the new mode, and what rationalizations are made for being able
to use it.
This road has been traveled before!
73 - Skip KH6TY
w2xj wrote:
I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that
would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments
where
be able to make it at one baud if we
coordinate frequencies closely.
There is no question about the legality of using ROS on 432 MHz.
73 - Skip KH6TY
kh...@comcast.net
http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net/~kh6ty/
wd4kpd wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio
§97.305 Authorized emission types is the regulation that
authorizes SS for 222 Mhz and above only.
73 - Skip KH6TY
w2xj wrote:
Please provide a citation from part 97 that prohibits ROS even if it
were deemed to truly be spread spectrum.
KH6TY wrote:
In most legal
it will be)
is spread spectrum according to the current FCC rules, and is currently
legal only above 222 Mhz.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Rik van Riel wrote:
On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote:
I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that
would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject
can be thankful for regulations
that both protect, and also allow, with limitations, and that cannot be
changed without a sufficient period of public comment from all users so
that all sides can be heard from. The FCC adheres to such a process.
73 - Skip KH6TY
w2xj wrote:
There are two
the decision enormously, so the
FCC needs to act carefully in order not to make a mistake.
BTW, I have been monitoring 14.101 for several hours and ROS just froze
in Windows 7 with an error message, Run-time error 5. Invalid procedure
call or argument
73 - Skip KH6TY
John B. Stephensen
KH6TY
W2XJ wrote:
Bonnie you have a Ham unfriendly addenda. Say what you like but at the
end of the day it is BS.
*From: *expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.com
expeditionra...@yahoo.com
*Reply-To: *digitalradio
there and a
reasonable degree of spreading is not of so much importance. This is why
ATV is only allowed on UHF. It is so wide that it takes a wide band to
leave room for others to share and operate.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Tony wrote:
Skip,
The problem with ROS is that the frequency shift is by a method
sounding, as in Aurora communications, CW can
still be copied by ear as it modulates the background noise.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Howard Brown wrote:
Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether
the limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the
robustness
or changed to garbage when the Pactor signal
came on.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
Hi,
You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all
bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better
than you transceiver
.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Dave Ackrill wrote:
KH6TY wrote:
2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture
the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as
expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.
As with many other digital modes
to ROS users. We all
have to share frequencies, since no frequencies are owned by anyone,
but are used on a first-come, first-served basis.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
Please, give a frequency alternative to 14.101
I agree with Andy - try 14.109 USB next. ALE is wideband, but of short
duration. It is worth a try, I think.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference to
ROS, and at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference
Andy, you have used ALE. What center frequency or suppressed carrier
frequency should be used to be on the ALE channel at 14.109?
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
One thing, 14.109 means that first tone is on 14.109.4 and last tone
is on 14.111.65
According to that, wich
what RF carriers come out. You can key the tones, or shift the tone
frequencies, etc., and the RF output will follow. The ARRL Handbook
usually has an explanation of this.
Hope that answers the question.
73 - Skip KH6TY
John wrote:
So as to not continue growing the ROS legality discussion
for the
spreading, and in military communications (and even cell phones, I
think) the code prevents anyone else from reconstructing the signal so
that the intelligence can be recovered if they do not possess the same code.
73 - Skip KH6TY
John wrote:
Thanks Skip,
Unfortunately
not share frequencies. We
may not like the time it takes for the process to play out, but that
gives everyone a chance to present their case before any rules are made
- EVERYONE, not just a vocal minority.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Alan Barrow wrote:
John wrote:
Thanks Skip,
Unfortunately
That is only ONE of the three conditions outlined by Jose. I thought I
did not need to repeat the other two.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
re PSK31 accomplishes the same typing speed in a bandwidth of 31 Hz,
instead of in 2000 Hz, so ROS is probably truly spread-spectrum.
Applying
for the bandwidth and I hope it can be used on HF!
73, Skip, KH6TY
then ROS is not spread spectrum and there is no problem.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jhaynesatalumni wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, John ke5h...@... wrote:
Thanks Skip,
Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my
question(s). I
and printed fine when the QRM left.
I am hoping it has advantages for weak-signal work on UHF where it is
inarguably legal. That is where I am going to use it.
