There are different standards (e. g. STANAG 4539) achieving 9600 bit/sec within 3 kHz of BW at an SNR of only 21 dB. That is today. The ITU is adopting further standards on HF which will exceed this with similar bandwidths. I don't believe anyone expects to experiment with or achieve a bandwidth or speed capable of what is possible above 28 MHz. However, unless Part 97.1 is changed as to the purpose of Amateur radio, enhancement of the radio art also includes HF. The issue is that there is little incentive to further develop digital protocols for high speed binary transfer since under Part 97.221, there is little space to use what already exists.
Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes! > > Finally a voice of reason that understands what I've been trying to > say. There is no reason you can't take one of the current crop of HF > transcievers that also include 2m and experiment to your hearts > content on something that will work at HF also. > > The ridiculous assertion about FCC regulations stifling > experimentation is just so much jawboning about nothing that I wasn't > even going to respond anymore. It comes mainly from folks that wan't > nothing more than plain old dialup data access to the internet via HF > regardless what it does to the rest of the amateur population. If it > takes up 100 kHz of space for one connection so what, it is the me > generation after all. The argument is just gussied up to make it > sound important in the hope someone at the FCC will listen and agree. > Doesn't matter that the physics won't allow what their asking for, > just get the bandwidth and then they can do as they wish. > > Thank you for your rational, well thought out post! > > Jim > WA0LYK > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, list email filter <modeerf@> > wrote: > > > > Gentlemen, > > > > Like many of the members of this forum, I've been following this thread > > with a great deal of interest. Please allow me to (perhaps playing > > devil's advocate) ask a simple question. I understand the propagation > > and fading issues which are unique to HF, but from an experimental > > point of view, why couldn't USA hams do their development of new > > digital modes on say UHF? Once the technological hurdles have been > > cleared on UHF by the masses of USA hams that apparently aren't even > > allowed to experiment because of the repressive government regulations > > they are burdened with, couldn't the then proven technology be ported > > to HF? > > > > Our HF spectrum is extremely limited, to put it bluntly, hams all over > > the world are happily using it all now, that is to say, it's full up. > > Until we have a digital solution that will help solve that issue, and > > allow for more qso's in our little playground, why can't we experiment > > on UHF, and not bother displacing the existing HF activities? Just > > because we can use more bandwidth on 70cm, doesn't imply that we have > > to, just consider one of the design criteria to be a band width > > restriction. > > > > As they say, 'Inquiring minds want to know?" > > > > 73, > > > > Erik KI4HMS/7 > > > > PS. I'm a no-code tech who has run Amtor, Pactor, rtty, and cw on both > > 2m and 440, just because I could run 9.6k packet instead, doesn't mean > > I have to. I for one would be happy to run experimental digital modes > > with other local hams on UHF, I see it as an underutilized resource, > > perhaps we can help justify keeping it, if we start using it to > > 'contribute to the advancement of the radio art.' > > > > On Feb 3, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Dr. Howard S. White wrote: > > > > > JIm: > > > > > > You have made a very good case as to why we need to experiment and > > > come up with new technologies... > > > > > > Instead of concentrating on all the potential and imaginary > > > negatives... which very much reflect the old anti SSB and anti FM > > > arguments...you need to look at the positives... > > > > > > There are a myriad of technologies for squeezing high baud rates into > > > tiny channels... there are a myriad of new and not so new technologes > > > out there ... such as TDMA, CDMA and Spread Spectrum... > > > > > > It's going to take some clever hams to develop these into a practical > > > DV system for HF on Ham Radio... > > > > > > I believe that the technology is there to allow multiple QRM free > > > multiple QSO's to share a standard HF voice bandwidth... some ham > > > needs to put it together... and some ham (likely not in the USA under > > > current baud rate limited rules) will likely do it.. > > > > > > Equipment.. Anything Hams develop will likely be computer based... > > > maybe even sound card based as that is the cheapest technology.... > and > > > it is likely that you will still be able to use your HF > > > transceiver.... > > > > > > New Modes: Stop being so negative.....Heck... new modes is what > > > this Reflector is all about... Olivia, Contestia...new versions of > > > DV...we welcome new modes as they improve things.... > > > > > > I do not have all the answers.. I just know that there has to be a > > > better way..... > > > > > > DV... has lots of potential to give us more channel capacity with > less > > > QRM... we just need to legal framework in place so that we can > > > experiment with it to dispell all those imaginary negatives.... > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA > > > Website: www.ky6la.com > > > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > > > "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911" > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
