Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS is back bigger and better !!!
On 9/1/2010 5:19 PM, raf3151019 wrote: And the same common sense attitude which occurs in Canada is also applied to the use of frequencies in the UK. There are sections of the bands which are agreed internationally and everybody accepts it. Although it rarely happens I don't agree with the ruling that operators of Morse code are permitted to transmit where they please anywhere on any band. Why ? Why should such a ruling still exist, for what purpose, other than to irritate those using telephony ? G0GQK Mel, I suspect the reason is mostly historical, and because at one time, when telephone just failed to communicate, and everyone understood Morse, CW could get through. In fact, for VHF and UHF weak-signal operation today, it is very common practice to switch between phone and CW when signals are too weak to be understood by phone. I don't think the ruling continues to exist in order to irritate phone operators... Assuming that a phone operator can still decode Morse by ear, it is possible to cross-communicate with phone and CW, but this is not possible with modern digital modes, like PSK31 and Pactor to telephony (PSK31 operators can understand phone, but the reverse is not true), so there is no way to insure frequency sharing without legal separation between phone and digital. F6CTE now has invented RSID, which helps digital modes to cross-communicate with each other, and therefore negotiate the use of a frequency, by making it easy to switch to another's mode automatically. However, not everyone uses this capability yet. Of course, the importance of cross-communication is being able to ask if a frequency is busy, or ask someone to move if it is. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
On 8/29/2010 2:12 PM, k4cjx wrote: BTW, it wasn't winlink that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future. Steve, k4cjx, aaa9ac Let's not try to distort history. The ARRL was essentially taken over by Winlink, in this instance. when the proposal was written http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html so it was really Winlink's proposal, not the ARRL's proposal, and was roundly rejected by both phone band hams and digital operators, and rightfully so. As so many have complained, the bandwidth of ROS is hugely inappropriate for the digital portions of the bands, for what it can accomplish in comparison to much more narrow modes, and even lacks the basic busy detector which would allow it to share the frequencies with other stations, just as Winlink stations lack, and often do battle among themselves, for a frequency instead of sharing it on a first-come-first serve basis. As far as the phone bands being opened to digital operations is concerned, there is still lacking a practical means to cross-communicate between phone and digital in order to effect frequency sharing. This is a major reason that there must continue to be legal separation between digital operators and phone in order to protect the phone bands from being dominated by digital operations, and until phone operators and digital operators can cross-communicate and cooperatively share frequencies, it is probably going to stay that way. Our limited ham bands must be shared by all interests and do not exist just for the convenience and pleasure of a minority that does not subscribe to, or practice, frequency sharing. We are fortunate to have REGULATIONS in this country, instead of merely bandplans (which are only recommendations), to prevent the dominance of the bands from a few who refuse to adopt frequency sharing practices or technologies. If you do not live under FCC jurisdiction, you also need to be thankful for the same reguations that have protected you also, as radio waves often obey no international boundaries. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Half Square Antenna
Tom, with voltage feed, you only need an electrostatic ground. I used about 10' x 10' of chicken wire for a ground sheet under mine in Hawaii. 73, Skip KH6TY Thomas wrote: What Andy and Skip said, plus a top corner feed causes a pattern distortion in the broadside that narrows the beam width a bit. A bottom element feed through a parallel network has no pattern distortion but requires ground radials. However you can put down a very minimal ground radial system compared to a 1/4 wave vertical. I used only one 1/4 wave on mine and it worked fine. 73, Thomas NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA http://www.nz4o.org --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, kf4hou kf4...@... wrote: Hey Tom Which is the better way of feeding the Half Square what is the plus and minus of both? Voltage vs. Current Fed I used a half square on 17 meters in Colorado in 1995 at the bottom of the sunspot cycle. I voltage fed it with a parallel LC network and one 1/4 wave radial. The flat top phasing line was only 13 feet off of the ground with the antenna broadside Europe and the Pacific. The results: 100 countries in 30 days with 100 watts. A serious DX antenna. I also put up a half square on 160 in Colorado, with the same voltage feed. I linear loaded each 1/4 wave leg into two each 1/8 wave 64 foot sections and it worked fantastic. I had a big signal with 100 watts. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA nz4o@ NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Half Square Antenna
For what it's worth, I've done it both ways. With a voltage feed it is easy for the coax to leave the antenna on the ground and just use a screen for a ground. With current feed at the corners, the coax is up in the air and needs to leave at right angles to the vertical wire, but no tuned circuit is needed, and no RF ground. 73, Skip KH6TY kf4hou wrote: Hey Tom Which is the better way of feeding the Half Square what is the plus and minus of both? Voltage vs. Current Fed
Re: [digitalradio] Rigblster and Digipan ?
Andy, Of course, DigiPan needs to be run with a display of 256 colors or higher (unless you change the default waterfall colors)! The default palette requires at least 256 colors to work, and so do Internet graphics. I have no idea why anyone in the last 10 years would try to run with less than 256 colors, when probably 99% of video cards support at least 16-bit, 32-bit , or 24-bit color these days. In 10 years of personal support of DigiPan and having resolved over 4000 support questions (almost all of which are computer system problems, not DigiPan problems), I have NEVER received any report of DigiPan not working with the serial port, if the serial port was correctly established or selected. Sometimes the DigiPan configuration file becomes corrupted and the best way to fix most unusual problems with DigiPan is: 1. Quite DigiPan 2. Delete digipan.ini in \Windows 3. Restart DigiPan and re-enter the personal data and serial port. West Mountain's suggestion to remove and reinstall DigiPan is NOT going to fix a corrupted digipan.ini file. The re-installed DigiPan will often have the same problem it had before re-installation. I informed them of this years ago, but apparently they have short memories. :-( There is a history (which I will not go into), going back eight years or more, of West Mountain Radio being disparaging of DigiPan (for reasons I will not mention), but trust me, DigiPan is a VERY mature program and, to my intimate knowledge, has NEVER failed to work if properly configured on an adequate and correctly working Windows 98 or later system. Just don't believe what West Mountain tries to make people believe about what they claim to be the problems with DigiPan - over 100,000 DigiPan users cannot be wrong! Moe Wheatley's WinPSK is an excellent program and I even used his PSKCORE.DLL for my own QuickPSK program, which introduced PSK63, but DigiPan is every bit as reliable and easy to use. 73, Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: This claim from West Mountain seems dubious. DIGIPAN PROBLEMS If you are having trouble with DigiPAN stop using it and try WinPSK! We have had numerous reports of DigiPAN having a blank waterfall display. In QST there is a report of this which was cured by increasing the display colors to 256 colors or higher. We have experienced this but we were running high color and we fixed it by re-booting the computer. We have also had reports, and experienced it ourselves, of, DigiPAN not working with the serial port. We do not know what causes this but they are aware of the problem. We fixed this by completely removing and re-installing the program. Anyone confirm this is a real problem?
Re: AW: AW: AW: [digitalradio] ROS v 4.8.X not spamming cluster
Jose uses Cluster Auto-Spots to advertise his software. The more spots, the more it appears to be a popular mode to the uninformed Cluster User. To me, this attempted deception has been obvious ever since the issue of any auto-spots came up. Isn't there any honesty at all possible with this author! :-( This wholesale abuse of ham radio traditions and spamming clusters, etc. by this author, is just not acceptable, and to my knowledge has never been done before. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] ROS HF Path Simulations wide vs. narrow
Thanks for the testing Tony. We observe Doppler shifts of as much as 100 Hz and Doppler spreads around 50 Hz or greater. On SSB phone, a S3 signal will not be intelligible and you can hear the voice pitch go down in a fluttering manner. ROS definitely produces nothing but garbage when SSB phone is not understandable, but Contestia will keep on printing perfectly. That is just one more reason that there are better modes than ROS we can use, are of much less bandwidth, and equal of better sensitivity. As someone pointed out, spread spectrum is basically used for encryption and has no advantage in disturbed environments. BTW, it is interesting to note the huge impact of Pawel Jalocha has on the use of digital on the ham bands. His SLOPSK development was the basis for G3PLX's PSK31, and now, Olivia is the highest performing digital mode. It is as if he were the father of all we are working with today! I wish I knew more about his background. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/21/2010 12:15 AM, Tony wrote: On 7/20/2010 3:54 PM, KH6TY wrote: Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum was very poor on UHF under Doppler spreading. Can you confirm this with flutter tests like Jaak has done. Skip, My path tests show that ROS is less tolerant to Doppler spread than Olivia or one of it's variants so I'd have to agree with your on-air evaluation. Throughput starts to fail as the Doppler spread is increased beyond 20Hz (two channels 2ms delay) and I suspect you could be experiencing frequency dispersions beyond that range. I haven't been able to find any propagation data that shows how much Doppler spread is likely take place on VHF/UHF. Wish I knew that answer to that. Tony -K2MO Tony, Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum was very poor on UHF under Doppler spreading. Can you confirm this with flutter tests like Jaak has done on http://contestia.blogspot.com/p/pathsim_09.html http://contestia.blogspot.com/p/pathsim_09.html ? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 9:42 PM, Tony wrote: All, With all the attention ROS has been getting lately, I thought it would be interesting to see how the narrow mode compared to the wide version under the controlled environment of the HF path simulator. After a few hours of testing, it seems there's little difference between the two. The simulator indicated that they both had the same sensitivity (-15db) and essentially the same poor channel performance characteristics (see throughput samples below). In no case did one mode outperform the other to the point where it would make any real difference; both have the essentially the same wpm rate as well. These tests are not conclusive, but they do suggest that there may not be any real advantage in using the wide mode vs narrow under most circumstances. Of course, the simulator can only emulate the basic characteristics of the real HF channel so it would be interesting to hear from those who have compared the two on-air. Tony -K2MO CCIR-520-2 POOR CHANNEL SIMULATIONS: -11DB SNR ROS 2250 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazlµog Lghe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quccirown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog Âe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fealoeumps ovahe lazEh/i ROS 500 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick breFn fox juo3s over tes lazy dog the quæe t ´uls r?umps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown f Á jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogQo __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5293 (20100719) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com http://www.eset.com http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 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: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] 70cm -2M-6M-10M fan dipole ?
Andy, You first have to decide if you will use horizontal or vertical polarization - vertical polarization mostly for working the repeaters on 2M and 70CM, or horizontal polarization for working SSB stations. Omnidirectionality is easy with vertical polarization but much more difficult with horizontal polarization. If you will be working repeaters, you do not need much antenna gain, but for SSB, you need much more gain. The other question is the feedline. What transceiver are you using? Does it have separate antenna outputs for 2M and 70 CM? For example, on the IC-706MKIIG, the 2M and 70 CM antenna outputs are combined, so you can use a diplexer to send the RF to the two antennas from a single feedline. The 6M output is combined with the HF output, so that requires a separate feedline. You probably want horizontal polarization for 6M, and an aluminum dipole would be self-supporting. If you use two at 90 degrees and switch feedlines with a switch, you have omnidirectional coverage on 6M. On 2m and 70 CM horizontal polarization, I use bi-directional skeleton slots for each band, which gives me enough gain for DX, mount two at 90 degrees to each other and just switch feedlines for omnidirectional coverage. If all you are interested in is working repeaters, then a dipole for 6M and commercial 5/8 wavelength verticals for FM on 2M and 70CM will work with one feedline if diplexers are available to split 6M and 2m/70CM. Again, much depends on the antenna outputs of the transceiver, whether you should use a single feedline or two feedlines. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 8:58 PM, obrienaj wrote: I am planning another HF installation soon and may have a 33ft mast begging for some extra creative thing to hang off it . I do not do 70cm -2M-6M much and think I should , just to be able to get out when there are bands openings. Nothing with DX in mind, just something omni-directional would do (or ANY direction) I was thinking about a fan-type dipole , one feed line going to dipoles for 70cm - 2M - 6M and maybe 10M. Most likely not fully horizontal , more of a sloper. Any thoughts on something like this? Quite a wide range of frequencies. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Julian, This regulation was made years ago and just covers all spread spectrum. In the FCC's opinion, ROS is spread spectrum, both by description by the author and lab analysis. So, they had no choice but to uphold the current ruling. If someone wants to redefine spread spectrum on HF as having a limited spreading factor (no more than SSB phone, for example), this must be done via a petition to the FCC. The procedure is straightforward. I have done it myself on other matters. Those with an opinion that ROS is NOT really spread spectrum and wants to use it in the US only need to file a petition stating why it is not harmful and what limits should be imposed. ROS will have to be given a definition designator and the FCC will then decide where a mode with that emission can be used without harm. For example, why is NBFM not allowed to be used below 10 meters? Perhaps it also should be, but until the regulations are changed to permit it, it may not be done. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 4:19 AM, g4ilo wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. You are talking about real, 20kHz or more wide spread spectrum though, aren't you? If it's only as wide as a voice signal, it's causing no more harm than a voice signal (and it probably isn't spread spectrum according to at least some learned opinions.) Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Who is to decide what is harmful to the general population or not - the individual looking out for himself, or the public looking out for everyone (in the form of a republic) including that individual? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 4:34 AM, g4ilo wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY We also have a saying over here, the law is an ass. Whilst I'm not advocating anarchy, I guess most people in this discussion have broken the law at one time or another by, for example, exceeding the speed limit in their car, something that could arguably have more serious consequences than using a transmission mode that some regulation appears to ban even though no harm would be caused by using it. I think a sense of proportion is needed. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Julian, For example, five years ago, Winlink attempted to get the FCC to allow then to use Pactor-III ALL OVER the phone bands, with the argument that the bandwidth was no greater than a phone signal. Do you think that should have been allowed for the benefit of that 1% of the US ham population and therefore wrecking the phone bands for over 50% of hams worldwide? Perhaps you have never had a QSO destroyed by a Pactor-III or Pactor-II mailbox... Regulations in this country protect as well as hinder sometimes. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 7:23 AM, KH6TY wrote: Who is to decide what is harmful to the general population or not - the individual looking out for himself, or the public looking out for everyone (in the form of a republic) including that individual? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 4:34 AM, g4ilo wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY We also have a saying over here, the law is an ass. Whilst I'm not advocating anarchy, I guess most people in this discussion have broken the law at one time or another by, for example, exceeding the speed limit in their car, something that could arguably have more serious consequences than using a transmission mode that some regulation appears to ban even though no harm would be caused by using it. I think a sense of proportion is needed. Julian, G4ILO
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
The FCC has actually analyzed the mode (to my surprise!) and says it is SS, and we are obliged to accept their determination. To use it, someone just must file a petition to change the regulations. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 11:03 AM, Siegfried Jackstien wrote: They would say ... you know the rules and you have to follow the rules The thing is ... who has to make the technical decision if ros is spread spectrum so forbidden in us (answer: the user) Next thing is ... is ros really ss??? What I know about ss is sender and receiver are spreading the data very wide Factor 10 is minimum to say it is ss but normally far more is used In ros the spreading factor is very small ... and so it looks more like mfsk on the air For me as I am no professional in data transmissions it looks like it is afsk (like many other soundcard modes) Does the ham need to have the knowledge how the tones are calculated??? If the tones are spread spectrum or not?? What about digital sstv modes?? How can a user know if the used bandwith is (much) more as needed?? Any fec mode uses more bw or more time as needed for a non fec transmission Why not just modify the rules a bit Frequency hopping or wide spread spectrum only above 220 And the narrowband ss modes like ros and all other modes (incl. chip, Olivia and similar) can be used on shortwave if the bw is lower as 3kc (like her in dl).surely with sdr wider ss modes could be used ... but not allowed Synced frequency hopping with sdr would also be possible ... but not allowed Just say ... any mode bw 3kc (exceptions possible like 0.5kc on 30m or historical am transmissions) That would be easy All modes should be free available to anybody (so fcc cia mi6 etc can download the soft and use it too) Modes where you need special hardware are only allowed if the developer also gives a free software solution (for receive only) (hello d-star, hello scs) for monitoring Think about changing your rules is easier as trying to tel ros is not ss Cause next new mode will come soon ... and story returns ... so change your laws in us 73 Sigi Ps: I am glad that I live not in the land of freedom hi hi J
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Hi Trevor, I have already previously stated that a FCC engineer with the FCC group analyzing ROS told me what was done, and what was concluded, and I wa asked not to divulge his name. Whether or not there was a report issued, I do not know. I don't know of any US amateurs raising any petition to move to regulation by bandwidth instead of by mode. This has already been denied by the FCC once, so I doubt if it will be revisited soon, but nothing prevents anyone from entering their own petition. However, it will not be me, because I understand why spread spectrum of any kind on HF would not be good for the ham community in the US in general, and that regulation by bandwidth had its own serious problems. Remember that the US ham population is very large, and what we are allowed to do here can affect many hams worldwide, due to the worldwide nature of propagation. You need to count your blessings that the FCC regulations keep automatic mailboxes confined to the FCC-designated subbands for unattended stations (when other countries do not), because without those, a hoard of US amateurs could flood the bands with mailboxes, interfering with DX and ragchew QSO's all over the world. You have to be careful what you wish for! Hi! As you say, we have been around this loop before, and, especially since Tony's tests show no weak signal advantage to the ROS wide spread spectrum variants over the narrowband variants, I think it is time to stop beating this horse to death and move on to something more constructive. I think that Andy previously set a cutoff date for ROS discussions on this reflector, and it is probably time for him to do that again, since arguments are getting to be circular and sometimes degenerate into personal attacks or insults. The ROSmodem Yahoo group is always available for continued discussions for users of the mode and has not been killed as was threatened. I always try to answer comments or criticisms directed to me, but I really have a lot to do to keep up with kit orders for my interface in the July QST and cannot keep on answering emails about ROS over and over. I have said all I can say, so I want to leave this discussion right now! I hope you understand... Thanks! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 1:19 PM, Trevor . wrote: --- On Tue, 20/7/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net wrote: The FCC has actually analyzed the mode (to my surprise!) Hi Skip, I know we've been round this loop before but I'd still like to see the report the FCC are alleged to have produced. If it does exist I'd have though a US citizen would be able to get it via a Freedom of Information Act request. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/ I know ARRL's Dan Henderson N1ND asked a couple of Amateurs about the mode and they thought it was SS but we don't know on what basis. Do you know if any US amateurs are raising a Petition for Rulemaking to move to regulation by bandwidth instead of mode ? Irrespective of what you think of the merits of one particular mode the current FCC regs are archaic with respect to digital modes and can only impede development. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] ROS HF Path Simulations wide vs. narrow
Tony, Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum was very poor on UHF under Doppler spreading. Can you confirm this with flutter tests like Jaak has done on http://contestia.blogspot.com/p/pathsim_09.html ? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 9:42 PM, Tony wrote: All, With all the attention ROS has been getting lately, I thought it would be interesting to see how the narrow mode compared to the wide version under the controlled environment of the HF path simulator. After a few hours of testing, it seems there's little difference between the two. The simulator indicated that they both had the same sensitivity (-15db) and essentially the same poor channel performance characteristics (see throughput samples below). In no case did one mode outperform the other to the point where it would make any real difference; both have the essentially the same wpm rate as well. These tests are not conclusive, but they do suggest that there may not be any real advantage in using the wide mode vs narrow under most circumstances. Of course, the simulator can only emulate the basic characteristics of the real HF channel so it would be interesting to hear from those who have compared the two on-air. Tony -K2MO CCIR-520-2 POOR CHANNEL SIMULATIONS: -11DB SNR ROS 2250 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazlµog Lghe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quccirown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog Âe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fealoeumps ovahe lazEh/i ROS 500 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick breFn fox juo3s over tes lazy dog the quæe t ´uls r?umps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown f Á jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogQo
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency
PSK63 was developed as an intended RTTY contesting mode replacement, not for conversation. PSK31 is too slow for contesting and has a preamble and a postamble that slows turnovers down, so the idea was that 100 wpm PSK63 would, overall, including faster turnovers than PSK31, be as fast as RTTY for contest exchanges, and contesters would benefit from less power needed, panoramic reception, less crowding, and faster synchronization. In the contesting world, a rapid exchange and turnover is more important than a faster typing speed. Peter Martinez designed PSK31 for ragchewing and so selected 50 wpm as fast enough for conversation for most typists. Even though Don, AA5AU, a big-time winner of RTTY contests, said he was just blown away about the possibility of PSK63 for contesting when I showed it to him, I was unable to get it implemented into WriteLog, as the author took a chicken and egg approach in which he said he would not add PSK63 to WriteLog until it became popular for contesting! Since WriteLog is so popular with contest winners, and did not support PSK63, the mode never took off, except in Europe. What might help would be for someone to convince the contest managers to do something like adding a multiplier for PSK63 contacts, or perhaps some other acceptable incentive, to make it worthwhile to use PSK63 for contests. Everybody would win, because so many PSK63 signals can fit into the space of one RTTY signal, and with panoramic displays, you get a list of callsigns to select from all presented to you, and can even highlight zones or callsign areas you need for multipliers, etc.. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 7:03 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote: - Original Message From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com mailto:julian%40g4ilo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:29:15 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency Just because a mode is better doesn't mean that people will want to use it, though, and I guess both RTTY and PSK31 are so established now that you'll never persuade people to give them up. Julian, G4ILO While rtty can be replaced by other modes, they will not run on the 50 plus old mechanical printers and the demodulators that go with them. Just as some like to run AM on the ham bands. Not that good of a use of bandwidth, but just something to play with that many enjoy.I doubt that many hams that run the digital modes can really type very fast and depend on the micros in the programs. For the ones doing it in real time, psk31 probably has enough speed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DominoEX On VHF FM
