Is it possible to compress a file and lose even one bit during the
transfer and still have something usable on the receiving end when you
uncompress? Normally, you must use ARQ to insure perfect copy. Even MT63
or Olivia can take a hit every so often.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Simon (HB9DRV) wrote:
It is entirely reasonable that there could be world wide band plans as
long as the bands overlap the same. Since this is not always possible,
adjustments are made in such cases.
But the bands are used in a dynamic fashion due to propagation and
useage, particularly contests and operating
Digital modes are similar to any other modes whereby increasing power
levels can mean the difference between no copy and solid copy. Because
of the sharp line of demarcation of printing or not printing correct
data, which can be only a dB or so, I guess that in that respect the
digital modes
As was mentioned, construction may be impractical for many hams. In my
case, I have been soldering since around age 13 or so with my first
crystal radio kit and later many kits and dozens of projects over the
years, so it is not too difficult to make a simple interface.
Today, because of my
We discussed RS ID quite a bit when first developed but only being on
Multipsk, it was not that popular. From my testing a year or two ago, I
can confirm that it works extremely well and there is nothing really
technical to understand.
The RS ID transmit, adds a burst at the beginning of each
It seems that there are only a handful of hams who have any interest in
ARQ modes for chatting. There don't even seem to be many interested in
even using this for public service communications either and quite
frankly I am very concerned by this.
There is nothing wrong with using older
While I somewhat agree that there is a perception of ARQ modes being
slower, this has not been based upon my actual testing of FAE400. The
ability of FAE400 to work at least as deep into the noise as PSK31, and
probably a bit deeper with its memory ARQ capabilities, not available in
any other
Good copy on both Tony and John, W2KI from here in the north central U.S.
Rick, KV9U
Tony wrote:
All,
I'll be QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode this evening starting 2230z --
14074.0 USB +/- QRM.
Tony -K2MO
Hi Bill,
Do you have some thoughts on how an amateur mesh network would be better
than non-ham? Maybe less congestion? But in some areas, no one near
enough to connect to?
Over the years, I have had one of my students who took one of my ham
classes and expressed an interest in some kind of
You could use an external device as others have suggested. I don't
generally recommend the SignaLink USB due to the low frequency noise
problem, however many hams either ignore it or are not aware of it.
Further, after some considerable denial on the part of Tigertronics,
they may have
What is the attraction of MixW now that we have so many other multimode
digital programs that are freely available with one program even open
source and cross platform?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andy obrien wrote:
Nothing that I have heard. Nick is somewhat more active, as his
health has improved,
do not have? Is MARS use different than for amateur radio use?
73,
Rick, KV9U
chas wrote:
Rick W wrote:
What is the attraction of MixW now that we have so many other multimode
digital programs that are freely available with one program even open
source and cross platform?
73,
Rick
Buddy and Rick,
What you are describing seems to be flidigi more than any other program.
Have you tried this program? And unlike Windows-only programs, fldigi
works on more platforms than any other program of its type. Maybe the
RAC CD won't work on fldigi though.
Fldigi is ultra clean and
After all these years, I finally downloaded N1MM Logger and spent some
time with it today. Even logged a few contacts during the ARRL June VHF
Contest. Previously, I could not get it work with Vista. The web site
might even lead to believe that it may not be supported on Vista. But
after doing
I use Linux and MS Windows XP and Vista here in the shack with a KVM
switch. I have never used Windoze, but I see some hams claim they know
about it.
Linux can be fairly easy to reload, but that is only if it supports your
equipment. For many years this was not possible for my
I notice that they have the 75 bps very robust mode implemented. Has
anyone tried this and compared it to Pactor 3's most robust mode?
73,
Rick, KV9U
dmitry_d2d wrote:
New releases RFSM-8000 v.0536 on http://rfsm2400.radioscanner.ru
Wouldn't the variability be due to not knowing the conditions we operate
when on the air vs. the controlled and known conditions during the test?
There are times that a given mode just can not work in a real world
environment, even though you might be able to hear the signal just find.
