[digitalradio] Re: Encomm error loading CD
Dave, Did you burn the ISO as a bootable disk, and not as just a data disk? Error, cannot find Puppy on 'cd' boot media. PUPMODE=1 PDEV1= Exited to initial-ramdisk(initramfs)commandline... (the Linux-guru can now debug. 'e3' editor is available) /bin/sh: can't access tty; job control turned off #_ Tnx for any help Dave KB3MOW 73, Skip KH6TY No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Encomm error loading CD
Charles, Have you tried adjusting Upper Signal Limit and Signal Range on the status bar to brighten the waterfall? Also, try moving the upper green slider further up. How are you driving the audio input of the soundcard? For example, if you drive it from the earphone output of a transceiver (either Line input or Mic input), you can just use the volume control on the transceiver and get any amount of visibility on the waterfall you want. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Charles Brabham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Encomm error loading CD It all installed OK for me - after a lengthy pause during bootup that I thought was a frozen up computer. Patience paid off! My problem is that the soundcard does not send enough audio to the waterfall display, only barely flickering the first two bars in the waterfall display color setup. - The tuning scope goes crazy, indicating a station and copying signals just fine, but the waterfall stays almost completely blank unless there is a really strong signal, which will barely light up the second color bar for the waterfall, showing a faint trace... I can pull the disk, reboot the machine in Win98 and all my waterfall programs work just fine... DigiPan, MixW, AltCast, etc.. That's the problem with Linux boot disks... - You've got about a 50-50 chance that it is going to work on any particular machine. If it doesn't work, your chances of fixing the problem are like, 'slim or none'. Having said that, I recognize that my problem reflects some peculiarity about my old 400 Mhz Celeron that Puppy Linux cannot deal with. The software itself works very well, from what I can tell with almost no waterfall data. It's kind of like the slots... Keep trying different machines out, and sooner or later you are going to hit the jackpot. That's what I intend to do on this end. Looking over the NBEMS package, I am very impressed with the entire package, and I really like 'puppy linux', so much that I switched over from DSL linux, my former favorite. I think its well worth a little extra effort because it is a great system. http://www.w1hkj.com/emcpup.html 73, Charles Brabham, N5PVL USPacket No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1098 - Release Date: 10/29/2007 9:28 AM
Re: [digitalradio] PSK63 activity!
Yes, it is very gratifying to see it finally take off a little. Now, if we can only convince the RTTY contest sponsers to specifically include and mention PSK63, or hopefully even give it a multiplier to encourge folks to try it... What I noticed is that the turnover speed rivaled RTTY, with exchanges so fast that simultaneous multichannel decoding and display was almost essential to see who to call. Of course, it is the narrow bandwidth of PSK63 that makes that possible. Maybe a similar American-sponsored PSK63 QSO Party would bring out more stateside stations. Many thanks to Andy for helping launch PSK63! 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: DIGITALRADIO digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: [digitalradio] PSK63 activity! I assume that Skip will be happy. His PSK63 efforts appear to be paying off, the activity in this year's EPSK PSK63 QSO Party was quite high. At one time, I counted 15 simeukatenous QSO's in my 20M waterfall. Again, European activity seemed quite high compared to North American. I saw no Asian or South Pacific stations but did see reports of some ANZAC activity. FYI, here are a few of the stations my antenna captured...(not worked) N3WT United States 14,073.1 PSK63 2007-18-11 18:19K3UK PSK63 36 K6MKF United States 14,073.7 PSK63 2007-18-11 18:26K3UK PSK63 34 K7RE United States 14,072.6 PSK63 2007-18-11 18:27K3UK PSK63 44 K0SZ United States 14,075.3 PSK63 2007-18-11 17:59K3UK PSK63 50 CT3EE Madeira Island 14,074.1 PSK63 2007-18-11 17:28K3UK PSK63 50 N5ARA United States 14,072.4 PSK63 2007-18-11 18:58K3UK PSK63 39 AC5ZS United States 14,073.3 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:06K3UK PSK63 12 KF2GQ United States 14,073.6 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:13K3UK PSK63 46 W6LED United States 14,075.1 PSK63 2007-18-11 18:30K3UK PSK63 24 NC5O/QPR/5WUnited States 14,073.6 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:19K3UK PSK63 36 VA7KOJ Canada 14,075.5 PSK63 2007-18-11 18:16K3UK PSK63 0 J39BS Grenada14,073.6 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:12K3UK PSK63 38 N5PU United States 14,075.1 PSK63 2007-18-11 18:46K3UK PSK63 51 VE9DX Canada 7,038.8 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:26K3UK PSK63 56 SP7IIT Poland 7,037.7 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:27K3UK PSK63 7 KF3AA United States 7,037.5 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:31K3UK PSK63 44 S51MA Slovenia7,037.3 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:47K3UK PSK63 6 CT4DK Portugal7,038.4 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:47K3UK PSK63 38 AO1OS Spain 7,039.2 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:53K3UK PSK63 37 OK1VSL Czech Republic 7,038.8 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:47K3UK PSK63 42 ON8UM Belgium 7,037.7 PSK63 2007-18-11 20:00K3UK PSK63 47 CT3Madeira Island 7,038.8 PSK63 2007-18-11 20:09K3UK PSK63 38 CN8YZ Morocco 7,038.3 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:59K3UK PSK63 43 DK8VQ Germany 7,037.9 PSK63 2007-18-11 20:17K3UK PSK63 30 CT3BD Madeira Island 7,038.8 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:45K3UK PSK63 38 G4KMH England 7,038.5 PSK63 2007-18-11 20:19K3UK PSK63 40 CN8KD Morocco 7,038.1 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:49K3UK PSK63 0 OP3A Belgium 7,039.2 PSK63 2007-18-11 20:19K3UK PSK63 16 WP3UX Puerto Rico 7,036.6 PSK63 2007-18-11 19:58K3UK PSK63 37 RU3QR European Russia 7,038.5 PSK63 2007-18-11 20:25K3UK PSK63 44 N9FTC/4United States 14,074.7 PSK63 2007-18-11 20:26K3UK PSK63 40 W5VGR United States 14,074.4 PSK63 2007-18-11 20:28K3UK PSK63 24 W1MNY United States 14,074.7 PSK63 2007-18-11 20:28K3UK PSK63 37 CQ7EPC
Re: [digitalradio] PSK63 activity!
Because it does a better job than rtty (less fills) in less space. If everyone used PSK63 instead of RTTY, there would not be so many complaints by non-contesters about having so little space to use during contests. A PSK63 stations signal, operated linearly, takes up only 1/5 the space of a RTTY signal. Isn't accomplishing the same job in less bandwidth what we should all be trying to do in an ever more crowded world? It is not like adding CW to a phone contest because both RTTY and PSK63 are keyboard modes. Phone and CW are not. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 8:21 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSK63 activity! At 07:10 PM 11/18/2007, you wrote: Yes, it is very gratifying to see it finally take off a little. Now, if we can only convince the RTTY contest sponsers to specifically include and mention PSK63, Skip with all due respect. why ? It's not RTTY. Would this not be like adding CW to a side band contest? Or vice verse. John, W0JAB No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1135 - Release Date: 11/16/2007 10:58 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: PSK63 activity!
Maybe the FCC rules that say the minimum power needed for the communication should be used also say that the minimum bandwidth needed for the communication should be used! Of course, there is more to it than just that, as multi-tone modes, such as MFSK16 or Olivia, etc, use more bandwidth in order to better handle fading (and atmospheric doppler), but with an increased latency that make them impractical for RTTY-type contesting with fast exchanges. PSK63 is a reasonable compromise, and can be run at 1500 watts as well as at 20 watts, as long as the amplification is kept linear, and the equipment can handle a 90% duty cycle. The rationale for this is quite basic. For example, the phone bands have just been expanded to accomodate more phone operators, at the expense of CW and digital operating space. Therefore, if the minimum bandwidth for the communication is used (by using PSK63 instead of RTTY, for example), there will more room for CW and other digital modes. In the case of RTTY, the communication using PSK63 is very, very, similar to using RTTY on a computer, except that PSK63 uses only about 1/5 the space of RTTY. The speed of PSK63 is 100 wpm vs RTTY of generally 60 wpm, but the extra speed is needed to compensate for the preamble and postamble of the mode, so that during contest exchanges, the total exchange and turnover times are roughly the same. PSK63 supports both upper and lower case, but RTTY only supports upper case. However, PSK63 can also be typed and sent in all upper case if desired. The comparison between RTTY and other digital modes is not nearly as close as the comparison between RTTY and PSK63, so that supports the possiblity that PSK63 can easily replace RTTY from a communication standpoint, and do it in less bandwidth with a smaller error rate (due the to quicker synchronization of PSK63), and with less power for the same distance (due to the more narrow bandwidth and therefore better S/N). The main caveat is that RTTY is better than PSK63 under multipath or atmosphic doppler conditions. For these conditions, modes like Olivia and MFSK16 are more the equal of RTTY, or even better. With a properly designed receiver (especially one that reduces AGC capture by adjacent signals), more signals in the passband can be observed at one time with PSK63 than with RTTY. I started with RTTY in 1956 with a Model 26 green-key machine, upgraded to a Model 15 and later to a Model 19 with reperf, and enjoyed RTTY immensely. I still miss the smell of the machine oil and the newsroom clatter of the Model 15, and that is still available to those who have to have it, but for the purpose of pure RTTY-type communication (and constests), the benefits of PSK63 generally outweigh the benefits of RTTY, and would free up more space for non-contesters during contests if RTTY were totally replaced by PSK63. This is why I think there should be more encouragement to use PSK63 for contests, including RTTY contests. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:42 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: PSK63 activity! This is also rationalization. The ability to provide disaster communications entails many skills. Good contesting is virtually meaningless to that skill set. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 6:26 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: PSK63 activity! However, if there is any practical reason for contesting other than vanity and ego, it would be learning to become better operators. In doing this, we make the best use of spectrum in preparation for serving others as a partial payment for the spectrum that was awarded to us for doing this public service when called upon to do so. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 12:35 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: PSK63 activity!
Hi Rud, Operating skill may not be the prime consideration. Contesters also strive for the most effective stations in order to try and win. For DX contests, this truly may mean low angles of radiation, but for SS contests, the avid contester may utilize several antennas with different angles or radiation, such as both dipoles and verticals, and use both in a contest. In fact, a group from here just make a Dxpedition to the Bahamas and brought back pictures of both horizontal and vertical antennas. I myself have both verticals and dipoles (no HF beams) at my own QTH, depending on where I want to operate. In any case, as you know, emergency communications utilizes people at fixed locations as well as those in an emergency center or disaster site. In general, the ARRL Field Day is considered useful for setting up equipment in temporary locations and proving out the equipment as it might be used in an emergency. Although not described as a contest, it is widely considered to be one, and points and multipliers are earned for each successful QSO, just as in contests. I think any activity that prepares an operator or station to assist in emergency communications is worthwhile and includes preparation for contests as well as proving out equipment setups during contests. Operating skills for contests are definitely different from those need for emergency communications, though. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:19 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: PSK63 activity! How much skill is needed to recognize the few symbols transferred during a contest exchange? Does that translate to general transfer of information? Contesters specialize and tune their equipment. Does that translate into the ability to quickly rig a dipole at an emergency center? The former EC for my county is a contester. He recognizes the difference in skills. I tried to communicate on HF with him a few weeks ago. I had just got my fence dipole antenna installed. He and I could not communicate. I was able to communicate with others in the county. His contesting setup just went right over my head since it was focused for DX. He probably would have done better with his backup antenna stapled to the rafters in his attic. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 1:07 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: PSK63 activity! Rud, I am surprised you would make such a statement since the skills of being able to hear properly and transfer that skill to correctly copy and record the messages is exactly the same skill needed as a contester. You must have a high level of accuracy in each activity to do well. Most contesters also tend to also be fairly conversant with the technical side of amateur radio, typically well above the average ham participating in emergency communications. They are much more knowledgeable about antennas, rigs, interconnections, efficiency, etc. Many (most?) of the operators involved in emergency communications tend to be newer Technician class licensees with very limited experience. In fact, this is so pronounced that leadership here in our Section tends to focus on technologies that dovetail with those kinds of limitations. 73, Rick, KV9U Rud Merriam wrote: This is also rationalization. The ability to provide disaster communications entails many skills. Good contesting is virtually meaningless to that skill set. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 12:35 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Sound Card Interfacing.
I am wondering if it is possible to use one of these USB headsets as my sound interface to my TS-480S/AT, with some modification (cut the headset off). Kevin, you can use use a USB sound adapter from Geeks.com http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=HE-280Bcat=GDT It works great. If you have any feedback or ground loop problems, just insert an isolation transformer in the transmit audio line. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400 ?
Patrick, It is my understanding that 7040 in the US and 7035 in Europe are both QRP watering spots where many are using crystal control, low power, and cannot relocate. Is ALE400 at 7037.5 going to straddle both of those frequencies? Hereafter is a non exhaustive list of the ALE400 frequencies (proposed by Bonnie): 1837.0, 3589.0, 7037.5, 10141.5, 14074.0, 14094.0, 18104.5, 21094.0, 24926.0, 28146.0, 50162.5, 144162.5 (AF at 1625 Hz). The complete list of frequencies is on http://hflink.com/ale400;. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400 ?