The reason to use DominoEx is only for FM DX communications. It is slower than MT63, but much more sensitive, so you still get good copy way below limiting and quieting. For that reason, on our local FM digital net, we use DominoEx 8 and with horizontally polarized antennas, include everyone in a range of 35 miles. I suggest trying MT63-2000, and if some stations cannot copy, drop down in speed to MT63-1000, and if necessary, drop down to MT63-500. Then if you still have problems with some stations not copying, go to DominoEx 8. If any station is below limiting, which is quite possible at 25 miles using low verticals, MT63 may not work. On UHF, where Doppler shift and Doppler spreading is a major problem with SSB voice, we use Contestia 64-1000, which works very well on 200 miles paths. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 7:58 PM, KB3FXI wrote: Jon, Here in WPA we've adopted MT63 2k long (64 bit) interleave as our standard. The mode is very wide (2000hz) but fits very nicely inside the typical FM transceiver and repeater audio passbands. Here's some of the big advantages of MT63 2k long on FM: -Massive amount of FEC (forward error correction) and interleaving provides perfect copy, even under horrendous simplex conditions and weak signals into repeaters (it even barrels through short drop-outs and heavy noise with weak stations into our local UHF repeater) -There's no need to have to tune on the waterfall as all MT63 submodes in FLDIGI are fixed at a bottom waterfall frequency of 500hz (2k long goes from 500 - 2500 on the waterfall) -WPM rate is about 200wpm -Works fine using only a hand mic on the computer speaker and the computer mic somewhere in the vicinity of the received audio from the transceiver We run over UHF/VHF traditional voice repeaters and simplex frequencies with great success on our net every week... even with first time users. Please give it a shot and let us know how you make out. Also, make sure your ops do a proper sound card calibration. You only have to do this once, unless you change your sound card or switch to a USB mic. Here's a video I made on that subject of calibration using CheckSR.exe and FLDIGI: http://www.utipu.com/app/tip/id/9382/ -Dave, KB3FXI www.wpaNBEMS.org --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, JonP jpere...@... wrote: I have the need to set up some reliable local digital communications (say 10 mile radius from the base station) for data transfer, and to do so in a short period of time. I would normally first think of VHF FM packet, but a lot of people are running into troubles with things like Vista and Windows 7 (please, spare me the Linux or Apple and D*Star messages, they're not realistic in this situation). I've seen some references to running DominoEX and MFSK-16 on VHF FM. A number of my prospective operators are running digital modes such as DominoEX, MFSK, etc. on their computers now (under XP, Vista, Win7) without problems. Would one of those modes be realistic to run on 25 watt (or higher) mobiles on 2 meter FM using vertically polarized antennas? I realize that the vertical polarization would be an issue if we want to get out of the local area, but right now the need is within a local area and everyone would be running with a typical VHF vertical. If feasible, what sub-band would we use? I would assume the FM simplex sub-bands. Is that correct? Anything else we should consider? Any special issues/problems? I would think that we would not have to reduce power since these radios are already running FM, but if not the case please correct me. Thanks. Jon KB1QBZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of us to cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job. Perhaps it has been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice for a single wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment of the 20m band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after much discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However there remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US do not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without consideration to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is a good example of not getting along with your neighbors! The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there is a process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as best can be done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that PROTECT as well as hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the rules and make your case, but do not disregard the current rules because you think they are unfair, because others may not think the same, and they may be harmed by your breaking the rules. We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to observe the local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of the many and not just for the benefit of the select few. If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and only after giving everyone a chance to comment. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:12 PM, bg...@comcast.net wrote: pse speak clearly into your computer have you ever operated in a digital mode on hf with a wider bandwidth than a voice signal? - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:48:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI **From:** Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - *From:* AA0OI mailto:aa...@yahoo.com Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI *From:* g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com *To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM *Subject:* [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DominoEX On VHF FM
Dave, I forgot to point out that we use Contestia 64/1000 on SSB, not FM, for that 200 mile path. When using FM, DominoEx works just as well, but of course, the overall range is less on FM. Essentially, if you can work a VHF or UHF station on SSB phone, you can work the same station on FM using DominoEx 4 (the most sensitive DominoEx variation). This was the subject of my presentation to the Southeastern VHF Society in April of last year, and we have since proven that over and over again. The difference is that the data rate of DominoEx 4 compared to SSB phone is much slower (assuming an average speaking speed of 200 wpm). However, on tropospheric scatter UHF paths, DominoEx does not survive at all and only Contestia or Olivia (half the speed of Contestia) get through, when even moderately strong SSB phone signals are so distorted by Doppler spreading that they are not understandable. This is true on probably 80% of our morning schedules on 432 MHz over 200 mile paths when there is no propagation enhancement. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:35 PM, KB3FXI wrote: Interesting suggestions, Skip. We're hoping to be installing UHF and VHF vertical yagi's at the Skyview Radio Society before winter sets in. I'll be sure to do some weak signal work with the DominoEx 8 as you suggest. -Dave, KB3FXI --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: The reason to use DominoEx is only for FM DX communications. It is slower than MT63, but much more sensitive, so you still get good copy way below limiting and quieting. For that reason, on our local FM digital net, we use DominoEx 8 and with horizontally polarized antennas, include everyone in a range of 35 miles. I suggest trying MT63-2000, and if some stations cannot copy, drop down in speed to MT63-1000, and if necessary, drop down to MT63-500. Then if you still have problems with some stations not copying, go to DominoEx 8. If any station is below limiting, which is quite possible at 25 miles using low verticals, MT63 may not work. On UHF, where Doppler shift and Doppler spreading is a major problem with SSB voice, we use Contestia 64-1000, which works very well on 200 miles paths. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 7:58 PM, KB3FXI wrote: Jon, Here in WPA we've adopted MT63 2k long (64 bit) interleave as our standard. The mode is very wide (2000hz) but fits very nicely inside the typical FM transceiver and repeater audio passbands. Here's some of the big advantages of MT63 2k long on FM: -Massive amount of FEC (forward error correction) and interleaving provides perfect copy, even under horrendous simplex conditions and weak signals into repeaters (it even barrels through short drop-outs and heavy noise with weak stations into our local UHF repeater) -There's no need to have to tune on the waterfall as all MT63 submodes in FLDIGI are fixed at a bottom waterfall frequency of 500hz (2k long goes from 500 - 2500 on the waterfall) -WPM rate is about 200wpm -Works fine using only a hand mic on the computer speaker and the computer mic somewhere in the vicinity of the received audio from the transceiver We run over UHF/VHF traditional voice repeaters and simplex frequencies with great success on our net every week... even with first time users. Please give it a shot and let us know how you make out. Also, make sure your ops do a proper sound card calibration. You only have to do this once, unless you change your sound card or switch to a USB mic. Here's a video I made on that subject of calibration using CheckSR.exe and FLDIGI: http://www.utipu.com/app/tip/id/9382/ -Dave, KB3FXI www.wpaNBEMS.org --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, JonP jperelst@ wrote: I have the need to set up some reliable local digital communications (say 10 mile radius from the base station) for data transfer, and to do so in a short period of time. I would normally first think of VHF FM packet, but a lot of people are running into troubles with things like Vista and Windows 7 (please, spare me the Linux or Apple and D*Star messages, they're not realistic in this situation). I've seen some references to running DominoEX and MFSK-16 on VHF FM. A number of my prospective operators are running digital modes such as DominoEX, MFSK, etc. on their computers now (under XP, Vista, Win7) without problems. Would one of those modes be realistic to run on 25 watt (or higher) mobiles on 2 meter FM using vertically polarized antennas? I realize that the vertical polarization would be an issue if we want to get out of the local area, but right now the need is within a local area and everyone would be running with a typical VHF vertical. If feasible, what sub-band would we use? I would assume the FM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote: The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI *From:* John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
In expressing views on this matter, please avoid personal attacks or insulting language. Andy K3UK Owner. If you do not like the regulations, then petition to change them. That is your duty as an American... Without laws, there is anarchy, and with anarchy, follows chaos. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 10:09 PM, W2XJ wrote: Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided one and a victim of unintended consequences. The whole discussion is stupid and you, Skip, are too anal retentive. I work in broadcast and there are many un-updated FCC regulations that the commission subsequently licenses in a manner contrary to their own rules. Look at the FCC definition of translator and then tell me how under the letter of the law how AM and HD-2 and HD-3 stations can legally use that service. Regardless stations get legal permits every day. Washington is a town of double and denial speak, the rules mean next to nothing in many cases. What your communications attorney can wring out of them is all that counts. It is whiners like you that damage the system. Ham radio is supposed to be self regulating which means please do not disturb the FCC. I guess you still do not get it. People like you will kill this hobby. On 7/19/10 8:56 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote: The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI *From:* John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net w0...@big-river.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Alan, Thanks for taking the time for a comprehensive reply! Remembering what happens during a contest with overcrowding made me wonder. The problem is that, with stations operating all independently, it is difficult to determine when throughput drops to the point it is not worth the effort. If you have dedicated channels to work with, that is quite different from the random frequencies hams choose when chasing DX or contesting at which time usage is a maximum. I was not surprised when ROS could not handle more than one QSO on the channel and the author tried to extend that to only two, because the spreading was just too small. Without scanning receivers like SDR's, he is constrained to the typical IF bandpass of transceivers already in the field, so it is just not possible to achieve the benefits of FHSS under those conditions. We run a digital FM net (using DominoEX) where most stations are both under limiting and under 20 dB quieting, and even with FM, it is important not to have the general noise level increased, just like it is for weak signal SSB or CW communications. I think it all goes back to not having control of the channel and the number of stations trying to use it simultaneously, which is much different than wired communications or commercial channels where sharing and access can be controlled. Yes, I also think that it is best we leave DSSS for now and concentrate on modes that do the job well until something really better surfaces. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/13/2010 10:48 PM, Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: Alan, What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed? Will they interfere with each other, or will they collectively interfere with other users of the frequency, such as SSB stations? All valid questions. You know the answer to most of them. DSSS without CDMA, hold off, etc would neither work or be desired beyond a certain loading (number of users). When you say multiple how many would that be with a spreading factor of 100? Like you, I'd have to dig out the math, make some assumptions. There is an answer, and it's greater than 1, and less than 100 for sure. :-) Based on very rough math, and fuzzy assumptions, my initial calcs were that it would take over 10 simultaneous DSSS to be detectable at psk data rates with a spreading factor of 100. More than that to be interference to a typical SSB signal. Remember, just because a chip wanders into an SSB bandwidth slot does not mean it will interfere with an SSB signal due to SSB filtering, response curves, etc. That bit in the bottom 50 hz of an SSB slot will not be detected. Likewise those in the guard bands between typical SSB signal spacing. Likewise, since the energy is widely distributed there are no significant sidebands that are much easier to detect/hear and become interference. But that was just a concept thrown out to make people realize that all DSSS is not like ROS. Nor like the high data rate strong signal DSSS seen on higher bands. We need to separate the concept from the flawed implementation, that's my point. I do believe in the future we will want to revisit DSSS with CDMA as an alternative to the chaos of RTTY/WINMOR/P3/ALE/SSTV/whatever we have now. Not to the exclusion of legacy weak signal modes. But as a more efficient way to maximize throughput (users * data of any type) of the very limited HF resource we have. We'd have to do the math, but I'm pretty confident that for any chunk of bandwidth (say, 20khz or greater) you could support more simultaneous users at a given data rate with DSSS or similar wideband mode with CDMA than the same chunk with SSB afsk modems. It's simply more efficient, does not have the guard band issues, etc. It will never happen in our lifetimes due to the hold that legacy modes have. With some justification. But that does not mean we should paint ourselves into a corner where it could never be discussed, much less proposed. It seems to me that enough chips randomly spread over the band (by enough multiple stations) could also raise the general noise level, even if they were very weak. This was a concern of weak signal operators. This is true and valid for weak signal areas. It's not for strong signal modes. Even including SSB, and you could do much in between FM channels with minimal impact to FM qso's. There's nothing that states DSSS has to be evenly spread across it's range, though it helps with processor gain. You could have a sequence that only hit the guard bands between 10m FM channels for example. For example, suppose it was decided to let multiple DSSS stations span the whole length of the 20m phone band so there was sufficient spreading. How many on the air at one time would it take to create noticeable QRM to SSB phone stations
Re: [digitalradio] Why even use SS, a waste of resources?
Lester, Months of testing of all available modes on a 200 mile, weak signal, path on 432 MHz support what you say. Contestia (or Olivia, but slower) has surfaced as the most reliable mode we have found in the difficult environment of signals marginally above the noise, fading (QSB) as deep at 5 s-units, Doppler shift, and Doppler spreading. ROS's spread spectrum simply fails completely, as do any of the PSK modes. Contestia surpasses Olivia simply because it takes only half the time that Olivia takes to pass information, and for our purposes of ragchewing, the constraints of all upper case are not a problem. If you do not like all upper case, in fldigi we have added an option to use all lower case... 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/14/2010 3:51 AM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Now let's cut to the chase: * * *THE USE OF SPREADSPECTRUM, THAT IS, THE USE OF BANDWIDTH EXPANSION TECHNIQUES BY ADDING PSEUDORANDOM DATA, NOT CREATED FROM THE USER INPUT INFORMATION DATA, IS OF NO ADVANTAGE IN IMPROVING THE END TO END PERFORMANCE OF A LINK, WHEN COMPARED WITH PROPERLY SELECTED MODERN ENCODING AND MODULATION TECHNIQUES.* * * What I am proposing for consideration is the point that for a given transmission bandwidth, and a given end to end data transmission rate (user information), the bits added should actually perform an error reduction function and interference mitigation function. This can be performed using with tradition FEC codes and in modulation selection and encoding (PSK, MFSK,Multicarrier PSK, M-ARY FSK, multicarrier M-ARY FSK, etc.). My point is, why add bits to the transmission that at the receive end, do not improve the performance. For your consideration of the above, I repeat some previously stated basics: (1) Any proper transmission encoding coding scheme, will, as one of its first steps, scramble or randomize the incoming data, in order to provide a uniformly random data stream to the subsequent steps in the process. These randomizers come in a few well defined, published, forms, so it is not that hard to derandomize the result , once you have demodulated, and stripped off the FEC layers. This is typically the first and last step in an end to end process. This process does not produce any encoding or bandwidth expansion. It is a bit in, a bit out process. (2) FEC coding layers, to combat, frequently with one type of FEC, for low signal to noise ratio (QRN)(white noise), inherent in weak signal work to correct random errors, and then outside (around) of the previous FEC, additional layers of FEC, usually a type appropriate to combat bursty errors of the type caused by the time carrying interference environment typical of QRM and atmospheric QRN. (3) Time diversity coding, to combat the channels dispersive distortion in time over HF (short baud bad, long baud good), and frequency selective, but short duration, fading. Incidentally the short baud bad is one reason why spreading tends to underperform on real HF circuits compared to a flat white noise channel in a laboratory environment. (4) Finally, mapping the encoded transmit data into unique modulation states. This is most commonly done as frequency and phase conditions. For example, frequency diversity, in the form of encoding the source to allow it to be transmitted as adjacent multiple carriers or are single carriers on multiple frequencies, is needed to combat the frequency selective fading present on HF paths and to make use of frequencies that at any given instant (in this case, instant = the symbol time) have less noise (QRM) present. There is a practical limit to what can be done in a single carrier system with encoding on HF circuits in particular, because the dispersive (multipath) nature of the HF path is hash on short baud transmissions (high symbol rate). There are a number of ways to reduce the symbol rate of the actual encoded transmitted bits. Changing from BPSK to QPSK actually creates two orthogonal synchronous BPSK transmissions at half (longer) the symbol rate. (FYI: Changing to OFFSET QPSK results in no symbol rate reduction) Using M-Ary FSK where the number of frequencies in the set and the symbol rate are inversely related. For example. Assume a conventional 50 baud(synchronous) FSK transmission. Each transmit symbol is 20ms long. Changing this directly to 8-ary FSK creates eight distinct frequencies, the particular frequency in this case determined by the value of three bits of transmit data used to encode a single transmit baud, that at are used one at a time, with a symbol that is now 160 ms long or 6.25 baud. The result is the same (longer symbol times, easier HF transmissions) with changing from a single psk carrier to multiple adjacent, simultaneous psk carriers, each carrying part of the FEC encoding data stream. In addition to transmit baud rate reduction (symbol time duration increase), multi frequency systems, both single
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Julian, The other side of the coin is that we must share frequencies (because there is limited space), so in order to do that, it is necessary to be able to understand a request to QSY or a QRL. When there was only CW and phone, this was always possible, but with digital modes, if you do not decode a request in a different mode than you are using, you are unable to share. It helps to use RSID or operate in a place where others are using the same mode. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/14/2010 4:37 AM, g4ilo wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, J. Moen j...@... wrote: I think if 3 kHz SSB is ok, that 2.25 kHz modes (ROS as an example) should be ok, as long as the frequencies chosen are prudent for the band and time of time. I agree, if people had more flexibility as to where to operate it would be less of a problem. This is mainly the fault with band planning (designed, as someone else said, in the days when the only digital mode was RTTY) but also due to the fact that frequencies for ROS operation were specified rather than allowing people to work wherever they find a clear spot. Although not the same issue as the legality of spread spectrum in the US it is the same kind of issue as I believe it is the case that you are not free to use digital modes outside the allocated digital sub bands whereas there is nothing to actually prevent anyone in the rest of the world from finding a quiet spot in the SSB sector to conduct their weak signal experiments using wide band modes as the band plans are only a gentleman's agreement. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Rein, I said I would not comment further on ROS, but look at it in perspective. The author defined ROS as spread spectrum and produced a two page document to that effect. He is the only one who knows for sure if it is spread spectrum or not. When it was posted that spread spectrum was not legal below 222 Mhz, he conveniently (for his benefit) tried to redefine ROS as FSK, in an apparent attempt to change the FCC opinion, which originally was based on his own two-page declaration, which he wanted us to believe. The FCC then made their own analysis and concluded it was not FSK but truly spread spectrum. This was communicated to us by the ARRL as is usually the case. The author, if he would have disclosed his code, could have proven whether or not the randomization is for spread spectrum purposes or for some other reason, but he steadfastly refused to disclose the code, which would either have resulted in it being OK for us to use, or prove it was truly FHSS. Perhaps he decided to try and bluff the FCC because it would be determined, on the basis of his code, to really be FHSS, in agreement with his first description, and in disagreement with the second description he wrote, obviously just to try to get approval. It is just not reasonable to think that a person of his ability, as the author of the software, could make such a huge mistake in his first characterization of ROS as spread spectrum and then completely revise the characterization as something else which he knew would be usable by US hams. You can imagine how the FCC feels about that attempted deception, and to top it off, he posts a phoney statement of FCC approval besides! I seriously doubt that the FCC is going to want to revisit the question, since the author simply cannot be believed. I met Dan Henderson at a hamfest right after all this happened and he had been in contact the FCC, and opined that it was highly doubtful that any further reconsideration would be done. The ONLY way for us to ever use ROS on HF is to petition the FCC to amend the rules to allow limited spread spectrum below 222 Mhz, citing enough good reasons why it will not harm existing operations of lesser bandwidth. Instead of constantly arguing that the FCC made a mistake, or we should interpret the rules as we wish they were, I suggest that either a petition be filed, or the code released to prove the author's contention that it is not spread spectrum. Of course the submitted code would have to be recompiled and tested to prove it is really the original code, and another attempted deception by the author. Understand that I am NOT against ROS, and never have been, even though I strongly dislike the author's behavior and suspect his motives. I would keep using it on HF if it were legal for me to do so. I do respect the FCC regulations, even those that I do not like, and follow them as best I can, because in the overall picture, they protect the weak from the strong for the benefit of everyone, until revised in a non-harmful way. This will be my (final) final word on this subject, so please do not ask me to comment any further. If you want to use ROS on HF, then enter a petition to get the regulations changed so you can, or work with someone else who will do that for you, and end this endless denigrating of the FCC, ARRL, and others who follow the regulations and depend upon ARRL interpretations of the FCC regulations for us all. Signing off on ROS now - 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/13/2010 2:23 PM, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. ++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book page 5-2 ++ Spread Spectrum Fundamentals SS systems employ radio frequency bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth necessary to convey the intelligence. Bandwidths for SS systems generally run from 10 to 100 times the information rate. etc etc. I got shouted out of the Group by addressing the use of ROS in the US by the experts on SS. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Alan Barrow ml9...@pinztrek.com mailto:ml9003%40pinztrek.com Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum graham787 wrote: So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not performing a function of helping to re-create an error free replication of the input data, it meets my test as spread spectrum. If the symbols in the transmit waveform cannot be predicted by the previous sequence of bits over time at the input, it also would meet my test as spread spectrum. To reiterate on this point, just because the symbols of the transmit waveform are changing during an unchanging input, does not imply spread spectrum. Instead, they may well be the result of a defined randomizer process followed by multiple layers