It just
I am probably too close to John on 20 meters as I never have any luck
connecting. I am calling CQ and monitoring 14.074 with FAE400 right now
(2115Z) and will try and have it on for a few hours when I am not
experimenting with PSKmail_server.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
now that
Say, John, you also use Pactor 2 and 3 which are always 100 baud PSK
modes. Do you find that these modes work through the ionospheric
conditions when sound card modes, even those with similar modes do not?
I find PSK to be rather poor at times here at 44 degrees N latitude,
unless you are
Andy,
The FAE modes are not really all that new. I had promoted it back in
July 2007 on one of the eham forums when I asked if other public service
operators planned to use this protocol. There have been very few hams
interested in such a mode.
My personal preference is to refer to it as FAE,
Hi Tony and group members,
Based on the use (or non use) of ARQ modes for general ham use, suggests
to me that they are going to be primarily used for messaging. This is
something that we must have for public service/emergency communications,
but there are relatively few who are oriented
With any new mode or system, I tend to factor it with a view toward
public service. But that does not mean it should not be used for what
the majority of hams use day to day. Anything you are familiar with and
use regularly will have much more value than something that is only used
When it comes to emergency communications, phone is not an option, but a
necessary mode for most conditions. It is the only practical mode that
gives you the instant knowledge that someone has received your
information. Nothing else can ever take the place of human speech in
such cases due to
It was 1425Z here in SW Wisconsin and I was copying JA1RZD on 14072.5 +
1500 Hz with near 100%, but he could not hear me. Very low noise and no
S-meter reading on my end. After calling him a few times, he did ask QRZ
and later KC7?? but I can imagine that noise levels might be much
stronger on
While we are not there yet, things have improved over the past year or
so. You could use packet, but it is a mode that requires very good
signals to work. The only sound card packet program without an expected
cost is Multipsk. It supports 300 and 1200 baud packet. Multipsk also
has the
Andy,
While you could use different systems, it gets very, very complicated
for non-digitally oriented hams. Just take some one who has never used
this stuff and really is not all that interested, but needs to use it
anyway and you will see how challenging it can be, HI.
Winlink 2000, even
Hi Russell,
Are there many other PSKmail stations on the air that are not being
listed on the mailserver site?
http://pskmail.wikispaces.com/PSKmailservers
The only stations for the U.S. that are listed at the moment are:
WB5CON
KD5WDQ
KD4QCL
I think it was KD4WDQ that I have triggered a few
I have to concur with Rein. The impression we have been given in the
past is that Skipnet was a short term ARRL experiment under an FCC STA
(Special Temporary Authorization). Do a search on ARRL's web site to see
the number of references on anything current. My most recent search
came up
Russell,
Where is the Wisconsin one located? I live in SW Wisconsin, but my
understanding is that there are 3 PSKmail stations listed as active in
the U.S.,? At least on the 10.148 frequency. The main one I can
sometimes reach is WB5CON in Mississiippi, but not easy to do on a
consistent
I looked up the interface and it is a solid design with an optoisolator
and isolation transformers. May I suggest that hams here in the U.S. who
are interested in building their own interface give serious
consideration to the Unified Microsystems, SCI-6 Sound Card Interface.
This is a kit but
Is it possible that one of the needed features to use RSID would be that
it could be easily turned on and off for transmitting as it is for
receiving? Otherwise you have to go in to several layers of menus to
turn it off once you make the contact. If it stays on, it takes time at
the beginning
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Thanks Rick, I added it...now what. Where on the band are people using it?
Andy K3UK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W mrf...@... wrote:
Hi John,
I am just using MixW which I downloaded as a test at:
http://www.mixw.net/index.php?j=downloads
then a bit
Very good points, Darko,
Even though the WINMOR set of protocols has been developed by one group,
the protocol is open so that other individuals or groups can incorporate
the protocol and may even further develop the protocol as they see fit.
If the initial development group decided to not
Based upon the modulation developed for WINMOR, is it fair to say that
some of the wider and higher speed modes will be roughly equivalent to
Q15X25?