73 - Skip KH6TY
wd4kpd wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote
. If ROS is really worth saving for US hams, it is
worth fighting for!
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread
spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of
this claim. They also affirmed that SS
and prove it by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get
the FCC opinion reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but
I wish you success, as ROS is a really fun mode.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation
whatever is required to win this battle.
Good luck!
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
Hi, KH6.
I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the
mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious
words, or blaming it on translation, is not going to
succeed, in my opinion. Rather PROOF that it is not spread spectrum
(i.e. does NOT meet condition #2) will probably do it, but just saying
so will not.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Dave Ackrill wrote:
John wrote:
This should easily provide any
be wrong if given new
information, but just saying it is so does not make it so. I believe
some concrete proof is required now, and maybe your spectrum analyzer
display can be part of such proof.
Other's opinions may vary...
73 - Skip KH6TY
W2XJ wrote:
Skip
You are over thinking
depending upon the shift or the tones used to generate
shift. In spread spectrum, as Jose has written, an independent code is
used for the spreading, one of the requirements to classify it as spread
spectrum.
73 - Skip KH6TY
W2XJ wrote:
I have a different take on this. There are a number
/CheckSR.exe. Let it run for 15 minutes
and then stop it and put the input and output offsets for your soundcard
into Gtor. You must calibrate your soundcard like this or it will not
decode and you will not know why you cannot link.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jhaynesatalumni wrote:
I think I have
It is a NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT requirement (out of three). The point
is that if that is not the way the spreading is done in ROS, ROS is NOT
spread spectrum. PROVE, not just claim, that it is not, and the battle
is won.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Rik van Riel wrote:
On 02/23/2010 09:00 PM
Try calibrating the sound card.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jhaynesatalumni wrote:
I guess I'm hearing a Gtor QSO right now, because every now
and then I get a screen message DATA: comp=Huffman, block=1
and that sort of thing.
but I also get CONNECT (greek) TO (greek)
and DISCONNECT (greek) FROM
input will probably reveal this, which the FCC will
certainly do, now that the question of whether or not ROS is spread
spectrum has been raised.
Jose's original paper on ROS and FHSS defined the three requirements
very clearly.
73 - Skip KH6TY
max d wrote:
Part 97.3 Definitions
Sorry, I meant to write, For example in SSB, the RF frequency at any
time is equal to the tone frequency of the voice plus the suppressed
carrier frequency (USB).
I did not mean the tone frequency at any time...etc.
73 - Skip KH6TY
KH6TY wrote:
Max d,
The distinction is simple
in transmit.
Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than I am can interpret this better,
or perhaps make their own test.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Russell Blair wrote:
If ROS is Multi FSK now, than WHY and WHAT was the intent to call it
(SS) Spread Spectrum?, even as the FCC inplyed that the owner
this correctly. Maybe someone else has a different
interpretation.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Russell Blair wrote:
If ROS is Multi FSK now, than WHY and WHAT was the intent to call it
(SS) Spread Spectrum?, even as the FCC inplyed that the owner (Jose
Albert Nieto)called it (SS). As much as I would like to use
/,
it must be a /duck/”.
It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum
analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Alan Barrow wrote:
KH6TY wrote:
The difference between ROS and MFSK16 at idle (i.e. no data input), is
that MFSK16 has repetitive
.
upper
73 - Skip KH6TY
Alan Barrow wrote:
If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?
.
73, Skip KH6TY SK
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is.
If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio,
instead of criticism ROS.
I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue
saying stupid
, just support a petition to the
FCC to allow it.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you
are not trying help.
*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para
that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies
are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of
frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find.
Olivia 32-1000: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/OLIVIA32-1000.JPG
73 - Skip KH6TY
Warren Moxley wrote
as FMFSK16 or Olivia 32-1000, both
FSK modes where the data determines the frequency spread.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you
are not trying help
will not waste any more of my time trying to help ROS be legal in the
USA. Let someone else be the subject of your personal attacks.
Goodbye and good luck.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member?
If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time
, and
without the comparison to ROS.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Warren Moxley wrote:
Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time
add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes.
Thanks in advance,
Warren - K5WGM
--- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net
mode may be very good for real time VHF DX or EME QSO's.