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Alan, What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed? Will they interfere with each other, or will they collectively interfere with other users of the frequency, such as SSB stations? When you say multiple how many would that be with a spreading factor of 100? It seems to me that enough chips randomly spread over the band (by enough multiple stations) could also raise the general noise level, even if they were very weak. This was a concern of weak signal operators. For example, suppose it was decided to let multiple DSSS stations span the whole length of the 20m phone band so there was sufficient spreading. How many on the air at one time would it take to create noticeable QRM to SSB phone stations, or raise the noise background if they were on VHF? I ask this because I believe that the question arose several years ago regarding allowing hi-speed multimedia to operate over 20 kHz on 20m, which may be OK for one station, but what happens if there are 100 stations doing the same thing? If there are enough randomly dispersed chips, won't they eventually fill the entire area with if there are enough of them? I studied communications theory and auto-correlation functions, etc., 50 years ago in college, but unfortunately I don't remember much of it at all! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/13/2010 8:15 PM, Alan Barrow wrote: W2XJ wrote: It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum necessary to achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS worthwhile. Not only is it not worth doing, it also increased chances of interference. I'm not aware of any weak signal DSSS using spreading factors of less than 100. The lowest I've seen is 16 for consumer strong signal wide band stuff. And that's just due to economics, not for performance. Take that same psk'ish data rate, use a more conventional spreading factor of 128, and you could see decent weak signal performance due to processor gain, and most likely not impact strong signal legacy modes in the same band segment. Of course, you could not do this with an audio SSB approach. But you could certainly decode it with SDR, which is why we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Remember, ROS somewhat sucked because it's spreading was so small there was a large likelihood of any given bit interfering with another weak signal. Spread that out, and it's only the individual chips (fraction of a data bit) that is on any given frequency at any given time. Put another way, you could probably run multiple DSSS signals at psk data rates in the SSB (voice) sub-bands with minimal impact to existing qso's if spread like conventional DSSS. You could see the impact on a properly setup monitor, but realistically the SSB stations would not detect the chips in their slot. Not that I'm proposing we do so, just that we need to fully understand the technology, it's potential advantages impacts before we throw it out. All that said, I'm not expecting to see any SS on HF by hams in the next decade or two. I view it as a lost cause and we'll just learn to deal with the beeps bloops from advance digital modes from non-amateur services on our shared bands. Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Re: [digital radio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
On 7/13/2010 4:34 PM, W2XJ wrote: That being said, Skip, you are also misrepresenting the situation by stating the FCC made an analysis. Read the documentation and it is clear they made a fairly non committal statement based on the published material. The FCC does not like being involved in such matters. By what authority do you claim to know that the FCC did not make any analysis? That is in direct conflict with what I was told by a member of the group that did the analysis. Skip KH6TY ,___
Re: [digitalradio] Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and then changed his story. Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. Just because someone feels it is not spread spectrum does not excuse them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the chance of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint. There is no reason for the FCC to reconsider their decision, since it is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of the bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the FCC website. Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just interpreting them as they see fit. ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is probably really good for EME. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote: For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by using it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be legal. Is there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to reconsider the unofficial comments by them and obtaining statements that it is legal ? Or has everyone agreed it IS spread spectrum and given up on it becoming legal in the USA ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and then changed his story. Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. Just because someone feels it is not spread spectrum does not excuse them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the chance of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint. There is no reason for the FCC to reconsider their decision, since it is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of the bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the FCC website. Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just interpreting them as they see fit. ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is probably really good for EME. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote: For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by using it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be legal. Is there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to reconsider the unofficial comments by them and obtaining statements that it is legal ? Or has everyone agreed it IS spread spectrum and given up on it becoming legal in the USA ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Lester, I really appreciate your mannerly characterization of what I wrote as BS. :-( From the Wikipedia, a more exact definition of spread spectrum is, *Frequency-hopping spread spectrum* (*FHSS*) is a method of transmitting radio signals by rapidly switching a carrier /wiki/Carrier_wave among many frequency channels /wiki/Channel_%28communications%29, using a pseudorandom /wiki/Pseudorandom sequence known to both transmitter /wiki/Transmitter and receiver /wiki/Receiver_%28radio%29. Please post here what your own spectral analysis finds, and state if you are willing to testify to the FCC whether or not ROS is really FHSS. Thanks. 73, Skip KH6TY (No BS at this QTH!) On 7/12/2010 11:58 AM, Lester Veenstra wrote: This, as we say in the lightning fast chicken navy, the following is simply BS : ' Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum.' The use of a randomizer is not the mark of spread spectrum, but rather the mark of a well-designed modem system, where a steady state data in does not cause a lack of random transmit link data. The receiver needs a steady stream of clock transitions in order to maintain receive synchronization. The transmit waveform needs a steady stream of pseudorandom data in order to maintain a minimum carrier spectral density, than therefore reduce its potential to other users. That is to say, making your transmit waveform appear noise like (I did NOT say, under the noise), gives other modems the best chance be minimally affected. Randomness is not a differential to uniquely identify a spread spectrum modulation. However, every spread spectrum system is pseudorandom. A does not mean B, but B is A. /Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM/// les...@veenstras.com mailto:les...@veenstras.com m0...@veenstras.com mailto:m0...@veenstras.com k1...@veenstras.com mailto:k1...@veenstras.com US Postal Address: PSC 45 Box 781 APO AE 09468 USA UK Postal Address: Dawn Cottage Norwood, Harrogate HG3 1SD, UK Telephones: Office: +44-(0)1423-846-385 Home: +44-(0)1943-880-963 Guam Cell: +1-671-788-5654 UK Cell: +44-(0)7716-298-224 US Cell: +1-240-425-7335 Jamaica: +1-876-352-7504 This e-mail and any documents attached hereto contain confidential or privileged information. The information is intended to be for use only by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is prohibited. *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *KH6TY *Sent:* Monday, July 12, 2010 12:21 PM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Moving ROS forward in the USA? Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and then changed his story. Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. Just because someone feels it is not spread spectrum does not excuse them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the chance of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint. There is no reason for the FCC to reconsider their decision, since it is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of the bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the FCC website. Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just interpreting them as they see fit. ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is probably really good for EME. 73, Skip KH6TY _._,___
Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Lester, The inventor has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, The FCC would have to purchase the code from him. To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for EME on that band. Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so. That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note and get on the air instead! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Skip: Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal that frequency hops is not necessarily a spread spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo. As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion would be for the inventor to disclose the block diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company. Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all. Thanks 73 Les
Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
It was not my idea. The author wanted the FCC to say it was not spread spectrum. Unfortunately for all of us in the US, it is spread spectrum, and the FCC rules do not allow that below 222 MHz. I am not potentially damaging the hobby as a whole, just posting what I know. Go ahead and use ROS if you think you will be legal! You will do more damage to the hobby than anyone who refuses to use it, by flaunting the regulations. 73, Skip KH6TY. On 7/12/2010 1:52 PM, W2XJ wrote: Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license the FCC presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal. On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net wrote: Lester, The inventor has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, The FCC would have to purchase the code from him. To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for EME on that band. Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so. That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note and get on the air instead! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Skip: Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal that frequency hops is not necessarily a spread spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo. As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion would be for the inventor to disclose the block diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company. Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all. Thanks 73 Les
Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Unless there is spread spectrum in ROS you cannot use it. Of course, you can use the part that is not spread spectrum, but the FCC is not going to issue a blanket approval for ROS if any part of it is spread spectrum. They are not interested in issuing approvals for programs anyway. They just said that ROS was spread spectrum when asked and spread spectrum is not allowed under 222 MHz, and had the ARRL communicate that. As a ham in the US, you simply may not emit a spread spectrum signal on HF. It is your duty to ensure that you do not, however you go about it. It is not the FCC's job to tell you what program you can use. It is the ARRL's job to interpret the regulations if asked, which, in this case, it is illegal to use ROS 16 or 1 baud on HF, or any other variation that is FHSS. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien wrote: That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us ... right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
I was contacted by the person. I did not initiate the contact. I have had dealings with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau as a result of a petition I amde and I guess I have earned a little measure of respect and trust by some of them. I have been asked not to identify anyone, so please do not ask again. I just want those who say the ARRL made the determination about ROS that the ARRL was only the mouthpiece of the FCC and it was the FCC that made the analysis and determination. I really do not have time to rehash ROS over and over, so I will not comment or respond to ROS questions any more. I think I have honestly said enough and certainly put more time in analyzing ROS for myself than most of the people who disagree with what I have said. No more comments about ROS from me! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 5:00 PM, Rein A wrote: Dear Skip, This is the second time you post this message about the FCC engineer Why don't you tell us how we can get in touch with this engineer. I would really like to hear that from that person and I would ask him whether the info was for public consumption or on background as used in the Media, not authorized to talk about it because of this or that. Where does this person work, Washington DC, PA, Boston? Why is this engineer's statement not in the public domain? FCC is a Federal Agency , not some hidden laboratory in a basement somewhere, privately owned, concerned about IP or patents. Always have to get back to this point Why is this not published by FCC on there information outlets? They publish all the time as the Federal Communication Commission and not to a private person or a club of hobbyists with all respect for the ARRL. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and then changed his story. Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. Just because someone feels it is not spread spectrum does not excuse them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the chance of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint. There is no reason for the FCC to reconsider their decision, since it is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of the bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the FCC website. Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just interpreting them as they see fit. ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is probably really good for EME. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote: For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by using it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be legal. Is there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to reconsider the unofficial comments by them and obtaining statements that it is legal ? Or has everyone agreed it IS spread spectrum and given up on it becoming legal in the USA ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Posted on ROSMODEM home page
So, ROS 1.0 is the last version. The ROSMODEM web page also claims a EA8TL to VK2CBL QSO with a -3 dB S/N (New record in distance: 18660 km), but PSK31 can copy down to -11 dB S/N and Olivia down to -15dB S/N in a fraction of the bandwidth of ROS. For the same typing speed as ROS, or PSK31, Contestia 250/4 will work down to -9 dB S/N, even over the polar paths. In other words, any of these modes could have been used for the 18600 km path, if propagation was like it was when the record ROS long distance contact was made. This means that PSK31, Contestia, or Olivia could also have easily completed the 18600 km QSO with a 599 report. Now that it has been found to possibly be dangerous to keep ROS on your computer, I encourage everyone to try Contestia 250/4 instead. It is very robust, and uses only 1/10th the bandwidth of that ROS QSO, leaving much more space for others to make QSO's. Let's all support Jaak's (ES1HJ) experiment and encourage others to use Contestia 250/4. If you are in QSO on PSK31, and are using Multipsk, DM780, or Fldigi, and the other station is also, you can use RSID to switch the other station to Contestia 250/4 and compare the results. It will be something you will have fun doing, and something interesting to discuss afterward. However, it would probably be considerate to PSK31 operators to move together just above the high end of the PSK31 activity. Please visit http://contestia.blogspot.com/ for more information. Thanks. 73, Skip KH6TY ._,___
Re: [digitalradio] Its the busy detect, stupid.
Andy, It would be most helpful to know how much QRM gets through if you use a 500 Hz-wide IF filter and use a center frequency 250 Hz from the top of a Pactor-III channel. Perhaps the problem is trying to use too wide an IF filter. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] New release (4.18) of MULTIPSK
Hi Patrick, Wonder if you happen to know that I created the original (very first) Weather Radio Alert in 1974, which then created the entire weather alert radio industry! At that time, there was no SAME feature, so the alarm went off too often when no bad weather was close by. SAME came along after I retired. The key to making the alert reliable was this patented circuit: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.htmlr=8f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PTXTs1=4,158,148OS=4,158,148RS=4,158,148 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.htmlr=8f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PTXTs1=4,158,148OS=4,158,148RS=4,158,148 After manufacturing and selling over 3,000,000 radios in 10 years, I retired and had time for ham radio. DigiPan was the first thing I did after I retired. Your support of the weather alert feature means a lot to me! Thanks! 73, Skip KH6TY On 6/19/2010 4:37 AM, Patrick Lindecker wrote: /Pour les francophones: la version française de ce message se trouve sur mon site (http://f6cte.free.fr). Il suffit de cliquer sur le lien _Principales modifications (courriel avertissant de la sortie de la nouvelle version)_./ Hello to all Ham and SWL, The new release of *MultiPSK (4.18)* is on my Web site (http://f6cte.free.fr http://f6cte.free.fr). It is not yet on Earl's and Terry's WEB sites. ** *The main modifications of MULTIPSK 4.18* are the following: * 1) Decoding of the NWR SAME mode * NWR (National Weather Radio) SAME (Specific Area Message Encoding) is simply a method of identifying the local area to which an alert message applies. It utilizes a digital data stream that contains the alert message with information about the type of event expected, its timing, duration, and location. The NWR SAME system is used in USA and Canada, in VHF (162.400, 162.425, 162.450, 162.475, 162.500, 162.525, 162.550 MHz). _ To listen NWR SAME messages: the NWS tests the NWR and SAME alerting technology weekly. These tests normally occur on Wednesday between 10 AM and Noon with some variations to accomodate local requirements. This mode is available for licencied copies, only (otherwise, the decoding is stopped after 5 minutes). See specifications further on. * 2) Transmission/reception of ARQ FAE QSP (indirect) mails through a mails Server *_ Differences between a direct mail and a QSP mail (indirect) _ A mail is direct if you can transmit it directly to the final addressee: A --B. If you can't transmit the mail directly because the final addressee can't be directly reached due to the link conditions, the mail can be forwarded by the connected station, which acts as a mails Server: A--C (mails Server)--B. For this, you must use a QSP mail. A paper based on snapshots presents this new system: * http://f6cte.free.fr/QSP_mails_forwarding_easy_with_Multipsk_in_ALE_and_ALE400.doc ** 3) New macros: * - *RPRT@* permits to ask to the other Ham or to the SWL monitoring your QSO to send you a reception report by e-mail. Your address must be specified in the WEB ADDRESS of your personal data (Personal button). It will be transmitted the following command r...@lenemail addressCRC which is the report demand. If correctly decoded, a reception report will be transmitted to the e-mail address that you specified, through Internet. _ Examples of use of this macro _ 1) The main objective is to ask the other Ham with whom you are in QSO to send you a reception report by e-mail. 2) But it can be also done by a SWL monitoring your QSO. 3) This macro can be used in conjuction with a Multipsk beacon which mode can be controlled by a RS ID. For example, you can switch the beacon in BPSK31 and asks the beacon for a reception report. Afterwards, the beacon can be switched in Olivia by a new RS ID and a new reception report can be asked... __ _Note:_ this macro can be used for all digital modes (except JT65), CW included. A paper based on snapshots presents this new system: * http://f6cte.free.fr/How_to_use_the_« RPRT@ »_email_reception_report_with_Multipsk.doc *__ _The source code_ (in Pascal/Delphi and in English) to code/decode this command is available for the coding/decoding software developpers, by making the demand to F6CTE by e-mail. - *TUNE:command* permits to send a Tune (non modulated carrier) with the command: TUNE: Power (in % from 0 to 100) Frequency (in Hz from 0 to 5000) Duration (in 1/10 sec from 1 to 999). For example: TUNE: 5 4000 10 (5% of power at 4000 Hz for 1 sec) This function can be used for transmission tests or, perhaps, to create his/her personal jingle (short musical sequence). - *S/N* gives the Signal to Noise ratio (in dB) obtained about 4 seconds before the switching to transmission. - *Quality* for PSK modes only, gives the signal quality from 1/5 to 5/5 obtained about 4 seconds before the switching to transmission
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.18) of MULTIPSK
On 6/19/2010 9:28 AM, aa777888athotmaildotcom wrote: Skip, I looked at your patent and could not believe my eyes. You patented a tone detector and a beeper. One could have argued that it covered the original beeper pager. You could have owned the entire paging market (or did you?). Amazing and disheartening at the same time. It is amazing to me how patents work (or sometimes don't). k*b*l*0*0*q Wish I did, but I didn't! I think the value of the circuit was its reliability, which is why I chose the monostable multivibrator as a basis. The idea of a tone detector and beeper was probably already patented, or probably too obvious to be patentable. It was enough to kickstart the weather alert radio industry and fortunate to retire at 43 as a result. I definitely have been blessed by ham radio! 73, Skip KH6TY //
Re: [digitalradio] New release (4.18) of MULTIPSK
John, I have written up a short story of how the weather alert radio industry began. You can read it at this link: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/WeatherAlertStory.htm http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehteller/WeatherAlertStory.htm 73, Skip KH6TY Sometime I would like to hear how it all started. Bet you could write a book on that. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Neby help with digi modes
There is a $19.95 interface kit described on Page 37 of the June QST. 73, Skip KH6TY When it comes to transmitting and receiving, you will need to also connect your transceiver to the computer so that the tones generated by your software and sound card are sent over the air. Thus you have both IN and OUT of your sound card connected to your rig. You can also achieve control of your rig via the software and cause the rig to change frequency, transmit or switch to receive (and a few other things). Do do this, most hams have an interface that goes between the rig and the PC. The interface can be built for about $25 worth of parts, but many hams buy one. These interfaces range from the very simple and effective to the very sophisticated and effective . Some use circuitry that achieves full computer assisted operation and some do do it via simple use of VOX (Signal link). For most operations VOX will be fine but there are some more advanced applications that cannot be used via VOX. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Neby help with digi modes
On 6/18/2010 2:40 PM, charles standlee wrote: And a good one it is... Good job on it Skip.. 73, Chuck AC5PW Thanks, Chuck, I tried to keep things basic and simple in order make it affordable to most hams. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Bad sound card?
Yes, Dave, it is 6-channel card, so maybe Jeremey can disable four of the channels and any special effects. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave 'Doc' Corio wrote: Could it be that the card is set up for 5.1 surround instead of simple 2-channel stereo, or that you actually have the audio out connected to the wrong output - like the rear speakers on 5.1 surround? Most sound cards I've used come with a console that lets you set the card for various protocols, like 5.1 and so on. Hope it's something simple like that! Good luck es 73 Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]*on Behalf Of *Jeremy Cowgar *Sent:* Saturday, June 05, 2010 3:25 PM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* [digitalradio] Bad sound card? Hello, When purchasing a new radio this last week I decided to also set my computer up how it should have been long ago. I purchased a sound card to dedicate it to digital modes. The sound card purchased was: http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0239854 http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0239854 It was $9.99... I wasn't asking for the world, but I didn't think I would get this. I am curious as to what you think? Here's the synario. I connect the line out to my rig blaster and when I transmit I get this: http://jeremy.cowgar.com/files/bad_sound_card.wav http://jeremy.cowgar.com/files/bad_sound_card.wav This was recorded from my mom's station that is 8 miles away. Obvious problem. I then simply moved the line out cable from my new sound card to my old sound card that is built into my mother board. No other changes. I do not have a recording of it, but it's beautiful, exactly how a feldhell signal should sound. Now, the most obvious thing would be is my sound settings wrong, i.e. way overdriving with the new sound card or something. I set them up the same. Looking at my ALC meter, I transmit into a dummy load, turn the line out volume up until I get ALC movement, then turn it back down until I cannot notice any ALC movement. Do you have any ideas? It's just $10, but I'd really like to have a dedicated sound card for the ham stuff, and please do not suggest a Signalink as I already have a nice setup, all wired and working, I just need to get this squared away. Until then, I'm working off my sound card built into the motherboard. Thanks for any help, Jeremy KB8LFA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
I agree with Rein's concern. Given the actions of the author in the past, and the fact that he is not even part of the amateur radio community, I'd be very hesitant to use that mode in a program, not know knowing what other malicious code might be embedded in the ROS software. Except for the 16 baud, 2000 Hz wide mode, which may be good for EME, I don't see from the QSL card postings on the ROS website that ROS is any better than Olivia or Contestia, and those modes do not take up a disproportionate amount of spectrum space. I'd say incorporate ROS at your own risk, programmers! 73 - Skip KH6TY Rein A wrote: Hello John, If your situation is not due to an installation problem or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned, programmed in, it might well have other consequences. ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other amateur radio digital packages. Think about that angle. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@... wrote: Rein Really don't know what to say at this point. Still trying to understand why my call was added to the list of calls not able to use the ROS program. But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have been banned from using the program will never know. It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick that I could use on the other computer if needed. Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not?