Patrick, It is my understanding that 7040 in the US and 7035 in Europe are both QRP watering spots where many are using crystal control, low power, and cannot relocate. Is ALE400 at 7037.5 going to straddle both of those frequencies? No, it will not. My mistake! I was thinking about 4000 Hz wide, not 400 Hz wide ALE. Please disregard. Skip
Re: [digitalradio] 30 Meter digital
It is my belief that if voice of the same bandwidth were allowed everwhere data is allowed, the data segments of the bands would be overrun with phone stations using DV. Phone is the easiest to operate and obviously the preferred mode. During the bandwidth petition discussions, it became clear that the phone people wanted to take over as much space as they could, which is understandable, since the phone bands are always overcrowded. I don't pretend to know the real reasoning behind the FCC determination that DV is phone (just like analog voice), but practically, it currently serves to protect digital mode operators from being overrun by a multitude of phone operators. In light of the fact that you can sometimes copy an analog phone signal through another analog phone signal, but cannot do that with DV, I think we are fortunate that the FCC has taken the position they have. Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 30 Meter digital My use of the band is mostly based upon propagation and, as you pointed out, minimal competition with other stations. This is particularly important with non-cw digital modes since they are typically much wider than cw and can not tolerate too much overlap in interference. Here in the U.S. could you use it for digital voice? The FCC made a determination that DV and analog voice are considered ... voice, and since voice is not permitted on the band for us, we could not use such a mode. Which is a bit strange when you consider that someone listening to the raw data would have no way of knowing if it was voice or other kind of of data. Even if we move toward bandwidth, rather than mode bandplans, it appears that modes will still play an important part. And in the past few months, I would have to say that I am much less supportive of segregation by bandwidth since many of the modes simply do not play well together. In particular, digital modes are severely impacted by even slight interference from modes such as SSB voice. This has become more noticeable on bands such as 40 meters with stations outside of the U.S. going down low in the band, even in what has been mostly digital data watering holes. For daytime range, the 30 meter band goes farther than 40 meters, so 1000 mile contacts are quite reasonable. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: I was reading the 30M Digital Group web page ( http://www.30meterdigital.org/ ) and thinking a bit... Much of what is posted there makes sense to many of the people that are avid users of the digitalradio Yahoo group. The band is not crowded with contests, there is less competition with other modes, etc, etc. So, perhaps we can make more of an effort to use this band, Has anyone tried it for Digital Voice. ? Also, what typical range does the band afford in daylight and evening conditions? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.6/1192 - Release Date: 12/21/2007 1:17 PM
Re: [digitalradio] 30 Meter digital
Rick, I prefaced my comment with It is my belief that if voice of the same bandwidth were allowed everwhere data is allowed, the data segments of the bands would be overrun with phone stations using DV. Perhaps it is not clear what I meant. For example, if someone comes up with a DV of 300 hz bandwidth, it will quickly be widely used anywhere 300 hz bandwidth signals are allowed, and the crush of phone users will leave little space for modes like MFSK16 of the same bandwidth to operate, simply because there will be so many people wanting to use phone instead of another digital mode, like MFSK16, but that is just my personal belief. If there were a DV mode the same width as PSK31, then the same would prove true, except that there are more spaces to use PSK31, because of its narrow bandwidth, than there are digital operators looking for space (right now, but changing). In fact there already is a sort of narrowband DV in my DigiTalk program for the blind, which speaks the PSK31 text (at 50 wpm text-to-speech), but, because going the other way (speech-to-text), still has a 5% translation error rate at best, speaking must still be done by typing, and that is a deterrent to many who might use PSK31 if they could just speak into a mike and have errorless text go out over the air. As you point out, some sort of planned segregation is going to be inevitable on shared bands. With phone and CW, there was a common language for everyone, and sharing was possible by QRL or other Q signals on CW or the equivalent on phone, but that sharing technique is useless when one mode does not hear or understand another. We have yet to experience what it will be like if everyone uses DV, there is not enough space to hold everyone, and someone accidentally starts up on your frequency because propagation was such he thought it was clear and did not happen to choose an alternate clear frequency he could QSY to if he could just understand a request to do so. I believe the thing that makes it possible for PSK31 to have a space, for example, is only that there is no true 31.25 Hz-wide phone mode. Of course, the more narrow the mode, the more stations that will fit in any given slice of spectrum, so it is advantageous to have the most narrow modes possible so there is room for as many stations as possible. At some point, there will be plenty of space, depending upon the demand, even if everyone used a voice mode that is only 31.25 Hz wide. For example, if every RTTY contester only used PSK63, there would probably be more than enough space so that during contests, RTTY stations would not have to spread out so much. There was a psychological experiment some years ago in which scientists set up two cages of rats, one overcrowded and one just at capacity. The rats in the overcrowded cage ate each other until they were no longer overcrowded. Skip KH6TY It is almost for sure that if the FCC equated DV as being similar to any other digital mode, that DV would not take over the ever decreasing size of the text digital portions of the HF bands. There are several reasons: - the lower portions of the bands, historically used for the earliest text digital mode based on wetware decoding will likely see further reductions in that mode (CW), except during contest periods since almost no new hams are acquiring even basic CW skills, much less proficiency. This will allow for more space for text digital, assuming that text digital will be segregated in that manner. - since DV is likely to never be competitive with analog SSB for weak signals as analog due to the practical limitations of science. - if digital modes did increase in popularity, which would primarily be voice DV, there would be tremendous pressure to segregate digital and analog modes by a sizable majority of radio amateurs. And it works both ways, as you well noted, analog SSB is a serious hindrance to digital modes in general. - some phone bands are underutilized now, such as on 80 meters, with few stations on the lower end of the voice sub bands and yet CW and digital can be quite crowded in a space that is well under half of what we previously had. (And I admit was underutilized with that mix too). Unless we eventually go to bandwidth based bandplans, and at the same time do not segregate by mode (especially voice modes, whether analog or digital), then it would be entirely appropriate for hams to use narrow voice modes for spectrum conservation and do it in the appropriate bandwidth areas. Based upon comments made by Dave Sumner in the past, I am not sure that will be supported by ARRL, since he seems to suggest that even if we have bandwidth limits, we will not necessarily mix modes. In fact, it was at that point that I was no longer as supportive of the withdrawn ARRL proposals, because it will still not allow us the ability to use voice and data intermixed on the HF bands (even if only in small
Re: [digitalradio] 30 Meter digital
Rick, comprehension. But let's say a miracle occurs and you could get greatly improved quality with a narrow bandwidth. If that happened, we would see a migration to the narrower voice modes which will free up a lot of bandwidth. That is the hoped-for goal. How we are able to handle modes that cannot communicate sharing has to be developed. As you point out, there are hams who read the text back with a voice and it has been around for many years. If you recall, not long ago (year or so?) there was a QST article about a ham sending PSK31 via a speech to text conversion so that is also being done, at least on a limited basis. I worked him on the air by accident and was very impressed, until I emailed him and he admitted to editing the text to take out the errors before sending! :-) A 5% error rate means one word in 20 is going to be pronounced wrong. I rarely get involved in contesting, but it appears that RTTY works better for fast exchanges. At least it may be perceived that way. I have tried PSK31 for casual quick contacts such as Field Day and found it impractical for me to work many stations compared to voice. That is why we devoloped PSK63 - for contesting speed equal to RTTY, but with less fills and less bandwidth consumption. It is just as fast as RTTY overall. I have not tried PSK63, (other than casual tests) but hope to use this for a very different purpose when the MS Windows version is made available for the emergency communication program that is currently being used on Linux. Are you personally involved in that project as you were with the Linux version? Yes, I am the project manager and co-developer. Everything is looking good and almost ready for beta testing to uncover any problems that have not shown up yet. I am also net control for a 2m PSK63 ragchew net on 144.144 MHz, USB,1500 Hz tone frequency, which has been meeting twice a week for over a year and a half now. We use PSK63 instead of FM for greater range and instead of PSK31 for better multipath interference resistance and less drift problems. We use the extra speed for net control to replay all incoming transmissions at 100 wpm, so that everyone on the net gets to know what anyone else has said in case they are not in a station's beampath. There is no directional calling by net control as there is on other VHF nets. All stations beam toward net control, and I use a special high-gain, bidirectional, horizontally-polarized antenna covering 88 degrees to the front and 88 degrees to the back so everyone is able to copy me without my having to rotate. Most people type about 20 wpm and for about 2 minutes on their turn, so it takes only 24 seconds on the average to retransmit the incoming text for all to enjoy. Range using PSK63 is 100 to 200 miles, depending upon the elevation and antenna gain of the distant station. This is another thing PSK63 is good for. The European PSK Club, which heavily promotes PSK63, just finished their annual 24-hour QSO party on November 18 and the passband was filled with PSK63 stations for 24 hours. Andy can elaborate. You might give it a try next time and compare the speed of exchanges to RTTY contests, of which there are many. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Building a USB Sound Interface
Kevin, Geeks.com, and maybe others, sells a USB sound adapter for $4.99 ( http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=HE-280Bcat=GDT ) which works great here as the basis for an interface. Just make up an audio cable to your transceiver microphone input and just use VOX for PTT. If the audio level is too high, add a simple resistive attenuator as outlined in the DigiPan Help. Some transceivers need a 1:1 audio isolation transformer in that line, and some do not. This is about as inexpensive as you can get for an interface. Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Gmail - Home [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:35 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Building a USB Sound Interface Hi All, Stra nge question I am sure, but please bare with me. I like to build a lot of my own gear, allows me to learn new things along the way, it also saves a heap of money considering the prices some of the interfaces are costing. I have so far been using a soundcard and direct connection to my TS-480S/AT, with a small interface. Now I want to go a little further and build a slightly better one, but I want to build one with a usb connection so it makes a quick changeover. I have looked through Google with little success, so I am asking does anyone know where one could find information on building a USB sound w/interface? If not I will have to stick with my current interface. Thanks and A Merry Christmas/Season Greetings from Sunny NZ. Kevin, ZL1KFM. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.6/1192 - Release Date: 12/21/2007 1:17 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Digest Number 3730
I filed my comments today on Mark's petition, which is very well written and logical, and encourage everyone else who values space to work without interference from email robots also to do so. Merry Christmas to all! Skip KH6TY Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
Demetre, I think you did not read carefully what Dave wrote and you quoted. He said, Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether or not the frequency is *LOCALLY* clear. This means that if a PMBO is next door to me ( i.e. locally) and I am in a QSO that the client cannot hear, the PMBO will transmit anyway on top of me because the PMBO cannot detect signals in any mode except Pactor, even it busy channel detection is not turned off. Even though I may be strong at the PMBO location, but weak, or even not detectable at all at the client location, the PMBO will transmit anyway in response to a client station that cannot hear me. This is the problem with unattended stations. When stations on both ends are attended, each can hear a station local to itself, so the chances of inadvertant QRM to a local station are probably cut in half. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 4:56 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to detect Pactor signals, but they cannot detect signals in any other mode. 73, Dave, AA6YQ You said that, but the clients always listen OM. After all we do not live in a perfect world and if there is a little QRM, you can always blame the client if this is what you are after. You can report the client to your FCC and they can pull his/her ear, if it makes you happy!!! 73 de SV1UY No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1197 - Release Date: 12/25/2007 8:04 PM
[digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
Hi Demetre, We are looking forward to your explanation as to how an unattended PMBO, very near to a local station (and which local station, that the far away client cannot even detect), and running a mode other than Pactor, will refuse to transmit over the local station's QSO if queried by the far away client. It is easy to understand how this can happen on 20m where many use directional beam antennas. The local station does not even have to very local to the PMBO, but beaming in its direction for his QSO with a station in the direction of the PMBO, so that the client is off the side of the beam pattern. An operator at the PMBO could easily detect the beaming station, perhaps even over S9, but the client, being off the side of the beam, detects nothing and thinks the frequency is clear. This is critical to the problem of understanding how unattended stations can mix with attended stations on shared bands, and your explanation would be very much appreciated! Thanks in advance, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
I am quoting here my reply to DAVE about his Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PACTOR PMBO frequencies for your information! That shows you exactly the attitude of some people against anything they dislike and how they act. If the Pactor PMBOs activated any DCD mechanism, people like Dave would sit there all day to deliberately cause QRM with their Anti-Radiation missiles tuned to the PACTOR PMBO frequencies, as he said, and cause havoc. Is this kind of QRM accepted by you? What about this Skip? Is this justified? Tell me what works perfectly on HF and if we manage to correct them all then PACTOR will follow and I believe the PMBOs will have no problem finding a way to implement a DCD mechanism. Demetre, Of course it is not justified! The point is that on shared bands, like our amateur bands, no machine can take the place of human intelligence to negotiate a fair sharing or use of a frequency, just like no software can figure out the meaning of sloppy CW sending by including the context of the QSO, as a human can. I am not in favor of busy signal detectors as a solution, both for the reason you cite, and because the clients can just disable them. The solution lies in separation of unattended operations from attended operations, with the space allocated to unattended operations in proportion to their representation in the ham community, if unattended operations are to be permitted at all. That proportion is currently about 1% of the US amateur population or about 0.3% of the worldwide amateur population, but already the FCC allocates 3.5% of the HF band spectrum to unattended activity, which is obviously more than fair. I am in favor of hams being able to use unattended operations as long as they are kept apart from other ham operations and in a space proportional to their representation. It is pointless to argue which use of a ham band is more important, as that depends upon each individual's interests. However, unattended operation is contrary to the recreational use of shared bands, because one half of a communication with an unattended station cannot share. If it is to be allowed, then it must be in a place where it cannot interfere with persons that are capable of negotiating for a frequency on a fair basis. Unattended stations cannot negotiate. To you, Winlink 2000 is a valuable resource, as it is to others. With proper management, such as eliminating wasteful scanning, for example, and using only narrow modes for small size messaging, there is more than enough space in the 3.5% of ham spectrum for unattended operations for those who need them. Peter Martinez is correct in that the system design of Winlink 2000 is not consistent with shared bands, but that should be an incentive to develop a system that can, instead of constantly try to dominate more and more space to avoid interference by spreading out. Replace unattended stations with live operators and the sharing problem is resolved, and messaging can take place anywhere the mode itself is permitted. If that is not done, the unattended stations need to stay in a space in proportion to their representation in the ham community in order to help relieve congestion to those who are capable of sharing spectrum. Have a Happy New Year! 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Demetre, It might help to visualize the interference problem caused by unattended PMBO stations like this analogy: A Winlink client, triggering a WinlinkPMBO to transmit, is like remotely triggering a bomb blast without any way to guarantee that the area around the bomb is clear. Winlink 2000 is a very useful resource, but unless confined to a small section of each band, where there are only other Winlink 2000 stations, it has no place on shared amateur bands, because it cannot play by the rules of sharing, unless the PMBO is manned 24/7 with someone at the PMBO location always listening to the band for existing activity before allowing the PMBO to transmit. The lack of this operator presence is responsible for all the QRM complaints directed at Pactor stations. Shortly after the first of the year, we will announce, on this reflector, the first Windows beta version of our NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System software suite primarily for Emcomm use, reliably spanning disaster zones up to 100 miles - not for sailors far at sea - Winlink is better for that, and which achieves roughly the same average throughput as posted daily on the Winlink site (95% Pactor-III), but in a bandwidth of only around 300 Hz. No email robots are used, as the system design *requires* that there be an operator at both ends to check for activity before using the frequency. The soundcard is the modem, and no other TNC is required. I am hoping that the members of this list will like to serve as beta testers, try the system with each other, and send feedback to us so that we may improve the system as much as possible. Please reserve comments until after you have used the system. We wish you and everyone else a happy and prosperous New Year! 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] NBEMS available for beta testing
The NBEMS development team is pleased to announce the availability of a Windows NBEMS software suite for beta testing. The NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System (NBEMS) for Windows is a suite of software programs designed for point-to-point, fast, error-free, emergency messaging up to or over 100 miles distant, and takes up a very minimum of space on the ham bands, leaving more space for all other ham activites. The system is designed primarily for use on the two-meter band, or on HF with NVIS antennas, where there is a minimum of fading (QSB) to slow down message transfers. Two meters has the advantage that distances long enough to span disaster areas of up to 100 miles can be dependably covered with small, portable antennas. In hilly regions, if two meters is not workable over the distances required, NVIS antennas on HF can be employed instead, but are not nearly as portable. The system uses the computer soundcard as the modem and, other than a simple interface connection between the computer and transceiver, no additional hardware is needed. Composing and sending emergency messages on NBEMS utilizes the same Outlook Express, Outlook, or Windows Mail, email program used for Internet email, and is no more difficult than sending an email over the Internet. Messages just go over the radio instead, when the Internet, phone service, or repeater system is not locally reachable in an emergency. PSK63, PSK125, or PSK250 is used to modulate either two-meter SSB, or HF SSB transmitters, using horizontally polarized antennas for greatest range. Two meters is unique in that the propagation is more constant than on the lower bands from 6 meters on down, range is greater, and absorption less, than on the lowest UHF band, 70 cm, so much wider modes, that handle QSB by continuing to work far below the noise level, are not needed. This point-to-point system does not utilize repeaters, or email robots, for message forwarding. All forwarding is always done by stations manned by live operators on both ends, who can comfirm that a frequency is clear locally, negotiate a QSY if necessary to avoid causing interference, and confirm delivery of a message by the intended recipient. The system depends upon a multitude of radio amateurs providing the traditional public service function, similar to the way they always have, and gives more hams a chance to help out with emergency communications without requiring a large hardware investment. The software can also be used for daily casual communications on PSK31, PSK63, RTTY, or MFSK16 and is capable of sending flawless, high resolution, passport photo-sized color images, in less than 10 minutes over any path that can sustain PSK250 without excessive repeats. All the members on this digitalradio reflector are invited to participate in the beta test of the NBEMS. The NBEMS suite can be downloaded for beta testing from: http://w1hkj.com/NBEMS/ . Please give the system a try and send comments and bug reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Happy New Year to you all! The NBEMS Development Team Skip, KH6TY Dave, W1HKJ
Re: [digitalradio] Help file error in VBdigi
Thanks, Andy. Will check this right away. Skip - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: DIGITALRADIO digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 10:08 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Help file error in VBdigi Dave/Skip When I attempt to minimize the help files, I get a run time error (350) -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1206 - Release Date: 1/1/2008 12:09 PM
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS available for beta testing
Kevin, I think you can trust this setup.exe. It is a Microsoft-generated installation program that only adds a few Microsoft DLL's to your system and installs the program files we have created. I'd go ahead and make an exception for this particular setup.exe. Skip KH6TY ZoneAlarm Security Suite has blocked setup.exe from creating a new process. If you trust setup.exe and believe it requires a process to be created, then you may want to change the Trust Level of this program. It is also possible that the attempt to create a process was malicious in nature. In that case, you should not change the Trust Level so that your system will continue to be protected. This is the first time that this has occurred on a great number of Setup exe's Consequently I am reluctant to proceed further. Any help appreciated Kevin VK5OA
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS setup
I'm trying to follow the instructions in VBdigi under Help-Radio email setup. I navigate to C:\NBEMS\Mail I put the mouse pointer on the ARQout folder and hold down the right mouse button and try to drag it to the menu bar at the bottom of the screen, and I get the slashed-circle not symbol. (and all my open windows get minimized). Right-click on the Taskbar and see if Quick Launch is checked. If not, check it. It sound like you are trying to drag it to the Taskbar and not the Quick Launch toolbar. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Text message passed ok via VBdigi texas to KH6 land
Hi Russ, Sorry I have to rain on the parade, but I am now in South Carolina, and no longer in Hawaii. :-( However, what is significant is that even with band conditions degrading rapidly, you managed to send me a message using Flarq, and it was received flawlessly with only one repeated block. I was running 10 watts to a 20m inverted Vee in my attic (on 30m!) to your 5 watts with a Butternut in the side yard. Band was going out, but because we were using ARQ, the message came through without an error, even though the raw text on VBdigi had errors. If I had a 30m antenna, I would have been much stronger. I am amazed we could had a QSO at all, under such poor conditions! You are my first totally random ARQ QSO using the NBEMS, and I connected with your beacon signal, so I am very gratified with the result tonight! 73, Skip KH6TY Mount Pleasant, SC FM02 - Original Message - From: Russell Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Digital Radio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:29 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Text message passed ok via VBdigi texas to KH6 land I just had a qso on 10.137 usb with KH6TY and sent him a PSK31 txt message form Texas to kh6 land I was running 5w of power, we tryed a PSK63 but the band was gone and I had no copy on him. I need to play around and read up some more about this stuff.. Russell NC5O = IN GOD WE TRUST ! = Russell Blair NC5O Skype-Russell Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 11:29 AM
[digitalradio] Re: Text message passed ok via VBdigi texas to KH6 land
We did this between Illinois and Texas, and between North Carolina and Texas so we did not have the benefit of NVIS. This probably increased our retries. Can we control the size of transmitted units? Or does the program reduce unit size in difficult conditions? Thanks for a great package. We will be trying it out on VHF as well. Howard K5HB Howard, in Flarq, go to configure and look at the values in the right-hand column. More specifically, the Exponent is a 2^N factor which delineates the size of the text data block that is transmitted in a data frame. 2^5 is 32 and should be satisfactory for most s/n conditions. If you are experiencing many repeats you can lower the Exponent value. If the path between rx and tx stations is very good you could increase its value. Since I have concentrated on testing on VHF (two meters) where there is little QSB to contend with, I use the default values will great success. It may take some experimenting on HF to find the optimum values for the items in the rightmost column. In my QSO with Russ, he sent a one-line message and that required no repeats, probably because the fading was over a long period compared to the message and when it started and stopped. I'd be interested in hearing what values you find are usually best on fading HF paths. The degree and frequency of the fading will probably depend upon the time of day. A major point is that the message always gets though without any errors, even if it takes a little longer than it would with optimum settings. You must have been working at the threshold of readability, since PSK125 did not do as well as PSK63. PSK63 has a 3 dB S/N advantage over PSK125, but is half the speed. Anyway, great test of the NBEMS! Thanks! 73, Skip Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS
