Hi Skip First , I have read all of your mail's and I think you have argued fair and square. I can't tell if ROS is FHSS or not . This is to complicate for a country boy like me, but I really hope that FCC will let you use "narrow band " SS on HF some day .
Cross my fingers for you and 73 LA5VNA Steinar On 27.02.2010 18:21, KH6TY wrote: > Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it > does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC > will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be > used on HF and VHF. I am especially interested in being able to use > the 1 baud mode for EME on 2m and right now, FHSS is not permitted > below 222 MHz. However, we will have to wait for the FCC to issue a > new opinion, since they already issued one based on Jose's original > claims. > > 73 - Skip KH6TY > > > > > Steinar Aanesland wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Skip >> >> Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling with two gruops of 25 sec of >> X's . As you can see the pattern change when sending data. >> >> http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG >> <http://home.broadpark.no/%7Esaanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG> >> >> 73 de LA5VNA Steinar >> >> On 27.02.2010 13:19, KH6TY wrote: >> > That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern >> > changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The >> > pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same >> > to exclude it from being FHSS. >> > >> > 73 - Skip KH6TY >> > >> >> >