Rein, You can decide for yourself if ROS is spread spectrum or not, just be observing it with any audio spectrum analyzer, or program like fldigi or Digipan that has a waterfall. Just observe the behavior with data and without data at idle and you will see. You find that the carriers of the 16 baud and 1 baud variations bear no relationship to the imposed data, but hop around randomly - a sure sign of spread spectrum or frequency hopping. Instead in FSK and PSK, the carrier frequencies are fixed and modulated with the data. MFSK16 is a FSK mode and MT63 is a PSK mode (modulation applied to 64 fixed frequencies). Here is a comparison I made, similar to what you can make yourself: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG There is indisputable randomness to the ROS tone frequencies, even if you watch it for a long enough time. Applied to modulate a SSB transmitter, the resulting RF frequencies are also indisputably random. The FCC engineers have performed the same spectral analysis and informed the ARRL that the mode is truly spread spectrum. ROS now has some more narrow modes added, which I have not inspected, but maybe only the wide 1 baud and 16 baud varieties are spread spectrum, or frequency hopping, and the narrow ones are FSK - I don't know. Even if those narrow modes are not frequency-hopped, they are still grouped under the same umbrella, ROS, which means any approval of ROS for narrowband modes would wind up also approving the wide versions, which have all the appearance of being spread spectrum, or frequency hopped. For this reason, it did not work to include some narrow FSK modes to try to get overall approval by the FCC engineers. In fact it probably was an insult to their intelligence! The distinction of spread spectrum, or frequency-hopping, is simply that the carrier frequencies are determined independently of the data. Originally this was done in order to encrypt the signal unless you possessed the de-hopping code. It does not matter if the de-hopping code is sent along with the data, or the frequency spread is unusually narrow - frequency hopping is still frequency hopping - and that happens not to be allowed under 222 Mhz in FCC jurisdictions. A petition to modify the regulations can be submitted, but that has not been done, to my knowledge - just repeated attempts to fool the FCC with untruths. If a SSB transmitter is fed audio tones and the carrier is adequately suppressed, then the output is pure RF at the suppressed carrier frequency plus the individual tone frequency (for USB) and if the tones are frequency-hopped, it makes no difference if the RF generation is by frequency shift of an oscillator or by means of tones - the FCC is only interested in the emitted RF and its behavior. The advantage to frequency hopping, if you have the de-hopping code, is that the noise is random, but the signal has a known autocorrelation function, so integration by looking for the correlation can make the weak signal stand out from the random noise background - something I am sure you are aware of that has been long used in deep space communications. Splitting off the frequency-hopped modes from the same program that contains the narrow FSK modes might result in approval to use a separate program that has no frequency-hopped modes. The remaining program would only be allowed in the US above 222 Mhz. 73 - Skip KH6TY Rein A wrote: Hello All, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOmrgJkFY40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOmrgJkFY40 I found this interesting YouTube video, interesting to me at least. It is going a to be a big help watching waterfalls at 14.103 kHz and other channels such as http://etgd2.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/ http://etgd2.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/ 73 Rein W6SZ
[digitalradio] MT63 is NOT spread spectrum!
MT63 is PSK, and if you go to this link http://f1ult.free.fr/DIGIMODES/MULTIPSK/MT63_en.htm you can see how the carriers are fixed in frequency and not random in frequency. In fact, the description of MT63 is, DBPSK on 64 carrier tones. The tones are separated by 7.81 Hz for the 500 Hz bandwidth, 15.625 Hz for the 1000 Hz bandwidth or 31.25 Hz for the 2000 Hz bandwidth mode. The data is encoded using a Walsh-Hadamard transform to provide high degree of redundancy. The tones (i.e. carriers on a SSB transitter) are in a FIXED place and NOT randomly assigned a frequecy, so MT63 is NOT frequency hopped, or spread spectrum, even though it can be as wide as 2000 Hz. The spectrum of MT63 shows this very clearly. Compare that to the spectrum of ROS 16 and 1 baud of 2250 Hz width. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not?
Trevor, I was not privy to the names of the engineers - only told in confidence by one of the group that it was done. There is no report, and Dan Henderson is the ARRL spokesman who relayed the information to hams. That finding was also published on the ARRL website. This is all I can say and will say on this subject. Sorry, that I can say no more, but you can make the tests for yourself and see that ROS is indeed frequency hopped. As has been stated, hams are responsible for following the regulations. It is definitely unusual that the FCC would look at the emitted frequencies as they did in this case, but I guess it was because of so much disagreement. When the FCC decides to prosecute an wrong-doer, they definitely make an analysis on their own - just read the various charges filed against out of banders that are caught, transmitting more than the allowed power, blocking repeaters, using profanity, etc. They have in many cases gone to much trouble to determine without a doubt that a rule was being broken. In this case, any ham can make the same analysis - just run ROS into a soundcard and look at the resulting spectrum. ARRL only tries to provide guidance so individuals do have to do that, but the responsibility is up to the individual amateur to comply with the regulations. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: --- On Wed, 2/6/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net wrote: The FCC engineers have performed the same spectral analysis and informed the ARRL that the mode is truly spread spectrum. That's interesting, the FCC have said they they did not give judgments on individual data modes, it's up to the operator to decide. Who were the FCC engineers you mention, where is their report and who in ARRL HQ did they communicate with. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not?
Dave, The answer to your question is no for MT63, as it is nearly just as wide as ROS 16 baud, but will stop decoding at -8 dB S/N for the 50 wpm mode, Contestia 1000/64 at -13 dB S/N at 30 wpm, and Olivia slower at 15 wpm, but probably around -15 dB S/N. PSK31. PSK31 works down to -11.5 dB S/N at 50 wpm, as a comparison, but is only 31 Hz wide. The point is that for QSO's (which ROS does), not messaging (what WINMOR does), fast speed is not needed, because people usually cannot type more than around 50 wpm (the design goal for PSK31). For messaging however, you sacrifice minimum S/N for speed. You can get an idea by looking at the 1 baud mode of ROS, which is extremely slow, even for QSO's, but good just for exchanges, like in WSJT or moonbounce. This is where ROS has the greatest potential and where its wide width is not important because there is so much space at 70cm and 23cm. Otherwise, on HF, the same long-distance QSO's can be accomplished in much, much, less bandwidth, and probably just as effectively. I have often worked the South Pole, Japan, Australia, New Zealand with only 900 mw and PSK31 on 20m and the bandwidth was only 50 Hz maximum. If conditions are at all favorable, it does not take much power on the higher HF bands to go around the world. For UHF, and short exchanges, ROS is probably the best performer in a bandwidth of 2250 Hz, but the speed is very, very, slow. That is why the macros are like WSJT macros. It just takes too long to exchange much more. There is really no rationale for using ROS 16 baud on HF, as wide as it is, because our ham bands are shared, and spectrum hogs leave no room for others. However, on UHF, there is, and that is where ROS, with SS, is not counter-productive, but has the most promise. On UHF, we could use ROS, but it does not hold up well under Doppler Spreading, so we have settled on Contestia 1000/64 at 30 wpm as the best performing mode, decoding right down to the noise threshold, when even CW is hard to copy by ear. ROS simply failed to print when Contestia 1000/64 was printing 100%. Your point is well made, but there is a advantageous application for ROS, and that is on UHF for EME. Up there, it is legal for US hams to use also. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Sparks wrote: More importantly (to me, at least) is Spread Spectrum the most effective or efficient way of using a given amount of bandwidth to deliver a given data rate, from a weak signal point of view? IOW, would ROS work better than, let's say, MT-63, WINMOR, or Olivia if those three modes were adjusted to use the same bandwidth and data rate as ROS? If it were open source, I would have included Pactor-3 in that list, too. If not, then using SS is counter-productive as well as legally problematic. (I'm not implying that ROS is SS, BTW.) -- Dave Sparks AF6AS -- From: Trevor . m5...@yahoo.co.uk mailto:m5aka%40yahoo.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 2:29 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not? --- On Wed, 2/6/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net wrote: The FCC engineers have performed the same spectral analysis and informed the ARRL that the mode is truly spread spectrum. That's interesting, the FCC have said they they did not give judgments on individual data modes, it's up to the operator to decide. Who were the FCC engineers you mention, where is their report and who in ARRL HQ did they communicate with. 73 Trevor M5AKA http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not?
Trevor, Just to clarify, the FCC defines modes by emission types and other things, such as if SS is allowed, and where. It is the operator who must follow the FCC regulations, and he has no legal right to decide whether or not HIS judgement is the one to follow, or if he follows the regulations or not. He MUST simply follow the regulations. If he cannot determine if he will legally emit with a certain mode, the ARRL is the one who has their technical experts provide guidance, but the ARRL does not make the rules! The FCC may or may not look at a particular mode's emissions - they usually only look at emissions on the air and determine if the operator is out of compliance or not. Probably similar to the enforcement vans that roam London looking for illegal TV and radio emissions, as I am told they did in the past, if they still do that. 73, Skip KH6TY That's interesting, the FCC have said they they did not give judgments on individual data modes, it's up to the operator to decide. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] Digitalradio: Facebook change.
Andy, I rarely check my Facebook page (no teenagers here!) and only signed up with Facebook, at your request, but I'll give it a try. When I go to the page, I don't see where to write on the Wall, or how to become a fan. What am I missing? 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: AW: [digitalradio] Digital Suite Performance
For extreme qrp you should also try out the new mode ros With 5 w and a wire you can work the world with almost no conditions (band closed) I consistently work the world on 20m with only ONE watt (My PSK-20), an attic wire dipole, DigiPan, and PSK31, whether the band is open or not, but I take up less than 50 Hz of spectrum. I think may others do that also. If you can hear'em, you can work'em on PSK31, except over the polar paths. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Any point in sending Wrap files via ALE 400?
With WRAP, you can compress the file and reduce the transmission time significantly in many cases. 73 - Skip KH6TY Tony wrote: Andy, I sent a Wrap file via ALE400 today. Is that just a waste of time since ALE 400 already has error correction ? It would seem redundant if the intent was to make sure the file was received without error. Is there are value to sending Wrap files via ALE 400? Assuming that Wrap worked with Multipsk as it does with Fldigi, someone could use it to monitor an ALE-400 file transfer and tell if it came through without errors. All speculation on my part Andy. I guess they could then be forwaded to Fldigi users. Makes sense if the intent is to forward the files using a non-arq mode later on. I was under the impression that Wrap was exclusive to Fldigi, but the website says it can be used with any digital modem program. Guess that includes Multipsk? Very interesting Andy... Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE 400
Howard, There is no installer, so why should there be an unistaller! Please read the Multipsk help to understand how simple it is to run Multipsk. You can install it in a directory, or just run multipsk.exe from the unzipped folder. Nothing could be simpler, and even installers sometimes get it wrong. I prefer the Multipsk approach, because there is nothing to go wrong, regardless of what your computer system configuration is. With all due respect, I think you have it backwards - Multipsk is the MOST professional software available to us as amateurs- more modes than any, and all work well. You have ALE400 and RSID, both of which were invented by the author and both work without a hitch. Please get it right - just say you don't personally like the GUI, but to claim the software is unprofessional, just because the presentation is different from other PSK31 or multimode programs, is completely wrong, in my opinion. However, if you feel that way, please consider that we all are AMATEURS, not professionals and Multipsk is FREE for AMATEUR use - not for sale like many other PSK31 and multimode programs, many written by professionals in the programming or computer field. As you say, you can't get past the GUI to use the program. That is sad, because you are missing out on all the fun using ALE400 and RSID, as well as other programs in Multipsk that are not in any other ham program. 73 - Skip KH6TY Howard Z wrote: Hmmm, Where the uninstaller? Oh, he doesn't seem to have one. I suppose he can't imagine anyone ever wanting to uninstall his software? This is the most unprofessional software I have ever seen. Howard --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Howard, once you get used to it, you can understand why there are so many buttons and colors (to try and group). Just concentrate on the QSO after you have pushed the button you need and it will not feel so unfriendly. There is more to Patrick's program than any other and it is hard to handle all those functions without deep menu structures. The use of buttons and changing button selections is clever and really appreciated once you get used to it. Multipsk is technically nearly perfect and I always come back to it if I have trouble with any other program (which may be simpler looking). 73 - Skip KH6TY Designer of DigiPan Howard Z wrote: MultiPSK = Yick Ugg, can't stand to even look at the user interface. I don't care if his s/w can walk on water - I can't bring myself to use it. The author of MultiPSK needs to think about all the other software he uses, written by professionals, and consider how to make his own software easy to use and pleasant to look at. Yes, I know others may have different opinions. Howard
Re: [digitalradio] Speech-to-Text for the Handicapped
Tony, I am not sure what you mean, but you can use Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking, version 10, and dictate into the TX window of most programs (such as DigiPan, and fldigi, and maybe even Multipsk (although have not tested it with Multipsk) and not have to type. However, Naturally Speaking does not handle callsigns very well, so what I do is create macros to do all that and then just speak what I want to send out. For conversation, it pays to train Naturally Speaking for a couple of weeks, and then you will have very few corrections to make. For example, to carry on a QSO: Press F4: TXCALL DE MYCALL Say, Now is the time for all good hams to try Contestia! Press F5: BTU CALL DE MYCALL K RX Obviously, you need enough capability to press a macro button with one finger in this case, or type in a callsign when necessary or double-click on it with a mouse. Digitalk will translaste hamspeak fairly well - enough to have a meaningful QSO, but will pronounce OK as Oklahoma - nothing I can do about that except by incorporating a very powerful program that figures out what is intended in the context of the conversation - not very practical for ham QSO's! DigiTalk will also spell out any words that contain a letter, such a K2MO, or FT1000. It recognizes BTU as Back to you and spells out most Q signals, like QRT, QSL, etc.. I am slowly build a larger vocabulary of hamspeak abbreviations, etc. for DigiTalk, but this is not my full-time job! So, the code is already there for listening to PSK31, and a program for sending PSK31 by voice. Naturally Speaking also can be trained to recognize some unique commands, but I have not spent enough time with it to know everything it can do. Naturally Speaking is $40 at Target stores. 73 - Skip KH6TY Tony wrote: All, Andy brought up the digital mode / text-to-speech idea recently and a thought came to mind that this could help the handicapped. I'm not sure if speech-to-text programs can transfer text to another application right out of the box, but assuming they did, there would still be the need for voice commands to control the program. Seems a second sound card may be needed as well; VAC might help. Skip Teller created Digitalk for the blind (thanks Skip) and Patrick wrote an interface for it (thank you Patrick) so the programs can talk. Andy's speech-to-text idea would complete the package. It's easy to suggest something like this while standing on the shoulders of experts like Patrick and Skip; I can only imagine what it takes to write the code. Just a thought. Tony -K2MO http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit)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: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE 400
Howard, once you get used to it, you can understand why there are so many buttons and colors (to try and group). Just concentrate on the QSO after you have pushed the button you need and it will not feel so unfriendly. There is more to Patrick's program than any other and it is hard to handle all those functions without deep menu structures. The use of buttons and changing button selections is clever and really appreciated once you get used to it. Multipsk is technically nearly perfect and I always come back to it if I have trouble with any other program (which may be simpler looking). 73 - Skip KH6TY Designer of DigiPan Howard Z wrote: MultiPSK = Yick Ugg, can't stand to even look at the user interface. I don't care if his s/w can walk on water - I can't bring myself to use it. The author of MultiPSK needs to think about all the other software he uses, written by professionals, and consider how to make his own software easy to use and pleasant to look at. Yes, I know others may have different opinions. Howard
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
The F6FBB BBS protocol is used. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Hi Steinar, I've never used WINLINK and know little about it but I'd imagine they use a standard and freely available compression algorithms. Perhaps someone else can comment. 73 Trevor M5AKA --- On Tue, 11/5/10, Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no mailto:saanes%40broadpark.no wrote: Is it posible to monitor the content of a WINLINK transmission? As fare as I know the WINLINK data is compressed. I have never been able to monitor WINLINK with my SCS TNC. la5vna Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John, I asked you the same question, but you did not answer mine. :-( Just as I thought, the only reason to allow Pactor-III on 60m is for Winlink's benefit. Let's file comments to the FCC to allow any modes 500 Hz wide or less so at least 4 or 5 stations can use the channel for QSO and Emcomm instead of Pactor-III taking over the entire channel for Winlink mailboxes. If you don't comment, you might wish you had! 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was really necessary for live keyboard to keyboard QSOs. I guess that was an anti-Pactor III question, but that one also never got answered. Jim to answer that I really would have to say that for keyboard to keyboard I can't really recall using P3 for a QSO. Just mailbox operation. Got to remember that P3 may be a bit wide but it's so fast that a MBO op is over with real fast.
