Time to put MFSK16,Hell, standard ALE, Olivia , Contestia, RTTYM,
DominoEX , etc, in to the virtual junk-box. They can join their
counsins from the non-virtual world...Betamax ,8 track tapes, and
cassettes. All good applications, but no one uses 'em anymore.
Andy K3UK
Between
I subscribed to linuxhams back around 1996 or so, and was very useful on
my start with linux, packet and associated stuff.
At some point I had to unsubscribe and lost that part of history.
Eventually, the list moved to Yahoo Groups.Lately there is VERY LITTLE
activity on the list. I am a
Jon Maguire escribió:
Sholto, does Multipsk support 2/250? I didn't see it in the selection
list.
73... Jon W1MNK
No...but MixW does, from the very useful to the very useless tones/BW
combinations
Jose, CO2JA
__
Participe en Universidad 2008.
Pretty confusing indeed.
As Jack says, you never know when someone will connect.
Have any of the proponents been a sysop? I guess they have not.
TIS
Software would have to be rewritten, so an incoming call rings a bell,
turns on a lamp, awakens the dogs and let'em out,
something that lets
For me, the proven offenders can be ATTENDED stations.
The past week I was linked to a Winlink station on 40 meters when
somebody started calling on top of us.
I turned on my linear, and he kept on calling. Three options to be
heard: my correspondent,
me, and me and my half gallon linear.
Seems well founded. Even when HF operation has been traditionally on
JT65A, the wider modes
(JT65B and JT65C) might prove better, in spite of being wider (ugh !!
horror, more wide modes !!...he, he)
Nevertheless, I am not sure but I believe that JT65C is not even 1 kHz
wide.
73,
Jose, CO2JA
I have tried MultiPSK on packet and it is interesting, works well but
is only a terminal.
I once comented that converting MultiPSK into a full fledged packet
mailbox was too much,
considering all the other things it does well.
I have not tried, but maybe with TCP/IP it could be done...using
Rick,
Every wire under the influence of your radiating antenna can be a
feedback pickup path.
Try to minimize currents, ferrites are your best friends. Use only
capacitors in shunt to ground
only after a choke to minimize currents.
All the homebrew equipment I have built has an RF filter
I believe it falls, jurisdictionwise, in the same case as a satellite.
It must be licensed by some administration, and also, do not
violate the spectrum boundaries of others under it.
That is cleat on the satellite bands, but not so in HF, in a non
satellite activity allocated band.
Jose,
is an aircraft and must be
licensed by the country of origin while it's over international
waters and by the country it's flying over when over land.
73,
John KD6OZH
- Original Message - *From:* Jose Amador
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:*
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Real attempts on 40 meters have had the same results for me.
On 20 it works far better, almost perfect..
MT63 is robust but too slow, and waving the carpet leaves it dizzy.
Being too slow, even slow doppler has a too high impact on it.
Jose, CO2JA
---
Tony escribió:
Hi Steve,
Too bad
Vojtech Bubnik escribió:
PSK as well as MFSK will be affected by multipath, it will create
another type of inter symbol interference - time overlap. DominoEX
with its incremental MFSK tries to cope with it, but there is a price
for that. I am not convinced yet that the incremental MFSK is
Dave Bernstein escribió:
You've made lots of wild allegations, Jose, but substantiated
none of them.
Who? Me? The one who has attempted to make me slip on a banana peel is
you, .
That is unnaceptable, and a waste of time.
You've accused me of denying the basic principal upon
which my
Off list, to avoid clutter.
Well, my first setup was a Johnson Ranger and a HRO-60, heavily modified
(1972).
I built a multiband (80-40-20-15-10 m) phasing transmitter with a fixed
9 MHz IF.
Quite similar to a Hallicrafters HT-37. (1973)
I have used dipoles or verticals always, no beams.
I
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
I'm very happy with my RACAL. I often take it to the mountains as a
backpack radio with it' 2.5 meter whip. See http://sv1uy.ampr.org/~sv1uy
I will
I got mine without the battery box, so I am using it fixed with a 12 V
PSU I built..
I am very pleased with it. The last
It may hold the link, but thruput goes wy down
Jose, CO2JA
Rick wrote:
Does Pactor 3 really work well at -18 dB? I would like to see some
tests that show this, but have not found much on the internet. I
understand that some hams compared Clover products and presented the
JAS-1 was the first japanese amateur radio satellite that had a
particular digital mode.
Jose, CO2JA
---
Barry Murrell wrote:
Hi All
I have acquired a Tasco Telereader TNC-24MkII Allmode terminal, with
no software. Is there anyone in the group familiar with this unit
that can help me
Andy,
To me, it is a matter of being fashionable. No matter whatever
happens, Olivia is a ROBUST mode,
and most likely, the most robust conversational mode I know. The most
robust is JT65A, but is hardly
conversational, unless you do what you suggest on a previous mail using
short phrases.
--- jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been reading all the posts over the last
several weeks about
single tone/multi-tone, baud/bps, narrow/wide, etc.
digital
modes/modems. The one thing I see missing is any
discussion of the
actual RADIO's being used in these systems. Kind
Packet COULD have been a solution, but had a
modulation format unable to do the job.
As a MultiPSK user, I think that PSK31 is inadequate,
maybe PSKFEC could perform better, but I would try
PAX.
It has some long keying delays I don't like from the
moment you press the ENTER key, but is an
I think it is not the only solution needed. A wider
radio might be needed too (rules allowing, that is).
So far, I see a Software Defined Radio as the
solution.
You may, then, define the bandwidth you NEED on the
fly.
In the cell phone business, the operators see SDR as
the solution, because
--- Scott Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On both of my receivers (ICOM 736 and Kenwood
TS-2000), with AGC off,
reducing the RF gain has almost exactly the same
effect as reducing
the soundcard receive level.
If the system is operating linearly, it is the way it
should work
My
--- DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok Jose and everyone...let's take a poll or have
some SWAGs.
So what do YOU (plural) think is the best modulation
technique to use for a NEW and BETTER HF data mode?
I believe there is no single best mode. Like in
antennas, that
--- Mark Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you or anyone explain why they need this high
speed on HF when even
300 baud is pushing the limit on the higher HF
bands?
On the contrary, it is worse on the LOWER bands.
I think this limit only applies to protocols that do
not make use of
--- DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me give one incident where high through put
would be most desirable...
When hurricanes hit the Texas Gulf Coast, all but
radio communications can be lost between
Brownsville, Texas to Houston, Texas. The weather
stations
--- KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are misinterpreting what I was asking. Probably
because I did a poor
explanation.
What I am asking, and no one seems to confirm, is
whether or not the MIL
or STANAG modems really are running at multi
thousand baud rates on HF
frequencies, or
--- jhaynesatalumni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know what of Pactor I/II/III is covered
by patents
versus what is proprietary information, or trade
secrets? With
patents there is at least supposed to be full
disclosure of how
the thing works; and patents have a limited
--- KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walt,
Maybe someone can clear this up, but what is the
difference between the
differential modes such as DBPSK, DQPSK, 8DPSK, and
16DPSK such as used
with Pactor 2 and modes such as 8QPSK, 16QPSK?
Even when theory says that differential modes have a
Andy,
Use the RF attenuator
It is the resource I have used in contests when
operating multiop-multitransmitter.
The S-meter will be less enthusiastic, but the
receiver will work.
73, Jose
--- Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turning down the RF gain will reduce the signal
below
--- DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greeings All,
How hard is it to demodulate a 16QPSK as compaired
to a 8QPSK signal.
Demodulation...I think it is about the same. Carrier
regeneration is a bit more complex. Decoding it is
something else, but also doable.
And I
--- Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jose, some questions,
* for Pactor, why do you need a so precise timing It
seems that you need a 1/100,000 precision or better.
This because the RX Pactor modem follows an exact
timing from the beginning of the QSO (after a first
signal
--- John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your are right Bill but I don't see any software
that will keep up with that TNC in Amtor or Pactor
ARQ mode as yet. And both modes are still very alive
and well.
John, W0JAB
Well, some 8 years ago I built a quite complex
homebrew modem with
?
It is what is springing up around like mushrooms...
and its bandwidth makes V90 modems look ridiculous...
And V90 modems are waaay faster than 1200 baud packet.
It is a different world...
73, Jose
Jose Amador wrote:
I believe that remembering the 80's and 90's would
be good. You cannot use
--- DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jose,
I re-though the question and if 20M is near the MUF,
then there would likely be more multi-path signals
on 40 and 80. But I suppose that you need to define
what near the MUF is in terms for frequency or
percent.
--- Joel Kolstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Pactor, packet Amtor, etc. all died because of
the need for a $300 TNC,
I think amateur radio as a hobby really is dying!
$300 in today's money is
nothing compared to what many amateurs paid for
their HF rigs years ago.
I believe that
--- DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jose,
Are there really more multi-path signals on 40M and
80M than 20M?
I've never looked at signals on 80/40/20 from that
aspect.
73,
Walt/K5YFW
Well, maybe I am blaming the butler, as in mistery
novels, and it is not
--- KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hola Jose,
I think that Paul, K9PS attempted to do this at one
time, but was not
able to finish it. He has developed ARQ criteria
that was the used to
help develop PSKmail. I thought that MT-63 could
handle multi-path quite
well, but I still prefer
--- Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Open source is one solution. Another is to establish
and maintain a
repository containing source code and all necessary
development
tooling; this repository should be placed in the
hands of a trusted
individual or group with instructions for
--- Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Rick,
TKS for info. Perhaps, next year I will see if it is
possible to carry a synchronous ARQ mode (perhaps
Pactor 1 forced to 100 bauds) in Multipsk, under a
big PC XP.
73
Patrick
I know that somebody I cannot remember is
--- Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Folks,
Let's cast our minds back to the days of AM
(Advanced Modulation, for
those who are unfamiliar with the abbreviation G)
rigs and RTTY.
