So far I am very impressed with NBEMS's performance..especially
considering it was not meant for non-NVIS HF pathsfor non-NVIS HF
paths you might consider lowering the FLARQ exponent parameter to 2
or 3it shortens frame length and makes for less re-tries.
Don't make the block
Hi all
I am playing with PSKAM10 on 14.074 -1000Hz now . Multipsk is in beacon
mode transmitting cq de LA5VNA every 30 sec . I am running only 5W.
Are you able to copy me?
73 de LA5VNA Steinar
Pactor and Packet spots and sked arranging are also welcome at
http://www.obriensweb.com.sked
Andy
On Jan 3, 2008 9:19 PM, vk4jrc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all Pactor Packet people,
Sholto, KE7HPV has been kind enough to put up a spot page for Pactor
Packet operators.
See
-
Typo, that should be http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
BBC News .
One laptop project dealt big blow
Intel has pulled out of a project to put cheap laptops in the hands of
children in the developing world.
Citing philosophical differences, Intel has withdrawn its funding
and technical help from the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project.
OLPC aimed to
Charles Brabham wrote:
Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response
from Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and
generally will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way.
The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that they
Mind you, I do have to pay attention to the difference between the
column marked DT and the one marked dB when sending a report - Ooops!
I'm having a problem coverting to the HF reporting system from the MS
one. Well, that is my excuse.
Dave (G0DJA)
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Dave , there is a well known WSJT phenomenon whereby one receives
FALSE CQs. When I first started using WSJT on HF and left on
overnight , I received a few CQs from Japan on 40M but I was on a
frequency that is not used in Japan.
That's why I *never* have deep search
Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from
Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and generally
will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way.
The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that they have a
god-given right to
Dave , there is a well known WSJT phenomenon whereby one receives
FALSE CQs. When I first started using WSJT on HF and left on
overnight , I received a few CQs from Japan on 40M but I was on a
frequency that is not used in Japan. As I mentioned in my Bozo'z
Guide To HF JT65A, this occurs
Can anyone point me at a page or reference to programmers / other hams not
being allowed to add Pactor 3 to their software?
This is a serious request, part of an attempt to remove Pactor 3 from our bands
on the basis of it being a 'closed system'.
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
Testing NBEMS 30M 10140 PSK31 flarq beacon as of 1400Z
John
VE5MU
Simon,
While not exactly what you were asking, the SCS website claims to own the
trademark Pactor, and gives limitations on the amount of connects their
product allows on P3 before user has to purchase a license.
They consider themselves the Pactor creators, and state it on thier site.
I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC
jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an
unavoidable evil...
Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor
in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS
I definitely kept the newer file, of course. My question was asking the
reverse, as maybe in some cases, the ones not having problems were the
ones who did not have the newer file on their computer. The newer
directX support apparently takes care of the older OCX OLE structure.
From what Skip
Hi all
Calling CQ in PSKAM10 on 10.136 -1000Hz now . Multipsk is in beacon mode
transmitting cq de LA5VNA every 30 sec .
I am running 100W
73 de LA5VNA Steinar
Nice analogy, John.
Dave
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Becker, WØJAB
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:34 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up.
Charles
please don't lump
Sorry, but I have to ask; What is wrong with some of you pactor guys ?
It is the QRM from untended stations that cause the main trouble,
NOT the net or system.
Strange that this is so difficult to understand after hundreds of
debates that often turn in to endless circular arguments. :(
Charles
please don't lump us good pactor operators in with
the PMBO operators. There is as much difference
as there is a house guest to a burglar.
At 08:44 AM 1/4/2008, you wrote:
Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from
Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed
Where and when is the testing of NBEMS and Flarq going on? I would like to
do some testing from here.
73
Ted W4ZE
Port St Lucie, FL
I fully agree. I have no problem with the mode or modulation. I wish I could
run Pactor-2 cheaply!
It is just the Pactor-3 bomb from unattended Winlink machines that
explodes over existing QSO's in the narrowband data areas that irritates me.