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage
Jaak, I agree with your reasoning in testing Contestia 250/4. I also think that a good approach would be for EVERYONE to use RSID so a station can shift the QSO mode according to typing preference or propagation conditions, as determined at either end of the QSO. Multipsk, DM780, and Fldigi already support both Contestia 250/4 and Contestia 250/8, so it will be easy to compare modes to see which one arises as the preferred one. Basically, Olivia has now become favored by many over MFSK16 because it is easier to tune, and works well into the noise. I suspect that the same will happen with Contestia, but it will be always more comfortably fast than Olivia under the same conditions, of course. Thanks again for the PathSim tests on the wider Contestia modes. That has been very helpful in deciding which is the best overall compromise between speed and lowest S/N on our UHF paths. On UHF, we have prepared macros in Fldigi to quickly switch between Contestia 1000/64 and Conterstia 2000/64, but it would be helpful if Patrick would assign Reed Solomon Identifiers to include those variants. Because there is much more space available on UHF, we can use the wider modes to withstand Doppler shift and spreading, whereas we find anything more narrow than 500 Hz simply does not survive. It is good to have choices! 73, Skip KH6TY Jaak Hohensee wrote: Skip, I agree with you. My considerations to prefer in HF Contestia 250/4 format is related to the idea to find some compromise for bpsk31 folk, Olivia light users, and rtty folk when the propagation is not enough good for bpsk31 and rtty. So Cnt 250/4 with 39wpm is the first alternative for bpsk and rtty folk and the last alternative for Olivia hardusers ;) The idea to use 250/4 format motivated also by fact that Cnt 250/4 signals are seen in wtrfl until the copy lost (-9dB). 250/8 is washed out from wtrfl around -10dB. Both, psk31 and rtty users was wont to see signals on wtrfl. To see signals is motivated also from QRM reducing viewpoint. The idea to make 2-step default switch from 250/4(-9dB) to 250/16 (-15dB) and so get additional snr -6dB is compensate 250/8 format snr-advantage. Default shift need default procedure what/how to do when the copy is lost. WPM considerations 29wpm (250/8) is good speed from cw-viewpoint, but too less from rtty/psk31 viewpoint. 39wpm (250/4) is somekind compromise between the different speed/snr expectations. vy73, Jaak es1hj 10.05.2010 2:59, KH6TY kirjutas: Hi Jaak, Great idea to start a long test of Contestia 250/4! Perhaps Contestia 250/8 can also be compared in actual practice to Contestia 250/4. Contestia 250/8 is slower (at 29 wpm), but decodes 2 dB deeper into the noise, which may be important when there is QSB (fading) and the signal is already near the noise level ( such as when the band is going out). Although I can type over 50 wpm, my personal feeling is that 29 wpm is fast enough for a QSO, but Contestia at 78 wpm (3 dB less sensitive) is more reasonable for passing traffic (if conditions can support 3 dB less sensitivity). If not, then to be able to pass the traffic at all, it has to be sent at a slower, more sensitive speed, such as Contestia 250/4. It all depends upon the average individual preference for typing speed for QSO's vs conditions.This may become clear during your tests. I hope the testers will make their minimum typing speed preferences known, as well as how well the mode works. 73, Skip KH6TY Jaak Hohensee wrote: Hi everybody * Contestia derived from Olivia. * Contestia 250/4 is channelfree like psk or rtty. BW less than rtty and same as psk125, 39wpm, snr -9dB. * So Contestia 250/4 is good narrowband alternative for psk31 or rtty folk, specially when propagtion is not for psk/rtty or signals are too weak. * Contestia 250/4 is good mode for mid- or high-latitude folk. Many times there are disturbed propagation path not suited for psk or rtty. * Concept testing period to the end of year 2010. Everybody is welcome. More info contestia.blogspot.com http://contestia.blogspot.com/ -- vy73, Jaak es1hj -- Kirjutas ja tervitab Jaak Hohensee
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
When did Pactor-III (up to 2200 Hz wide, I think), suddenly become a narrowband data mode? 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: It seems odd to me too Rick. However, i do note... means of on-off keying (emission designator 150HA1A) continues to be used by amateur stations because of its reliability in difficult propagation conditions. ARRL also states that the other requested emission designators – 60H0J2B (which is generally known as PSK31) and 2K80J2D (which is generally known as PACTOR-III) – are popular narrowband data modes.16 We propose to add these three emission designators, which would allow four permissible emission types to be used in the 60 meter band. We propose to permit any additional modulation techniques that we adopt to be used on all assigned frequencies within the 60 meter band, including the assigned frequency 5368 kHz in the event that we do not adopt our proposal to replace the assigned frequency 5368 kHz with 5358.5 kHz PSK31 would be welcome. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Rick Ellison relli...@twcny.rr.com mailto:relli...@twcny.rr.com wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com http://www.n2amg.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
What it means is that the channel will be dominated with personal Winlink Pactor-III traffic, completely filling it up, with no sharing, or any space left for truly narrowband modes like PSK31 - all in the name of emergency communications. It has proven impossible for a Pactor-III ARQ station (one side is ALWAYS unattended) to share with any other services that already have priority, just as they do not share with other radio amateur communications, because they do not listen first. The 99% of hams that do not use Winlink will have that 60m channel taken away from them. 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: It seems odd to me too Rick. However, i do note... means of on-off keying (emission designator 150HA1A) continues to be used by amateur stations because of its reliability in difficult propagation conditions. ARRL also states that the other requested emission designators – 60H0J2B (which is generally known as PSK31) and 2K80J2D (which is generally known as PACTOR-III) – are popular narrowband data modes.16 We propose to add these three emission designators, which would allow four permissible emission types to be used in the 60 meter band. We propose to permit any additional modulation techniques that we adopt to be used on all assigned frequencies within the 60 meter band, including the assigned frequency 5368 kHz in the event that we do not adopt our proposal to replace the assigned frequency 5368 kHz with 5358.5 kHz PSK31 would be welcome. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Rick Ellison relli...@twcny.rr.com mailto:relli...@twcny.rr.com wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com http://www.n2amg.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John, How frequently do you use Pactor-III, keyboard to keyboard? How fast do you touch type? 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: So my friend I do think WINLINK has a lot to do with it when even a keyboard to keyboard QSO get's phone calls from some lid. But I guess, I'll look at the good side of it all. I will not be getting any calls from him again. Seems his state has laws about making phone calls like that. And he no longer has a land line. Thank you ATT Who would like to be the next one? I'm in the book. But to answer that question - Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III because it works, and works well. John, W0JAB At 01:23 PM 5/10/2010, AA6YQ wrote: It's an anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection rant, John. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage
Hi Patrick, Yahoo reports there is no RSID group. Where should I request additional RSID codes? 73 - Skip KH6TY Patrick Lindecker wrote: Hello Skip, About Contestia: I think this mode is a better compromise between robustness and speed than Olivia (too much robustness) and RTTYM (very fast but with the problem of having two sets of characters as in RTTY, i.e letters and figures, and hence much risk of packet of errors). but it would be helpful if Patrick would assign Reed Solomon Identifiers to include those variants. RR for all, but I have not seen demands to our RS ID group...
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John, I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard QSO's, not Pactor-II or Pactor I. As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. How do you personally carry on a keyboard-to-keyboard conversation without typing? 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Often, very often. All pactor modes. As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. At 02:19 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote:
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
ESP - There is a difference between typing and touch typing. Google it. I did. Touch typing is typing without using the sense of sight to find the keys. *Typing* is the process of inputting text into a device, such as a typewriter /wiki/Typewriter, cell phone /wiki/Cell_phone, computer /wiki/Computer, or a calculator /wiki/Calculator, by pressing keys on a keyboard /wiki/Computer_keyboard. It can be distinguished from other means of input, such as the use of pointing devices /wiki/Pointing_device like the computer mouse /wiki/Computer_mouse, and text input via speech recognition /wiki/Speech_recognition. Notice that any kind of typing is done by pressing keys on a keyboard. John, PSK31 was designed by G3PLX to accommodate a typical fast typist, or 50 wpm. Then why should a 2100 Hz-wide Pactor mode be legally allowed to take up a full channel for keyboarding when four Pactor-II stations could share the channel at the same time? 1. I'll venture a guess - it is not for person-to-person communication, but was done by the ARRL specifically for Winlink messaging, because NOBODY needs a 300 wpm mode for keyboarding, do they! So, 99% of the hams can now just kiss one of the 60m channels goodbye for general use. Thank you, ARRL! :-( 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 03:12 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: John, I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard QSO's, not Pactor-II or Pactor I. Skip, just because you are anyone else can't copy P2 or P3 does not mean it does not happen. Belive me, it happens ! most of my keyboard to keyboard QSO are P2 or P3. Can't really recall last time I had a P1 QSO As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. How do you personally carry on a keyboard-to-keyboard conversation without typing? ESP - There is a difference between typing and touch typing. Google it. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage
Patrick, Thanks. I'll ask Dave to request the number. He is already going to add Contestia 64/1000 and Contestia 64/2000 to Fldigi because those are needed on UHF when SSB cannot get though due to poor propagation, Doppler speading, and multipath. 73 - Skip KH6TY Patrick Lindecker wrote: Skip, It is an informal group composed by the Hams able to program RS ID in their own respective programs (i.e Votjech, Simon, Dave, Cesco and myself). A RS ID number can't be virtual. It must be really implemented in a program... 73 Patrick - Original Message - *From:* KH6TY mailto:kh...@comcast.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, May 10, 2010 10:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage Hi Patrick, Yahoo reports there is no RSID group. Where should I request additional RSID codes? 73 - Skip KH6TY Patrick Lindecker wrote: Hello Skip, About Contestia: I think this mode is a better compromise between robustness and speed than Olivia (too much robustness) and RTTYM (very fast but with the problem of having two sets of characters as in RTTY, i.e letters and figures, and hence much risk of packet of errors). but it would be helpful if Patrick would assign Reed Solomon Identifiers to include those variants. RR for all, but I have not seen demands to our RS ID group...
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage
Patrick, I failed to point that every combination of bandwidth -125, 250, 500,1000, 2000, and tones - 2,4,8,16,32,64, 128, 256, for Contestia and Olivia are ALREADY implemented in both Fldigi and MixW. It is only because of this that were were able to discover the benefits of Contestia 64/2000 and 32/2000 which are not yet supported in Multipsk. By copy of this email, I am formally requesting Dave, W1HKJ, to request RD ID numbers for all these combinations, as it is just not possible to guess which combination will prove to be very useful under certain conditions. It took us weeks of daily tests to find out that Contestia 64/1000 is the MOST dependable mode to use for digital QSO's on UHF because of the extreme conditions there. 73 - Skip KH6TY Patrick Lindecker wrote: Skip, It is an informal group composed by the Hams able to program RS ID in their own respective programs (i.e Votjech, Simon, Dave, Cesco and myself). A RS ID number can't be virtual. It must be really implemented in a program... 73 Patrick - Original Message - *From:* KH6TY mailto:kh...@comcast.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, May 10, 2010 10:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage Hi Patrick, Yahoo reports there is no RSID group. Where should I request additional RSID codes? 73 - Skip KH6TY Patrick Lindecker wrote: Hello Skip, About Contestia: I think this mode is a better compromise between robustness and speed than Olivia (too much robustness) and RTTYM (very fast but with the problem of having two sets of characters as in RTTY, i.e letters and figures, and hence much risk of packet of errors). but it would be helpful if Patrick would assign Reed Solomon Identifiers to include those variants. RR for all, but I have not seen demands to our RS ID group...
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
Why not just limit bandwidth of any emission to 500 Hz? 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My objections are PIII is a proprietary mode . PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause of QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the same for the primary services that have 60M allocations. Recent tests of NBEMS with FLICS and WRAP have proven as effective as PIII and take up less spectrum (and are not proprietary) Winmor 500 offers most of the Winlink capabilities without the problems associated with wide PIII and is freely available to all hams. I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com mailto:hfradio...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
Dave, Of course Pactor-III has been publicly documented! wink See: http://www.scs-ptc.com/pactor/pactor However, it would take a judge in a court of law to decide if it has been adequately documented publicly. As far as it is known, nobody has been able to design a competing device to the SCS modem, always citing inadequate disclosure as a reason. Another real serious problem with Pactor-III is that it changes bandwidth according to conditions, getting wider in order to increase speed when conditions permit. The result is that Pactor-III owns a channel, even if at first it looks like part of the channel is available for other modes. The emitted bandwidth for the 60m digital channel really needs to be limited to 500 Hz. In fact, why not split the space into four or five 500 Hz-wide channels, which would give others a chance to operate there? Even mentioning PSK31 and RTTY is undoubtedly just a red herring when the REAL reason behind ARRL's petition is probably to support Winlink expansion under the guise of being necessary for Emcomm. Better file your comments on the NPRM ASAP, and encourage everyone you meet on the bands to do the same thing. The FCC does listen to the comments, and considers every one. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Wright wrote: I take that as a no to my question about whether Pactor III has ever been publicly documented. My understanding is that if it is not, then it isn't authorized for use on the amateur bands in the US. I'm not opposed to Pactor III, per se, but by my understanding it doesn't comply with the basic rules. If this is the case, then either the rules need to change, or the modes that don't comply need to be removed from the air. Thoughts? Dave
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia 250 - new concept for usage
Hi Jaak, Great idea to start a long test of Contestia 250/4! Perhaps Contestia 250/8 can also be compared in actual practice to Contestia 250/4. Contestia 250/8 is slower (at 29 wpm), but decodes 2 dB deeper into the noise, which may be important when there is QSB (fading) and the signal is already near the noise level ( such as when the band is going out). Although I can type over 50 wpm, my personal feeling is that 29 wpm is fast enough for a QSO, but Contestia at 78 wpm (3 dB less sensitive) is more reasonable for passing traffic (if conditions can support 3 dB less sensitivity). If not, then to be able to pass the traffic at all, it has to be sent at a slower, more sensitive speed, such as Contestia 250/4. It all depends upon the average individual preference for typing speed for QSO's vs conditions.This may become clear during your tests. I hope the testers will make their minimum typing speed preferences known, as well as how well the mode works. 73, Skip KH6TY Jaak Hohensee wrote: Hi everybody * Contestia derived from Olivia. * Contestia 250/4 is channelfree like psk or rtty. BW less than rtty and same as psk125, 39wpm, snr -9dB. * So Contestia 250/4 is good narrowband alternative for psk31 or rtty folk, specially when propagtion is not for psk/rtty or signals are too weak. * Contestia 250/4 is good mode for mid- or high-latitude folk. Many times there are disturbed propagation path not suited for psk or rtty. * Concept testing period to the end of year 2010. Everybody is welcome. More info contestia.blogspot.com http://contestia.blogspot.com/ -- vy73, Jaak es1hj
Re: [digitalradio] VHF / UHF Digital Beyond line-of-sight
Tony, thanks for images. We will try with some single carriers next week and see what happens. The conditions we are currently testing under are with no ducting at all on the Hepburn map, so I assume it is all tropospheric scatter. This morning, SSB phone was very badly chopped up, but signals varied from S1 to S4, so we had another opportunity to test digital modes. We tried DominiEx 11, DominoEx 11 with FEC, Thor 11, and Contestia 16-500. In each case, Contestia produced about 90% copy (there were a few words with errors), whereas DominoEX 11, DomimoEx 11 with FEC , and Thor 11 had over 50% errors. We could have tried the wider Thor and DominoEx modes, but then the minimum S/N would not be good enough. It was not quite good enough with Contestia for 100% print anyway. Next week we will compare Olivia to Contestia to see if we can confirm Jaak's simulation findings. No more tests possible this week. 73 - Skip KH6TY Tony wrote: [Attachment(s) #TopText from Tony included below] On 4/20/2010 3:32 AM, KH6TY wrote: Hi Tony, When both stations are within the same ducting level, the only audible Doppler effect is usually reflections from airplanes, and sounds much like your recording. When there is no propagation enhancement showing on the Hepburn maps, there is usually a fast, constant, chopping up of the SSB phone signal, and when we switch to a relatively wide digital mode - print is perfect. It sounds like there are two different propagation modes in play Skip. The steadier signals that tend to coincide with the Hepburn maps would appear to be coming from real tropospheric ducting (which says a lot for those maps) while the other mode may be tropospheric scatter. For what it's worth, the path simulator can emulate the rapid fade characteristics you mentioned by introducing low-frequency Doppler spread. This seems to coincide with the 2 to 3 fades per-second you mentioned (see profiles jpg). The fade frequency tends to become more rapid as the Doppler spread frequency is increased. It's difficult to say what's really going on, but the digital modes themselves may tell us something. We know for a fact that narrow-band PSK modes cannot tolerate Doppler spread while MFSK modes have little or no trouble coping. This seems to be the situation with your tests on 432 and suggests that the throughput failures are Doppler induced. I think you can determine if Doppler spread is present, but it's not going to show up in the waterfall with most digital modes; it needs to be fairly intense for that to happen. I've found that the best approach is to measure the spread of a carrier signal using Spectran or SBSpectrum. The frequency-spread carrier will appear broad compared to a normal signal; the software magnifies the effect -- see SBspectrum images 1 and 2. As you can see in the waterfall images (1 and 2) it's difficult to tell the difference between mild Doppler spreading at 0.25Hz and more intense Doppler spread at 5Hz, yet the difference is night and day in terms of throughput with narrow modes. Of course you can use the tuning indicator with PSK31, but it's not as precise. A few more questions: Are there times when the fading frequency increases beyond 2 or 3 Hz? Are the choppy signals generally weaker than those that coincide with the Hepburn maps? What are the distances between your QTH and the stations you work on VHF/UHF? Have the narrow modes like PSK31 worked at all on what seems to be tropo-scatter mode? Looking forward to hearing more about the VHF/UHF digital tests Skip. Thanks, Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] VHF / UHF Digital Beyond line-of-sight
Yes, the chopping of the SSB voice is very similar to what the second half of the MT63 signal sounds like. Next week, we'll try MT63 and just compare the sounds to SSB phone over the air. Thanks for the simulation! If you get a chance, please run Contestia against Olivia and see if you get any difference in print. 73 - Skip KH6TY Tony wrote: [Attachment(s) #TopText from Tony included below] On 4/21/2010 3:25 PM, KH6TY wrote: This morning, SSB phone was very badly chopped up, but signals varied from S1 to S4, so we had another opportunity to test digital modes. We tried DominiEx 11, DominoEx 11 with FEC, Thor 11, and Contestia 16-500. In each case, Contestia produced about 90% copy (there were a few words with errors), whereas DominoEX 11, DomimoEx 11 with FEC , and Thor 11 had over 50% errors. Skip, Your results seem to agree with the Doppler tests I ran with the path simulator. I found that there's an obvious difference in how much Doppler spread each mode can handle and Olivia tends to be the most tolerant. Frequency spreading does cause the rapid fade effect we spoke about and in this test, the fades are faster than the 2 to 3Hz you mentioned. There's a sample of the Doppler spread audio attached to this mssage. The first half is a normal MT63 signal without distortion; the second half shows the effect of frequency spreading (7 Hertz). Tony -K2MO Path Simulation: Frequency Spread 7 Hz SNR -3db THOR11 tiq Rck brown fox juc ekver the la0 nr e;5yd G to lsGa tmps over the lazy dog taAHk brown fox jumpoOireCoer DominoEX11 riefox zukpl over theeizydqtT theepuick brocrfak Iuksl ower te layy dty the quidT ßtwn xox jpsovtr the lazj hoz DominoEX11 FEC e quick bÄwn fox jumps over the laonithe q¸?yeXºe ecteips oveords oo¯he quixoôroc ávs over the lazy d o Aquick bmt ª?ox jumps over the lazy dog Olivia 8-500 the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. Olivia 16-500 the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. PSK31 (no print) PSK63 the /ui btown fox 6smps om r laoty dogt he qutc^(TM)I own fo jumps over tme la_ogl the |-ipk yrown fox j om on er hlazb dog Tony wrote: On 4/20/2010 3:32 AM, KH6TY wrote: Hi Tony, When both stations are within the same ducting level, the only audible Doppler effect is usually reflections from airplanes, and sounds much like your recording. When there is no propagation enhancement showing on the Hepburn maps, there is usually a fast, constant, chopping up of the SSB phone signal, and when we switch to a relatively wide digital mode - print is perfect. It sounds like there are two different propagation modes in play Skip. The steadier signals that tend to coincide with the Hepburn maps would appear to be coming from real tropospheric ducting (which says a lot for those maps) while the other mode may be tropospheric scatter. For what it's worth, the path simulator can emulate the rapid fade characteristics you mentioned by introducing low-frequency Doppler spread. This seems to coincide with the 2 to 3 fades per-second you mentioned (see profiles jpg). The fade frequency tends to become more rapid as the Doppler spread frequency is increased. It's difficult to say what's really going on, but the digital modes themselves may tell us something. We know for a fact that narrow-band PSK modes cannot tolerate Doppler spread while MFSK modes have little or no trouble coping. This seems to be the situation with your tests on 432 and suggests that the throughput failures are Doppler induced. I think you can determine if Doppler spread is present, but it's not going to show up in the waterfall with most digital modes; it needs to be fairly intense for that to happen. I've found that the best approach is to measure the spread of a carrier signal using Spectran or SBSpectrum. The frequency-spread carrier will appear broad compared to a normal signal; the software magnifies the effect -- see SBspectrum images 1 and 2. As you can see in the waterfall images (1 and 2) it's difficult to tell the difference between mild Doppler spreading at 0.25Hz and more intense Doppler spread at 5Hz, yet the difference is night and day in terms of throughput with narrow modes. Of course you can use the tuning indicator with PSK31, but it's not as precise. A few more questions: Are there times when the fading frequency increases beyond 2 or 3 Hz? Are the choppy signals generally weaker than those that coincide with the Hepburn maps? What are the distances between your QTH and the stations you work on VHF/UHF? Have the narrow modes like PSK31 worked at all on what seems to be tropo-scatter mode? Looking forward to hearing more about the VHF/UHF digital tests Skip. Thanks, Tony -K2MO __ Information from ESET NOD32
Re: [digitalradio] VHF / UHF Digital Beyond line-of-sight
Hi Tony, Thanks for making the recording of aircraft reflections. Yes, we also see and hear aircraft reflections mixed with atmospheric disturbances all the time. The aircraft reflections sound similar to what you hear on the beacon, and you can identify those because they vary in frequency and intensity as the airplane approaches or recedes, just like you hear. However, what we experience on UHF over longer paths is a constant chopping up of the SSB phone signal, or narrow digital signals, and that seems to correlate with the Hepburn propagation maps, especially when the path crosses two or more levels of ducting, when signals can be strong, but SSB is still not very understandable. When both stations are within the same ducting level, the only audible Doppler effect is usually reflections from airplanes, and sounds much like your recording. When there is no propagation enhancement showing on the Hepburn maps, there is usually a fast, constant, chopping up of the SSB phone signal, and when we switch to a relatively wide digital mode, like Olivia or Contestia, which continues to print for a couple of seconds after transmission has ceased (due to the interleaving and FEC, I guess) print is perfect. The frequency of the audible chop is generally around two to three times per second, which is less than the latency of the digital mode. Those modes which display very little or no latency seem to be the ones that fail to print. Over the next few weeks, we are now going to compare Contestia variations with different bandwidths and latency to see how print compares to the observed period of chop on SSB phone. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Digital Mode tests this evening - FLDIGI
Hi Tony, The aircraft reflections are usually recognizable. You can hear the pulsations in the background noise change in rate as the airplane flies around and sometimes even see the frequency shift on the waterfall, but the big problem is that there is an almost constant, often fast, shift in frequency on UHF that causes the phone signal voice pitch to change in frequency so much and so fast that it is chopped up. That seems to be most prevalent when trying to cross several levels of propagation enhancement and signal are stronger due to the enhancement, but also when no enhancement is evident at all on the Hepburn maps http://www.dxinfocentre.com/tropo.html, and signals are weaker. If both stations are within the same level of enhancement, there is usually no problem, even if both signals are weak. Since Contestia and Olivia keep printing after the transmission has ceased, I suspect that the interleaving and redundancy is carrying enough data over the peaks and valleys that we hear to produce perfect print, but I am no theorist on this, for sure! In the case of PSK125R, you can see the carriers severely shifted in frequency on the waterfall and becoming jagged lines instead of straight ones. Decoding is perhaps 10% compared to Olivia and Contestia which will generally be 95% to 100% under the same conditions, depending upon the S/N. A CW note at the same time sounds like a buzz saw instead of a note. Even the very narrow Contestia or Olivia modes often fail, so we have found that 16-500 is the best compromise between sensitivity, speed, and bandwidth on UHF. Olivia or Contestia 8-250 theoretically should be 1 dB more sensitive, but usually have more errors than 16-500 when signals are near the noise threshold. The wider PSK250R and PSK500R modes, even though wider, are not usable because they require a greater S/N. We have been looking for a mode that will provide 24/7 coverage of our state (over a 120 mile radius) with reasonable antenna gains (14 dBi) and power (100 watts). HF does not do it because propagation changes over the course of 24 hours, 6M propagation is always very spotty, and often propagation, when there is no enhancement on 2M, is worse than on 70cm, so we are fortunate to find that Olivia and Contestia work well enough on 70cm to do the job. 73 - Skip KH6TY Tony wrote: FWIW, PSK125R does not survive the Doppler disturbances on UHF. Olivia or Contestia does. Therefore, the mode we have found works best under the severe conditions of multipath, Doppler shift, Doppler spread, and very weak signals is Contestia 16-500 at 30 wpm. the minimum S/N is -12 dB, which is essential for weak signal UHF and VHF digital operation as every dB of S/N we can get is important for weak signal work. 73 - Skip KH6TY Skip, Thanks for the info. The path simulator results seem to agree with your observations on the high bands. I bet you have a fair share of problems with aircraft Doppler? I've noticed multiple reflections from multiple aircraft while monitoring VHF beacons. Spectrum analysis reveals how great those Doppler shifts can be; the mixing of 2 or 3 multipath signals can play havoc with throughput. . While it's not quite the same, we didn't get a chance to test on HF today. Andy tried his best to accomodate (always there for us Andy), but conditions weren't good between us on 80 meters. Tomorrows another day. Thanks again. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Digital Mode tests this evening - FLDIGI
FWIW, PSK125R does not survive the Doppler disturbances on UHF. Olivia or Contestia does. Therefore, the mode we have found works best under the severe conditions of multipath, Doppler shift, Doppler spread, and very weak signals is Contestia 16-500 at 30 wpm. the minimum S/N is -12 dB, which is essential for weak signal UHF and VHF digital operation as every dB of S/N we can get is important for weak signal work. 73 - Skip KH6TY Tony wrote: All, I'll be QRV for digital mode testing this evening after 2200z (April 15) till 0500z (April 16). QRG 14108 / 3588 (+ / - QRM). Modes of interest: 1. MFSK32 (Fldigi) 2. PSK250R (Fldigi) 3. MT63 1K (Fldigi) I've created a test transmission that will send each mode in sequence starting with MFSK32 and ending with MT63 1K (long iterleave). RS-ID will be used to facilitate automated band switching. Fldigi needs to be configured to do this: Click CONFIGURE IDs and UNCHECK RECEPTION DISABLES DETECTOR. This will enable automatic band switching upon the reception of RS-ID. The RX-ID located in the upper right corner of Fldigi's main window must be checked (green light). See you on Andy's sked page http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ Thanks, Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Scanning on the 3's today.