It still is perplexing to me as to why Q15X25 did so poorly (based on
numerous comments from those that tried it) yet the modulation is
I think that the reasons that we tend to gravitate toward a given Olivia
speed/bandwidth:
- need a standard to find others on the air. It is easy to determine
the BW, but not so easy for the number of tones.
- if you use a non-standard speed to start with, you will have a
difficult time
Jim,
I agree with you completely about Clover II. Some years back, when I
would call CQ, I would sometimes get a connection with Ray Petit, W7GHM,
(the inventor of CCW, Clover and Clover II), but with our distance and
dipole antennas, could rarely do much more than trade the path
information,
Hi John,
WINMOR is an open protocol, therefore it is up to the developers as to
what they want to use it for. I personally prefer open protocols because
of this, but far be it for me to tell others how they can or can not use
a given protocol.
The current developers have designed the protocol
What really matters with any antenna design is to compare the antenna
against another antenna to find out the actual real world performance.
Most Tak-tenna users have not done this from what I have been reading.
This is probably due to not having the space for a full size antenna,
since if
I always assumed that it had a lot to do with the amount of activity vs.
finding someone. CW or other operators wanting to make a specific
contact on a band or location, such as for an award, need some way to
find a similar operator.
There is a smaller subset of digital hams and those digital
Have you been able to get this alpha to boot up?
(Note: you have to change erac to esrac in the main url to access the site.)
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien k3uka...@... wrote:
I saw this message jpskmail can now send a binary
I agree, Per, but like anything in life, there are tradeoffs. Some don't
want to admit that, but some of us thankfully understand it well. It is
curious that it is relatively rare for the Microsoft users to say
derogatory comments about Linux. I can not say the same for the more
extreme Linux
Hi Stelios,
The reason you may not have heard from others with their difficulties
with Linux, is that they there are few who have even tried and those who
have may not talk about it. I take the middle path, where I see the
value of both OS's, but the value of Microsoft is still very large, at
Not able to get much of that happening here. The only server station has
been wb5con so far. I pick up some other calls but not sure what they
are doing. Just saw kd4qcl and seconds later saw kd5umw de kd5wdq. Maybe
calling each other on the same frequency?
I am hoping that as I use it more,
If PSKmail becomes popular here in the U.S., we will likely have many
more servers than at present. Something that has been lacking with all
other systems is the minimal use of the lower bands for NVIS operation.
As long as there is a path close to (but not exceeding) the MUF, the
signal
ahead of us with this software.
They don't seem to be so afraid of Linux.
Howard K5HB
*From:* Rick W mrf...@frontiernet.net
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:22:59 AM
*Subject:* Re
Since so few hams need to install servers, perhaps this could be one of
the rare exceptions where some of us might consider actually dedicating
a computer to Linux, for this special application? Most hams here in the
U.S. would likely be accessing the server with a MS Windows based OS as
that
I am not that knowledgeable about PSKmail yet, but from what I
understand, if I go to the APRS tab and use the Ping button, any server
stations on frequency that can hear me will respond back. So far, the
only station that has ever responded has been WB5CON. At this moment, of
the seven listed
No one I know uses the HAL product, but it appears from their web
information that they have several software packages that can provide
peer to peer mail, chat, and gateway to the internet. Since the cost is
prohibitive for casual amateur use, it is unlikely that you will find
others to
Hi Scott,
Clover 2000 (circa 1995) is a wide bandwidth version of Clover II (circa
1992) and is may be used by a few agencies. It uses proprietary
hardware/firmware similar to Pactor 2 and 3 with 8 tones at a baud rate
of 62.5. I don't know if it is still used by American Red Cross, but at
I liked it better back in the early 1960's when I was in Navy MARS with
the call N0YUI. Of course, today that has been reissued as a ham call. HI
73,
Rick, KV9U
David Little wrote:
Paul,
Glad to hear Navy is giving it a try.
