Alan,
Thanks for taking the time for a comprehensive reply! Remembering what
happens during a contest with overcrowding made me wonder. The problem
is that, with stations operating all independently, it is difficult to
determine when throughput drops to the point it is not worth the effort.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, J. Moen j...@... wrote:
I think if 3 kHz SSB is ok, that 2.25 kHz modes (ROS as an example) should be
ok, as long as the frequencies chosen are prudent for the band and time of
time.
I agree, if people had more flexibility as to where to operate it
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow ml9...@... wrote:
Here we disagree somewhat. I would mostly agree for areas like 40m,
especially if multiple channels were used like ROS did. But I don't
agree that a new otherwise legal mode that is SSB width should be
excluded just because
.
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Alan Barrow
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:16 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
……..
All that said, I'm not expecting to see
Julian,
The other side of the coin is that we must share frequencies (because
there is limited space), so in order to do that, it is necessary to be
able to understand a request to QSY or a QRL. When there was only CW and
phone, this was always possible, but with digital modes, if you do not
I agree. Which is why people using ROS with a program that supported no other
mode (nor RSID) caused such a conflict with people running other software that
supported anything but ROS.
Julian, G4ILO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote:
Julian,
The other side of the
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
Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
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
%40pinztrek.com
Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
graham787 wrote:
So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not
performing a function of helping to re-create an error
I think that a lot of people are missing the point with ROS and Spread Spectrum
here in the US.
The author defined it as Spread Spectrum, only changing it to FSK144 (or
whatever) after being told that SS was not allowed below 1.25m in the US. The
FCC rules don't mention bandwidth in
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Hi Alan,
Why did you wait so long with contributing here?
Please explain.
++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book
page 5-2 ++
Spread Spectrum Fundamentals
SS systems employ radio
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
Hello Alan,
Thank you much for your reply.
To tell the truth, I did not subscribe to this group in those
beginning days ( posted only om ROSMODEM )
It is so sad, that because of the noise, anti ROS biases, agenda's intelligent
exchanges are just about impossible, pro and con.
( IMHO )
Very simple change just add ³greater than 3 khz² to the existing rules.
On 7/13/10 3:28 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that a lot of people are missing the point with ROS and Spread
Spectrum here in the US.
The author defined it as Spread Spectrum, only
with a law
so you don't have to follow it is not the right way.
Jim - K6JM
- Original Message -
From: rein...@ix.netcom.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
by the experts on
SS.
73 Rein W6SZ
-Original Message-
From: Alan Barrow ml9...@... mailto:ml9003%40pinztrek.com
Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow ml9...@... wrote:
- Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total
throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think
ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is
worse than a
So 10 times is not a property of SS. Yes
73 Rein W6SZ
-Original Message-
From: W2XJ w...@w2xj.net
Sent: Jul 13, 2010 8:46 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum
is entirely separate from the US legal
questions about SS modes on HF.
Jim - K6JM
- Original Message -
From: g4ilo
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:35 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
--- In digitalradio
Very well stated, separate questions.
73 Rein W6SZ
-Original Message-
From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com
Sent: Jul 13, 2010 6:37 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
This question of bandwidth for various modes and where
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
, AA6YQ
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of Alan Barrow
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:22 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
graham787 wrote:
So, if bits
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 collectively interfere
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
Hi Skip.
Hope you read it this time:
Both these QSO's were on JT. On 18 April we had a long test with
VK7MO on 23 cm. We tested a new digital mode called ROS on EME that has seen
some use on 144 EME. We saw one good decode from Rex in ROS.
We ran out of time and did not complete a QSO in
Hi Skip,
I like to see this ruling revisited by technical personal
within the FCC. The FCC, not ARRL. That's all.
Mr. Dan Henderson is a paid lawyer ( unusual for ARRL officials )
Enough said here. He is a liaison person for among other organizations, the
FCC.
He communicates, does
Just reached this :-
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
Yes, very good presentation and explanation...I actually understood it, well
kinda...73, Alan
@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Hi Skip,
I like to see this ruling revisited by technical personal
within the FCC. The FCC, not ARRL. That's all.
Mr. Dan Henderson is a paid lawyer ( unusual for ARRL officials )
Enough said here. He is a liaison
this really has to do with this case?
I am sorry.
73 Rein W6SZ
-Original Message-
From: Ford, Steve, WB8IMY sf...@arrl.org
Sent: Jul 12, 2010 6:42 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
I normally just lurk on this list, but I
PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
THAT was an EXCELLENT presentation!
THANKS! (and EE and Computer Scientist in an earlier life)
/paul W3FIS
or any documents attached hereto is
prohibited.
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Alan
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:36 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Yes, very good
33 matches
Mail list logo