Dave, Do not try to type at the same time you are linked with another station, because flarq is going to be sending keystrokes to VBdigi, often at the same time as you try to type. As you point out, NBEMS is a messaging system, not a chat system. It is also primarily for 2m emergency messaging, or NVIS on HF, where there is little QSB to contend with. The best way to play with it is to first establish contact without using Flarq. Then one of you presses the beacon button and takes it from there, only sending a stored email, stored text message, or picture and don't type until the progress bar on Flarq has progressed from white to green to full green and then white again. 73, Skip KH6TY Oh dear, fist trial with NBEMS was not a happy one, for me, I'm afraid... Appart from not knowing my way round the program, which is not the fault of the program of course, I also had terrible trouble with it missing keystrokes. Either it gave lowercase where I wanted uppercase, or it missed space bar keystrokes and it even missed several letters if I did not slowly and deliberately hit the keys as I transmitted. Appologies to the LY2 station who tried to work me on 20M today, if he's logged onto this reflector, I accidentally clicked on the Beacon and he responded and it went downhill from there. I guess it's not meant to be a chat mode system, but I'll be warry of how I play with it from now on! I'm using Windows 2000 pro on a 1.9GHZ AMD Sempron with a fair amount of RAM, if that helps debugging what was going wrong. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS problem
Rick, do you receive PSK31 signals on the waterfall, and do they decode properly into text? Does the 756 Pro 2 do the same with VBdigi? Do you have more than one soundcard/sound system in the computer? First we must establish that receive works and then address the transmit problem. You can always use VOX for PTT if you use the mic input of the transceiver. Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] NBEMS problem I went ahead today and lashed up a temporary set up so I can key up my old Kenwood TS-440SAT from my sound card. I don't have separate PTT COM serial port keying (only CI-V rig control not supported by this software) and so can not use my ICOM 756 Pro 2 for now. The 440 seems to test fine with Multipsk but oddly, when I run the vbdigi program, I can key the rig via VOX operation and send out what seems like a reasonably good signal, but I can not detect anything on the waterfall. It just remains blank no matter what. I must be doing something wrong. Suggestions? 73, Rick, KV9U No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 11:29 AM
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS problem
OK, this makes more sense. Maybe we should work this out off the reflector and not bother everyone until we find an answer. Please email me directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] The first thing to do is run a cable from the earphone jack of the transceiver into the computer mic input and see if there is anything on the waterfall. I've never run into such a problem, so it must be easy to track down. I'll look for your email Skip - Original Message - From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS problem Hi Skip, I have not been able to display anything on the waterfall for receive and no random printing to the screen from noise either. Same thing with both rigs on receive (I can't TX with the Pro 2 since no rig control to CI-V). Both sound cards were tried for both programs, switching back and forth and trying all sound card positions including Windows default. I have the built in Realtek Sound Card in this emachines computer, and an add on Creative Soundblaster Live! which is more accurate and I usually use that card. The receive and transmit work fine with Multipsk (no rig control, just keying the VOX) on either card for TX and RX decoding, but with the vbdigi there is TX via toggling the Tune button or the T/R button and the rig seems to transmit quite well and I think with a clean signal when monitoring on the other rig. Having done this kind of set up for many years and knowing of the pitfalls, I have not had a case where you could transmit OK but could not display anything on the waterfall unless there was a broken connection someplace. That does not seem possible since it works fine with Multipsk for both RX and TX. Just to clarify, I am using VOX to key the Kenwood TS-440 via the AFSK RCA jacks after I re-discovered (have not used this for digital for many, many years) that it can not be driven adequately via the Line out from the sound card when using the 13 pin DIN plug. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: Rick, do you receive PSK31 signals on the waterfall, and do they decode properly into text? Does the 756 Pro 2 do the same with VBdigi? Do you have more than one soundcard/sound system in the computer? First we must establish that receive works and then address the transmit problem. You can always use VOX for PTT if you use the mic input of the transceiver. Skip KH6TY No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 11:29 AM
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies
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 hundred Hz. LIke Flip Wilson's Geraldine used to say, What you see is what you get, Honey (on the waterfall). Although we have debated how to specify a PSK31 frequency for years (as RF frequency), it is more understandable to just say, for example, 10.137 USB and 1500 Hz tone frequency. I'll be watching 30m now and will be available for some NBEMS ARQ file transfers. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies 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 but at a slightly differing audio frequency. Propnet folks usually use 1500 Hz, I think. How about FLARQ beacons on same frequency but at audio freq of 1000 Hz ? But.. does not propnet use 10139.5 and then 1500, not 10138 ? On 1/4/08, Darrel Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted, I am beaconing on 10.138Mhz (10.137+1Khz) psk63 now. I see there are a couple of Propnet stations beaconing using psk31 on the same frequency. Darrel, VE7CUS On 4-Jan-08, at 6:11 AM, Ted Huf wrote: 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 -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 12:05 PM
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies
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 - Original Message - From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS/Flarq Frequencies 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 unless it is determined legal by the FCC ( I have not heard back yet from the FCC for help in understanding numerous issues and operations that are going on our bands). If anyone transmits a test signal (which PropNet is likely considered), and then someone else comes along and uses that frequency, such as a digital mode Q, then that frequency is busy and it is illegal for anyone to intentionally transmit on that frequency if they can hear either of the stations. Today I was able to correctly configure my emachines computer to run the vbdigi software using the suggested frequency of 10137 +1000 Hz. I happened to be on the same time as Skip, KH6TY, and so we were able to work each other although signals were fairly weak with his 3 watts to an inside antenna. (Hey, not bad, right?) The solution for the computer problem, was to insure that both the input and outputs in the Windows Control Panel Sound applet were going to the same sound card. But in order to use my Sound Blaster Live! card, I was forced to make it the default card under Windows. This created some other problems with not being able to use the front earphone jack that connects to the Realtek built-in card, for listening to MP3's, etc., but it seemed the only practical solution for now. At least I can key up the old rig with VOX, via rear panel connectors, which is something I can not do with my ICOM 756 Pro 2. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: 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 but at a slightly differing audio frequency. Propnet folks usually use 1500 Hz, I think. How about FLARQ beacons on same frequency but at audio freq of 1000 Hz ? But.. does not propnet use 10139.5 and then 1500, not 10138 ? On 1/4/08, *Darrel Smith* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted, I am beaconing on 10.138Mhz (10.137+1Khz) psk63 now. I see there are a couple of Propnet stations beaconing using psk31 on the same frequency. Darrel, VE7CUS On 4-Jan-08, at 6:11 AM, Ted Huf wrote: 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 -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com http://www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 12:05 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 12:05 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Testing NBEMS
Have had the opportunity to use NBEMS on 30m and would offer the following observations: . I like how Vbdigi , flarq, and the email software sylpheed work together. I set up sylpheed to one of my email addresses and it looks like I can receive mail via Vbdigi, and easily bounce it over to the internet. Haven't tried writing any mail rules with sylpheed to do that semi automatically yet. You can do the same thing with Outlook Express as outlined in the VBdigi Messaging and Radio Email help. If you click on Reply to All, with almost any email client, the address for forwarding will already be filled in. The it is simply a matter of pressing Send to forward over the Internt. For emcomm, we recommend forwarding emails, but also contacting the recipient to tell a written message is waiting. Otherwise, it might lie unnoticed for hours before someone thinks to check his inbox. This is one reason we do not use email robots for NBEMS, in addition to eliminating the problem of an unattended station transmitting over traffic local to itself, that is undetectable by the remote client. . Vbdigi works well as a small, simple stand-alone piece to use for PSK MFSK and RTTY. Menu is intuitive and easy to use. . Not crazy over the flarq file and mail transfer system. While ARQ, the packet size is huge and would result in endless repeats under anything other than ideal conditions. Sending mail , the software would break down a 1K test message into 2 , or 3 packets at the most. Using HF, the time taken to send one packet would be very subject to the usual QSB/QRM/QRN etc which on a large packet would likely result in a repeat. Smaller packet sizes would improve the software very much . You can configure the packet sizes in the flarq Config menu by varying the Exponent value to suit conditions. Rein has offered some experience with the optimum packet size. NBEMS was developed specifically for emcomm communications using small, very portable, antennas on 2m VHF, where QSB is negligible on paths up to 100 miles in length. As a result, the incidence of repeats is very small, unless you are just at the background noise level. Most repeats will be caused by packets ruined by multipath reflections, such as when an airplane flies overhead. The additional overhead by sending a long text message as email instead of as text is about 30 seconds. For most messages, it is worth the extra time to simplify the message composition and use the email client for composing, but that overhead can be eliminated by composing and saving as a text file and dragging it into the ARQsend folder instead of the ARQout folder that Flarq establishes the first time it is run. . File transfer using Flarq was slower than Multipsk ALE400, using PSK31. Would be much slower with any repeats. Slower transfer speed is the price you pay for using a narrow bandwidth. On VHF, where NBEMS is intended to be used most of the time, PSK250 in less than a 500 Hz bandwidth approaches the average Pactor-III speed when Pactor-III is used daily by Winlink on long-haul paths. The idea is that in a real emergency, a multitude of stations can fit into the space of the IF passband and all be passing traffic simultaneously, with all visible on the waterfall where everyone knows where to look. This is important so that there are opportunites for many hams to help with message forwarding. Am interested in further experiments and look forward to meeting anyone interested on 80-20M These days, I will be monitoring 30m off and on in the daytime, and 80m at night. Last night, we found the QSB on 80m, using antennas with a low takeoff angle, to be quite a problem and causing excessive repeats compared to 30m during the day. If NVIS antennas are used, the QSB should be much less, and NVIS is the alternative antenna for NBEMS if VHF is not practical due to the terrain. If it is possible to try NBEMS on 2m, it would be a more relevant test of the system design. John VE5MU Thanks for the interest John! We are right now working to improve the user feedback for message transfers and will posting an update soon, which will also fix a few isolated bugs that have been reported. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS Frequencies.
Kevin, Do you realize that 3 x 3.5 = 10.5, which is close to 10.137. An 80m antenna will operate on the third harmonic for 30m operation! I have never seen this published as far as I can remember. Lots of references to using a 40m antenna on 15 m, but not to using an 80m antenna on 30m. This is what I am doing and it seems to be working, but I don't know what takeoff angle I have. Have to model it to find out. So, if you have an 80m dipole (my 80m antenna is a base-load, tophat vertical in the attic), try it on 30m. Just might work... Skip - Original Message - From: Kevin O'Rorke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Digital Radio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 11:10 PM Subject: [digitalradio] NBEMS Frequencies. I have VBDIGI/FLARQ up and running,and there has been a lot of posts about 30m frequencies. I do not have a 10Mh antenna so would like to know of frequencies for 14 and 7Mh, so that I can monitor/beacon in the right spots. Kevin VK5OA No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date: 1/5/2008 11:46 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M
Andy, It is an honest attempt to work together to resolve a continuing problem. WG3G has been off the air for months, I believe, so the question is why is his transmitter automatically trying to connect with WG3G. I'll bet he doesn't even know it. Wouldn't you like to know? WG3G is in Trinidad according to ZS5S. No thanks for the sarcasm. Maybe you can help if you are so inclined...Would you like to? Skip - Original Message - From: Andreas Rehberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M Skip, you don't really mean that! Any witches to burn.. thieves to cut the hands off.. I'll go now and monitor the bands.. woe betide I find a NBEMS signal that interferes another signal.. Andy, DF4WC Original-Nachricht Datum: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:50:52 -0500 Von: kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: Jim Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Greg Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED], Albert Schramm [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M Sent this email this morning: Good morning Charles, It is 12:26 PM on Sunday January 6, and you transmitted, calling to connect with WG3G on 10.138 in Pactor 1, over top of an ongoing test of the NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System that had been going on for half an hour. What we want to know is your boat's position at 12:20 PM on Sunday, January 6, or if you were in Patchogue NY, so we can figure out why you may not have seen any activity on the frequency before transmitting for WG3G. Your website says you do not have a cruising boat yet, so we don't know where you might have been. You were a solid S7 here in South Carolina. One of the stations also on the air is not too far away, in Fredonia, NY. We understand that accidents happen, but with six stations sharing the frequency, it is unlikely that you could not have copied any of them, especially since I copied you perfectly. Attached is a screen capture of the incident. Your signal is centered on the diamond and if you look hard you can see the PSK63 signal you covered up. We will be testing the NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System around this frequency in the coming days, so the frequency will often be occupied. You write on your web page that the hamming bug has bitten you. Since you already work Pactor, maybe you would like to participate in the test of the NBEMS. If so to to http://www.w1khj/NBEMS for information and a link to download the software. We are looking forward to your helping us understand how this collision happened. 73, Skip KH6TY -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger?did=10 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 1/6/2008 11:57 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M
Should be http://www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS. The k and h were transposed. Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M Try: http://www.w1khj.com/NBEMS CHUCK AA5J At 01:02 PM 1/6/2008, Nick wrote: Hello Haward, Happy New Year! Sorry, http://www.w1khj/NBEMShttp://www.w1khj/NBEMS is not a working link. Server not found Firefox can't find the server at www.w1khj.com 73! Sunday, January 06, 2008, 19:50:52, you wrote: k Sent this email this morning: k Good morning Charles, k It is 12:26 PM on Sunday January 6, and you transmitted, calling to connect k with WG3G on 10.138 in Pactor 1, over top of an ongoing test of the k NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System that had been going on for half an k hour. What we want to know is your boat's position at 12:20 PM on Sunday, k January 6, or if you were in Patchogue NY, so we can figure out why you may k not have seen any activity on the frequency before transmitting for WG3G. k Your website says you do not have a cruising boat yet, so we don't know k where you might have been. You were a solid S7 here in South Carolina. One k of the stations also on the air is not too far away, in Fredonia, NY. k We understand that accidents happen, but with six stations sharing the k frequency, it is unlikely that you could not have copied any of them, k especially since I copied you perfectly. k Attached is a screen capture of the incident. Your signal is centered on the k diamond and if you look hard you can see the PSK63 signal you covered up. k We will be testing the NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System around this k frequency in the coming days, so the frequency will often be occupied. k You write on your web page that the hamming bug has bitten you. Since you k already work Pactor, maybe you would like to participate in the test of the k NBEMS. If so to to http://www.w1khj/NBEMShttp://www.w1khj/NBEMS for information and a link to k download the software. k We are looking forward to your helping us understand how this collision k happened. k 73, Skip KH6TY -- Best regards, Nick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 1/6/2008 11:57 AM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 1/6/2008 11:57 AM
Re: [digitalradio] A weekend of NBEMS: Some questions.
1. Did anyone use it on VHF or UHF this weekend ? It seems that it would be perfect for these quiet frequency ranges, file transfers at PSK250 should really be very useful It is designed primarily for VHF in the choice of modes, narrow bandwidth and not handling much QSB so no need for wider multitone modes that work further into the noise. 2. Did anyone try MFSK16 ARQ Does not work well, because the latency of MFSK16 means the first ARQ control code to start a sequence has passed before the decoder can decode it. Same problem with DominoEx. This was a desired choice also for VHF - wider, but less critical tuning, but the latency prevented it from working. 3. Has anyone established a protocol for who goes first when a few stations beacon and hear each other ? Not that I know of. We are going to disable having more than one station or two connected stations sending a message at the same time. Too confusing! 4. Is there any practical use for the email feature. It works well , but is it not easier to send via the Internet unless in an emcomm situation ? NBEMS is intended to be used primarily for personal emcomm messaging or point-to-point communications backup when all else fails. When the Internet is accessible, of course it is more desirable. 5. Where should we hang out if we are looking for email? Please don't hang out looking for email! If you are a served agency that assigns someone to monitor the band for traffic, or meet a sked, when normal communications are available, NBEMS is useful, but why clutter up the airwaves with email or messaging? The ham bands are primarily for amateur radio hobbiests to talk to other amateur radio hobbiests, not as a slow replacement for the Internet or text messaging. 6. Anyone come up with some emcomm tasks for this software package? How do we test this for emergency communication drills/event ? First the system must be validated and bugs worked out. Then it can be deployed by emcomm groups. We have only released NBEMS for beta testing, not for deployment, and are still making changes. We do appreciate the members of this group for taking the time to give NBEMS a try. 7 Is ALE 400 better ? Possibly, for HF where there is QSB to contend with. For VHF, PSK250 on a non-fading path has a speed advantage, I think. 8. Is it just me, or does the passage of ARQ files between two stations invoke FLARQ reception on a third station that is on same frequency ? It is not you. I have experienced the same thing. Of course a third-party station cannot request fills. We are still refining flarq based on the experiences already gained on HF. Hope this answers some of the questions, at least from my viewpoint. Other's may feel differently. One undocumented feature is the ability of VBdigi to seek for a directional CQ, but still needs some work. The way this works is that a station with emergency traffic repetitively calls CQ EM for example, and VBdigi will scan the passband up and down until it stops on such a CQ. In a widescale disaster, there may be many stations trying to pass emergency messages, and VBdigi will be able to find them without the operator having to stop and decode each one manually. Still some work to do on this feature, but it can only work if a narrowband mode is used, so that there are many stations in the passband (in the same area of the band). 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Help files in vbdigi
VBdigi is looking for the following files in D:\Program Files\NBEMS directory: emailsetup.rtf flarq.rtf logbook.rtf messaging.rtf vbdigi.rtf vbdigisetup.rtf Do a search for flarq.rtf and tell me where it is located on your system. Thanks. Skip - Original Message - From: jhaynesatalumni [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:06 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Help files in vbdigi I have vbdigi installed in D:\Program Files\NBEMS The help files are in there but when I click on help in vbdigi it doesn't find them. Where is it looking for them? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.0/1216 - Release Date: 1/9/2008 10:16 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Help files in vbdigi
Please try creating a folder, C:\Program Files\NBEMS, copying the files there, and see if VBdigi finds those. Skip - Original Message - From: jhaynesatalumni [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:09 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Help files in vbdigi --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: VBdigi is looking for the following files in D:\Program Files\NBEMS directory: emailsetup.rtf flarq.rtf logbook.rtf messaging.rtf vbdigi.rtf vbdigisetup.rtf Do a search for flarq.rtf and tell me where it is located on your system. That's where it is: D:\Program Files\NBEMS\flarq.rtf No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.0/1216 - Release Date: 1/9/2008 10:16 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Help files in vbdigi
Ok lets start over. Uninstall NBEMS from Settings/Control Panel/Add or remove prograams. Check to see that D:\NBEMS is gone and if not, delete the folder. To be safe, delete c:\NBEMS if it exists and c:\Program Files \NBEMS. The download the installation program from http://www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS and reinstall. I don't know what has gone wrong, but this problem has never been reported before. That does not mean it will never happen, but the VBdigi code looks for the files in the place that the installation program copies them to. What do you have on C: drive that makes Windows default to D: drive? Maybe that is a clue. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: jhaynesatalumni [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Help files in vbdigi --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please try creating a folder, C:\Program Files\NBEMS, copying the files there, and see if VBdigi finds those. No, it did not find them there either. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.0/1216 - Release Date: 1/9/2008 10:16 AM
Re: [digitalradio] PACTO! I CQ
Copying you FB in South Carolina, Howard, using DigiPan 2.0. Sorry - No Pactor 1 transmit capability - my PK-232 is in mothballs! Skip - Original Message - From: w6ids [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:10 PM Subject: [digitalradio] PACTO! I CQ Just for info, I'm on 18.085 running PACTOR I and calling CQ.pointed Westerly. I'm posted on the spotting page: http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ if anyone might be interested.in trying it Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.1/1219 - Release Date: 1/11/2008 10:19 AM
[digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Look at it this way - NO transmissions without listening first, either ALE soundings, beacons, or mailboxes of any kind, are permissible on the *shared* HF amateur bands, except in designated beacon areas or the automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity within range of the unattended station). It does not matter how short a time the unattended interference signal is on either. If it disrupts a QSO, it is *too long*. Skip KH6TY Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
All the ALE data activity is in the automatic subbands unless the stations manually QSY off frequency under operator control. So what's the concern? As long as it always stays in the automatic subbands, there should be no concern. In fact, ALE is a valuable resource, IMHO. Skip KH6TY Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
You obviously do not understand reproprocity principle and how it applies to radio, Chuck, and in most cases the PropNet station is running less power than others, or what is the point of using it to determining propagation? Beacon stations also tend to run lower power for the same reason, so if you can copy the Propnet station, 90% of the time it could hear you, IF it listened. You and I are almost the same age, so you surely must have heard the old adage in ham radio, If you can hear'em, you can work'em. However, this is only true if you are running as much power or ERP as the station you are copying, and we are not talking about PropNet stations running 1 KW! It is against all reasonable odds that if a PropNet station consistently transmits on top of every station on the frequency, that it cannot hear at least one of them. Uh, Skip, how many times have you called another station that you could hear, but they did not come back to you, or came back to with a 53 or so report? Just because you can hear them, does not mean that they can hear you. They KW when you are transmitting 25W. vbg BTW, if they come back with a 53 report, they could detect me, couldn't they! 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] HF Automatic Sub Bands
Andy, Bonnie's information is out of date. The IARU Region 2 bandplans, effective January 1, 2008, recommend additional restricitions on automatic operations where the bandwidth is under 500 Hz, and no automatic operations on 30m. ARRL signed onto the IARU bandplans as the Region 2 representative to the IARU. Under FCC rules, automatic operations with less than 500 Hz bandwidth may be conducted anywhere the mode is authorized. http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:03 PM Subject: [digitalradio] HF Automatic Sub Bands Andy K3UK wrote: Thanks Bonnie. Can you remind us what what the automatic sub-bands are, which frequencies ? Hi Andy, The automatic sub-bands are slightly different in various countries and IARU regional bandplans of the world. A map of worldwide bandplans including automatic sub-bands is on the web at: http://hflink.com/bandplans In USA's FCC rules §97.221 there are segments of the data sub bands that are commonly known as the Automatic Sub-Bands, and this chart is on the web at: http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg USA Auto Sub-Band HF segments for RTTY or DATA 28.120-28.189 MHz 24.925-24.930 MHz 21.090-21.100 MHz 18.105-18.110 MHz 14.0950-14.0995 MHz 14.1005-14.112 MHz 10.140-10.150 MHz 7.100-7.105 MHz 3.585-3.600 MHz Also, in USA, a station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 meters or shorter wavelength bands. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1222 - Release Date: 1/13/2008 12:23 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!