Now I know that simple AFSK would work - and provide
both sidebands
and the carrier and really
--- Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know this is not an antenna forum, but hoping that
all the experience represented here can assist me.
When using a dipole antenna fed with 450-ohm
ladderline, does the length of the feedline matter?
For sure! It ALWAYS does.
The dipole I'm going to
--- Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Related question: The softrock receiver has I and Q
outputs
to 2 audio inputs for image rejection. If I build a
hardware
image reject filter, can I get away with just using
I, which saves
an audio input, and halves the number
--- Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't explain the image reject filter right.
It will be an RF bandpass filter, not a phasing
type image reject network. On 160 meters, it is
fairly easy to do a bandpass filter because the
percent bandwidth is fairly large.
--- KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still have not understood what P2 and P3 have that
is all that special and allows them to run as fast
as they do (not to mention they are also ARQ modes).
If we had non ARQ modes with similar modulation, why
would not that run at a similar rate of
--- KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree completely, Jose.
However, all these things can (and often are done)
with other modes that
do not run as fast. The bandwidths are no
differerent than the wider
sound card modes at either 500 Hz for Pactor 2 or
closer to a voice
bandwidth
--- KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I used to operate Amtor, Pactor I (and Clover II) a
decade or two ago,
when we had the old Aplink and later Winlink
systems. But at the time I
did not have a good idea of how deep into the noise
these modes could
work. Is it possible for some of you
Maybe most countries, but certainly not all...
Jose, CO2JA
--- Danny Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since most, if not all Central and South American
countries have no
subbands, they go where they want, when they want.
Our SSB moving down any
bit at all, with simply cause them to come
Yes, 16QAM or 8PSK, if possible. QPSK with its
sidebands would be broader than 2400 Hz.
Jose, CO2JA
--- Tim Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Respectfully, you are talking about compressing the
content. That won't help
with cramming a 5600 baud circuit into a 2400hz
bandwidth. It might
--- Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pactor Amtor required percise timming. I have
tried a software program years ago without any
success.
The best way to run these 2 modes is with a TNC ie
PK232
Lew
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I asked directly to SCS several months ago and they
charge 48 euro for the memory upgrade.
Mine is still as it came from the factory.
73 de Jose, CO2JA
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.farallon.us/webstore/
Farallon Electronics hooked me up with my memory
upgrade with ease!
--- Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Martin,
8 bit or 16 bits is not the problem, only the
algorihm used or the hardware
processing makes the difference. One of the problem
is the automatic
determination of the speed. Did the old Pakrat
determines the CW speed
itself
--- Danny Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The best target for these guys are the people who
leave their computers up
24 hours a day. Unless you have some overriding
reason to do that, its best
to turn it off at night. Its a tempting target at
night here, and daytime
in Europe/Africa
No, once and again. It is someone that has YOUR
address and is sending infected mails using your
address.
A clue can be had checking the mail headers and
looking for the ISP IP address if message
authentication is used. If it is your machine, the
headers will carry your computer's or your ISP
--- Kevin der Kinderen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm geeking here, so don't say I'm wasting my time.
I already know that. ;-)
How much does the quality of the soundcard affect
the quality of the
transmitted (or even received) signal?
Sampling clock frequency may be critical with cheap
--- Rick Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something to consider is that if many radio amateurs
are using low power or
medium power and you chose to use much higher power,
while it may be
possible for them to print you, you will likely not
be able to print them
and the QSO will not be
I think it is a matter of signal cleanlinessuse
the lowest power that allows the communication, with a
clean signal.
In PSK, as well as in SSB voice, and many digital
modes with an envelope (I am not referring to constant
envelope modes as RTTY) a clean signal is a must to
conserve
--- Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Operating
at my station more
than 25 watts the RFI gets back into my computer and
locks it up. I
have no choice, as my antenna is indoors, can not
put any antenna
outside, or fear eviction. I am eight floors above
the ground, no
balcony so have to
I had opted not to participate in this thread so far,
but it seems once again that the hidden station case
is not seen, and it is very common on HF, even DXers
know about it to their frustration
Anyone that does not hear any other station may
trigger a Winlink PMBO response. This may
--- John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do I understand this right that the sound card
programs
don't care what the freq of the tones are, just as
long
as the shift is right?
Not only programs, but hardware tooI built a modem
with 2000-2200 Hz tones that worked very well on
packet
For narrow modes like PSK31 there is no doubt...for
pactor I or II some use the fictitious Center
Frequency, halfway between the two tones...but it is
still unclear for me how to spot wide modes like MT63
or Olivia in a standard way.
Would it be just dial frequency, if the software
determines
--- Paul L Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
S! Don't tell anyone!
Danny Douglas wrote:
Forward error correction cannot correct spelling,
or mistyping.
Actually, FEC P R E S E R V E S mistypingsLOL,
8-)
Jose, CO2JA
__
61 matches
Mail list logo
