.
In June
Were the strident advocates of unattended operation to focus their
energy on adding effective busy detectors and some form of universal
QRL protocol to their unattended stations, they could rightfully
claim that unattended stations were no less polite than any human
operated station, and ought
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most of the automatic or unattended sub-bands or band segments on
HF were formed many years ago before such operations become so widely
popular as they are now. Presently there are many thousands
How many keyboard-to-keyboard Pactor stations would you estimate are
QRV, John?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Roger
After checking my log book for the last 10 QSO's
you will find 6 Pactor QSO's and 4 CW.
Thank
Roughly how many different keyboard-to-keyboard stations have you
worked in, say, the last 30 days?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Don't know or have any idea but, I find them all
the time. Not all of us have
We've been around this mulberry bush before; I don't think there are
many anti-wide people on this list, or anywhere else. Most
criticism involving Pactor is not focused on the mode itself, but
rather on unattended operation without busy detection.
I was just trying to get a feel for how many
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
The issue is that if a human is involved, at worst everyone shrugs and
figures he's an impolite operator.
If a human is involved one can send the frequency is in use,
please QSY. Most of
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two years ago, SCAMP demonstrated a multi-mode busy detector for
HF that proved highly effective, despite the fact that it was a
quickand dirty first attempt.
I would *love* to see either code
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, a bounded-backoff mechanism would almost certainly be necessary.
I would probably also choose to implement a detector that required the
channel to appear clear for several sequential tests
1 - 100 of 533 matches
Mail list logo