I am happy to put Jack's Pactor/Packet (kb-2-kb)
QSY 7033 USB and calling
Steinar Aanesland skrev:
Hi all
Calling CQ in PSKAM10 on 10.136 -1000Hz now . Multipsk is in beacon mode
transmitting cq de LA5VNA every 30 sec .
I am running 100W
73 de LA5VNA Steinar
So, anyone up to try these out on 30 or 20M? presently on 30
17:30Z
John
VE5MU
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC
jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an
unavoidable evil...
Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ
John I just started my beacon on 10.137 .I have on
message to send.
Russell
--- John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, anyone up to try these out on 30 or 20M?
presently on 30
17:30Z
John
VE5MU
=
IN GOD WE TRUST !
=
Russell Blair
In this case I'm fairly certain they're not false decodes. I finished
a JT65A QSO with KD5JGA on 80m 18 minutes prior to what you saw. He
started calling CQ again afterwards.
-Dan, AE9K
Dave , there is a well known WSJT phenomenon whereby one receives
FALSE CQs. . The 1 0 after the
Can anyone comment on the ARRL's HF Digital Handbook Fourth Edition
or CQ's Digital Modes For All Occassions by ZL1BPU?
I don't want to wait until Dayton (where I can thumb through these)
to determine whether they have sufficient explanation of modulation
and encoding schemes, design
I'm just jumping on the NBEMS bandwagon and am wondering if there's a
dedicated place for asking about NBEMS technical issues other than this
list.
Thanks,
John W2KI
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC
jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an
unavoidable evil...
Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ
At 12:44 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote:
Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from
Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and generally
will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way.
The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that
Propnet on 30m was very strong here. Around 1100 Hz when my transceiver was
set to 10.137, I think. Correct me if I am wrong, but nothing wrong with
working along side Propnet, just not on top of it. No problem - just wait
for a few minutes and if and when Propnet comes on, move over a few
Hi Simon,
I was wondering if you had thought about including Patrick's Reed Solomon
detection feature in DM780?
I realize DM780 doesn't have all the modes MultiPSK has, and DM780 has
Throb-X 4 baud which MultiPSK doesn't - but if you just had the recognition
part for the modes in common I think
I think it might make sense to use the SAME frequencies as Propnet. This
may make no sense at all to others, so what do you think. I would not want
to interfere with Propnet beacons since they perform a valuable service,
but if we are going to beacon, perhaps we should use the same frequency
At 09:01 AM 1/5/2008, Sholto wrote:
Hi Simon,
I was wondering if you had thought about including Patrick's Reed Solomon
detection feature in DM780?
I realize DM780 doesn't have all the modes MultiPSK has, and DM780 has
Throb-X 4 baud which MultiPSK doesn't - but if you just had the recognition
At 10:48 AM 1/4/2008, you wrote:
Nice analogy, John.
Sorry Dave, I just call em as I see em
Pronet came on and I was unable to print anything for
it, my beacon will be 10.137/1500hz, I have one single
short file in the folder for tranfer.
Russell
--- kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Propnet on 30m was very strong here. Around 1100 Hz
when my transceiver was
set to 10.137, I think.
The biggest problem with Pactor-3 in the U.S. is that it periodicly fuels a
desire to elimnate all digital modes with a similar bandwidth as the FCC would
never ban a specific product.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: Demetre SV1UY
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
My Question, is a beacon a beacon if is maned, or does
it have to be unmaned to be a beacon.
For me my beacon has not be on the air without being
here at the PC. So do we scrip the testing or find a
spot up on 10m.
Russell NC5O
=
IN GOD WE TRUST !
=
Russell
Aren't the PropNet operators monitoring their transmissions? Here in the
U.S. beacons are not permitted below the 10 meter band except for the
special international beacons. I realize that there are scofflaws (or
worse) operating outside the rules, but it does not seem wise to promote
this
Dave,
I was on 80m last worked Dan AE9K.Then I went back to calling CQ .I am on most
evening so look for me.Hope we can make a contact some night.