Sadly, my antenna cannot accommodate 30 metres.. 73s Jack VK4JRC Jack, I use my 80m base-loaded, tophat, vertical on 30m, and it works great! 80m and 30m are harmonically related. 3.5 x 3 = 10.150. Similar to using a 40m antenna on 15m. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] IARU Region 2 Bandplan: Errors Re: HF Automatic Sub Bands
The station you singled out, VE2AFQ, is not operating illegally when operating just below 14070 as a Pactor PMBO. A polite reminder sent to the station might work? Tried that before 1-1-08 and got no reply. Will try again now that the bandplan has been published, but it really should be done by a Canadian, since it is a Canadian-approved bandplan as well as a US-approved bandplan. There are a number of US PMBO Stations which list access frequencies very close to 14070.0 . K6IXA, KB6YNO, N0IA , to name a few. These are certainly not in the unattended band portion. Have a look at the Winlink station list for more information. I have that list from ZS5S. So this brings up the questions; is it acceptable for US stations to ignore the IARU Region 2 band plan, when FCC regulations allow them to, or should they attempt To voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with FCC regulations? No, it is not acceptable to the ham community and the ARRL has pushed hard for everyone to follow bandplans. IMHO, US stations should voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with all FCC regulations. Where FCC regulations allow operations that the bandplan does not, the bandplan should be followed, or what is the sense of trying to work together? And Should the IARU attempt to have member countries accept the band plan as written, and to enact a set of bandwidth-based regulations which would enforce this plan? That is what the IARU wants, but if everyone followed the bandplan, agreed upon by member societies where they live and operatoe, there would be no need for any change in regulations, which take years to change in many cases. Unfortunately, there are some US amateur groups who refuse to follow bandplans, to the detriment of all. 73, Skip KH6TY John VE5MU No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1222 - Release Date: 1/13/2008 12:23 PM
[digitalradio] Re: Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
Flame on this idea if you wish, however robust live-chat sound-card modes, ARQ messaging modes, and Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) modes will all gain increased popularity, acceptance, and adoption because of their more efficient and reliable communication capabilities as compared to manual and non-keyboard modes .. Elaine ... -- Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons WA6UBE / AAR9JA In this age of the Internet and cell-phones, *all* the modes you cite are sooo 'stone-age' aren't they! Perhaps it is time to redefine a communication between hams as a person-to-person contact in real time, and not using the ham bands as a stone-age replacement for the Internet. Our FCC regulations already disallow any regular use of the ham bands that can be accomplished by other radio means (cell-phones are radios, BTW). This includes weather reports, catalogs, and bulletins used by sailors, and even email, which, in this age of satphones and satellite data phones, is also so stone-age over HF radio. 97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (a) No amateur station shall transmit: (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. If the FCC does not start enforcing this regulation, ARQ messaging services as you suggest are going to take over the ham bands as a common-carrier replacement, and amateur radio will cease to be amateur radio. During contests, we all know that there is not enough room on the ham bands just for person-to-person radiosport contacts as it is. Once amateur radio ceases to be a hobby activity, and occasionally an emergency backup communications capability, commercial interests will have a strong argument for taking away our bands and the FCC will sell them to the highest bidder for billions of dollars. Sorry, but I do not share your vision of the continuing evolution of HF radio communications, because it is not communications, but using the ham bands as a poor replacement for the Internet. All the discussion about how Winlink users trample others on the frequency is directly related to using the ham bands as a free email service, instead of for person-to-person, real-time, *hobby* communications. There is no second person in real-time, that can communicate the need to QSY when advised there is an ongoing QSO on the frequency, local to his station, but not detectable by the remote station, in an email delivery system. It is this capability that makes it possible for radio amateurs to *share* a limited amount of spectrum that one-way systems do not possess. Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
Obviously some folks have not learned how to skip over threads that do not interest them. Others I'm sure don't want to hear what they're doing may be incorrect. Sad. I hope it survives and does well but it of no interest to me. The way this is handled on QRP-L mailing list is simply to preface an off-topic post with OT: and those who do not want to be bothered with off-topic posts can simply filter them out, or use the Delete key. Doesn't work with digests, but those can be scanned visually and OT: skipped over. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] TV Whitespace Testing
Hi Rud, Wasn't the white space used for Musak or some other broadcast use years ago, or was that on an FM subcarrier? I think it was also used for timing signals at one time. Seems that there used to be a way to pull down the top of the screen scan and see the information. Been a long, long, time and I don't remember exactly everything it was used for, but the idea is not new. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 3:47 PM Subject: [digitalradio] TV Whitespace Testing The FCC is doing testing for the use of broadband wireless in the space between TV channels. See http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2250638,00.asp. The challenge is kind of like BPL: preventing interference with any adjacent digital channels. From my reading, it looks like they are trying to sense when adjacent channels are in use and not use that space. This makes sense for a commercial product since it would be a challenge to get users to configure systems to avoid active channels. I wonder if we could get some channels made available for hams? Possible propose using specific whitespaces on a regional basis. The proposal would determine two open channels in an area and use the whitespace between them. For example, channels 18 and 19 here in Houston are not used so they would be an available whitespace. (I am not sure how the digital channel assignments change availability of whitespace.) Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1233 - Release Date: 1/19/2008 6:37 PM
Re: [digitalradio] QRV 40m Narrow-Band SSTV
Need a PSK31 channel in addition to the picture channel, both at the same time. That way one could communicate while the picture was being sent, and would be more like a QSO conversation IMHO. The next release of NBEMS will contain a surprise! :-) Skip - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 8:05 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] QRV 40m Narrow-Band SSTV Correct Skip, except one can use templates to communicate within the picture. The picture with some text added. It is slow, 73 seconds for each picture but probably about the same time for the average PSK31 exchange of text. Andy On Jan 25, 2008 8:02 PM, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the narrowbnad SSTV QSO, Tony. Sorry I was so slow - my first time and I did not read Andy's bozo guide! ;-( I can understand why regular SSTV goes along with SSB phone. It is very slow communicating without any other means to do so except by pictures, so it amounts to just swapping pictures, like regular SSTV, but without any way to communicate during the picture reception, or am I missing something? 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 7:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] QRV 40m Narrow-Band SSTV All, QRV on 7076.0 USB - MP73-N narrow band SSTV. 00:30z Tony -K2MO -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 1/25/2008 11:24 AM -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 1/25/2008 11:24 AM
Re: [digitalradio] QRV 40m Narrow-Band SSTV
Tony , sorry to disappoint, but I am in South Carolina now. STill, you had a good signal down here. Skip - Original Message - From: Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] QRV 40m Narrow-Band SSTV Skip, Thanks for the narrowbnad SSTV QSO My pleasure and thank you. Nice signal from KH6 -- punched through the QRM. Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] QRV 40m Narrow-Band SSTV Thanks for the narrowbnad SSTV QSO, Tony. Sorry I was so slow - my first time and I did not read Andy's bozo guide! ;-( I can understand why regular SSTV goes along with SSB phone. It is very slow communicating without any other means to do so except by pictures, so it amounts to just swapping pictures, like regular SSTV, but without any way to communicate during the picture reception, or am I missing something? 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 7:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] QRV 40m Narrow-Band SSTV All, QRV on 7076.0 USB - MP73-N narrow band SSTV. 00:30z Tony -K2MO No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 1/25/2008 11:24 AM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 1/25/2008 11:24 AM
Re: [digitalradio] QRV 40m Narrow-Band SSTV
Thanks for the narrowbnad SSTV QSO, Tony. Sorry I was so slow - my first time and I did not read Andy's bozo guide! ;-( I can understand why regular SSTV goes along with SSB phone. It is very slow communicating without any other means to do so except by pictures, so it amounts to just swapping pictures, like regular SSTV, but without any way to communicate during the picture reception, or am I missing something? 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 7:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] QRV 40m Narrow-Band SSTV All, QRV on 7076.0 USB - MP73-N narrow band SSTV. 00:30z Tony -K2MO No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 1/25/2008 11:24 AM
[digitalradio] New Beta release of NBEMS, version 1.2.0
We are pleased to announce a new beta release of NBEMS, version 1.2.0, with the addition of Plain Talk, a semi-duplex mode built into the Flarq/VBdigi combination. You can use Plain Talk for chat-like QSO's that are more like normal conversation than typical simplex operation. This latest beta release has also been fine tuned for faster throughput on message transfers. Our testing continues to suggest that PSK63 is the most practical speed to use on HF in the presence of the usual QRN and QSB. PSK125, or even PSK250, seems to be practical for faster transfers on the more consistent 2m VHF paths, but falling back to PSK63 if the path does not support the higher speeds. NBEMS on HF is intended to be used with NVIS antennas on both ends of the communication, within a range of 300 miles, as that is more than sufficient for emcomm use. True NVIS antennas have a very high takeoff angle (90 degrees in ideal cases), so QRN, usually arriving at low angles, is discriminated against by the true NVIS antenna. NBEMS on HF, using existing, relatively high, HF antennas will still be subject to both varying skywave propagation and low angle reception of QRN, and tests under those conditions may not be representative of performance obtainable when true NVIS antennas are used on both ends. NVIS antennas are often dipoles mounted only 8' to 12' off the ground, and sometimes include a reflector wire under the dipole to direct the signal straight up and illuminate the ionosphere above the antenna. It is worth giving it a try! Go to http://www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS and look for the installation download link. If you are upgrading from a previous NBEMS installation, it is recommended that you first remove NBEMS by going to Control Panel, Add or Remove Programs (Programs and Features under VISTA), find NBEMS, and remove it. Then run the latest setup.exe installation program. The NBEMS Development Team Skip, KH6TY Dave, W1HKJ
Re: [digitalradio] New Beta release of NBEMS, version 1.2.0
But, we want you to *read* about it first, John! :-) An announcement is not the appropriate place to post all the information about the product. The announcement is probably too long as it is! After being presented with screenshot, so you can decide if it is something that might interest you, the very *first* item you come to is the download link, so that is not too hard to find, is it... 73, Skip KH6TY From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.your-site.com/nbms/download Really it's like saying you can see my tax return for 2006 at http://www.irs.gov spending your next lifetime searching for it.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Logging for MultiPSK and DM780
Dave, over five years ago now, I pushed for using a standard DDE interface for all PSK31 programs so anybody could use his favorite logging probgram with his favorite PSK31 program, and developers did not have to keep reinventing the wheel. It also found little interest. :-( I'd still like to see that happen. The need never goes away! Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 3:39 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Logging for MultiPSK and DM780 Re UDP servers, we established the Amateur Radio Software Development group a year ago to work out the details of this and other shared mechanisms, but it died from lack of interest. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arswd/ Remember? I'll stick with DDE interfaces for now; they aren't elegant, but they work well enough to support an ecosystem of ~20 interoperating applications. If a serious effort to define a common protocol for interoperation arises, I will certainly participate. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe use DXKeeper from Dave AA6YQ? I know there are interfaces in DM780, sure-ish that they exist in MultiPSK. One idea I have thought about is for programs such as DXKeeper, DM780 etc. to run UDP servers which allow other programs to send new QSO's for logging. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Dave Flack, W6DLF [EMAIL PROTECTED] I go between MultiPSK and DM780. What is the best/easiest way to create a combined/common log? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.17/1253 - Release Date: 1/31/2008 9:09 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow SSTV contact
What I am looking for would be a way to include a picture as part of the contact but not as the main object of the contact. More of a multi-media concept, but done with relatively narrow modes. I thought I read some thing about a way you could use MFSK16 or some other narrow mode and then switch over to send an image and then switch back. Or am I mistaken? 73, Rick, KV9U Hi Rick, MixW, and I think maybe also Multipsk now, can send a non-error-corrected, narrowband, fax-mode picture during a MFSK16 QSO. On the Linux side, so can fldigi. NBEMS can send a smaller picture, but absolutely error-free, in a much longer time (due to the narrow bandwidth) and communicate back and forth (automatically) between blocks using the Plain Talk facility. The picture is error-free, but the Plain Talk text is not, as the slowdown for error-free text was felt not to be worth the delays incurred, so ARQ is not used for the text. Plain talk was included mainly for the purpose of coordinating data transfers, such as increasing or decreasing speed when conditions dictate, but it is also an interesting chat-type facility, even without data transfer. The MixW fax pictures are quite good under good conditions and worth trying. While the picture is transmitting, it is not possible to communicate, though. In QuikPSK, I included the ability to transmit a color thumbnail of the operator's face as a way to enchance the QSO, but it takes 2.5 minutes for the thumbnail picture to transmit, and in some cases, especially with DX stations, it is not even possible to sustain a QSO for that long. I just thought it would be nice to see what the other operator you are talking with looks like. DigiPan, VBdigi, and fldigi have a QRZ Lookup capability so those with Internet access many times can view a high resolution picture of the operator or his shack, if it is on his QRZ site. Since this can be done during a QSO (I do it all the time), there is no interruption to the QSO, but only one picture is available, unless a link to a website is included, and QRZ.COM is not universally used, of course. With the proliferation of broadband, I think using an Internet lookup is often a useful way to view pictures of interest and still QSO in the normal way. Error-free pictures just take a long time, or lots of bandwidth, to transmit. So, there already many ways to integrate images with QSO's in addition to SSTV techniques, but none of them may be all what we wish they were! 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Some thoughts on antenna polarization for emergency use
Hi Ted, That's a good thought, but the problem is that achieving more than a 16 to 25 mile range without a repeater requires more gain (on at least one end - usually the home station end) than you can get from a lindenblad antenna, a big wheel, a ground plane, or even a 5/8 wavelength vertical. The portable end will also generally be at a lower elevation than the home stations. According to Cebik (http://www.cebik.com/ao/ao16a.html), the Lindenblad antenna has about 6 dBi of gain, and the big wheel about 7 dBi. Those antennas will work at the portable end, but on the home station end, more antenna gain (approximately 10 dBi or greater) is needed to ensure spanning a wide disaster area up to 100 miles without a repeater. For exceeding the distant obtainable by repeaters, which are usually positioned as high as possible, and usually higher than the typical home station antenna, even 3 dB of extra gain can make the difference between 100% copy and no copy. The Lindenblad is most useful for satellite work, where it can accomodate circular polarization and a high angle of reception. For operators already using repeaters with FM-only transceivers, the move to SSB is the major change (i.e., a new transceiver!), and the antenna change to horizontal polarization is relatively minor. In many cases, where 5-element vertically polarized beams are being used to hit repeaters, it only involves fliping the beam 90 degrees. In fact, any such beam can also just be rotated 45 degrees and handle both vertical and horizontal polarizations, but with a 3 dB loss in gain for each polarization. There is a whole new world of fun available on 2m SSB and digital that those who only work VHF via repeaters are missing. Instead of collecting countries, VHF SSB stations collect grid squares, counties, and states, so there is quite a reward to be had for joining the horizontally-polarized VHF world on 2m as well as being ready to assist with emcomm. 2m SSB is not all weak signal operating. Using my 13 element 2m beam, I have consistently worked horizontally-polarized mobiles over distances just exceeding 100 miles, when the elevations of both myself and the mobile do not exceed 30 feet ASL. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Theodore A. Antanaitis To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Some thoughts on antenna polarization for emergency use How about the best of both worlds (or at least an approximation thereof). I would suggest for two meter home station applications that a lindenblad antenna is a versatile compromise omni-directional antenna that works equally well with both vertical and horizontal polarizations. The complexity of construction is not that much greater than for a big-wheel or three dipole array. One source for more info: http://www.amsat.org/amsat/articles/w6shp/lindy.html 73 Ted WA7ZZB -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1304 - Release Date: 2/29/2008 8:18 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Some thoughts on antenna polarization for emergency use
Ted, I agree that in a single array configuration it does not have the gain realizable by a directive antenna, no omni-directional antenna will. But in those cases where a rotatable antenna is not feasible nor permitted (as on some public structures housing EOCs) This illustrates the core of the problem of not having enough total path gain to communicate with the EOC if the repeaters are down. Either the portable station in the disaster area, or the EOC 100 miles away, will have to have at least a 10-element beam in order for the portable station to be heard at all. I have a 13 element beam with 14 dBi of gain and several times, I have worked WO4DX on 2m mobile on SSB phone to his stacked loops and 100 watts. He periodically travels on business from the coastal town where I live (near Charleston, SC), to his home QTH in Dawsonville, GA, and I can consistently work him for 100 miles, going NW up I-26, until he turns and starts heading to Augusta, GA on I-20 and then I start losing him. I also periodically work rover NK4Q, also with 100 watts and stacked loops on his truck, up to 120 miles away, along I-20 as he heads east to the Outer Banks for the VHF contest, but to copy these stations, I must use my 13-element beam. If I switch to my skeleton-slot antenna, which I use for the local PSK63 net (6 dB down from the beam), I cannot copy either of them. If NK4Q switches from stacked square loops to the skeleton-slot antenna I made for him, picking up 6 dB more gain, I can again copy him until he gets over 120 miles away. When he arrives at the Outer Banks, I again cannot copy him unless I switch to the 13-element beam, and copy is still marginal on phone. However, if we switch to PSK63, print is over 50%. If NK4Q then switches to a 10-element beam, picking up another 3 dB, print improves to 100%. This is a distance of 300 miles, with both stations at sea level. So, if the EOC is not able to either have extra height, or to use a higher-gain antenna, or if I cannot set up a beam outside the hurricane shelter, I will simply be unable to reach the state EOC in Columbia from a hurricane shelter in Charleston, 100 miles away, if the repeaters are down locally, and we will have no commumications except hopefully on 80m or 40m using NVIS antennas, which takes more real estate to set up, and is more susceptible to QRN. I do realize it is going to take time for a substantial number of stations to discover 2m VHF SSB phone and digital for both emcomm and casual operating, but in the end, 2m VHF SSB digital, with sufficient antenna gain, is the most practical and reliable emcomm alternative to using repeaters, which may not be operational when we need them. If anybody reading this is within 200 miles of Charleston, SC, and would like to try 2m PSK63, you are invited to beam toward Charleston and check in to our informal ragchew net on 144.144 MHz, USB, around1500 Hz tone frequency, at 8 PM on Wednesday nights and 9 PM on Sunday nights. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Some thoughts on antenna polarization for emergency use