The rest is grossly off-topic, but I feel the need to
I don't think anyone was more of a promoter of SCAMP, and certainly
supporting the FCC rules of not intentionally interfering with others,
than I was. I found the protocol to be brilliant and it worked extremely
well with good signals, especially close to the MUF as we expected it
would since
Although Easypal is currently the primary digital SSTV program , it also
can be used to transmit any kind of data. A very experienced digital ham
took me to task a while back for making this claim since he understood
it to always compress data with a lossy characteristic and could not be
used
Agreed that this is the best approach.
Do you find that a given rig (such as an ICOM 756 Pro series) that is
supported by Hamlib, will work with some rigs and not with others of the
same exact model and set up?
I have used the West Mountain RigTalk interface and my homebrew
interface for the
Tried calling CQ with Contestia 16/1000 when I first saw your e-mail
post. Right now at ~ 0050Z I heard you and could only copy bits and
pieces with Contestia. Switched to MFSK16 but probably not fully locked
in with Multipsk which I have not used as much and more familiar with
fldigi's way of
,
Rick, KV9U
Tooner wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W mrf...@... wrote:
... There is no conflict with using wide modes (FCC defined as up
to the bandwidth of a communications quality phone transmission)
as long as the baud rate of an individual tone does not exceed
300
MARS has a different situation than the ham bands since you have a
dedicated phone communications bandwidth channel. And from what I hear
operators can use phone and data simultaneously with MT-63. We can not
do that on the ham bands below VHF here in the U.S.
I normally try to keep the modes
What should be the set frequency? If the listed frequency of the server
is 10.148, does that mean the center frequency? Therefore, if you have
the center frequency set at 1500 Hz audio, you would put the rig at
10.146.5 USB dial frequency?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Looks like I
not require AFC.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rick W wrote:
What should be the set frequency? If the listed frequency of the server
is 10.148, does that mean the center frequency? Therefore, if you have
the center frequency set at 1500 Hz audio, you would put the rig at
10.146.5 USB dial frequency?
73
My preference would be to follow the band plan. Assuming I understand
things correctly, on 30 meters it is intended that modes up to 2700 Hz
remain in the 10.140 - 10.150 sub band and all narrow digimodes (500 Hz
or less) in the 10.130 - 10.140, with 10.100 - 10.130 for CW. There is
no comment
The bands don't seem to be dead from north central U.S. I have used WWV
since I was around 12 years old and still do, almost on a daily basis.
Right now I can just barely hear WWV on 20 MHz, but 15 is S9 +10 dB, 10
MHz is S9 + 30 dB, and 5 MHz is S9 + 10 dB. I consider those signals to
be
Tony,
You have done the tests and found that MT-63 is not very good at
handling weak signals compared with other modes. Is you recent on air
testing to determine that or some other parameters, such as ability to
handle interference, etc.?
By the way copying both you near noise level, and
Did he ever explain the actual mode protocol? It seems that it is more
of an SSTV type of program although he does mention using it for high
speed data, and even goes on to mention the potential for future ARQ.
I suspect that that with the advent of RDFT and the earlier digital SSTV
programs
Here is my assessment of what is happening with the spread out of
digital modes, at least here in the U.S.:
Water holes have been established by default, for PSK31, the most
popular digital mode, and this tends to form the bottom of a digital
area. Then those of us who operate wider, more
We have been very fortunate to have Tony, K2MO's detailed lab testing to
figure out which modes work under different conditions and it has been
surprising, and actually a bit disappointing, because most digital modes
can only tolerate a small amount of ISI and Doppler.
I recently thought of
Truthfully, Christian, my goal is to find the modes that work the best
under different conditions. There are not that many.
The most common mode of PSK31 is not that good really, although is very
narrow and easy to tune and use. But it is not very robust. RTTY is not
the best for robustness
Some thoughts on VHF digital activity:
Since the main participants are likely to be from this group, could we
specify a spot frequency as well as mode?
Maybe use something above the calling frequency but not too close to the
phone operators? Perhaps 50.150 (easy to remember, HI)
Some might
Although I don't necessarily accept the idea that any of the modes,
digital or analog, can be considered inherently evil, my main concern is
whether they have value for various amateur interests.