73 Eddie KD5JGA
- Original Message
From: AE9K [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008
At 10:56 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote:
My Question, is a beacon a beacon if is maned, or does
it have to be unmaned to be a beacon.
For me my beacon has not be on the air without being
here at the PC. So do we scrip the testing or find a
spot up on 10m.
Russell NC5O
=
IN GOD WE TRUST
Those who have considered implementing Pactor 2 and/or 3 report two
challenges:
1. The documentation provided is insufficient
2. The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with
real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide
#1 might be
RX only wouldn't need to worry about turnaround times.. Hmmm
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 5:23 pm, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
Those who have considered implementing Pactor 2 and/or 3 report two
challenges:
1. The documentation provided is insufficient
2. The turnaround time requirements
I would argue that the fuel for this is the irresponsible use of Pactor III
by Winlink in unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect whether or not
the frequency is locally clear - not some inherent flaw or suboptimal
characterics. In attended operation, Pactor III is a bit challenging in that
Hey Charles!
Me thinks you've got a rather broad brush being used here.
Someone says that PACTOR is dead..period. Another has said
that PACTOR is deadand if I was smart, I'd pitch my AEA unit
like everyone else.
You, speaking for Packet enthusiasts, say Packet operators won't
I have been calling CQ on 7077.5 P1.
Aren't all automatic transmission outside the auto subbands supposed to be
under the control of an operator present? If there is activity on the
frequency, then the assumption is that the control operator is not present
or he would not have allowed transmission.
Mark, where are you!
Skip
At 11:35 AM 1/5/2008, Dave wrote:
I would argue that the fuel for this is the
irresponsible use of Pactor III by Winlink in
unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect
whether or not the frequency is locally clear
not some inherent flaw or suboptimal
characterics. In attended operation,
- Original Message -
From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:58 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] for anyone that cares
I have been calling CQ on 7077.5 P1.
Hello, John.
Been listening around 0223Z - I just
Yeah I hear it also
Would not want to QRM them..
Hello, John.
Been listening around 0223Z - I just saw your message then - not
hearing you. There is some voice activity quite nearby but no
indication of your P1 signal.
Not sure when you started but, for what it's worth
At 11:45 AM 1/5/2008, Howard wrote:
Hey Charles!
Me thinks you've got a rather broad brush being used here.
Someone says that PACTOR is dead..period. Another has said
that PACTOR is deadand if I was smart, I'd pitch my AEA unit
like everyone else.
You, speaking for Packet
I am just talking about sending the FLARQ beacon while in the shack.
On Jan 4, 2008 11:09 PM, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The FCC is pretty clear on the definition of a beacon.
97.3 Definitions/ (9) Beacon/. An amateur station transmitting
communications for the purposes of
FRom Multipsk.
--Creation: in 2007
Description :
Baud rate : 250
Speed : 296 wpm in capital letters and 408 wpm in small letters (average)
Bandwidth : about 500 Hz,
Drift tolerance : 120 Hz/min in BPSK250 and 40 Hz/min in QPSK250
(depending on level)
Lowest S/N : -2 dB
The FCC is pretty clear on the definition of a beacon.
97.3 Definitions/ (9) Beacon/. An amateur station transmitting
communications for the purposes of observation of propagation and
reception or other related experimental activities.
Here are the frequency bands that they may be operated
Andrew,
Thank you for the info. It was exactly what I was looking for.
Ed K7AAT
Dial Broadband has arrived Nationwide! Up to 5 times faster than traditional
dialup connections from $13.33/month! See the demo for yourself at a
href=http://www.BigValley.net;www.BigValley.net/a
2008 ARRL RTTY Round-Up Rules
General Rules
1. Object: Amateurs worldwide contact and exchange QSO information
with other amateurs using digital modes (Baudot RTTY, ASCII, AMTOR,
PSK31, and Packet—attended operation only) on 80, 40, 20, 15, and 10
meter bands. Any station may work any other
Note, many differing digital modes are permitted not just RTTY
57 matches
Mail list logo