variation in signal strength. From 100 to 300 miles, there often is signal variation, but that is further than most emcomm situations need, and HF can be used in the few cases that it is, with slightly less throughput, depending upon the QRN level. I'd like to thank everyone on this list for letting us use the bandwidth to discuss these issues, and I hope they have been interesting and new issues for many list members, as they have been for me over the past several years. There really is an exciting new world on 2m SSB, both phone and digital, for anyone who has only used 2m to work repeaters, and it is well worth considering trying. It is not all weak signal work, either! 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Some thoughts on antenna polarization for emergency use
Please correct FT-890 to read FT-897. Thanks, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind
How does nbems fare in weak signal conditions compared to other modes such as olivia and mt63? NBEMS uses the PSK modes for simplicity of tuning, narrowness, and speed. Other, wider modes, like Olivia and MT63, work further down under the noise threshold than the PSKmodes. This makes them better for casual communicating on HF, over longer distances, where the QSB fading is often very deep, fading 10 dB or more. NBEMS is designed primarily for emcomm messaging over distances up to 100 miles, and wherever possible, 2m SSB (using digital modes) is recommended so there is almost no fading to contend with and antennas are smaller and more portable. On 2m, once you achieve a detectable signal on the waterfall (which is needed for tuning and therefore has to at least be visible in the noise), it generally stays at that level (up to 100 miles), so the ability to continue copy far down under the noise threshold is not needed. In hilly regions, where 2m VHF will not work due to shadowing by the hills, the alternative is to use single-hop HF, with NVIS antennas, on 80m or 40m, and the fading is less than on multi-hop paths, but not as good as on VHF. For very difficult HF conditions, NBEMS had been designed to also support MFSK16 for ARQ transfers. Transfer times are much longer compared to the PSK modes, but the message does eventually get through without any errors. Since few disasters, requiring emergency communications, span more than 100 miles, narrowband PSK modes work just fine for the purpose, just as PSK31 works well enough for casual operating, even though wider modes work better under fading conditions. It is desirable, in order to be seen by as many potential message forwarding operators as possible, to have all the NBEMS stations appear on the waterfall at one dial setting, just like most PSK31 stations on HF do now. In order to do this within the 2500 Hz-wide receiver passbands most people have, the narrowband modes need to be used. For most short emcomm messages, the speed of PSK63 is quite sufficient, up to 25 PSK63 stations can share 2500 Hz of spectrum, and all can be seen at the same time, thereby maximizing the number of potential forwarding stations. The reason that NBEMS is described as a system is that it integrates several elements, such as particularly using VHF 2m, particularly using NVIS for HF, and using narrowband modes, instead of wider modes, for the most effective and reliable emergency messaging over distances up to 100 miles. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 2/29/2008 6:32 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind
, somewhere within the passband on the waterfall. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of simplicity in the design of a system intended to be used by operators with little or no experience. Under the enormous pressures of trying to move volumes of emcomm traffic, simplicity reduces the chances for error, or even perhaps failure. A lot of our compromises for NBEMS have been made in this light, and I assure you we have made many, many, compromises to achieve simplicity. If we had an emergency situation, it seems to me that you would not be having multiple streams of different stations sending data. Especially not for e-mail capability. It may be difficult to even find more than one or two stations that you can connect to and who have a computer interfaced with their rig with the NBEMS program suite installed and know how to use it. Once you were able to find someone, you would likely want to work with them (assuming a savvy operator, no different than other modes), and route your traffic in that manner. They could coordinate with others outside the disaster area and have them come up on frequency as needed for relief. There will be both organized emcomm operations and individual emcomm operators during a widescale emergency. The idea is to get traffic out, no matter what it takes, or who has to get it done. As more people try NBEMS, and we improve the system with the feedback we get, we will get closer and closer to the goal of intuitive operation of the software where it is obvious how to do something without RTFM. As far as the wide bandwidth and faster modes such as RFSM, this could work under some conditions. Tremendously faster than the NBEMS system, although it does not have the fall back to the weaker signals and requires better signals than what is normally required for very weak SSB. Has anyone done any further testing on VHF with RFSM? It is completely legal to do so here in the U.S. on 6 meters and up. As Andy points out, there are times when the ARQ text digital modes don't work at all, but with FAE400 this seems like much less of a problem considering that it may be able to perform better than PSK31 without ARQ. I will emphasize again that by using 2m VHF SSB for PSK63 and PSK125, we already can equal the average Winlink system transfer times on HF for Pactor-3 with PSK125, in one tenth the bandwidth, because we do not have to deal with QSB, so we feel it is better to use as narrow a mode as possible instead of using a wider mode that is a little faster and can handle QSB that 2m does not have within the necessary 100 mile range. Considering that the NBEMS software is free, open source, and that there is no cost to purchase a proprietary modem just for occasional emcomm email use, I think that NBEMS fills the need for an additional emcomm tool that every ham can afford, if so inclined to be ready to assist in disaster communications. There is nothing to stop emcomm groups from experimenting and promoting adoption of wider modes like FAE400 or ALE400 if they wish, but I am not sure that acceptance will as widespread as NBEMS, which includes PSK31, which appears to still be growing in usage and popularity every day, and PSK63, which is slowly gaining acceptance for contesting. It is a short jump from using PSK31 or PSK63 for casual QSO's or contesting to adding flarq to handle emergency communications when asked to do so. Even going from PSK31 (which tens of thousands now use) to PSK63 is a no-brainer, which is one of the reasons we chose to use PSK63 as the base mode for NBEMS. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind
I have seen some multiipath, especially when I have tested PSK31 on VHF, but much of that was from aircraft. I am not sure how I can discern multipath when on HF. Is there any clue in the waterfall or do you go by the sound? 73, Rick, KV9U You will see three kinds of multipath on VHF, which you can see on the waterfall. One is reflections from airplanes, which tends to look like a ghost signal accelerating across the main signal. When it coincides with the main signal, all copy will be momentarily lost, no matter how strong the signal. The second correlates with wind conditions, and the ghost signal moves slightly in and out of the main signal during wind gusts, especially when a weather front is moving through. The third is reflections from fixed objects, and the ghost signal tends to stay a fixed distance away from the main signal. PSK63 is less affected by multipath reflections than PSK31 is on VHF, and PSK125 even less so. When cancellation does occur, if you are using ARQ, that frame is just resent and the transfer is delayed by that much. Of course, only ARQ is going to guarantee error-free copy. FEC only helps, but does not insure no errors. QRN seems to be the biggest problem on HF and QSB second. During a period of thunderstorm activity, as we often have in South Carolina, and more especially in Florida, PSK125 is greatly disturbed and PSK250 so much that it is unusable, but PSK63 not nearly as much. All the decoders seem to have this problem, and there may be a way to improve that cascaded loss of sync in the faster modes, due to QRN, but we have not yet tackled this problem. Fortunately, for our 100 mile emcomm uses, QRN and QSB are not problems on VHF, and ARQ takes care of the multipath reflection problem. 73, Skip KH6TY Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind
John, Over what distance are you getting flutter or Doppler on VHF? I only get the flutter (usually all the time!) when I try to work Charlotte, NC from Charleston, SC on 70 cm, which is 173 miles away, but I am not far enough north for Aurora. For emcomm, we only need to span up to 100 miles. I am interested to know if you also find flutter on VHF within 100 miles. Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 9:30 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind This may be true at lower latitudes, but up here at 50 degrees north, we get sustained aurora flutter or Doppler on HF and VHF. Sometimes the audio has a distinct echo. PSK125 and 250 are worse. we do have days where we have strong signals but cannot decode anything. it would be nice to have something a little faster than regular MFSK for a robust mode John VE5MU -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kh6ty Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 4:18 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind I have seen some multiipath, especially when I have tested PSK31 on VHF, but much of that was from aircraft. I am not sure how I can discern multipath when on HF. Is there any clue in the waterfall or do you go by the sound? 73, Rick, KV9U You will see three kinds of multipath on VHF, which you can see on the waterfall. One is reflections from airplanes, which tends to look like a ghost signal accelerating across the main signal. When it coincides with the main signal, all copy will be momentarily lost, no matter how strong the signal. The second correlates with wind conditions, and the ghost signal moves slightly in and out of the main signal during wind gusts, especially when a weather front is moving through. The third is reflections from fixed objects, and the ghost signal tends to stay a fixed distance away from the main signal. PSK63 is less affected by multipath reflections than PSK31 is on VHF, and PSK125 even less so. When cancellation does occur, if you are using ARQ, that frame is just resent and the transfer is delayed by that much. Of course, only ARQ is going to guarantee error-free copy. FEC only helps, but does not insure no errors. QRN seems to be the biggest problem on HF and QSB second. During a period of thunderstorm activity, as we often have in South Carolina, and more especially in Florida, PSK125 is greatly disturbed and PSK250 so much that it is unusable, but PSK63 not nearly as much. All the decoders seem to have this problem, and there may be a way to improve that cascaded loss of sync in the faster modes, due to QRN, but we have not yet tackled this problem. Fortunately, for our 100 mile emcomm uses, QRN and QSB are not problems on VHF, and ARQ takes care of the multipath reflection problem. 73, Skip KH6TY Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1306 - Release Date: 3/1/2008 5:41 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1306 - Release Date: 3/1/2008 5:41 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind
John, Our NBEMS for Linux now supports DominoEX-11, DominoEX-16, and DominoEX-22 with ARQ. You might want to experiment with using DominoEx to combat flutter. However, I suggest that yhou disable the AFC on fldigi to keep random noise from dragging the receive frequency around. DominoEX is very tolerant to mistuning, and seems to work well without AFC, even on 2m. In order to compensate for the latency of DominoEx and MFSK16, we have added 9 additional SOH characters to the beginning of each transmission, which is allowed under the ARQ specification, so DominoEx modes will only work under ARQ with the NBEMS flarq program. The comparisons for a 3.3K text file transfer on VHF are: MFSK16: 724 sec PSK63: 403 sec DominoEx16: 378 sec DominoEx22: 276 sec PSK125: 207 sec PSK250: 120 sec Winlink average on HF (Pactor-3) for a 3.3K file: about 224 sec For comparison, Patrick's numbers for his Domino (DF), which is probably DominoEx-8, is -12 db for the lowest S/N. For PSK63, it is -7 dB. For PSK125 it is -5 dB. For MFSK16, it is -13.5 dB. So, the advantage in using DominoEx will mostly be to counter flutter and mistuning. MFSK16 will still hold up the best under deep QSB fades, but is slower and harder to tune. You can download the NBEMS EMCpup ISO from this link: http://www.w1hkj.com/emcpup.html . Just burn a bootable CD and try DominoEx with flarq on a Windows system by booting with the CD and running it live to compare, but you will need someone else also using EMCpup or NBEMS on Linux to test with. Since you will probably be testing on HF, there is probably someone on this list already set up to test with. In fact, I can do it with you on HF. We would be very interested in any results you come up with. 73, Skip NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 10:45 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind on occasion less than 100 miles on VHF and sometimes as little as 30 miles on 80M HF I disagree with the assumption that for Emcomms we only need span 100 miles. That may be true in higher population areas, and where the state is broken down into counties. Up here we will be working into provincial EOC's, which could be up to 500km away (300 Miles), too far for VHF point to point. Furthermore we don't have the density of hams in the rural areas which we allow for relay points. We have good cellular coverage along our highways, but once off the major roads rural cellular service is very spotty. Internet access via cellular to pass text messages cannot be relied upon, so that throws us back to HF as the most likely link (besides sat Phone) I really don't understand the restrictions that you have in the USA on baud rate and mode restrictions. Your mode works well but would be wonderful a little faster. RFSM 8000 works well, but is wide, and am still not sure how it will work under poor HF conditions. ALE400 works well into the weeds, and it would be great to see you and Patrick team up to combine NBEMS and Ale400 in one package. John VE5MU From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kh6ty Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 9:13 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind John, Over what distance are you getting flutter or Doppler on VHF? I only get the flutter (usually all the time!) when I try to work Charlotte, NC from Charleston, SC on 70 cm, which is 173 miles away, but I am not far enough north for Aurora. For emcomm, we only need to span up to 100 miles. I am interested to know if you also find flutter on VHF within 100 miles. Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:jbradley%40sasktel.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 9:30 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind This may be true at lower latitudes, but up here at 50 degrees north, we get sustained aurora flutter or Doppler on HF and VHF. Sometimes the audio has a distinct echo. PSK125 and 250 are worse. we do have days where we have strong signals but cannot decode anything. it would be nice to have something a little faster than regular MFSK for a robust mode John VE5MU -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of kh6ty Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 4:18 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind I have seen some multiipath, especially when I have tested PSK31 on VHF, but much of that was from aircraft. I am not sure how I can discern multipath when on HF
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind
In that case, it will be necessary to switch to HF and use NVIS antennas, which extends the range to 300 miles but with somewhat less throughput using ARQ due to static crashes. Using ARQ will still get the messages through without errors - it just takes longer. 73, Skip KH6TY Not only are EOC's that far away, but when a hurricane hits the Gulf Coast, you can have all communications interrupted for much more than 100 miles. 73, Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Keeping NBEMS in mind
Walt, Give DominoEx-22 or DominoEX-16 a try. Speed will probably a litttle less than using Pactor-3. Running Emcpup live is pretty simple. You don't even need to know anything about Linux. Patrick includes all the Domino modes in Multipsk and you can try DominoEx under Windows, but without ARQ. When using ARQ, the throughput will be about half as much as without ARQ, but there will be no errors. As Rein says, the big problem on HF is not S/N (on VHF it is S/N and multipath reflections), but QRN and QRM, so you might find that DominoEx works pretty well in the presence of QRN, but I have not had an opportunity to find out myself. The DominoEx website says that it has been optimized for NVIS propagation. NVIS antennas on both ends should help reduce the static noise level, since the takeoff angles of NVIS antennas are very high, but noise generally arrives at a low angle. I can demonstrate the difference here, since I have both NVIS and regular 80m antennas. I have found around 2 S-units of static noise reduction using the NVIS antenna. 73, Skip KH6TY We do plan on using HD, NVIS antennas and data modes as long as they are faster than I can receive CW (about 15 WPM accurately. The noise level is what is so high after a hurricane...and it stays that way for 2-4 days. Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 10 Tips for the PSK31 Digital Mode
There is no difference between an RF gain control and AGC. AGC is just Auotmatic Gain control instead of manual gain control. The only way to copy a weak signal adjacent to a strong one is to prevent the strong signal from affecting the AGC, and the only way to do that is by using a narrrow filter or notch filter (at IF, not audio) to attenuate the strong signal. You can use a wide (SSB) filter to see all the stations in the passband, and then use Passband Tuning or IF Shift, or a narrow filter (at IF, not audio!) to narrow in on the station you want to work if it is one of the weaker ones. You do not need to do anything for the strong signal unless it is overloading your front end and then you can switch in attenuation and switch it out again when you are finished. Many people have experienced a weak PSK31 signal disappearing or waterfall darkening when a strong signal comes on. This is because the strong signal is reducing the gain (and therefore the noise background), just the same as if you manually reduced the gain, and generally the only cure for this is using narrow filtering. Some receivers, designed specifically for PSK31, such as our latest PSK-20, do not use AGC, but distribute gain in such as way that it can copy weak signals adjacent to strong ones, without distorting the last IF stage or detector, but few transceivers can do this. A dual-loop AGC system may help and some high-end transceivers have this. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 10 Tips for the PSK31 Digital Mode
Skip - Original Message - From: David Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:25 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: 10 Tips for the PSK31 Digital Mode One more consideration is AGC recovery time. Slow AGC and static crashes are not a good combo in many of the digital modes. No AGC or Fast AGC will make a difference in that situation. This may not apply to PSK-31 as much as more complex digital modes, but a point worth considering. DSP filtering of signals above and below the signal you are trying to copy are also a great help; if your rig will allow that narrow of a passband. David KD4NUE You never want to use Fast AGC on PSK31, because the receiver will attempt to follow the PSK31 signal and cause distortion. Always use the slowest AGC setting you have, or no AGC at all. BTW, to accurately measure IMD, reduce your RF gain until the IMD reading stops falling and report that as the IMD reading. The reason for this is that the receiver must amplify linearly for PSK31 and if a signal is strong enough to distort the RF amplifier or IF amplifers, you get a false (usually poorer) IMD reading. Also, IMD is the measure of the first set of unwanted sidebands and if the signal to noise ratio is poor, the software will be measuring the noise at the same point as unwanted sidebands and reporting a poor IMD. It is better just to look for unwanted sidebands and report if you see any or not. The caveat is that the unwanted sidebands may be so far down in the noise you cannot see them, even though they are there, but as far as you, or a station with the same reception as yours, it does not matter, as the unwanted sidebands are not going to bother an adjacent station. Still, the best practice is to always transmit with a linear, clean, signal so your unwanted sidebands do not QRM any adjacent station, either near to you or somewhere else 73, Skip KH6TY .