Clearly, ragchewers, contesters, weak signal folks and all other niches
have their specific
John,
You have brought this up before, but I am like most hams and try to do
the right thing. I use wide modes, narrow modes, and in between modes.
Much depends upon who you are trying to contact and the current conditions.
If I want to work a PSK31 or CW station, then of course I will be
Good points, Dave,
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
only a small interest in any new digital technology. When I
I am not necessarily opposed to other hams using Pactor modes, but the
one issue that is consistently ignored seems to be the transmission of
fax/image data when using the wide bandwidth modes. If kept at 500 Hz or
less, the changes in the rules a few years back finally allows fax/image
to
What I would like to know is what negativity and misinformation was
even mentioned.
From now on lets be fair about making such statements by actually
quoting the alleged negative and misinformed statement so the rest of us
can make an informed decision whether such claims are even
Maybe some of you can help me with understanding the current digital
state of the art with NTS. Recently, there have been some NTS
yahoogroups formed for our region and the sections in that region. There
is no digital presence at this time, however, at least one ham I knew in
past years (now
Hi Dave,
I have heard of the use of MT-63 for many years on MARS circuits, but
don't think I had heard about the digital SSTV program being used. It
makes tremendous sense since they are often involved in sending
bulletins to their members. With one to many it is possible to have 100%
ARQ
In the grand scheme of things, the old MIL-STD-188-141A form that we can
legally use is very rare other than one group that sends out HF beacons.
I had hoped at one time that we could use this for public
service/emergency use but being one of the very few hams worldwide who
actually tried to
Andy brings up some very good points.
I concur that WINMOR, as used with Winlink 2000, will engender a great
deal more interest in using ham radio for e-mail. I know that I plan to
use this myself, especially building it into public service/emergency
communication. We have no way of accessing
Hard to respond as you did not indicate what you found confusing.
There is no question that WINMOR, if reasonably successful, will cause
an increase use of Winlink 2000, maybe even more than they might prefer,
HI. And it will also impact sales of SCS to a certain extent. As Patrick
pointed
The beta and software being developed in the foreseeable future will be
focused on Winlink 2000. It won't have a peer to peer function, unless
it is temporarily put there as we had with the SCAMP protocol some years
ago. Even then, they planned to remove PtoP once the software was made
If it is true that Yahoo will just stop a group based on complaints,
then that is very troubling as it could happen to any group with
malicious activities by certain individuals making false claims.
However, he indicated that he had no warning from Yahoo.
As owner of another group that had
Just so I understand it, are you saying that he repeatedly sent join
requests to the same person (such as yourself)?
I personally don't consider a request to join another group to be spam
at all, but each to his own. I do know that there have been individuals
who were very pleased to join the
While the Pactor 2 and 3 modes are quite good, they do use a constant
100 baud signaling rate. SCS indicated a number of years ago that their
tests showed that with what at that time, they considered strong DSP,
the desire for improved data throughput and I think resistance to
Doppler, the
Hi Wolf,
Be sure to keep us informed as to your results.
It is ironic that we can not use MIL-STD-188-110A type modulation here
in the U.S. HF ham bands, at least not in the text RTTY/Data areas, with
the requirement to keep the baud rate of any one tone no faster than 300
baud. The RFSM
, KV9U
Wolf, oe7ftj wrote:
Rick et al!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W mrf...@... wrote:
Hi Wolf,
Be sure to keep us informed as to your results.
Yes I will share our experiences here in the group.
It is ironic that we can not use MIL-STD-188-110A type modulation
I was able to contact Mark, WB9QZB, and he indicated that his yahoo
e-mail account and the group were disabled by Yahoo with no notice or
explanation.
It is very difficult to even contact Yahoo customer service, which is
offshore, but he is working through corporate in California to attempt
Hi Kevin,
Perhaps it might help to use the ITU three symbol Classification of
Emissions?
