Hi Skip.
Hope you read it this time: Both these QSO's were on JT. On 18 April we had a long test with VK7MO on 23 cm. We tested a new digital mode called "ROS" on EME that has seen some use on 144 EME. We saw one good decode from Rex in ROS. We ran out of time and did not complete a QSO in ROS, but it should have been possible. Rex has written a fine article for DUBUS magazine about his findings with ROS. It seems ROS has no real advantages over JT65. We continued on JT65c, while Rex was using his software to eliminate the frequency change due to Doppler shift. This worked very well and we could easily copy him down to 0.5 W. After the Moon window with Rex closed, we worked VK2JDS and VK4CDI with 1 W on JT65. On the same day we managed to do what we believe is the first EME SSTV QSO on 70 cm with HB9Q! Pictures lo from 432 and Above EME Newsletter Aug 2010 http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/em70cm.html See under PI9CAS See also last Issue DUBUS Magazine , full report by Rex VK7MO as referenced here before. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY <kh...@...> 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 > > > > > > >