[digitalradio] Re: [NBEMSham] HF FLARQ Freqs?
Perhaps the strength of the NBEMS modes needs to be put in perspective. As the NBEMS web page clearly explains, NBEMS was designed for stable propatation paths up to 100 miles on HF, or 300 miles on HF using NVIS antennas *on both ends*. Just as Rick experienced, two days ago, I told a new digital user, an accomplished radio operator and DXer, W4NL, how to download and install the latest version of NBEMS and we sent the same file using PSK63, PSK125 and PSK250. It was 4 PM and first we tried 30m, but even MFSK16, without flarq, could not communicate very long, so I suggested we try 40m, a band on which we both have NVIS antennas. We were able to transfer a 616 byte text test file using PSK250, and took only one hit, which was caused by a loud static crash that I heard and saw the corruption of the text. The static crash was strong, but so were signals, which were S7-S9 on both ends (we were both running around 25 watts), so only once was the static strong enough to wipe out the data transmission momentarily. There was no QSB, because we were using the recommended NVIS antennas, and W4NL is exactly at the fringe area limit from me for NVIS coverage, which is generally considered to be 300 miles. The previous day, I transferred the same file using PSK250 on VHF, but over only a 25 mile distance, with no hits at all, which would be expected. We were both only running a couple of watts and both using a new design for a horizontally-polarized 2 meter antenna, called the Jolly Roger that is ideal for emcomm, as it is omnidirectional, 3 dB higher gain than the famous Big Wheel, and costs less than $30 to make out of PVC pipe and #14 house wire. Anybody interested in the design can download a preliminary draft Word document describing the construction from http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/JollyRoger.zip . Four antennas have already been built locally from the instructions, and all four work the same, with low SWR at 144.2 MHz, and excellent gain. We all must remember that NBEMS is designed *specifically* for emergency communications when the repeaters are out of commission or unreachable, and over distances up to 100 miles on VHF or 300 miles on HF. All the tests over larger distances, from 500 miles to 2000 miles, or even greater, are much appreciated and also provide valuable user information, but it takes high performance modes of much greater bandwidth to sucessfully operate with ARQ in the presence of QRM, QRN, and changing propagation with time of day, as well as QSB most of the time. Trying to maintain stable communications over such long paths is not the objective of NBEMS, but only to achieve dependable point-to-point communications up to 100 miles on 2 meter VHF or up to 300 miles on HF, but using NVIS antennas *on both ends*. Before passing judgement on the modes included at present in NBEMS, it is suggested to test according to the expectations for NBEMS and then make a judgement. We are continually improving NBEMS, thanks to everyone's feedback and testing, both on HF and VHF, and in the near future, we will definitely incorporate a higher performance ARQ mode for Windows with higher throughput than MFSK16. Until that time, for Windows users, MFSK16 is the strongest mode for HF we support. Our thanks go out to everyone who is helping us to improve NBEMS. Please check the web page often, www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS, and be sure to use only the latest version for testing, as using a old version with a new one may be generate confusion, or even not work at all. We are incorporating changes daily based on the feedback we have received, and our own round the clock testing, as fast as reasonably possible, without stopping testing already being done successfully by releasing a too rapid succession of changes. We now display the latest version numbers at the very top of flarq and VBdigi, so you can easily confirm with whomever you are testing that you both have the same version. The April issue of QST headlines NBEMS on page 80 and does a good job of putting NBEMS in the proper perspective. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:36 PM Subject: Re: [NBEMSham] HF FLARQ Freqs? The suggestion has been made to be up a couple kHz from the normal PSK31 watering holes. Some of us use the ALE/FAE400 frequencies for NBEMS as well, however I have been not been getting positive comments from those who have been attempting to use NBEMS on HF:( They consider the protocol too weak for practical use. I have had good luck on NVIS 80 meters during daytime and have run up to PSK250. Here are some possible frequencies: 3584, 7074, 10136, 14094, 18104, 21094, 28124. Since ALE/FAE modes use 1625 Hz as the center frequency, I have been calling CQ on these frequencies with both ALE/FAE400 and NBEMS (mostly with PSK63) with a 1500 Hz offset. Last night
Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35
John, the outrage over Pactor is not about Pactor, but about unattended, automatic transmissions on HF that routinely, and unnecessarily, disrupt all other communications on the frequency. It has nothing to do with the Pactor mode itself. NBEMS will often make final delivery of emergency messages over the radio by Internet email, but NEVER automatically. On page 80, third paragraph, it says, NBEMS requires human beings at *both* ends of the path - there are *no* automated or semiautomated operations. Given its narrow bandwidth and the ability of operators to easily detect other signals and *avoid* causing interference, NBEMS is well suited for HF use. NBEMS is also sometimes email over ham radio as well as just text messages to be delivered by phone or SMS, but it is *not* a gateway to the Internet. There is *no* automated access to the Internet. There are *no* NBEMS stations that will automatically transmit at the command of a remote operator who cannot check for other activity local to the station. Every transmission, and every handling of an emergency message, has to be done be a licensed ham operator, physically present at the station controls, who may chose either to use the Internet to forward the message or deliver it by any other means. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 9:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] April QST page 35 That screen shot sure looks like email over ham radio to me. In fact the traffic looks just like what I see on the pactor systems. I'm waiting for the outrage that some had about the pactor so call email systems.
Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35
That's OK, John. I only used NBEMS as an example that all the anger against Pactor is misunderstood, because it just happens that unattended stations use Pactor (because it is very good), and it is the unattended stations and their clients that justly deserve the anger of the rest of us who work hard to fairly share our bands with other users. The NBEMS system is designed, from the start, not to emulate unattended email services, but to provide the most efficient emergency communications when called upon, and keep it under control of hams that respect the right of other hams to use the bands also. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35 Sorry Skip I have not gotten to page 80 yet. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1342 - Release Date: 3/25/2008 10:26 AM
Re: [digitalradio] 80M warbler rig / Other modes ?
The Warbler is just a SSB transceiver of low power. It should be able to run any of the soundcard modes. It is certainly worth a try. I have even been considering the Warbler for low battery drain emcomm use for NBEMS. With a low NVIS antenna, range could be 100 to 300 miles, and ARQ would take care of any errors. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: DIGITALRADIO digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:10 PM Subject: [digitalradio] 80M warbler rig / Other modes ? Before I go looking through my junk boxes in the basement, is that old 80M Warbler radio that people had years ago capable of anything other than PSK31 ? I can't remember if there was a PSK31 generating chip in it , or it will work with any soundcard mode? Just wondering about a low powered rig for dedicated JT65 or WSPR use. I have one ...somewhere. -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1348 - Release Date: 3/28/2008 10:58 AM
[digitalradio] Re: 30 Meter QRP Weekend April 19th 20th
If everyone who thought 30m was dead just called CQ, that opinion might change very quickly! Try it! It is a time-honored technique! ;-) 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] 30 meters dead
Started listening to 30m at 8 AM. Only heard a propnet station coming on periodically. For one hour, no other activity - took a *big* risk - called CQ! ;-) Worked Columbia and California. When in doubt - just try calling CQ! Maybe the band is not dead after all. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anyone need a $6.50 soundcard ?
Andy, if you don't get any takers, I have an extra one I will be glad to drop in the mail to you - no charge. I purchased four to save on the per-unit shipping cost, with the expectation of giving them to others who would like to get on NBEMS. These things work just great and free up your computer soundcard for use by Windows. Just use VOX for PTT. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:41 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Anyone need a $6.50 soundcard ? --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am about to order a USB external sound adapter for US$6.50. The shipping however is $8.00 , more than the product itself ! So, perhaps I should order several of them and just mail them to others than want one. They apparently weigh 4oz, sticking one in the US mail should cost a couple of dollars, not 8.00 (a guess) I have seen a couple of well known hams use these for digital modes. Anyone else want one ? Andy K3UK http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=CL-USCM2 for more details -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1375 - Release Date: 4/12/2008 11:32 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anyone need a $6.50 soundcard ?
If your transceiver has no VOX for PTT, or you prefer to keep the mic plugged in, and you have no problem working with tiny SMT pinouts, the USB Sound Adapter can also be modified to provide an audio-actuated PTT output as well as audio in and out:: http://www.usbradio.org/usbfob.pdf This makes about as inexpensive a complete PSK31 interface as you can get! If you have any feedback problems, just add a Radio Shack isolation transformer in the transmit audio line. 73, Skip KH6TY Hello Andy, I have used almost the similar USB sound adapter and made a modification to get a very high precision sampling rate. My module has a 12 MHz crystal and CM108 codec inside. It was only necessary to cut one of crystal wires and feed 3 V level from my double-ovened reference oscillator (by resistance division from 5 V TTL). 73 Matti/OH2ZT
Re: [digitalradio] Cheap USB soundcards ordered
Andy, There may be some misunderstanding. I already have four of the USB Sound Adapters, which I will use to help local hams get on NBEMS. Please take me off your list, as I don't need any more. Thanks, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Best line of the day
I agree. Static crashes are a powerful QRN source here too. Guess Olivia would be better, even 8/250 would stand a better chance of good copy. In spite of strong signals, if there is no second chance, it does not matter much how clever Varicode is. It is certainly a big step ahead on quiet bands, but when QRM dominates, it is simply not enough. 73, Jose, CO2JA Hi Jose, We are using PSK63 to PSK250 on 2 meters for NBEMS with excellent success and fast data transfers, as there is essentially no problem with static crashes on 2 meters. Wether we use PSK63, PSK125, or PSK250 is simply a function of the path loss on 2 meters we have to overcome to get a usable S/N, and there is no QSB to contend with either (up to about 100 miles). However, as you note, static crashes are a big problem for PSK31, and a huge problem for PSK250, so those testing NBEMS on HF have had to resort to MFSK16 (already included in the NBEMS software), which is much less disturbed by static crashes. However, data transfer is very slow using MFSK16, especially after adding ARQ, so we are seriously considering using DominoEx, which is faster, easier to tune, within 1.5 dB of the weak signal performance of MFSK16, and that we hope is more like MFSK16 in tolerance to static crashes, but we do not have enough experience to know if it is or not. The problem is that DominoEx is not used a lot, so if you, and others reading this post, can compare DominoEx11, or DominoEx16, to MFSK16 during times of many static crashes and let us know the result, I would greatly appreciate it. Multipsk supports both DominoEx, and MFSK16 under Windows, as does fldigi, under Linux. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] RFSM8000 and Yaesu FT857
Les, Are you sure it is the IF passband? If your BFO injection frequency is set correctly, you should be able to pass 300 to maybe 2200 Hz. Otherwise, SSB phone will have no lows. If you have audio transformers in a homebrew interface, make sure they have the necessary frequency response. The best around here seem to be the little green ones from Radio Shack. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Leskep To: Digitalradio Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 9:08 PM Subject: [digitalradio] RFSM8000 and Yaesu FT857 Greetings to all Is anyone using the FT857 for RFSM8000 I have been trying mine out over the past two days after getting a new Signalink USB interface Big problem with the RX passband - it is not wide enough using the standard filter supplied with the FT857 and consequently too much of the signal is cut off on the low frequency end of the audio Waterfall shows that there is no or very little audio up to about 700 hz making it impossible so far to make a connect even though it will spring up the called station every time Any ideas? I am now looking at an INRAD filter either 2500 or 2900 that would allow the required passband audio Any comments or feedback welcome Regards Les VK2DSG -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.1/1385 - Release Date: 4/18/2008 9:30 AM
Re: [digitalradio] RFSM8000 and Yaesu FT857
Les, According to the RFSM web page, you need at *least* 300 to 3000 Hz audio response, and preferably 300 to 3400 Hz. Even an INRAD filter is not going to completely meet the 3000 Hz high end requirement, much less a 3400 Hz requirement. I think some other Yaesu rigs optionally support a 3300 Hz high end with an optional Yaesu filter, but my point was that if your low end is only 700 Hz, something is misaligned on your FT-857 to start with. You also could wind up paying for an INRAD filter and still find the low end or high end inadequate because the audio itself is rolled off too fast. Anyway, it is probably better to use something other than the FT-857 for digital modes as finding the ALC threshold is very critical for getting low IMD, even on PSK31, and drift is a problem on 2 meters unless you have the TCXO option, which my FT-857 does not. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Leskep To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:11 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RFSM8000 and Yaesu FT857 Hi Skip The problem is that I need to pass around 2.4 khz of signal audio and with the stock filter it will not do it - have to look at a wider filter or an IC7000 hihi Regards Les From: kh6ty Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:40 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RFSM8000 and Yaesu FT857 Les, Are you sure it is the IF passband? If your BFO injection frequency is set correctly, you should be able to pass 300 to maybe 2200 Hz. Otherwise, SSB phone will have no lows. If you have audio transformers in a homebrew interface, make sure they have the necessary frequency response. The best around here seem to be the little green ones from Radio Shack. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Leskep To: Digitalradio Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 9:08 PM Subject: [digitalradio] RFSM8000 and Yaesu FT857 Greetings to all Is anyone using the FT857 for RFSM8000 I have been trying mine out over the past two days after getting a new Signalink USB interface Big problem with the RX passband - it is not wide enough using the standard filter supplied with the FT857 and consequently too much of the signal is cut off on the low frequency end of the audio Waterfall shows that there is no or very little audio up to about 700 hz making it impossible so far to make a connect even though it will spring up the called station every time Any ideas? I am now looking at an INRAD filter either 2500 or 2900 that would allow the required passband audio Any comments or feedback welcome Regards Les VK2DSG No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.1/1385 - Release Date: 4/18/2008 9:30 AM -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.1/1385 - Release Date: 4/18/2008 9:30 AM
Re: [digitalradio] USB - RS232 adapter for Vista 64bit?