Unfortunately, we can only use ROS above 222, so 2m EME is not possible
yet for us using ROS. I hope some day it will be.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Warren Moxley wrote:
Hi Skip,
Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can
- Skip KH6TY
silversmj wrote:
Hey Skip KH6TY,
Could you show us a pic of Chip64 (your choice to compare it to ROS)?
Have a look at the links on my message 34845:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/34845
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/34845
The author
That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern
changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The
pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to
exclude it from being FHSS.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Steinar Aanesland wrote
.
The FCC does not care about the mode, or what it is called, but only
what is transmitted on the air.
73 - Skip KH6TY
pa0r wrote:
SS uses pseudorandom codes to wag the carrier(s).
EVERY pseudorandom code is repetitive, the length may vary.
73,
Rein PA0R
--- In digitalradio
mode for EME on 2m and right now, FHSS is not permitted below 222
MHz. However, we will have to wait for the FCC to issue a new opinion,
since they already issued one based on Jose's original claims.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Steinar Aanesland wrote:
Hi Skip
Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling
made, there is probably no problem. It is just that the author, who
claims he is the dependable source, simply cannot be trusted 100% to
tell the truth, and has already reversed himself once.
Tough situation. :-(
73 - Skip KH6TY
W2XJ wrote:
Skip
Do you really think the FCC will put
, and avoid Olivia interference with ROS, and mainly use the 1
baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal work where it is needed the most.
Right now, an automatic Pactor station is also disrupting ROS on 14106.
Just my personal opinion...
73 - Skip KH6TY
Steinar Aanesland wrote:
Hi Jose
I support you
problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive
to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid
QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
I think this is a lot easier. If you see
you.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Dave Ackrill wrote:
KH6TY wrote:
I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been
designated as
1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even
though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the
advantage is much
seen ROS 16 stopping Olivia 32-1000 decoding.
Perhaps others will offer an opinion.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
KH,
ROS 1 baud, is just the less interference produces to others modes.
Before quit 1 baud, i would quit 16 bauds.
So, has no sense what you proposse.
From the latest at rosmodem.wordpress.com:
* **14.102 (exclusive 16 baud)**
* 14.106 (exclusive 16 baud)
* 14.109 (exclusive 1 baud)
73 - Skip KH6TY
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
At 05:40 PM 3/1/2010, you wrote:
The problem is that 14109 has been
, or petition
for use under whatever limitations are necessary to accomodate other
users of the same bands in a cooperative manner.
73 - Skip KH6TY
pd4u_dares wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Toby Burnett ruff...@...
.. But to be honest I
Julian,
In the US, the RTTY/data segment of 20m stops at 14.150.
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
Can anything be done to get the recommended frequencies for ROS on 20m
shifted out of the 14.101 - 14.109 range that already has established
users of other modes? On my band plan, 14.101
/11377/?nc=1
Hope to see you on ROS on UHF, 432.090 MHz, every morning between 7:30
AM and 8:00 AM.
73, Skip KH6TY FM02BT
do what and where they wish. US
amateurs, since they are governed instead by laws, face license
revocation or fines if they consistently flaunt the laws.
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
I thought you were in Region 2. I have the Region 2 band plan in front
of me right off the IARU site
to put together such a petition. I believe
the FCC website has instructions for submitting petitions, and Googling
around will show many examples to follow.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Rik van Riel wrote:
On 03/04/2010 02:02 PM, Alan wrote:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1
to use, but the 2250 Hz-wide mode would still only be legal to
use over 222 Mhz.
Perhaps Steinar can use his superior spectrum analysis software to
confirm this.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: *ROS v2.5.0 Beta* no-re...@wordpress.com
by Doppler effects to use on SSB
weak signal.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
It has been a few years since Dominoex was added to our tool box. I
still see it on the air from time to time but not on a daily basis.
I wonder why it is not used ?
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2005
I believe that Pawel named the Olivia mode in honor of his daughter.
73 - Skip KH6TY
obrienaj wrote:
I hope the question is actually who IS rather than who WAS Olivia.
Andy K3UK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Paul W. Ross
deadgo...@... wrote
Good riddance!