Andy, Same problem with your scanning station as with Winlink scanning stations! I am unable to know what frequency to listen on to see if I hear you in QSO, so if I hear nothing, I call just for you, assuming you may hear me. If you do not respond, I do not know if propagation is not good, or you are tied up on another scanned frequency in QSO. Whereas, if you were NOT scanning, I could just try calling you on one of the listed frequencies. If I heard traffic on that frequency, it would either be you or someone else. In any event, if you are in QSO with someone, I will transmit for you over and over, taking up a frequency someone else could use, and never connect with you until you are done. I called for you in Olivia 16-500 on each of the listed frequencies from 12:30 to 12:39 when I began to write this. Each frequency was clear when I called, of course, but never heard any reply. Seems like YOU should just be calling CQ, or calling for me for a sked and I should be the one doing the scanning and finding you! That way, you are not automatic and can verify the frequency is clear before calling CQ. That gives me a chance to check each band to see if you are on. This way, I do not take up a frequency calling for you when you are unavailable because you are busy elsewhere. Does this make sense? 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: I am scanning 3583 ,7073, 10143, 14073,18103, 21073, 24923, 28123, today. Anyone looking for a digital mode QSO is welcome . I am scanning in ALE 400 mode BUT if I hear another mode while scanning, I pause the scan and see who it is. Just had a nice Olivia 16/500 QSO (for an hour!) with W5ZIT who I detected on 14073 while scanning (with 3 kHZ filter, no narrow settings) . Also KB0QC in MFSK16 on 14074.5 . For those interested in multiband scanning , aside from actually programming your rig to do the scanning, several applications make it easy to do Commander Multipsk (using ALE and customized frequency settings ) PC-ALE (with ALE) Vary the settings long enough so that you can hear a station within your passband as the scan progresses. 2 seconds per channel is usually good enough and reduces the chance of missing someone while you are on another frequency. A 3 kHz filter setting will allow you to hear most of the none PSK31 traffic if you use 3583 ,7073, 10143, 14073,18103, 21073, 24923, 28123, . I did not use 7033 for European traffic. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Scanning on the 3's today.
Sure, you may, if propagation is favorable, and ONLY if you are not in an extended QSO with anyone. Meanwhile, I would just be transmitting into cyberspace! Let's set up a schedule at a specific time and band, have a short QSO, and then you scan right afterward and see if you pick me up. 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: Well , using ALE principles, I should have my scan passes timed so that anyone that calls me, I can hear. i.e. , a call time is of sufficient duration that a complete scan can be achieved . On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:47 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh...@comcast.net wrote: Andy, Same problem with your scanning station as with Winlink scanning stations! I am unable to know what frequency to listen on to see if I hear you in QSO, so if I hear nothing, I call just for you, assuming you may hear me. If you do not respond, I do not know if propagation is not good, or you are tied up on another scanned frequency in QSO. Whereas, if you were NOT scanning, I could just try calling you on one of the listed frequencies. If I heard traffic on that frequency, it would either be you or someone else. In any event, if you are in QSO with someone, I will transmit for you over and over, taking up a frequency someone else could use, and never connect with you until you are done. I called for you in Olivia 16-500 on each of the listed frequencies from 12:30 to 12:39 when I began to write this. Each frequency was clear when I called, of course, but never heard any reply. Seems like YOU should just be calling CQ, or calling for me for a sked and I should be the one doing the scanning and finding you! That way, you are not automatic and can verify the frequency is clear before calling CQ. That gives me a chance to check each band to see if you are on. This way, I do not take up a frequency calling for you when you are unavailable because you are busy elsewhere. Does this make sense? 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: I am scanning 3583 ,7073, 10143, 14073,18103, 21073, 24923, 28123, today. Anyone looking for a digital mode QSO is welcome . I am scanning in ALE 400 mode BUT if I hear another mode while scanning, I pause the scan and see who it is. Just had a nice Olivia 16/500 QSO (for an hour!) with W5ZIT who I detected on 14073 while scanning (with 3 kHZ filter, no narrow settings) . Also KB0QC in MFSK16 on 14074.5 . For those interested in multiband scanning , aside from actually programming your rig to do the scanning, several applications make it easy to do Commander Multipsk (using ALE and customized frequency settings ) PC-ALE (with ALE) Vary the settings long enough so that you can hear a station within your passband as the scan progresses. 2 seconds per channel is usually good enough and reduces the chance of missing someone while you are on another frequency. A 3 kHz filter setting will allow you to hear most of the none PSK31 traffic if you use 3583 ,7073, 10143, 14073,18103, 21073, 24923, 28123, . I did not use 7033 for European traffic. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Andy, I petitioned the FCC for just that (inside the automatic subbands), but it was rejected for the status quo. So-called semiautomatic operations is permitted anywhere RTTY/data is permitted as long as the bandwidth does not exceed 500 Hz. For fully automatic operations, the automatic subbands already exist, and the FCC view is that there is sufficient space there for all automatic actvities whether 500 Hz or 2700 Hz. The HFlink idea of expanding the amount of space for automatic operations of any sort is simply not workable, because the demand for space for person-to-person, non-automatic operations, is too great and will become greater as the sunspot numbers grow. I see no reason that Winlink and HFlink could not work together and negotiate for a space in the automatic subbands just for 500 Hz-wide automatic signals that would not interrupt person-to-person communications. Although the rules still require listening first, this is impossible to do with automatic stations, so what is needed is a protocol like AX-25 where space can be shared by more than one station and do that in the automatic subbands so users there did not feel so cramped for space. This Winlink business of scanning more than one frequency is one of the worst wastes of spectrum you can imagine. What happens is that a Winlink client will call and call on an empty frequency (which someone else could use) for a Winlink host station that is already busy on a secondary frequency and will NEVER answer until it is finished on that secondary frequency and starts scanning again. Meanwhile, the client station occupies a frequency fruitlessly, preventing someone else from using it. I am sure you have seen such calls many times -they call, and call, and never connect, and then connect on a different frequency. Just eliminating scanning would probably free up as much as 20% more space in the automatic subbands, but continues because of the imagined convenience that scanning will make it possible to get a link sooner. Nothing can be farther from the truth. If there were no scanning, simply listening to a frequency would tell if it were already in use. If is not in use, changes are the host station is available if in range. Instead, the frequency appears to be empty, but there is no host station available for traffic passing! Clean up the automatic station network's act BEFORE even talking about additional space being needed! 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: Let me drill down on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the wide modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted unattended under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj n9...@comcast.net mailto:n9...@comcast.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
Transmitting soundings without checking for activity on the frequency, or by not sounding if there is activity, is an AUTOMATIC operation. Do you deny that soundings that cover many frequencies in a short time are not transmitted without ALWAYS listening first! That would be hard to believe! Is the HFlink proposal a frequency grab? Well if it results in any expansion of frequencies for automatically controlled digital stations by taking space already in frequent use by other activities, of course it is an attempted frequency grab. It would give ALE ops more frequencies to legally transmit signals as wide as 2700 Hz without having to listen first - in other words, sounding or high-speed messaging. There has always been limited interest in high-speed messaging on the HF bands, because they are used mostly for person-to-person communications, DXing, contesting, ragchewing, etc., so THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION in giving up person-to-person communications for a very poor (relatively slow speed) radio emulation of email or texting over the Internet. This IS the 21st century and, except for a very few individuals, higher speed communications than over the HF bands is available to almost everyone. Ham radio is a HOBBY activity, with occasional public service during emergencies, and even then, most communication is by voice over repeaters, with a scattering of long distance relays. Even after the Haiti earthquake, there were few HF emcomm activites, but temporary repeaters were rushed in to handle most of the messages. We need to preserve our HOBBY and not let it be taken away by a few who try to tell us we are antiquated just because we do not think high-speed communications should displace communications at the speed of a QSO. Lets compare the HF link proposal with the FCC part 97.221 current allocations for automatically controlled digital stations over 500 Hz in bandwidth: HFlink: 3575-3625 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 50 kHz FCC: 3585-3600 KHz = 15 kHz HFlink: 7050-7060 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 10 kHz FCC: 7.100-7.105 = 5 kHz HFlink: 7100-7125 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 25 kHz HFlink: 10125-10150 (2700) ALL MODES,DIGIMODES,FAST DIGIMODES,AUTOMATIC = 25 kHz FCC: 10.140-10.150 = 10 kHz HFlink: 14090-14099.5 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 9.5 kHz FCC: 14.0950-14.0995 = 4.5 kHz HFlink:14100.5-14125 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 24.5 kHz FCC: 14.1005-14.112 = 17 kHz HFlink:18095-18109.5 (2700) ALL MODES,DIGIMODES,FAST DIGIMODES,AUTOMATIC = 14 kHz FCC: 18.105- 18.110 5 kHz HFlink: 21090-21149.5 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 59.5 kHz FCC: 21.090-21.100 = 10 kHz HFlink: 24920-24929.5 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 9.5 kHz FCC: 24.925-24.930 = 5 kHz HFlink: 28120-28199.5 (2700) ALL MODES, FAST DIGIMODES, AUTOMATIC = 79.5 kHz FCC: 28.120-28.189 = 69 kHz HFlink: 28200.5-28300 (2700) BEACONS, ALL MODES, AUTOMATIC = 99.5 HFlink: 28990-29300 (6000) ALL MODES, FM, AM, SSB, DIGI, AUTOMATIC = 310 kHz HFlink: 29510-29700 (6000) FM, REPEATERS, ALL MODES, AUTOMATIC = 190 kHz If the HFlink idea is for ARRL to support the HFlink proposal for IARU Region 2, and then petition the FCC for new rules to align the bands with the proposal, a huge additional amount of spectrum used by non-automatic stations (ragchewing, DXing, contesting, etc.) could become covered with both Winlink and ALE messaging robots that do not listen first. Is that what you want to see happen! I have submitted my opposition. If you agree to give up more space for robot messaging stations, then do nothing. If you do not agree, then you should send in your comments without delay! ARRL will continue to read comments past the announced deadline, just as the FCC often does, so just submit your comments, regardless of the announced deadline, but do it NOW! Remember that HFlink is not alone in wanting more space to avoid QRM of their own kind, but Winlink wants it also, and that would be the most serious consequence. HFlink has a history of also supporting expansion of frequencies for automatically controlled digital stations which would benefit less than 1% of the ham population at the expense of everyone else using the bands. The sunspots are returning, and if you think the bands are not crowded now, just wait! They soon will be, and you would wish for that space back! 73, Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: This is little more than a frequency grab by Bonnie that would benefit the HF-ALE group, I feel, the most. OK, so I have to ask how would it benefit HFLink - HFLink already has well established centers of activity in the current bandplan - ALE by definition does not lead to frequency spreading. If anything, it concentrates activity onto specific frequencies. So if magically passed (unlikely), virtually nothing would change for HFLink
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
It does not matter if ALE ops do not intend to USE more frequencies or not. Apparently the interest in PC-ALE is so small, the impact would be minimal anyway. However, to support changing any allocations to provide more space for wide-bandwidth automatic stations, no matter who will use them, is simply contrary to the concept of using the limited spaces on the HF bands for person-to-person communications, and there is simply not enough space for that. The HFlink proposal does not suggest that more space is needed for only ALE stations, but for ALL wide automatic stations. For that reason, it should be vigorously opposed. BTW, I asked my invisible companion if I had made a huge leap of paranoia, as you inferred, and he assured me that I am definitely not paranoid, and that he would have to leave me if I were! ;-) 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: It would give ALE ops more frequencies This is a huge leap of paranoia.. ALE operation by definition does not want or even can utilize more frequencies. Hams who want to use ALE already have well established frequencies to use. There is no advantage to adding more, and really some disadvantages!
Re: [digitalradio] Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
Want to fight to get rid of semi-auto operation? Knock yourself out. It's allowed now under FCC regs and is not likely to change. More influential groups than the mythical omnipotent evil mastermind Bonnie will make sure that will not change! I think this misses the point. Yes, there are some who have been harmed enough times by being stepped on by automatic stations that they would like to see them go away. And, yes, this is not likely to happen. However, to suggest expanding the space where automatic stations can operate shows a complete lack of understanding and appreciation of bandplanning and current band usage. Messaging, of all kinds, is by far the minority use of the ham bands, and the automatic stations already have more space in proportion their representation than they fairly whould have. The idea is not to get rid of automatic (or semi-automatic) operations, but to stop any additional space being allocated to such operations because it takes away from non-automatic operations that already have insufficient space in which to accommodate all users. The point has been made many times that automatic stations would not need more space if they used a protocol that supported frequency sharing (the way AX-25 does), but they do not. The solution therefore is for the automatic stations to use a better protocol to let them share better and not try to spread over more and more space needed by the far greater majority of operators who have no interest at all in messaging, high-speed or otherwise, oh the HF bands. 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: It would give ALE ops more frequencies This is a huge leap of paranoia.. ALE operation by definition does not want or even can utilize more frequencies. Hams who want to use ALE already have well established frequencies to use. There is no advantage to adding more, and really some disadvantages! The whole design approach of ALE as practiced by amateur radio is that of standardized frequencies, one per band, with designated alternates for qso for extended traffic under manual control. This is already in place working. And not likely to change. It's also already allowed per FCC regs, so it's very unlikely there would be a net reduction in that. So the whole idea that this is a frequency grab for ALE ops is simply misinformed and displays ignorance of how ALE works and is used in the amateur world. Want to fight to get rid of semi-auto operation? Knock yourself out. It's allowed now under FCC regs and is not likely to change. More influential groups than the mythical omnipotent evil mastermind Bonnie will make sure that will not change! You are right about one thing... there are many other players in the mix. ALE ops would be minimally impacted by Bonnie's proposal. It's future modes that will be impacted. Witness the reoccuring I invented a new mode, try it on 14.xxx. No, you can't go there, that's the XYZ mode center of activity.. So I'll ask the question: how do we enable the development use of new modes, ideally more efficient ones when there is no place for them to operate? Want to keep the status quo, and miss the next psk? Express yourself. Or propose your own solution! Make it about individuals, or even user groups, you just wasted your input! Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] frequency grabs??????