Peter, A good, but expensive, solution is to get the SignaLink USB interface, which has digital VOX built in. This how I solved the same problem You can also get a C-media USB Sound Adapter and modify it to bring out a PTT line, which is a less expensive approach ( http://www.usbradio.org/usbfob.pdf) 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Signal on 3850
Ralph, A group of us were beta testing a brand new mode for NBEMS on HF, especially designed to survive extremely high, almost continuous, levels of static (such as follows a hurricane). One station was in Florida, one in Alabama, one in Georgia, and one in South Carolina. We were on 3854, USB, around 1500 Hz tone frequency, so that is probably what you heard, since you are close by. The new mode is called DEX and is expected to be released for NBEMS HF beta testing with this group in about two weeks. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Ralph Mowery To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:17 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Signal on 3850 I am located in the middle of North Carolina, USA --- On Tue, 5/13/08, John Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Signal on 3850 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 10:59 PM Ummm, where are you? I can't hear anything here in VK. John de VK2XGJ Stop worrying about Life You'll never get out of it alive - Original Message - From: Ralph Mowery [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:23 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Signal on 3850 A friend told me to lisen on 3850 lsb +- a kc or two. There is some digital type signal there. Does anyone know what it is and where it is comming from. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1431 - Release Date: 5/13/2008 7:55 PM Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release Date: 5/13/2008 7:31 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Signals on 3584 + audio
Hi Rick, FYI, our tests last night indicate that MFSK16 still copies the best at low S/N, but only when there are no static crashes, but DEX16 or DEX11 have much fewer errors when there are static crashes. The problem with MFSK16, as you found, is the mistuning tolerance. For messaging, when there is a fast series of ARQ exchanges, if one station has uncompensated offset between RX and TX (NBEMS must work with untrained and inexperienced operators to be successful for emcomm), and if the offset exceeds 4 Hz, which is not so unusual, eventually it will not be possible to decode MFSK16, and therefore the ARQ requests or confirmations may be missed. This is different from using MFSK16 in a QSO, because in a QSO, it is possible to retune with the mouse after each turnover if necessary, but not very practical in a series of fast ARQ exchanges. We were also testing DSX, which is a variant of DEX, so you would not have been able to decode that. DEX is the name Murray, ZL1BPU, who is working with us to develop the best mode for NBEMS, and is the desiner of MFSK16 and DominoEX, suggested for the new mode, which is NOT compatible with the current DominoEx modes, but uses the same IFK technology so tuning is not critical and static crashes have minimal effect. When we switched to MFSK16, it was to compare very weak reception on one station where there were no static crashes at all. Whereas DEX11 and DEX16 outperformed MFSK16 under the high static conditions, MFSK16 was best when signals were the weakest and there was no static. For NBEMS, we have to compromise between weak signal performance, static crash performance, and transfer speed, and we are still trying to determine which mode to use as a default mode, because it is just not practical to present an untrained operator with a huge selection of different modes for different conditions and ask him, under the pressures of trying to get emergency messages out, to figure out which one to use! Of course, generally, the slower we go in speed, the more robust the mode for a given bandwidth, and there is always a point where a faster mode fails, but a slower one succeeds. In very adverse conditions, when messages tend to be short, such as, We are safe in a shelter at the local school, or The Red Cross has just arrived, any mode that will get the message out, no matter how slowly, is the one that must be used. Connection time tends to be much longer than the message transfer time. Two days ago, a line of severe thunderstorms passed us, and spawned a tornado which touched down about 15 air miles from here, and on 80m, I still have a static level of S9 +10 with strong static crashes almost every second - definitely very adverse conditions! Under these conditions, the new DEX modes are working the best, but at the same time, on 2 meters, there are only occassional weak static crashes, so whenever possible, using VHF is still the best band to use for up to 100 miles. Under these conditions, the PSK modes are quite adequate and also give the fastest transfer speeds. Which PSK speed to use is usually only dependent on the necessary S/N to overcome path loss. I am hoping that most EOC's will install point-to-point VHF circuits for their use rather than relying on 80m and 40m NVIS HF, which is prone to static interference and propagation changes, depending upon the time of day. The advantage to using a relatively narrowband mode on HF is that there is more room for more stations to take traffic simultaneously, which greatly shortens connection time, so the overall time from attempted connection to completion can be much less than having to wait in line to access a few wideband stations. Pactor-II is probably the most efficient ARQ mode developed so far, but it is easy to tell how often connections are not made by observing the number of times client stations come on and never connect, probably because of the small handful of reachable, or available, forwarding stations. I think overall, when we have done all we can to improve our new mode, that in a real emergency, when many stations need to pass traffic at the same time, the throughput of NBEMS will exceed that of other HF systems on the ham bands. We hope to release our latest new mode for beta testing in about two weeks and then everyone will have a chance to try it under all sorts of conditions. 73, Skip NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Signals on 3584 + audio
Hi Mark, I think G3PLX recently mentioned the same thing, with regard to USB sound cards, as he found they have the biggest offset problems. However, in dealing with the masses, if we can find a way to nullify the offset's effect long enough to complete the ARQ transfer, it will work with anyone, and I think using DEX is the answer, but MFSK16 still appears to be the best mode when there is no static problem, and there is QSB taking the signal below the noise threshold. DominoEX can be mistuned up to 200 Hz and has a 200 Hz drift tolerance, without AFC, so that should take care of most situations. I know that DominoEx16 can be mistuned +/- 100 Hz and still keep printing, because I have tested that multiple times on our 2 meter net. BTW, that brings up another issue - drift tolderance. NBEMS has to deal with transceiver at 2 meters with no TCXO, and transceivers with a TCXO. The drift of the FT-897, for example, is about 50 Hz from start of transmit to about 5 seconds after, and with PSK63, I always lose the initial text from the station without a TCXO, but with DominoEx16, I never lose one character - same as the station with a TCXO, so we think we will replace PSK63 with DominoEX16 for our 2 meter net, after two more weeks of tests to see how it performs with multipath reflections. I'll include mention of the sample rate to use in the Help file. Thanks for the tip! 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Mark Miller To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Signals on 3584 + audio At 08:49 AM 5/14/2008, kh6ty wrote: The problem with MFSK16, as you found, is the mistuning tolerance. For messaging, when there is a fast series of ARQ exchanges, if one station has uncompensated offset between RX and TX (NBEMS must work with untrained and inexperienced operators to be successful for emcomm), and if the offset exceeds 4 Hz, which is not so unusual, eventually it will not be possible to decode MFSK16, and therefore the ARQ requests or confirmations may be missed. Skip, One thing I have found is that when the sound card can be configured for a 12000 Hz sampling rate, the offsets are not present in most sound cards. It seems that when 11025 is used that the offsets are noticeable in many sound cards. I am not sure how an 8000 Hz sampling rate performs, but just thought I would mention this observation. 73, Mark N5RFX -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1432 - Release Date: 5/14/2008 7:49 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Keeping connected and tools in the toolbox
In ALL cases, we must not lose sight of the fact that you must always have phone (voice) communications available in emergencies. Digital data plays a much smaller secondary role. To show you how absurd it can get, in our Section we have Digital Communications Coordinator who actually believes that having hams check in to his Winlink 2000 VHF only PMBO via RF or even via the internet is somehow an emergency amateur radio net. This is an important point and one of the reasons that we recommend 2 meters for NBEMS whenever it is feasible, because on 2 meters, you can mix voice and data on the same frequency. In addition, although we are improving NBEMS support on HF with a new static-robust mode (soon to be released), 2 meters is still the band of choice for fastest transfers and dependable point-to-point circuits. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
[digitalradio] Re: [psk31] Digest Number 1739
Neil, QuikPSK (http://www.qsl.net/kh6ty/psk63/) can send a picture of your ugly face, even if you do not have an Internet connection. It is not very big, but big enough to see how ugly you look! ;-) (URL) My name is Neil and I am 46 years old - up pops a picture of my ugly face. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Move away from PSK63 /31 in NBEMS?
I note the new release of FL-Digi does not list PSK31 or 63 under NBEMS modes. I realize that Dave , Skip, and others never really intended NBEMS to have much use on HF , hence PSK250/125, but was wondering why the option of slower PSK modes has been removed. Andy, PSK31 and PSK63 are still there for use in QSO's but neither mode is as good as MFSK16 or MFSK32, or our new Thor modes, for ARQ messaging when high static conditions on 80m or 40m exist, which is most of the time in the summer or before and after a hurricane, so MFSK16 or MFSK32, wider, but the same speeds as PSK31 and PSK63, are recommended for NBEMS messaging over PSK31 and PSK63. The MFSK16 and MFSK32 modes are not your grandmother's MFSK modes, but have been made more robust under static conditions on HF when PSK63 and PSK31 get pulled off frequency by the AFC if there is a static crash between ARQ transmissions. It was a tough decision not to include PSK63 in the recommended NBEMS mode list, but the job of NBEMS is to accomplish the most reliable messaging for any given speed, and the modified MFSK modes are simply more reliable, although they are wider. For VHF messaging, PSK31 and PSK63 lose out again over DominoEx11 and DominoEx22 at the same speed, because many VHF multimode transceivers have no TCXO and drift too much to maintain tuning on 2 meters during an ARQ transfer, whereas DominoEx has a wide tolerance to mistuning or drift, such that no AFC is needed and provides a lower minimum S/N than the PSK modes at the same speed. PSK31 and PSK63 are easier to recongnize among the background noise on VHF, so it is often best to establish tuning with PSK41 or PSK63, check to see if there is no adjacent frequency activity, and then switch to DominoEx for the ARQ transfer. The popular IC-746Pro, for example, drifts 100 Hz between receiving and start of transmitting, unless a TCXO is added, causing the loss of the first few characters or words on PSK63, so I have switched our 2 meter digital net from PSK63 to DominoEx. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Move away from PSK63 /31 in NBEMS?
1. Is it correct that just because a mode is listed in the NBEMS mode list, does not mean that you could not use it with flarq as an ARQ mode? Yes, but some modes cannot be used as an ARQ mode due to either too much latency or ascii or control code support. The only modes tested with flarq are DominoEx, MFSK16,32,64, PSK31,63,125,250, Thor (all speeds) and MT-63-2000. The latency of MT-63 is so great, only the fastest speed is enough to enable ARQ to work. Therefore, any of the modes could theoretically be used, even if not recommended or even if they might not work very well but flarq will ARQ any of them? See above. Of the available modes for ARQ, the ones listed for NBEMS are the ones recommended for messaging. However, on VHF when signals are near the noise, it is sometimes easier to tune with PSK31 (because the idle carriers stand out more clearly against the noise background on the waterfall than the multi-tone modes) and then switch to MFSK16 or DominoEx11 without changing the tuning. 2. Could you explain how the MFSK modes are made more robust and yet can still work with other programs? We worked with ZL1BPU, one of the authors of MFSK16, to implement several enhancements, one of which is called puncturing, which averages the signal level and if a signal sample is significantly above the average, it is assumed to be a static burst and the AFC is momentarily disabled. The fldigi MFSK modes are compatible with MFSK16 or MFSK8 in other programs, but it is necessary to use fldigi in order to get the advantage of the enchancements. On another note, thanks for confirming what I suspected about the drift issue. I recently was told that I my preference for purchasing only TCXO rigs was overkill, even for VHF, but when you look at the ppm issues with modes such as MFSK, even a few Hz is a problem. Generally, not on HF so much, as transceivers tend to have less drift on HF, especially on 80m and 40m, but definitely on VHF, where excessive drift can often be a serious problem for some digital modes. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Re: signalink sL+
Skip - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 10:19 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: signalink sL+ Signalink is not capable of high speed ARQ. It uses vox, and doesn't have a real PTT with RTS. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, matt gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WONDERING IF ANYBODY IS USING A SIGNALINK SL+ FOR HIGH SPEED ARQ SOFTWARE IE RFSM2400 OR ALIKE ? I'M CURIOUS OF PERFORMANCE BEFORE I CONSIDER PURCHASE MATTHEW A. GREGORY KC2PUA Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1626 - Release Date: 8/21/2008 6:54 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Bonnie, Rud Merriam k5rud wrote: Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for transmitter keying. Bonnie wrote: IMHO, it is ridiculous to suggest that the protocol implementers should change the protocol to add overhead to accept cheapo bogus hardware. In many cases, the excellent worldwide standards have already been set, and the proliferation of sub-standard interfaces on the market is not going to affect the protocols, like the tail wagging the dog. The ARQ specification by K9PS clearly states that all SOH in a preamble are ignored except one, so in order to make it possible to use MFSK16, with its rather high latency, with ARQ for NBEMS, we simply added 10 SOH to each transmission to compensate for the latency. This also made it possible to use MT63-2000 with ARQ. It works, and the additional overhead is so small that the slowdown in throughput is insignificant, especially since MFSK16 is so good, that whole blocks that might ordinarily have to be repeated using a lesser mode are not, which is much more significant to throughput than the time it takes to send 10 SOH characters. The K9PS specification has not been deviated from and the NBEMS system also works perfectly with either SignaLink digital VOX or SSB rig VOX. You should clairfy your overly broad statement that the SignaLink will not work with ARQ modes, to say it may not work with traditional PC ALE or AMTOR, but is fine to use with other soundcard modes, so you do not continue to mislead others. I think you owe Rud Merriam a personal apology for calling him ridiculous. It is YOU who are in the wrong, not he... 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] What Is A Good FLARQ Frequency?
On two meters, we use 144.144 around 1500 Hz using DominoEx 11. On HF, we use 3584 around 1500 Hz, and MFSK16. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team I have flarq running here and would like to give it a try. Anybody out there want to suggest a good frequency? Rick - KH2DF/W5
Re: [digitalradio] Re: NBEMS opeation procedure
You are welcome Andy. Also keep in mind that you two are much more than 300 miles apart and are going to experience QSB and even QRN that you would not have using NVIS antennas only 300 miles or less apart. As you know, noise arrives at low angles (see the explanation of why the Beverages are so quiet), and a NVIS antenna, about only 12 feet high, will discriminate against noise arriving at low angles, because its takeoff angle is almost straight up. In addition, propagation changes (QSB) affects the NVIS short-range communication much less than using a longer skip zone. Nevertheless, we did extensive tests and had many successful ARQ transfers over 500 miles or greater on 40m and 80m using MFSK16, and sometimes MFSK32, which is the best performing mode we have in the NBEMS suite for handling deep QSB fades and static crashes. It is just that those long circuits are never as solid as a NVIS circuit, so it is not a very good measure of NBEMS performance on either HF (up to 300 miles distant) or VHF (up to 100 miles distant), which would constitute the distances for almost any real emcomm situation. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:00 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NBEMS opeation procedure Thank you Skip, this helps a lot. I was blindly sending beacons !!! Andy --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To minimize interference to others and to have the most success with NBEMS, we wish for everyone to follow the prescribed contact procedure for using NBEMS. Here is an except from the Help in the Flarq application: Initiating an ARQ connect session Start by sending a 'CQ NBEMS' or some similar unique way of indicating that you are seeking to send ARQ traffic. Do this from the digital modem program and not from flarq. The potential station for receiving your ARQ traffic will answer in the clear. Negotiate what digital mode you will use for the ARQ connection; ie: PSK-63, PSK-125, PSK-250, MFKS-16 etc. Then try that mode without ARQ to be sure that QRN and QSB will not seriously disrupt the connection. Ask the responding station to send an ARQ beacon using flarq. You will then see his ARQ callsign appear in the callsign window. Click the CONNECT button to connect with that station. The text next to the diamond will change to CONNECTING and remain that way during the connect time out period. During the connection process the CONNECT button will be disabled (greyed out). After a connection has been established the button label changes to 'Disconnect' and the text next to the diamond indicator will read CONNECTED. Pressing this button will then execute an orderly disconnect from the other station and return the program to the CONNECTED state... Blindly sending a beacon and waiting for a response is strongly discouraged! Please follow the above procedure so as to minimize interference to other users and to establish what mode is most suitable for ARQ transfers under the current conditions. Note that DominoEx and the PSK modes are intended to be used for VHF use and the MFSK modes for HF use. On VHF, when operating near the noise level, it is helpful to start with PSK63, as the idle signal stands out most clearly over the noise background, even if DominoEx modes will produce the most error-free copy, having a lower minimum S/N requirement. Then, once tuned in PSK63, shift to DominoEx 11 without changing the tuning. If the path S/N is sufficient to use the PSK modes, and both transceivers are stable enough (probably using TCXO's), PSK125 or even PSK250 can be attempted, but before changing to a faster mode, copy should be error free when using the initial slower mode. The faster the mode, the better the S/N needs to be for minimum repeated blocks. When using PSK125 or PSK250, keep a little squelch active in order to prevent large amounts of garbage filling the screen in the absence of a signal, and enable AFC. On HF, start with MFSK16, with AFC enabled. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
[digitalradio] Re: [NBEMSham] NBEMS opeation procedure
Please note that, in the flarq Help, After a connection has been established the button label changes to 'Disconnect' and the text next to the diamond indicator will read CONNECTED. Pressing this button will then execute an orderly disconnect from the other station and return the program to the CONNECTED state... Should read: After a connection has been established the button label changes to 'Disconnect' and the text next to the diamond indicator will read CONNECTED. Pressing this button will then execute an orderly disconnect from the other station and return the program to the DISCONNECTED state... We will be correcting the flarq Help file on the next release. Thanks for your understanding... 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Soundblaster cards and digital applications
Hi Dave, Glad you finally solved the problem with your system. However, the cause of the problem is still unknown, and it certainly has mystified many folks who tried to help. Creative (Soundblaster) essentially started the soundcard business, and generally has been the soundcard that works. History suggests that this is still true in most cases. I wish I had suggested trying a total system restore to eliminate any variable due to the Windows system. There is also the possibility of operator error, especially with the Audigy, since it is so complex. We have a member of our digital net here who finds it very hard to understand how the Audigy works with his ham programs, but it works perfectly with fldigi on all modes, and DM780 as well, once he finds the correct settings and leaves them alone. I have often recommended changing to a simpler card, but he thinks the decoding will be better with the higher quality card, and it could be, depending upon the comparison sound system in the same computer, but the jury is still out on that one. I personally have had situations where a total system restore was the only way to make things work. Why, I do not know. Since Windows has over 10,000,000 lines of interacting code, it could be almost anything. I seriously doubt that your problems are caused by the SoundBlaster or fldigi, but most likely by something we do not know about your system. I say this because there are probably thousands of systems with SoundBlaster cards, and even hundreds with Audigy cards that are working with no problems at all, and if your system were one of those, it would obviously work also. Just like you are not condeming SoundBlaster, I am not trying to defend SoundBlaster. However, I just want to point out to anyone with soundcard problems that the Windows system itself can often be the culprit, and the way the operator is configuring the system, or the way programs have modified the system, could be the problem as well. When I test fldigi for any version release, I have a computer on which I always do a total system restore so I am testing with a truly virgin system. We have another net member who cannot get fldigi to run on his desktop machine, but it is OK on two laptops. Since he has so much data and programs on the desktop machine, it is not practical to reformat and restore that machine to fix the problem. He is one of our fldigi beta testers, and in one case, did have to do a restore on one of the laptops to get fldigi working, because somewhere along the line, a remnant of one of the beta versions continued to do something to the system and cleaning it out completely was the simplest (and probably only) way to get it working again. If there are mysterious soundcard problems, next time I'd first try a total system restore before assuming the soundcard is at fault. BTW, Peter Martinez, G3PLX, has found that some USB soundcards have a greater offset between receive and transmit tone frequencies than most onboard soundcards. In this case, the soundcard might be the problem, and not the system. Anyway, we have beat this horse to death. I am happy you finally found a solution to your own system that works for you, and we can move on to other issues. :-) 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team Little problems began to show up again. Once in a while, the PC wouldn't boot properly, but most of the issues were with digital ham apps. Beginning to see a trend, I just replaced the Soundblaster again, but this time with an inexpensive Diamond brand sound card. All problems have completely disappeared! This isn't an ad for Diamond sound cards, or a blanket condemnation of Soundblaster. Just a hopefully informative note to anyone out there who has problems with their PC that are unexplainable by other causes, that looking at your sound card /*might*/ be a place to look. 73 Dave KB3MOW
