An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
You must configure your receiver without any king filter. ROS filter the
signal better than the transceiver.
Please: DONT APPLY FILTERS TO YOUR TRANSCEIVERS.
_
De: Ugo ugo.dep...@me.com
Para
You are right
De: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 01:19
Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
As i know it is about 2.5khz wide … so a “normal” ssb filter would work
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
CC: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 07:40
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
Hi All.
Just a question, and please, be patient if I'm asking this...
I'm a SWL and I
Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the
limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the robustness of the
waveform? If it makes a tremendous difference, maybe we should all work to get
it accepted.
Howard K5HB
Howard,
After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following:
1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend
contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not
desensitization due to AGC capture, as the ROS signals on the waterfall
did not
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, February 22, 2010 9:55:11 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the
limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the robustness of the
waveform? If it makes
:31
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
Howard,
After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following:
1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend contest
often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not desensitization due to
AGC capture
KH6TY wrote:
2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture
the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as
expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.
As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC switched
.
*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
Howard,
After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following:
1. CW
That is good, Dave, except for receivers that distort heavily when the
AGC is disabled. If you just use manual gain control, and reduce the
gain for strong signals, the effect is the same, only manual. You will
lose the weak station because you have reduced the gain and the
sensitivity. The
Please, give a frequency alternative to 14.101
De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 22:39
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
That is good, Dave, except for receivers that distort heavily when
Glenn L. Roeser wrote:
I would have to agree with Andy's observation that the 1 baud mode is as good
as using JT65a
With the advantage of being able to send more text in one transmission. It is
a very slow throughput though.
Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)
You have to be the patient sort, maybe a
*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 22:39
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
That is good, Dave, except for receivers that distort heavily when the
AGC is disabled. If you just use manual gain control
: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for others
around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS ROS activity
(according to the ROS documentation
to narrow
band modes.
The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency.
*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS
KH6TY wrote:
Jose,
I will be using 432.090 MHz because that is definitely legal for US
hams. I will be testing the effect of severe Doppler-induced fading and
flutter. We badly need a mode for 432 MHz that has good sensitivity and
can survive fast Doppler shifts, and I hope a FHSS mode
It seems unfair, especially because of all the hard work put in to
developing it, but I do not see it as any better than many other modes...
nothing that says gee...this is way better . It is GOOD, and a mode to
add to our bag of tricks, but not a killer app. The software interface is
very
Andy obrien wrote:
It seems unfair, especially because of all the hard work put in to
developing it, but I do not see it as any better than many other modes...
nothing that says gee...this is way better . It is GOOD, and a mode to
add to our bag of tricks, but not a killer app. The software
interference to narrow band modes.
The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency.
De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
The hflink
would the best option?
*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:46
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
I agree with Andy - try 14.109 USB next. ALE
in the transceiver. You must pass all
bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better
than you transceiver.
De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
Howard,
After monitoring 14.101
21 matches
Mail list logo