Alan Barrow wrote: My view is that debates about digi-modes are tempest in a teapot. The broader issues are around impact of contesting, allowing for continuing to advance the state of the art, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head. The broader issues encompass contesting, advancing the state of the art, contesting, etc. HOWEVER, it is not necessary to spread all over the bands just to advance the state of the art - specifically in this case, high-speed messaging on HF. Within the bandwidth of a phone signal, all sorts of experimentation is already available with minimal disruption to other communications. If a new mode shows enough promise to really advance the state of the art, AND will benefit other users of the bands, then it is appropriate to suggest the benefits to everyone for taking away space from other users and using the new mode instead. The most recent example is the ROS mode, which is very wide for the benefit it brings, in addition to being illegal on HF in this country because it unfortunately happens to use spread spectrum technology. The idea of spread spectrum is that many stations can share the same space (if the spreading is wide enough) because the probability of a collision of two signals is small. ROS fails technically because it is just unable to spread wide enough, limited by the IF bandwidth of most existing receivers (non-SDR types). So, the best the ROS author is able to do now is accommodate two ROS signals simultaneously, but in twice or more bandwidth than several more narrow signals (like Olivia), and with poorer performance besides. Because it was so wide, it could not find any place to operate except on one frequency in the automatic subbands without disturbing communications of existing, more narrow, modes. Still, experimentation was possible and continues. Whether or not ROS is better than even PSK31 or Olivia is still to be determined, but experimentation and improvement is still being done. If, after considering the bandwidth of the mode and all other users, the overall benefit of switching to ROS is there, I am sure a consensus will emerge to do that. As another example, PSK31 is very narrow and spectrum efficient at about a 50 Hz bandwidth, but fails totally over the polar path. MFSK16, eight times as wide, pr RTTY. does not fail, and neither does Olivia, so there is justification for using the wider mode in order to achieve something that is otherwise unachievable. Experimentation on a small scale first, then followed by deployment, if justified by consensus, is the way it needs to be done, and not the other way around as suggested by HFlink. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] KQ6XA Recommendation IARU Region 2 Bandplan to ARRL
15% of the HF bands for automatic data stations that serve no more 1% of the hams in the US or 0.3% of the hams in the world? I DON'T THINK SO! In times of real emergencies, ALL frequencies are available for emcomm. If you value your DX chasing, ragchewing, or contesting, Please reference and comment AGAINST the KQ6XA proposal to take over 15% of the ham bands with automatic robot stations that never listen for a clear frequency before transmitting. 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: *expeditionradio* Date: Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:02 AM Subject: [WINMOR] KQ6XA Recommendation IARU Region 2 Bandplan to ARRL To: win...@yahoogroups.com mailto:win...@yahoogroups.com If WINMOR/WINLINK operators would like to contact the ARRL Bandplan Committee and ARRL officials in support of the KQ6XA Recommendation, attached below, you may do so by sending an email to bandplan2...@arrl.org mailto:bandplan2010%40arrl.org bandplan2010@ arrl.org http://arrl.org and to your appropriate ARRL Section officers. You may reference this website containing the recommendation with charts and images: http://hflink.com/bandplans/iaru_region_2.html http://hflink.com/bandplans/iaru_region_2.html Voicing your support is needed (the sooner, the better) for us to build a future for advanced HF ham radio communications. 73 Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA TO: ARRL BOARD OF DIRECTORS' BAND PLANNING COMMITEE REPRESENTING USA FOR IARU REGION 2 BANDPLAN COMMITTEE ARRL, NEWINGTON, CT, USA FROM: BONNIE CRYSTAL KQ6XA, International Coordinator, Global ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) DATE: 05 APRIL 2010 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGE TO IARU REGION 2 BANDPLAN Dear Band Planning Committee Members, In response to ARRL Seeks Input for New IARU Region 2 Band Plan http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11374/?nc=1 http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11374/?nc=1 Here is an offering of essential recommendations with a carefully researched band segmentation chart, to help enable ARRL to represent hams effectively in the process of committee deliberations, for the upcoming IARU Region 2 Bandplan this year. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND I write to you, as a very active operator in USA's Amateur Radio Service, and in my capacity as International Coordinator for the Global ALE High Frequency Network, a 24-7-365 interconnected network of hams operating simultaneously on all international HF bands for the past 3 years. I have presented papers and participated in expert panels at Global Amateur Radio Emergency Communications (GAREC) and other HF Conferences, on the subject of international emergency / disaster communications and HF Automatically Controlled Data Station innovations. I have worked with groups and nets of digital and analog modes to achieve voluntary HF net coordination. I maintain a survey of HF band activity and a comprehensive up-to-date international ham radio bandplanning resource at http://hflink.com/bandplans http://hflink.com/bandplans MOTIVATION AND HOPE FOR A NEW HF BANDPLAN The motivation for this correspondence is the hope that the ARRL Representative to IARU Region 2 bandplanning committee can work aggressively toward a better bandplan this year, especially one that is both compatible with USA's FCC Amateur Radio Service rules, and designates adequate spectrum space for automatic fast data stations. The previous plan had many many errors, mostly due to essentially being copied from an old IARU Region 1 bandplan, without regard to appropriateness for Region 2 hams. THE EMCOMM BACKBONE: HF AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED DATA STATIONS HF Automatically Controlled Data Stations have become a vital lifeline for many stations in remote areas of our IARU Region. The networks of ham operators that use and keep these fast data stations on the air daily have become the main backbone of emergency/disaster HF communications in the North American and Caribbean area within recent years. A huge community of hams is being served daily by HF data networks, especially with email and short text messaging, resulting in thousands of contacts per day logged on a steady basis. Recent developments in soundcard ARQ digimodes has brought fast HF data within the budget of almost every ham in the Americas. During emergencies or disasters, this fast data traffic increases exponentially in the extremely crowded automatic bandplan segments. REGION 2 LEADS WORLD IN HF FAST DIGITAL DATA EMCOMM NETWORKING It is a well known fact that IARU Region 2 has a much higher use of HF Automatically Controlled Fast Digimode traffic than the other IARU Regions (supporting network logs are available to the representative on request). Due to high speed ARQ, these efficient data communications using normal 2700Hz bandwidths are able for time sharing spectrum for traffic more effectively than slower digimodes. However, the previous HF bandplan for Region 2 failed to designate adequate band segment space
Re: [digitalradio] KQ6XA Recommendation IARU Region 2 Bandplan to ARRL
Yes, do it! I just received this response from ARRL: Thank you for taking the time to respond to the ARRL's invitation to submit comments on the IARU Region 2 Band Plans to the ARRL Ad Hoc Band Planning Committee. Your comments will be read and considered by committee members as they prepare recommended ARRL positions for the Region 2 Conference later this year. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Wright wrote: The ARRL deadline for comments/suggestions was April 5th. I wonder why Bonnie waited until the very last minute to submit her suggestion to the ARRL? Could it be that she anticipated a backlash against the 15%+ proposal (her suggested band plan gives 50% of 30m to fast/automatic stations!) from other amateurs that do not share her passion for EMCOMM? By waiting until the very last minute, she effectively prevents anyone from commenting directly for or against her proposal. Kudos to Bonnie for her political awareness and for knowing how to work the system. Now, regardless of the deadline, I'm going to be sure to send in my two-cents worth. Dave K3DCW On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com mailto:k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: *expeditionradio* Date: Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:02 AM Subject: [WINMOR] KQ6XA Recommendation IARU Region 2 Bandplan to ARRL To: win...@yahoogroups.com mailto:win...@yahoogroups.com If WINMOR/WINLINK operators would like to contact the ARRL Bandplan Committee and ARRL officials in support of the KQ6XA Recommendation, attached below, you may do so by sending an email to bandplan2...@arrl.org mailto:bandplan2010%40arrl.org bandplan2010@ arrl.org http://arrl.org and to your appropriate ARRL Section officers. You may reference this website containing the recommendation with charts and images: http://hflink.com/bandplans/iaru_region_2.html http://hflink.com/bandplans/iaru_region_2.html Voicing your support is needed (the sooner, the better) for us to build a future for advanced HF ham radio communications. 73 Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA TO: ARRL BOARD OF DIRECTORS' BAND PLANNING COMMITEE REPRESENTING USA FOR IARU REGION 2 BANDPLAN COMMITTEE ARRL, NEWINGTON, CT, USA FROM: BONNIE CRYSTAL KQ6XA, International Coordinator, Global ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) DATE: 05 APRIL 2010 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGE TO IARU REGION 2 BANDPLAN Dear Band Planning Committee Members, In response to ARRL Seeks Input for New IARU Region 2 Band Plan http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11374/?nc=1 http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11374/?nc=1 Here is an offering of essential recommendations with a carefully researched band segmentation chart, to help enable ARRL to represent hams effectively in the process of committee deliberations, for the upcoming IARU Region 2 Bandplan this year. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND I write to you, as a very active operator in USA's Amateur Radio Service, and in my capacity as International Coordinator for the Global ALE High Frequency Network, a 24-7-365 interconnected network of hams operating simultaneously on all international HF bands for the past 3 years. I have presented papers and participated in expert panels at Global Amateur Radio Emergency Communications (GAREC) and other HF Conferences, on the subject of international emergency / disaster communications and HF Automatically Controlled Data Station innovations. I have worked with groups and nets of digital and analog modes to achieve voluntary HF net coordination. I maintain a survey of HF band activity and a comprehensive up-to-date international ham radio bandplanning resource at http://hflink.com/bandplans http://hflink.com/bandplans MOTIVATION AND HOPE FOR A NEW HF BANDPLAN The motivation for this correspondence is the hope that the ARRL Representative to IARU Region 2 bandplanning committee can work aggressively toward a better bandplan this year, especially one that is both compatible with USA's FCC Amateur Radio Service rules, and designates adequate spectrum space for automatic fast data stations. The previous plan had many many errors, mostly due to essentially being copied from an old IARU Region 1 bandplan, without regard to appropriateness for Region 2 hams. THE EMCOMM BACKBONE: HF AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED DATA STATIONS HF Automatically Controlled Data Stations have become a vital lifeline for many stations in remote areas of our IARU Region. The networks of ham operators that use and keep these fast data stations on the air daily have become the main backbone of emergency/disaster HF communications in the North American and Caribbean area within recent years. A huge community of hams
Re: [digitalradio] Another plug for JT65A ... the spectrum efficient mode
But if the path S/N is so poor that you cannot get the message across at all, isn't the spectrum efficiency zero? ;-) 73 - Skip KH6TY Rein Couperus wrote: Spectrum efficiency must be measured in time necessary to get the info across, length of info transferred, and bandwidth. ((characters/second)/ bandwidth) or characters/(seconds * bandwidth). The bandwidth includes a certain guard band(minimum distance between 2 different signals), which for JT65 is quite small ... but the time is a large factor... To give a small example: Pskmail using PSK500 ARQ has a spectrum efficiency of 23/500 = 0.046 CPS/Hz ... measured on 14094.0 kHz running 100 mW connected to SM0RWO (1000Miles) ... The longest message in JT65 is 13 characters... and a message takes 48 seconds.. the bandwidth (according to the mode description) is 65 * 2.7 = 175 Hz ...which calculates to (13/48) / 175 = 0.001547619 CPS/Hz I would say this is a pretty bad value... :) Rein PA0R Bill N9DSJ decoded two stations within 24 Hz of each other, how is that for spectrum efficiency? I was transmitting 5 watts, I know many are already aware of this, but take a look N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard N6TE(DM12) on 3576.23 KHz -8dB at 03:32:00Z using JT65A N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard K3UK(FN02) on 3575.99 KHz -5dB at 03:32:00Z using JT65A Bill N9DSJ decoded two stations within 24 Hz of each other, how is that for spectrum efficiency? I was transmitting 5 watts, Andy K3UK http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Ros posts rebuttal of Olivia / Ros test results
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
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on UHF
Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's a lot more to Olivia than being multi-tone MFSK. I am aware of that, Simon. However, Olivia is currently the most popular digital mode other than PSK31 and RTTY, and the question was if ROS 16 baud was worth using twice the bandwidth of Olivia. We hoped that it would be, because on UHF, space is not at a premium as it is on HF, but ROS 16 baud, (the spread spectrum variation) at 2250 Hz width, was not even as good as SSB phone under the fast Doppler flutter conditions. So, as a choice of modes currently available, either MFSK16 (my personal preference on HF, but impractical on UHF due to the necessity to tune so accurately and have little or no drift) or Olivia, is a far better choice than ROS, and performs better. We would like nothing better if there were a mode that outperformed Olivia at equivalent typing speed, and could copy further into the noise than Olivia can, and is more tolerant to mis-tuning or drift than MFSK16, but so far ROS is not the one. As things stand, CW (decoded by ear) is currently the last mode standing, but it seems it must be possible to come up a mode that can beat CW under the typical conditions found on UHF. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Congratulations Simon! DAYTON HAMVENTION Awards Technical Excellence* - Simon Brown / HB9DRV
*Technical Excellence* - Simon Brown / HB9DRV for the invention and development of Ham Radio Deluxe. Well deserved, Simon! I am using HRD for remote operation, and the standalone HRDrotator program is perfect for what we do. HRD is an amazing accomplishment and I am so glad you got such a prestigious award! 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on UHF]
Based on observations of the tones on the waterfall on the air, compared to observing them locally, and hearing the raucous tones compared to bell-like quality locally, my guess is that perhaps the modulation is disturbed or the tones moved in frequency far enough so there is no decoding. If we try to use DominoEx, which is very tolerant to drift, the Doppler distortion also stops DominoEx from decoding. MFSK16 is not usable, because the Doppler shift is so great that tuning is lost and the AFC cannot follow it. It is not unusual to see a slow Doppler shift of 50 Hz to 100 Hz on 70cm, but the most severe problem is a fast Doppler distortion which is present almost all the time and destroys the integrity of the carriers, at least as it is possible to hear and see on the waterfall. I can't compare ROS on HF to UHF, except for monitoring, as it is illegal to transmit on HF, but monitoring on HF does not show the same problems. I have seen ROS signals start printing garbage on HF in a QSB fade and then recover when the fade ends, but there is no published specification for the minimum S/N that the 16 baud variation is supposed to work at. Even when there is no QRM, I have seen decoding of ROS 16 baud, 2250 Hz width, stop at metrics of -8 dB. If this corresponds to S/N, then the 16 baud version does not compare favorably with Olivia or MFSK16, which can work 4 dB to 5 dB lower. My guess is that the problem is not because the spreading in ROS is too little, but on UHF, that the tones themselves are disturbed in a way that makes ROS just print garbage when Olivia is still printing quite well. ROS stopped decoding today even when SSB phone was about Q4 copy, and under those conditions Olivia prints without any errors. Unfortunately the way 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 of investigating the problem further and maybe adding improvements. Part of the problem is that even if there is a large degree of spreading compared to the data rate, the channel is still quite narrow and a large portion of it subject to the same disturbances or interference. This is similar to what happens with the various commercial broadcast digital systems. The wider ones are much more robust, especially in regard to multipath, even though the data payload was increased in proportion. KH6TY wrote: Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's a lot more to Olivia than being multi-tone MFSK. I am aware of that, Simon. However, Olivia is currently the most popular digital mode other than PSK31 and RTTY, and the question was if ROS 16 baud was worth using twice the bandwidth of Olivia. We hoped that it would be, because on UHF, space is not at a premium as it is on HF, but ROS 16 baud, (the spread spectrum variation) at 2250 Hz width, was not even as good as SSB phone under the fast Doppler flutter conditions. So, as a choice of modes currently available, either MFSK16 (my personal preference on HF, but impractical on UHF due to the necessity to tune so accurately and have little or no drift) or Olivia, is a far better choice than ROS, and performs better. We would like nothing better if there were a mode that outperformed Olivia at equivalent typing speed, and could copy further into the noise than Olivia can, and is more tolerant to mis-tuning or drift than MFSK16, but so far ROS is not the one. As things stand, CW (decoded by ear) is currently the last mode standing, but it seems it must be possible to come up a mode that can beat CW under the typical conditions found on UHF. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] FCC - Spread Spectrum NPRM
Extensive tests on 70cm using ROS 16 baud spread spectrum have been disappointing. ROS appears to be unable to survive the Doppler shift and Doppler induced flutter so prevalent on that band. The hope was that ROS 16 baud would make traditional communications possible that were difficult on SSB phone because of the Doppler shift and flutter. However, the tests show that Olivia 32-1000, in half the bandwidth, and Olivia 16-500, produce print when ROS only prints garbage. This, together with the fact that both stations must be within 400 Hz of each other before even trying to communicate, instead of being able to tune with the mouse as is possible with Olivia, makes it very difficult to achieve a QSO on 70cm using ROS. Olivia has therefore proven to be much more successful than ROS on UHF. Tests using the ROS 1 baud variation will be made next, but the slow speed of that mode is more suited to EME communications than normal QSO's. In two weeks of monitoring ROS 16 baud on 20m, there has been only one observed case where the S/N was under where Olivia 32-1000 can decode, so even on HF, there does not appear to be any justification for using such a wide mode, even if spread spectrum were permitted on HF in the US. Just use Olivia or MFSK16 instead when band conditions are poor. The new narrow band ROS modes were not tested, since a mode to do better than Olivia is what is needed, and the spread spectrum mode of ROS held the best hope. As it stands, only CW is better than Olivia under the worst conditions, and only when copying by ear, but CW is only a little better than Olivia 16-500. We have also found that the more narrow Olivia modes (i.e. 500 Hz wide) are also too greatly disturbed by Doppler to be useful either. If anyone is within 200 miles of FM02, has 100 watts and an antenna gain of 17 dBi or greater, and would like to try ROS 16 baud on UHF, I am available to do that. 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. 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/2010/03/18/11396/?nc=1 It proposes to reduce some of the restrictions on Spread Spectrum but unfortunately does nothing about permitting the use at HF and VHF of SS modes that completely fit within the bandwidth of a phone signal (say 3 kHz on HF and 15 kHz on VHF). It says comments can be filed on or before 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. Instructions on how to file comments on the NPRM only are listed on pages 6-7 in the NPRM. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-38A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-38A1.pdf Electronic Comment Filing System http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] FCC - Spread Spectrum NPRM
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 and did not find any reference to frequency/band. So, where is it saying SS is allow but only on 220Mhz and above ? On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:11 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh...@comcast.net wrote: Extensive tests on 70cm using ROS 16 baud spread spectrum have been disappointing. ROS appears to be unable to survive the Doppler shift and Doppler induced flutter so prevalent on that band. The hope was that ROS 16 baud would make traditional communications possible that were difficult on SSB phone because of the Doppler shift and flutter. However, the tests show that Olivia 32-1000, in half the bandwidth, and Olivia 16-500, produce print when ROS only prints garbage. This, together with the fact that both stations must be within 400 Hz of each other before even trying to communicate, instead of being able to tune with the mouse as is possible with Olivia, makes it very difficult to achieve a QSO on 70cm using ROS. Olivia has therefore proven to be much more successful than ROS on UHF. Tests using the ROS 1 baud variation will be made next, but the slow speed of that mode is more suited to EME communications than normal QSO's. In two weeks of monitoring ROS 16 baud on 20m, there has been only one observed case where the S/N was under where Olivia 32-1000 can decode, so even on HF, there does not appear to be any justification for using such a wide mode, even if spread spectrum were permitted on HF in the US. Just use Olivia or MFSK16 instead when band conditions are poor. The new narrow band ROS modes were not tested, since a mode to do better than Olivia is what is needed, and the spread spectrum mode of ROS held the best hope. As it stands, only CW is better than Olivia under the worst conditions, and only when copying by ear, but CW is only a little better than Olivia 16-500. We have also found that the more narrow Olivia modes (i.e. 500 Hz wide) are also too greatly disturbed by Doppler to be useful either. If anyone is within 200 miles of FM02, has 100 watts and an antenna gain of 17 dBi or greater, and would like to try ROS 16 baud on UHF, I am available to do that. 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. 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/2010/03/18/11396/?nc=1 It proposes to reduce some of the restrictions on Spread Spectrum but unfortunately does nothing about permitting the use at HF and VHF of SS modes that completely fit within the bandwidth of a phone signal (say 3 kHz on HF and 15 kHz on VHF). It says comments can be filed on or before 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. Instructions on how to file comments on the NPRM only are listed on pages 6-7 in the NPRM. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-38A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-38A1.pdf Electronic Comment Filing System http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] FCC - Spread Spectrum NPRM
Hi Jose, We will be starting with tests of ROS 1 baud tomorrow but I will not have any results until next week, after we have been able to make tests over several days and under many different conditions. The tests with ROS 16 baud have been finished and our results are as I have already reported. Perhaps if the spreading were much wider, say as much a 10 kHz or 20 kHz, the result might be better, but then nobody on UHF SSB has an IF filter wider than 2.5 kHz anyway. It would probably take at least a SDR on both ends, I think, but so far those are still rare, even though they make excellent IF's for VHF and UHF transverters. So, wider spreading is just not practical. Whatever it is that is causing a raspy CW note, and raspy sounding ROS tones, must be destroying the data modulation on the carriers, but I do not know enough about the modulation technique or the autocorrelation function that ROS uses to understand why that is causing ROS to fail. Perhaps it is because EVERY tone in the bandpass is so badly distorted that autocorrelation is not possible and decoding fails (i.e. is the Doppler shift perhpas moving the carriers outside some very narrow DSP filter?). As best I can remember from my college days (50 years ago!), autocorrelation will only work if reoccurring signals are identified among random noise, but if the tones are distorted so they appear too much like the noise, correlation may not be possible. I am sure experienced communications theorists can make a better guess than I can! The Olivia tones are also raspy sounding, but Olivia survives and ROS does not. When the tones sound pure, ROS does OK, but that does not happen very often at fringe area reception on UHF, and mostly only when there is propagation enhancement. 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 particularly quite curious about the results of your tests. 73, Jose, CO2JA
Re: [digitalradio] FCC - Spread Spectrum NPRM
John, The raspy sound is similar to that associated with aurora, but this far south, aurora is very rare, and the raspy tone is there almost all the time, every day, if there is no propagation enhancement. So I don't think it is caused by aurora, but if you picture how aurora looks visually, with curtains of light moving about, it makes one wonder if the tropospheric scattering is also unstable in a similar way. The general consensus is that VHF/UHF communication over the curvature of the earth (i.e. past line of sight ) is mostly by either tropospheric scattering or by ducting. What makes the medium unstable in the manner observed does not seem to be well understood. Check the Hepburn prediction page for an excellent discussion of tropospheric scattering: http://www.dxinfocentre.com/tropo.html scroll down to the bottom, past the maps, and see the links in yellow - really 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 tomorrow but I will not have any results until next week, after we have been able to make tests over several days and under many different conditions. The tests with ROS 16 baud have been finished and our results are as I have already reported. Perhaps if the spreading were much wider, say as much a 10 kHz or 20 kHz, the result might be better, but then nobody on UHF SSB has an IF filter wider than 2.5 kHz anyway. It would probably take at least a SDR on both ends, I think, but so far those are still rare, even though they make excellent IF's for VHF and UHF transverters. So, wider spreading is just not practical. Whatever it is that is causing a raspy CW note, and raspy sounding ROS tones, must be destroying the data modulation on the carriers, but I do not know enough about the modulation technique or the autocorrelation function that ROS uses to understand why that is causing ROS to fail. Perhaps it is because EVERY tone in the bandpass is so badly distorted that autocorrelation is not possible and decoding fails (i.e. is the Doppler shift perhpas moving the carriers outside some very narrow DSP filter?). As best I can remember from my college days (50 years ago!), autocorrelation will only work if reoccurring signals are identified among random noise, but if the tones are distorted so they appear too much like the noise, correlation may not be possible. I am sure experienced communications theorists can make a better guess than I can! The Olivia tones are also raspy sounding, but Olivia survives and ROS does not. When the tones sound pure, ROS does OK, but that does not happen very often at fringe area reception on UHF, and mostly only when there is propagation enhancement. 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 particularly quite curious about the results of your tests. 73, Jose, CO2JA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