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Sound card question
Patrick, John, This is all we have published at the moment. More will be released at a later date. We are busy with the launch of NBEMS and have no time right now to write detailed specifications. http://w1hkj.com/FldigiHelp/Thor.html 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Sound card question Hello John, As far as I know, there are no public specifications or description of THOR modes. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: vk2eta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:01 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Sound card question Vojtech and Patrick thanks you for the reply. I effectively didn't realize synchronization was so critical too. Interesting. Just a comment/question to both, since you are both developers of widely used programs (and I take this opportunity to thank you both for that), I discovered the THOR mode as release by Dave in Fldigi and I have to say based on the preliminary test that I have done (and echoed by tests done by Rein developer of the PSKmail system), that I am very impressed by the performance I get. It is also an ifsk mode like DominoEx but for some reason performs much better at least as implemented in fldigi. Not sure if it is the permanent FEC but is seems quite robust in my tests between VK and ZL. Have you had any comments or request for implementation in your software or is it just too new, or not different enough? 73s, John VK2ETA (And for Patrick, Ex FK8DV. Merci) Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 30M digital activity at http://www.projectsandparts.com/30m Recommended software : DM780, Multipsk, FLDIGI, Winwarbler ,MMVARI. Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1626 - Release Date: 8/21/2008 6:54 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Sound card question
Patrick, John, The link on the Thor web page, http://w1hkj.com/FldigiHelp/Thor.html, provides some additional technical specifications for Thor: http://w1hkj.com/FldigiHelp/Modes/THORdesc.htm To answer John's question, Thor uses full time FEC. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Sound card question Hello John, As far as I know, there are no public specifications or description of THOR modes. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: vk2eta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:01 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Sound card question Vojtech and Patrick thanks you for the reply. I effectively didn't realize synchronization was so critical too. Interesting. Just a comment/question to both, since you are both developers of widely used programs (and I take this opportunity to thank you both for that), I discovered the THOR mode as release by Dave in Fldigi and I have to say based on the preliminary test that I have done (and echoed by tests done by Rein developer of the PSKmail system), that I am very impressed by the performance I get. It is also an ifsk mode like DominoEx but for some reason performs much better at least as implemented in fldigi. Not sure if it is the permanent FEC but is seems quite robust in my tests between VK and ZL. Have you had any comments or request for implementation in your software or is it just too new, or not different enough? 73s, John VK2ETA (And for Patrick, Ex FK8DV. Merci) Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 30M digital activity at http://www.projectsandparts.com/30m Recommended software : DM780, Multipsk, FLDIGI, Winwarbler ,MMVARI. Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1626 - Release Date: 8/21/2008 6:54 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Howard, We already achieved successful, error-free, VHF communication (with no repeated blocks) using NBEMS software over a 70 mile path in flat country between two 50 watt FM transceivers, one with a 7.5 dBi antenna at 10 feet off the ground and the other with a 7.5 dBi antenna 25 feet off the ground. I have also developed a DOX interface for FM transceivers which have no VOX. A schematic is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/Interface%20schematic.jpg We are now in the process of determining just how much farther we can go using FM. However, using SSB with DominoEX, we have already reached 100 miles consistently between a 9 dBi antenna and a 13 dBi antenna. We think that a 100 mile capability is sufficient to reach outside connectivity for email or phone delivery and confirmation. If so, then VHF can be used most of the time. By using 2m, if the S/N is sufficient, we can also use phone and data interchangably on the same frequency, which is not permitted on HF. When the terrain is too hilly for VHF, NBEMS also supports Hf using NVIS antennas with several modes specifically tailored to work under very high static conditions. However, it obviously easier to put up a small beam than it is to always find supports for a NVIS antenna for portable use. A picture of my 2m portable setup is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/sideview.jpg. By using a two section mast, everything will fit in the trunk or in the back seat. NBEMS does not support push emcomm email, because there is no confirmation of delivery. Instead, there must just be an operator present at each end of the link. This also helps prevent transmitting on an already active frequency. As you correctly note, VHF FM transceivers cost only a couple of hundred dollars instead of a thousand for SSB-capable transceivers, however, it is absolutely necessary to use horizontally-polarized, gain, antennas to go farther than a repeater can go. The portable station antenna is usually going to be near the ground, and at 10 feet off the ground, there is a huge 6 dB penalty to using vertical polarization. We are now changing the emphasis of NBEMS from SSB to FM with DominoEX in order to make it possible for more people to use NBEMS and also take advantage of the low cost FM-only transceivers in the field. There appears to be a 3 dB or greater disadvantage to using FM over SSB, even with horizontally-polarized antennas, but that can be made up with increased antenna gain or power. Phone will not work on VHF over the same long distances as DominoEX or MFSK16 will work, because the noise level is often so high, the voice just cannot be understood or even heard at all. However, DominoEX and MFSK16 can still decode when the S/N is 10 or 12 dB UNDER the noise level, and that is how we get such long distance communication on 2m. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Howard Z. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:58 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? Is the volunteer out of VHF range? If the base station has a 100 watt VHF radio like the 746pro - you might be able to still reach the volunteer, but he may not have enough power to get back to you. Or he may be out of VHF range. HF is the way to go - but both ends of the conversation need NVIS antennas. HF antennas tend to be large, and NVIS needs to be horizontal. I'm not sure there exists an NVIS antenna for a car or truck. Maybe something horizontal can be setup in the bed of a pick up truck? In general HF antennas for vehicles do not perform very well - but they are better than nothing. There are portable NVIS HF antennas available that can be setup rather quickly. Perhaps this is something to be done when he arrives at his destination, and then call the base on HF? Also keep in mind that HF radios typically cost over a thousand dollars compared to maybe two hundred for a VHF radio. Howard N3ZH
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Howard, First of all, there is no need to shout! My old eyes are still fine for reading without your using caps! :-) This group is for the purpose of discussion about using digital modes in amateur radio, all opinions are welcome, and nothing should not be held against a person for posting a contrary opinion. Personally, I already own expensive HF equipment and consider VHF short range no matter what you do with it - compared to a few hundred miles one gets via HF with a NVIS antenna 10 feet above ground. Personally, I think VHF is nice for 10 to 20 miles - you can go further - nice for you. I'll keep it in mind if anyone gets a team of bulldozers and makes Maryland flat - I can't walk a block or two with reaching a hill. Your statement that VHF is nice for 10-20 miles, is what we find also (using phone, and a 5/8 wavelength vertical whip on a car), but I was only tryng to point out that if you use horizontal polarization and sensitive digital modes, you can go much, much, farther, and we have established that over flat country. Vertical polarization with omnidirectional antennas are perfect for mobile use, and that is why we have repeaters today, but the range is very limited, as you point out. However HF is also often not reliable, especially during the time of day that 40m fades out and 80m comes up, or later, when 80m fades also, even using NVIS antennas. We have made many months of NBEMS tests on HF to realize that. In contrast, when VHF can be used, propagation is always consistent up to about 100 miles away. We are continually looking for ways to provide the most dependable messaging system at any time of day or night, and using VHF is one of those ways. I also clearly stated, When the terrain is too hilly for VHF, NBEMS also supports Hf using NVIS antennas with several modes specifically tailored to work under very high static conditions. However HF is not the only way reliable communications can be achieved, at least in non-hilly country. I was not trying to give you any advice, or make someone elses problem yours, but only to address the opinions in your own post. It is not necessary to be sarcastic - if my post, opinions, or findings displease you, simply use your delete key! ;-) For everyone else, please take note that it is a significant finding that long-range communications using FM and DominoEx can more than triple the range of FM phone communications in flat country, but we still have to find out what ranges are possible in hilly country compred to phone communications. Perhaps someone will explain it better, but my guess that when all signals encounter an obstacle such as the curvature of the earth (line of sight?), they diffract and scatter, losing most of their original strength. However, sensitive digital modes can still recover information from the very weak scattered waves, and that is why we can still copy with digital modes when you cannot even tell that a phone signal is no longer present. Since VHF phone signals are limited in general by the encounter with the curvature of the earth, it just makes sense to see what can be done with those weak scattered waves, and that is what we are trying to find out. If anything in my previous post is useful to anyone, please feel free to use it. Even the digital interface for FM transceivers can be useful, as it can be built for $10, which is much less than the $100 SignaLink USB, which also has its own DOX. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Howard Z. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:42 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? SKIP SKIP SKIP READ READ READ I, HOWARD, AM not not NOT NOT not THE PERSON WITH THE QUESTION NOR THE PROBLEM. GEEZ, I TRY TO ANSWER SOMEONE'S QUESTION, AND SUDDENLY IT BECOMES MY QUESTION AND MY PROBLEM. If you are going to address someone - address the individual who has the problem or question in the first place. Personally - I don't care. Personally, I am an emergency worker who will never ever be sent to help in an ARES/RACES HAM group, because my agency will need me here. If it snows 20 feet one day, I'll be disciplined if I do not get to work - lose all bonuses and raises for a year. Personally, I already own expensive HF equipment and consider VHF short range no matter what you do with it - compared to a few hundred miles one gets via HF with a NVIS antenna 10 feet above ground. Personally, I think VHF is nice for 10 to 20 miles - you can go further - nice for you. I'll keep it in mind if anyone gets a team of bulldozers and makes Maryland flat - I can't walk a block or two with reaching a hill. I am not the one who asked the question. I am not the one who asked the question. Don't try giving me advise when I am not the one who asked the question. The original poster who posed the question and who has the problem
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Hi Rick, Thank you for your comments on Howard's and my posts. Of course, we prefer using SSB on VHF, because the range is longer. First tests indicate that DominoEX with SSB has at least a 3 dB advantage over using FM with DominoEx. We are arranging more tests to be sure. However, the fact that today, maybe half of the U.S. amateurs hold only a Technician license, and do not have access to full HF priviledges, together with the fact that many hams only have inexpensive FM-only transceivers (but only a relative few may have VHF or multimode 2m transceivers with SSB capability), we have decide to explore ways that more hams can participate in emcomm activities, which means finding out how to use FM-only transceivers without repeater assistance. Although you have previously pointed out that many hams already have vertical antennas, the fact remains that a vertical antenna close to the ground (2 wavelengths), has about 6 dB less gain than the same antenna horizontally polarized. At VHF, a 6 dB disadvantage is an enormous disadvantage, plus many of the directive antennas used for FM are fixed on a particular repeater, and cannot currently be rotated anyway. Just model a vertically-polarized antenna over real ground at 2 wavelengths and compare the gain to the same antenna rotated 90 degrees to horizontal polarization to see the difference. In order to confirm Cebik's assertion about the gain difference, I did the modeling myself and found that he is absolutely correct. No difference in free space, but a huge difference over real ground. So, putting it all together, we can get significantly more range by simply investing in a horizontally-polarized antenna, using the same FM transceiver that people already have, and, better yet, in an inexpensive TV antenna rotator so we can communicate in any direction. The optimized two-element quad that we used for the FM/DominoEx tests (7.5 dBi in free space) can be built for less than $15 in an hour with all parts from Lowes, plus a SO-239 connector, and turned with a $60 Philips TV antenna rotator from Walmart, because its wind loading and boom length (13) is so small. A picture of the little quad is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/OptimizedQuad.jpg. It is only 20 x 20 x 13, so it will fit in the trunk of a car without having to be dismanteled. Construction uses schedule 40 PVC, fiberglass driveway markers for spreaders, and #14 insulated house wire, so it is very rugged. I wish that all existing equipment could be used intead, but without a gain antenna and horizontal polarization, range without repeater assistance appears to be just too limited. It would be useful to know how much range you can get in your hilly rural area by using FM, DominoEx, and horizontal antennas on 2m. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Rick W [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? Hi Howard, If you respond to someone's response to a question, with asking questions of your own, then it might be reasonable for some to respond as Skip did. It seems reasonable to me considering you asked Is the volunteer out of VHF range? You also asked about setting up something in the bed of a truck and asked about setting up something on HF after arrival at the destination. All good questions. While your particular job situation does not seem relevant to this discussion, the use of VHF, especially SSB VHF does seem particularly relevant since it is the only other way to get increased distance of communication between a mobile and fixed/portable/mobile station if HF is not workable. The most expensive HF equipment may of of no value when you are trying to communicate between two points that do not have NVIS propagation. It can be frustrating, especially during high QRN as well as the skywave signal just going through the ionosphere and not reflecting back down. For those experienced with Section level nets that only use 75/80 meters, you know what I mean. Going higher in HF frequency doesn't work any better (actually shorter ground/direct wave), and that is why STANAG systems won't work for local communication. VHF simplex with FM and with minimal antennas are not going to go all that far as you point out. In fact, in our area, it is difficult enough for mobiles to repeaters. Sometimes 15 to 20 miles is the best you can do in shaded areas. With 2 meter SSB, we seem to be able to still get through when FM can not get through although signals can be very weak. That is using half wave base to quarter wave mobile antennas. With improved antennas, depending upon terrain, the distance is going to extend out to as much as 50 to 100 miles. This is important because you reduce QRN problems from lightning static and other noise (admittedly less likely though
[digitalradio] Correction on URL for Optimized Quad
The correct URL for the picture of the two-element Optimized Quad is http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/OptimizedQuad.jpg A period at the end of the link in my email accidentally got included in the URL. Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Howard Z. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:42 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? SKIP SKIP SKIP READ READ READ I, HOWARD, AM not not NOT NOT not THE PERSON WITH THE QUESTION NOR THE PROBLEM. GEEZ, I TRY TO ANSWER SOMEONE'S QUESTION, AND SUDDENLY IT BECOMES MY QUESTION AND MY PROBLEM. If you are going to address someone - address the individual who has the problem or question in the first place. Personally - I don't care. Personally, I am an emergency worker who will never ever be sent to help in an ARES/RACES HAM group, because my agency will need me here. If it snows 20 feet one day, I'll be disciplined if I do not get to work - lose all bonuses and raises for a year. Personally, I already own expensive HF equipment and consider VHF short range no matter what you do with it - compared to a few hundred miles one gets via HF with a NVIS antenna 10 feet above ground. Personally, I think VHF is nice for 10 to 20 miles - you can go further - nice for you. I'll keep it in mind if anyone gets a team of bulldozers and makes Maryland flat - I can't walk a block or two with reaching a hill. I am not the one who asked the question. I am not the one who asked the question. Don't try giving me advise when I am not the one who asked the question. The original poster who posed the question and who has the problem was considering HF as a solution. Watson, I think he's got it... maybe. Howard --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howard, We already achieved successful, error-free, VHF communication (with no repeated blocks) using NBEMS software over a 70 mile path in flat country between two 50 watt FM transceivers, one with a 7.5 dBi antenna at 10 feet off the ground and the other with a 7.5 dBi antenna 25 feet off the ground. I have also developed a DOX interface for FM transceivers which have no VOX. A schematic is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/Interface%20schematic.jpg We are now in the process of determining just how much farther we can go using FM. However, using SSB with DominoEX, we have already reached 100 miles consistently between a 9 dBi antenna and a 13 dBi antenna. We think that a 100 mile capability is sufficient to reach outside connectivity for email or phone delivery and confirmation. If so, then VHF can be used most of the time. By using 2m, if the S/N is sufficient, we can also use phone and data interchangably on the same frequency, which is not permitted on HF. When the terrain is too hilly for VHF, NBEMS also supports Hf using NVIS antennas with several modes specifically tailored to work under very high static conditions. However, it obviously easier to put up a small beam than it is to always find supports for a NVIS antenna for portable use. A picture of my 2m portable setup is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/sideview.jpg. By using a two section mast, everything will fit in the trunk or in the back seat. NBEMS does not support push emcomm email, because there is no confirmation of delivery. Instead, there must just be an operator present at each end of the link. This also helps prevent transmitting on an already active frequency. As you correctly note, VHF FM transceivers cost only a couple of hundred dollars instead of a thousand for SSB-capable transceivers, however, it is absolutely necessary to use horizontally-polarized, gain, antennas to go farther than a repeater can go. The portable station antenna is usually going to be near the ground, and at 10 feet off the ground, there is a huge 6 dB penalty to using vertical polarization. We are now changing the emphasis of NBEMS from SSB to FM with DominoEX in order to make it possible for more people to use NBEMS and also take advantage of the low cost FM-only transceivers in the field. There appears to be a 3 dB or greater disadvantage to using FM over SSB, even with horizontally-polarized antennas, but that can be made up with increased antenna gain or power. Phone will not work on VHF over the same long distances as DominoEX or MFSK16 will work, because the noise level is often so high, the voice just cannot be understood or even heard at all. However, DominoEX and MFSK16 can still decode when the S/N is 10 or 12 dB UNDER the noise level, and that is how we get such long distance communication on 2m. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Howard Z. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:58 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? Is the volunteer out
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
No hard feelings, Howard! Your passion for the hobby is appreciated, and many of us have hit the Send key, wishing immediately afterward that we had not! Regardless, I thought many of your points were well made and bared repeating. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Howard Z. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 6:32 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? I deleted that posting soon after I made it. However, I suppose those who get emails still got it. My posting was not appropriate. I appologize. Howard Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1785 - Release Date: 11/13/2008 9:12 AM