The first symbol considers the main carrier modulation with letters such
as A = DSB AM, B = independent sidebands, etc. This would give you the
AM modes and the F = FM and G = PM modulation types.
Then
There was a very nice comment in Steve Ford's Electic Technology column
about NBEMS.
He mentions that it is a suite of Windows sound card programs allowing
ARQ exchanges of messages, but one of the compelling features of fldigi
and flarq which make up the suite of programs, is that they work
What further information did you need, Tooner? There is no conflict with
using wide modes (FCC defined as up to the bandwidth of a communications
quality phone transmission) as long as the baud rate of an individual
tone does not exceed 300 baud.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tooner wrote:
whatever came
Rein,
Did you try Q15X25 but found it not effective?
What do you think about the Winmor protocols?
Any thoughts on PSK vs FSK vs QAM modes in terms of sensitivity, and
ability to handle ISI and Doppler, etc.?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rein Couperus wrote:
You just described the reason for
I am hearing the tones from Q15X25 but can not actually see them on the
waterfall or decode them. Also, have been trying to connect to VE5GPM,
but we are likely too close.
Am also calling CQ from time to time. If I understand the program
correctly, it sends a line when you press the 'enter'
Hi John,
Probably quite right about trying a lower band.
Because this is a wide bandwidth mode, I did some testing today to see
how well (or not) my ICOM 756 Pro 2 passes tones at various audio
frequencies and I discovered that it does not do very well with the
lower tones. I moved a PSK31
Instead of using the 2FSK300 mode of conventional packet, they use a
substitute 15 tone QPSK running at ~83 baud with 125 Hz separation of
tones.
Packet has a lot of value in terms of the framework that I often
mention, but the modulation is often extremely difficult for HF and this
has been
Q15X25 and other wide modes (voice communications bandwidth) are legal
here in the U.S., and if operated 10.140 to 10.150, also meet the IARU
Region 2 Band Plan recommendations (maximum 2700 Hz).
I am currently in contact with my wife for a couple of hours on HF (3620
LSB phone) as she travels
Hi John,
I think 15 days and then you are on the honor system but it keeps
working from what I think someone claimed.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
That only works for ten days or so then stops working right?
Don't know if I could learn the program and get the feel of the
mode
The previously mentioned web site should be a good one for set up:
http://www.wattystuff.net/amateur/packet/q15x25setup.htm
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
Any settings suggestions, using MiXW?
John
VE5MU
I did a search on Q15X25 and revisited the yahoogroup. And I now recall
that I asked some of the same questions a number of years ago when this
was first being tested because I was on that group for a short time, but
by then things had not gone well.
A number of people who were on that group
Oops, one correction:
Q15X25 actually is running at QPSK, not BPSK. So perhaps it is even more
similar to P3 than I thought.
de KV9U
Yes Maiko,
I expect to be around most of the day tomorrow. 14.109 is sometimes a
bit busy but we can use that as a baseline.
Was not familiar with that web site, so will tweak according to their
recommendations. I did make some changes I see from another source and
it concurs close to some of
effort on the
part of the present packeteers will bring in new users.
Enjoy.
73 Mark
--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Rick W mrf...@frontiernet.net wrote:
From: Rick W mrf...@frontiernet.net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] HF packet
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 4
PAX and PAX2 can only handle the 6 bit ASCII character set. We would
need at least a 7 bit ASCII character set for upper and lower case,
control characters, etc. If you only wanted to use it for something like
standard message traffic though it could be implemented since you can
then use it
I am set up with Q15X25 tonight. Anyone willing to test this? 20 meters
seems to be shutting down so maybe 40 meters (7088?)
Also, is there any way for Tony, K2MO, to test this mode with his
computer model so we can determine the limits of its ISI, Doppler, and
sensitivity?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Hi Mark,
I tuned to your recommended frequencies and although heard some packet,
it was rare to decode much. I did copy KC2GMM and WD9EKA and your call
in there over a few hours, but not much else. That was on 7100.5.
My question is what is your actual frequency, or at least the audio
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