The difference between spread spectrum and other systems is the pseudo-random generating of the frequencies and not frequencies determined by the data. It was originally done to prevent decoding without the synchronization code. It is only disallowed under FCC regulations on that basis. SSB also uses frequency spreading as has already been noted, but the frequencies are determined by the code. That is why there is no reason not to allow ROS except that technically the frequencies are independently determined by pseudo-random code generator. Modify the regulations to limit the bandwidth and require third-party monitoring and ROS would be legal, but as the regulations stand, rightly or wrongly, we are required to abide by them. The petition process with public comment prevents harmful emissions from being used. Glad we are at the point you wanted to make. I have spent much 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 at the point I wanted to get to, So lets go a little further on this path, suppose I changed the tones in a not so random fashion. Like I had a way to generate tones as I do when I speak or make music or like some of those synthesizers or whatever they are, do not know the details exactly, but they generate tones that make up language that it understandable, with training would that be spread spectrum? You say varying the tones is the same as varying the VFO to the outside world, is that science? Would it make a difference if feed the balance modulator with 100 Hz or 2500 Hz. lets switch between to tunes, teletype, is that SS? If I produce speech it is speech if the tones do not form speech, it is ss modulation? Are you seeing that SSB is SS? as A kid I use to build oscillators I could speak to them, and they would swing, and could hear speach in a radio, unstability or FM , SS? Lets get to the core is WSJT spread spectrum and please explain to me why. I just do not seem to get it... Explain me the physics of it. please I just like to understand this. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net Sent: Mar 9, 2010 7:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts I can't fathom the reason for doing that, but if the tone frequencies are pseudo-randomly generated and then modulated by either on/off keying or some other way, you will have a spread spectrum system, similar to what is done in the ROS 2200 Hz-wide modes. The tones in a ssb transmitter simply generate rf carriers, so varying the tone frequencies is no different than varying a vfo frequency as far as the outside world sees. The distinction in spread spectrum is the generation of the tone frequencies independently of the data. I.e., you first generate a tone frequency in a psudo-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 = or - the audio frequency. What do I have if I just change the tones in a random fashion? 73 Rein W6SZ If a total random fashion, then you have a bunch of junk. It will not convey any useful information and probably illeagle in the ham bands. There must be order to it to convey any useful information.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Julian, By definition, it is SS if the pattern is independently generated from the data. The original intent of FHSS was to make third-party decoding impossible without knowledge of the code that generated the tones or carriers. FCC rules disallow encryption because we are required to police the bands ourselves. As long as there is not a pattern to the frequencies generated, that is independent of the data, one of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as FHSS is missing. However, in the case of ROS, the repeated pattern is not there, so, until the regulations are changed, ROS is illegal FHSS, even though the spreading is limited and capable of third-party monitoring. That is a result of a historical attempt to prevent encryption, but this can probably be changed through the petition process with public comment. Until then, hams in the US have no choice but to abide by the regulations as written. In the author's own words, three necessary and sufficient elements make it SS, and a search of the literature says the same: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. The operative phase here is independent of the data. It is just unfortunate that the FCC regulations, as currently written, do not allow ROS on HF and that they really need to be updated. Note that SS is already permittted above 222 MHz, where there is plenty of space to use for spreading that does not exist on HF. In fact, the encryption aspect is not even mentioned, except in other parts of the regulations disallowing encryption. The regulations were obviously written to prevent extremely wide SS signals from interfering with other users. Since ROS is no wider than a phone signal, there is no reason the regulations should not be modified to allow it (perhaps with other necessary limitations), but until then, and right now, ROS is illegal below 222 Mhz. It is that simple! Compare the repeated pattern of MFSK64 to the random pattern of ROS as data is applied. Substituting a 2- page technical description which is COMPLETELY different from the 7-page description of ROS as FHSS in an obvious attempt to circumvent FCC regulations is simply not believable, as an apparent twisting of the FCC's statement of illegality was apparently not true either. Which version is to be believed? Well, we don't need to decide that, and you apparently cannot believe anything the author claims since he keeps claiming something else! Anyone, including the FCC, can simply observe the differences in the spectral footprint of each, which is plainly shown here in a comparison of MFSK64 and ROS 1 baud at 2200 Hz width: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/compare.zip Note how the repetitive sending of data () does not result in any repetitive pattern on ROS, but it does in MFSK64, and MFSK64 idles with a repeated pattern, but ROS does not. The ROS tones are obviously not determined by the data and are also pseudo-randomly generated - definitely FHSS. The FCC regulations describe permitted and not permitted (i.e. SS and others) emissions. They could care less about what a mode is called or how it is described by someone, because in the final analysis, we are required to maintain our EMISSIONS per the regulations, or have the regulations changed through the petition and public comment process. Had the author not tried so hard to convince everyone that ROS was Spread Spectrum, this debate would probably never have occurred. It was the term, Spread Spectrum that raised red flags among US hams who are knowledgeable of the regulations we operate under, and they were right in realizing that, as a result, ROS is illegal on HF unless the regulations are changed. The FCC then confirmed that through the ARRL. 73 - Skip 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 be any worse off using a repeated pattern of tones instead of a pseudo-randomly generated one? And if you did that, would it still be spread-spectrum? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: I can't fathom the reason for doing that, but if the tone frequencies are pseudo-randomly generated and then modulated by either on/off keying or some other way, you will have a spread spectrum system, similar to what
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
He did, I guess, when he added a 500Hz-wide mode. The footprint of that mode indicates it is probably FSK as he tried to claim for the 2200 Hz-wide mode. He says he submitted a technical description to the FCC but will not release it until he gets an OK. Don't know what to believe from him these days, though! A further problem is the the new mode is included under the ROS name, and the 2200Hz-wide mode still looks like spread spectrum, unchanged from earlier. So if the FCC approves ROS on the basis of the new 500 Hz-wide mode, operators may think the 2200Hz-wide mode is now legal 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 not have a large number of users) to use a non random way of generating the tones? Instead of rewriting the description to falsely claim ROS is not SS, why could he not have changed the mode so that it really was not SS? What does ROS gain by using SS over another mode that carries the same amount of data at the same speed using the same bandwidth and the same number of tones but uses an entirely predictable method of modulation? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Julian, By definition, it is SS if the pattern is independently generated from the data. The original intent of FHSS was to make third-party decoding impossible without knowledge of the code that generated the tones or carriers. FCC rules disallow encryption because we are required to police the bands ourselves. As long as there is not a pattern to the frequencies generated, that is independent of the data, one of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as FHSS is missing. However, in the case of ROS, the repeated pattern is not there, so, until the regulations are changed, ROS is illegal FHSS, even though the spreading is limited and capable of third-party monitoring. That is a result of a historical attempt to prevent encryption, but this can probably be changed through the petition process with public comment. Until then, hams in the US have no choice but to abide by the regulations as written. In the author's own words, three necessary and sufficient elements make it SS, and a search of the literature says the same: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. The operative phase here is independent of the data.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Jose, If you were going to design a mode that filled 2200 Hz, but did not use SS, and was as sensitive as possible in that bandwidth, how would you do it? It would have to be highly resistant to fast Doppler shift also, but minimum S/N would be the most important parameter, as it would be used at UHF. So far, Olivia 16-500 seems to be the best compromise between minimum S/N and Doppler shift survival at UHF. The more narrow Olivia modes, even though more sensitive, do not decode as well if there is noticeable fast Doppler shift, and sometimes, not at all. DominoEx is completely destroyed by the Doppler shift and MFSK16 is not tolerant enough to drift to be usable at UHF. MT63-2000 covers 2000 Hz, has highly redundant FEC, but the minimum S/N is only -2 dB, so that is not an alternative. What I am looking for is a mode that will copy under the visible and audible noise on UHF during deep fades, but survives fast Doppler shift. Olivia 16-500 makes it down to the noise, but not under, during deep fades. CW by ear is just slightly better than Olivia 16-500, and the note is very raspy sounding - much like Aurora communications. Another observation - most stations I copy on ROS 16 are reading a metric of -12 dB or greater. Only once have I copied a station (using 1 baud ROS) that was measuring a metric under -25 dB. Is the ROS metric supposed to correlate with the path S/N? I ask this because even the weakest ROS tones at 1 baud are still visible on the waterfall, whereas weak Olivia 32-1000 signals with a -12 dB minimum S/N stop decoding just about the time the tones become hard to see in the noise, but still can be heard faintly. It is a long way from even -25 dB S/N to -12 dB S/N, so I would expect if the metric is just another way to say S/N, 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 at the same speed using the same bandwidth and the same number of tones but uses an entirely predictable method of modulation? Processing gain. Signals correlated with the hopping sequence add up, non correlated signals do not add up. It does not mean that SS is not a predictable modulation method, you just need to know the key, in the USA, the key must be one of a few specific codes, and if you don't have the key, security by obscurity applies. 73, Jose, CO2JA
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions
Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. While their opinion might be changed through dialog, that is unlikely at this point, so the most sure approach is just to agree it is FHSS and petition for a variance with necessary limitations. It is highly unlikely that the FCC will reverse their decision, especially since the author, whom the FCC expected to tell the truth, wrote a 9-page paper claiming it was FHSS, titles, INTRODUCTION TO ROS: THE SPREAD SPECTRUM. To try to re-characterize it as something else in order to get approval puts the credibility of the author in serious doubt, especially after the fiasco over the posting of an FCC announcement that it was legal that the FCC claims they did not make. Admit it is FHSS, but petition for a variance or modification of the rules to allow it on the basis that it is not harmful to other modes, and that will probably be granted. It is too late, and too much dirty water has passed under the bridge, to even imagine that any other 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 important we be clear accurate on our definitions. KH6TY wrote: By definition, it is SS if the pattern is independently generated from the data. One test, but not the only test The original intent of FHSS was to make third-party decoding impossible without knowledge of the code that generated the tones or carriers. True, emphasis on original intent. There are many, many SS implementations usages that are not done to prevent third party decoding. It's actually a very good way to share spectrum with dissimilar usages. And nearly all FHSS can be easily decoded independent of knowing the code now unless the data itself is highly encrypted. FCC rules disallow encryption because we are required to police the bands ourselves. As long as there is not a pattern to the frequencies generated, that is independent of the data, one of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as FHSS is missing. This is overly simplistic. I have first hand experience with FCC dealings with regard to code generators used for randomization of amateur digital signals. All that is required is to make available upon demand the code sequence. You don't have to offer a decoder, nor do OO's have to be able to monitor it, etc. Just make the code sequence available upon request. However, in the case of ROS, the repeated pattern is not there, so, until the regulations are changed, ROS is illegal FHSS, even though the spreading is limited and capable of third-party monitoring. Sorry, this is overly simplistic. Many US legal codec/modems do not meet this test. ROS may or may not be legal, but it's not your repeated test definition that makes it so. The most legit issue that technically makes it SS is that a single data bit is sliced into smaller bits when sent. IE: the code rate is much greater than the data rate. (which directly correlates with spreading factor as well). That is a result of a historical attempt to prevent encryption, but this can probably be changed through the petition process with public comment. Until then, hams in the US have no choice but to abide by the regulations as written. First hand experience: It does not take petition with public comment. Just professional dialog with the FCC, and a willingness to provide details on the encoding sequence if requested. In the author's own words, three necessary and sufficient elements make it SS, and a search of the literature says the same: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. This is close to, but not exactly the ITU (and thus US Federal) definition of SS. But I agree with you, ROS by the author's description met the legal definition of SS. But the real question is, should it be treated the same as traditional SS which normally uses a much larger (100x or more) spreading factor and thus would negatively impact an entire HF amateur allocation. The operative phase here is independent of the data. So how bout randomizers used to maximize average power? (used reduce crest factor). Viterbi encoders? It is just unfortunate that the FCC regulations, as currently written
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions
Engineers that work for the FCC, of course. Their names are not ordinarily revealed and the mouthpiece of the FCC is a customer service agent (and for some amateur matters, the ARRL, who relays information from the FCC offices). This structure should be fairly obvious to anyone with experience in business. Trevor, Ask Toyota for the names of the engineers investigating the unexpected acceleration and I doubt that you will get an answer! Ask the President who is responsible for reports from the White House and you will only find out through a legal action. I am sure these walls are set up to protect employees from frivolous attacks. However, there is a Freedom of Information Act that can be invoked through legal action to obtain some internal documents of the government, but they are generally not offered to the public without a court order, for obvious reasons. The FCC customer service agent is the person who relays decisions to the public, and that agent probably does not make the decisions personally or without consultation. This is analogous to the Press Secretary of the White House. If you want to verify the originator of a decision, you have a right to do so through the appropriate legal process. The FCC's customer service agent has relayed a FCC decision to reaffirm that ROS is indeed FHSS and that, under current rules, as docemented in Part 97, SS is only allowed above 222 MHz. That is generally the way it works on this side of the pond, 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 engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. Who are these FCC Engineers ? All we've has is a response from someone that may be assumed to be an office clerk who simply quoted back the words in Part 97. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions
Trevor, I might add that it is often the practice in this country for a higher court just to either reaffirm or remand a lower court decision, instead of issuing a differing decision itself. I am sure that the FCC, as a government body, also adheres to this practice. That is why the original 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 . 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 engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. Who are these FCC Engineers ? All we've has is a response from someone that may be assumed to be an office clerk who simply quoted back the words in Part 97. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions (here are the ITU, NITA, and Fed Std)
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 Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, Actually, I think we agree, just for different reasons. I really don't care about ROS. But do care about dangerous precedents. :-) the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. I think we all agree it's a micro form of FHSS. I'm not sure I agree the FCC engineers have ruled. If Bill Cross or similar commented, that'd be definitive. But the ARRL interpretation of the FCC dialog still is pretty ambiguous. Lot's of the author stated and each operator has to Compare it with the ruling on Pactor 3 when challenged on a similar crusade. That's clear unambiguous, it was not FDM, even though it could be construed as such on a micro scale. And that crusade had similar arguments mis-statements. While their opinion might be changed through dialog, that is unlikely at this point, so the most sure approach is just to agree it is FHSS and petition for a variance with necessary limitations. Again, I think the real area to petition is not about ROS itself. That has been so badly handled from all sides it's probably tainted. And to be clear: Amateur radio was the net loser. The real issue is around applying macro definitions (like ITU SS, traditionally broadband, wide spreading factor) to a micro (SSB, non broadband) implementation like ROS. Put another way, what would an HF optimized SS mode do that other modes do not? What would be the negative? And factor in the potential (done right) of improved interoperation with other modes, signal processing gain, etc. And potential channel sharing (concurrent users). I think we have beat this horse to death at this point and should move on to another topic. Well, that would be great, except you keep refering to the must have idle tones like my grand-dad's rtty test. Again, I don't really care about ROS. This dialog is about the idea of using carrier patterns at idle or steady zero's/ones (like ancient RTTY) as a test for SS. That's just not it. We *are* allowed to encode data in a pseudo-random pattern, as long as the other SS tests are not triggered. Instead of concocting our own definitions, let's refer to the standards. ITU, which is referenced by NTIA, which is referenced by Fed Std, which is also reference by some FCC commercial definitions. It's the closest we have and is attached below. What's still not 100% is whether a SSB signal with a fixed dial frequency (and implied fixed carrier frequency) would be considered SS just because the audio sent changed in a SS fashion. It's back to is FSK AFSK the same mode, or just happen to look the same. Which is becoming tiresome, and makes me think reminisce about the traditional anti new mode (PSK, Pactor, ALE, whatever) crusades. :-) Remember, PSK was going to ruin the world as well. So was SSB in it's day! Have fun, Alan km4ba Here are the ITU definitions. Note the spreading factor definitions, etc: *Term* : spread spectrum (SS) system *Definition* : System in which the average energy of the transmitted signal is spread over a bandwidth which is much wider than the information bandwidth (the bandwidth of the transmitted signal is wider than the information bandwidth by at least a factor of two for double sideband AM and typically a factor of four or greater for narrow-band FM, and 100 to 1 for a linear SS system). *Term* : Direct sequence (DS) spread spectrum *Definition* : signal structuring technique utilizing a digital code spreading sequence having a chip rate 1/Tsin much higher than the information signal bit rate 1/Ts. Each information bit of the digital signal is transmitted as a pseudo-random sequence of chips, which produces a broad noise-like spectrum with a bandwidth (distance between first nulls) of 2 Bsin ? 2/Tsin. The receiver correlates the RF input signal with a local copy of the spreading sequence to recover the narrow-band data information at a rate 1/Ts. ***Term* : Frequency-hopping (FH) spread spectrum *Definition* : signal structuring technique employing automatic switching of the transmitted frequency. Selection of the frequency to be transmitted is typically made in a pseudo-random manner from a set of frequencies covering a band wider than the information bandwidth. The intended receiver frequency-hops in synchronization with the transmitter in order to retrieve the desired information. Here's the NTIA redbook definitions, which is also reference in Fed-Std 1037c: Spread Spectrum: A signal structuring technique that employs direct sequence, frequency
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth. Radio does not stop at borders, of course, so what makes it work for the US helps make it work for Canada. Imagine what it would be like if there were no US regulations on unattended operations. Those automatic messaging systems would be covering the phone bands as well as everywhere else. They don't currently, only because they are not allowed to, but they would expand to cover the phone bands if there were regulation only by bandwidth so they could escape QRM by others like themselves. The bandwidth of Pactor-III is roughly the same as a phone signal, and unattended stations cannot QSY even if requested to do so. Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few. This is another US regulation that is helping to limit the number of stations using a very wide bandwidth (i.e. to 222 MHz and above) when a more narrow bandwidth mode like Olivia or PSK31 can do the same, or almost the same, job in one fifth the space or less. If there were unlimited room on HF, regulation by bandwidth would work, as it already basically does at VHF frequencies and up, even under US regulations. Your question is a valid one, but the subject was hotly debated several years ago, resulting in no change to the status quo, because, although imperfect, it seems to work for the huge majority of amateurs all trying to use a very limited amount of spectrum on HF. Regulation by bandwidth would work if everyone were fair, but everyone is not fair, so there must be regulation by mode to protect the small or weak from the big and powerful, and to protect phone operators from QRM from wideband digital operations. Phone is wide and digital is usually more narrow, so regulation by bandwidth keeps phone out of the data segments, but would not keep wide data out of the phone segments. Once you make exceptions to regulation by bandwidth to exclude certain modes in a space, you no longer have regulation by bandwidth, 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 any of those situations here. Maybe if the USA went to that system it would cause headaches and the situations described but if other countries can self police and have harmony I don't know why the US should be any different. We have a voluntary band plan and a regulated set of bandwidths and it works nicely. Anyway that's my 2 cents worth but HF communications would be simply marvelous if everyone was on the same page in terms of digital communications. Paul VE9NC BTW Please don't throw rocks at me... I am having a bad day.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Your are right, Julian. The current regulations mostly protect phone users from interference by other modes and digital users are left to figure out how to share what space is left. The division is approximately 50-50 between phone and digital what the FCC calls 'data/RTTY'. This is a holdover from the days when the only digital mode was CW and the only data mode was RTTY. Phone is the easiest to use human/rig interface, and the easiest to learn, so it is the preferred interface for most. Using 20m as an example, 150 kHz is allocated to RTTY/data (digital) and 200 kHz to phone. Assuming a 2.2kHz wide phone mode, there is room for approximately 90 phone stations. Assuming an average of 0.5 kHz wide digital modes, there is room for 300 digital stations. If everybody used a 2.2 kHz wide digital mode, there would only be room for 68 digital stations. CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. The phone operators could complain that THEY are the second-class citizens and have not been allocated enough space in proportion to their numbers! What is really needed is digital voice in a more narrow bandwidth, instead of CD quality digital voice with a bandwidth of 2200 Hz, because there simply is not enough space for everyone to use wide modes of any kind. That is already possible today by combining speech-to-text with text-to-speech, but the voice is not your own, but synthesized voice. Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking 10 is now good enough speech-to-text with about a 1% error rate with enough training, and my DigiTalk program for the blind ham will speak the incoming PSK31 text as fast 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 space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few.