73 - Skip KH6TY
John wrote:
Andy, since you have chosen to moderate very specific posts to slant
the discussion in favor of your own agenda, and that of several
prominent other frequent posters, this reflector has become
effectively useless to me. It is unfortunate
of the author, who correctly
described ROS as FHSS at the outset, which mode's emission signature
clearly shows is true: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/compare.zip
73 - Skip KH6TY
John wrote:
Andy, since you have chosen to moderate very specific posts to slant
the discussion in favor
will eventually write a
Shakespeare play.
73 - Skip KH6TY
theophilusofgenoa wrote:
I had the idea that a reason spread spectrum was not legal was that
the use of a psuedo-random spreading sequence lent itself to the
development of an unbreakable code (or at least a difficult to break
code
Thanks for the caution, Arnie. I will definitely scan my computer for
viruses and trojans after installing running loading ROS. The fact that
it already sends automatic emails makes one imagine what else might be
possible once I have configured it with my email address!
73 - Skip KH6TY
, or simply not what was proposed.
73 - Skip KH6TY
John B. Stephensen wrote:
The HSMM working group never proposed the use of spread spectrum. It
was interested in getting the maximum data rate into limited
bandwidths. SS does the opposite of what the HSMM WG was interested
in. It spreads
mitigation.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I
was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org
On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report
(page June 1976) says
Rather than further
using the interfering mode and then switch back to the one you
were using.
The point is only that there must be a way to communicate between
stations trying to use the same frequency in order to have sharing.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Warren Moxley wrote:
Skip,
since there is no way to cross
.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the
capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer
connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable
to generate the “universal QRL” signal.
73
Julian,
An Olivia DLL already exists for MixW, but I do not think that it is
documented sufficiently for others to use.
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
OK. So could one create a DLL that could be called by Windows programs
written in VB, VC++, Delphi etc. using MinGW?
Julian, G4ILO
with both his call and mode. I would probably not known
he was there if the had not sent the video ID, as I was in Olivia at the
time. I had not worked 17m before and was looking for Olivia stations,
not MFSK16. Of course the MFSK16 footprint is recognizable, but not who
it is.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy,
Isn't the current recommendation now not to use RSID for PSK31 or RTTY?
Take those out, and not much RSID use at all!
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
Here are the results of two hours of monitoring the entire digital
band on 20M 14065-14110
37 BPSK31
25 BPSK250
04 RTTY45
02
It is easy to imagine that the BPSK250 RSID is probably being used
mostly for PSKMAIL stations, which is a good idea now. Notice how the
times are clustered.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
Exactly !
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:10 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
mailto:kh...@comcast.net
it is welcome to do so. Maybe YOU can do it, since you
already have a head start with your software experience.
It is a good idea - now show us the solution! ;-)
73 - Skip KH6TY
Warren Moxley wrote:
I have used this Video ID myself after I have seen others do it. Some
are using it to show the mode
But under FCC regulations, phone and data must not operate in the same
space, so how could phone be used? On the other hand, CW is allowed
everywhere. Too bad it is no longer a requirement for a license, as it
used to be universally understood by both phone and CW operators.
73 - Skip KH6TY
digital modes to communicate and share. On VHF
and above, where there is much more space, there is no legal separation
between data and phone. ATV is only allowed on UHF because it needs so
much bandwidth and therefore there needs to be more space.
73 - Skip KH6TY
W2XJ wrote:
But everybody
, since they cannot practically QSY.
73 - Skip KH6TY
W2XJ wrote:
True but I was thinking of wideband modes in phone segments. In
narrowband segments CW is still an option as it can be decoded by many
digi programs
, but a combination of regulation by
bandwidth and regulation by mode, which is what we have now in the US.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Paul wrote:
We are regulated in Canada by bandwidth and it works just fine here. I
have read some of the comments about why it won't work but honestly...
I haven't encountered
as it comes in, so that is essentially phone in a 50 Hz
bandwidth, but without your own voice, and unnaturally slow speaking.
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that,
within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough
activity, because the IF filter cuts
them off. Live and learn, I guess...
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
Your figures for digital modes seem to assume we can use all the band
from the bottom. In fact, digital starts at typically x.070 so there
is really only room for half the number
comments.
