If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help.
________________________________ De: KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net> Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle > jose alberto nieto ros wrote: > I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid > things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: >My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. > >If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of >criticism ROS. > >I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things >in this group. > > > > ________________________________ De: KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net> >Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 >Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle > > >> If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? > >Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. > >The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met >(from the ROS documentation) : > >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. > >Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation >also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as >spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined >above. > >Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ >~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS >definitely is. > >Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be >used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, >that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. > >BTW, this same issue came up during the "regulation by bandwidth" debate when >the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, >short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a >short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy >to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the >same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like >PSK31. > >The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one >mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so >QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties >would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or >with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. >This is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does >not create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams >does not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies. > >upper > >73 - Skip KH6TY > > > >Alan Barrow wrote: > >> >>If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? >> >> >> >