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
I don't think digital voice will ever replace SSB, any more than PSK31
and other spectrally more efficient modes will replace RTTY. Radios
have a long lifetime. But unlike digital modes whose bandwidth is
fixed, phone can communicate using reduced
transceivers have FSK built in these days.
That is my best guess anyway.
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because
a shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY.
Unfortunately logic or technical
understand that the emission type, phone is
a mode of operation.
Please refer to
§97.305 Authorized emission types.
73 - Skip KH6TY
expeditionradio wrote:
KH6TY kh...@... wrote:
Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge
numbers of US amateurs in proportion across
-random manner and then convey intelligence by
modulating the resulting rf carriers.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Ralph Mowery wrote:
Correct but you still have not answered my question. Indeed If I
use one tone and key it on / off I have a cw transmitter, transmitting
on the VJO frequebcy
to much
time on this FHSS vs regulations issue, so I have to go on to something
else now. The FCC has spoken, and correctly so, and if anyone wants to
petition to change the regulations, they can do so.
73 - Skip KH6TY
rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Hi Skip,
Thanks, we have arrived
KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
Is the random or pseudo-random manner of generating the tones or
carriers an essential element of spread-spectrum? If so, and if the
aim of using such a method is not to obfuscate the message but only to
provide better immunity to interference and path variations, would you
also.
Still not a good situation!
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
Skip.
Thank you for the comprehensive explanation. I understand why ROS is
illegal under your rules.
The point of my question was, if FHSS is illegal, why not simply
modify the mode (which after all is experimental and does
, I would
not be able to see the tones, yet I can, and not only on the ROS
waterfall, but on the DigiPan waterfall as well.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Jose A. Amador wrote:
El 10/03/2010 7:57, g4ilo escribió:
What does ROS gain by using SS over another mode that carries the
same amount of data
way
can be successful.
I think we have beat this horse to death at this point and should move
on to another topic.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Alan Barrow wrote:
I'll preface this by saying that I'm not trying to defend or crucify
ROS. But when we are dealing with definitions the FCC, it's very
, and we have
no choice but to abide by the system or petition for change.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
--- On Wed, 10/3/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net wrote:
Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS,
the bottom line is that the FCC
decision of the FCC, as originally related by the customer
service agent, simply reaffirms the original finding. The official word
from the FCC, through one of their spokesmen, is that ROS is spread
spectrum and that will stand until modified by the petition process.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor
Alan, please carry on the debate with someone else. I have spent a huge
amount of time on this issue, trying to help in whatever way I can,
although I do not have all the answers, obviously. I need to do
something other than sit in front of this computer all day!
Have fun,
73 - Skip KH6TY
still the best digital mode to use on UHF, VHF, or HF for
normal (not EME) digital QSO's.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
Regarding Spread Spectrum Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/18/11396/?nc=1
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/18
Andy,
As I read it, the NPRM did not disturb the current FCC ruling that
spread spectrum is only allowed above 222 Mhz, so that is still in
force. What it did was modify the power and power monitoring requirements.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
I read the proposed rule making
.
73 - Skip KH6TY
I promised to post the results of our attempts to use ROS on UHF on
this reflector, and this is what we have found. So, it looks like
Olivia is currently still the best digital mode to use on UHF, VHF,
or HF for normal (not EME) digital QSO's.
Skip, please do tell us. I am
fascinating reading!
73 - Skip KH6TY
Jon Maguire wrote:
Skip,
Just a thought, but raspy signals on VHF/UHF are usually associated
with aurora. Can you correlate that?
73... Jon W1MNK
PS Great discussion!!
KH6TY wrote:
Hi Jose,
We will be starting with tests of ROS 1 baud
found on UHF.
73 - Skip KH6TY
such a prestigious award!
73, Skip KH6TY
it is now, we are unable to successfully use ROS
on UHF, for whatever the reason, and it is illegal to use it on HF under
FCC jurisdiction.
That is too bad, because ROS is definitely fun to use.
73 - Skip KH6TY
w2xj wrote:
If there were documentation on ROS then there would the possibility
Perhaps Tony, K2MO, can make some pathsim comparisons of ROS 8 baud with
Olivia 32-1000.
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/the-ros-numbers
http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/the-ros-numbers
Julian, G4ILO
201 - 300 of 385 matches
Mail list logo
