[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
The pimary objection is not to automatic stations, but rather to automatic stations running poorly-implemented protocols that QRM other amateurs. WinLink is the digital equivalent of a poorly tuned amplifier that splatters the band. Like the cranky owner of that amplifier, the WinLink development team staunchly denies there's a problem, blaming the problem on everyone else instead of correcting the defect in their implementation. This is precisely the sort of rotten operating practice that would bring out the old man and his Wouff Hong. Your suggestion that we "Live with it, and get used to it" is absolutely wrong. We must not rest until the defects in WinLink are corrected. If we can't find a Wouff Hong, then perhaps a HARM with a WinLink PMBO seeker would encourage corrective action. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In USA the FCC set the new auto subband at 3580-3600kHz. > No one should be surprised that hams are using this subband > for auto operation exactly as FCC intended it to be used. > > No one is forcing anyone else to operate non-auto in the auto subband. > Space is available for non-auto data/texting 3500-3580kHz without the > limitation. > > Many of us were not happy when the FCC shrunk the size of the > data/texting sub-band, but we must live with it now. > > There is really no question that auto stations exist and will continue > to exist. Live with it, and get used to it. Auto operation at various > degrees will undoubtedly be a part of normal operation on the ham > bands, there is no turning back the clock to the horse and buggy. We > as hams should continue, and will continue, to use any and all types > of communication systems we can dream of. That's what we do. > > Bonnie KQ6XA >
[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
In USA the FCC set the new auto subband at 3580-3600kHz. No one should be surprised that hams are using this subband for auto operation exactly as FCC intended it to be used. No one is forcing anyone else to operate non-auto in the auto subband. Space is available for non-auto data/texting 3500-3580kHz without the limitation. Many of us were not happy when the FCC shrunk the size of the data/texting sub-band, but we must live with it now. There is really no question that auto stations exist and will continue to exist. Live with it, and get used to it. Auto operation at various degrees will undoubtedly be a part of normal operation on the ham bands, there is no turning back the clock to the horse and buggy. We as hams should continue, and will continue, to use any and all types of communication systems we can dream of. That's what we do. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I strongly disagree. A protocol that routinely QRMs existing QSOs has no right to be heard on the bands. On the contrary, it should be scrupulously avoided in other than emergency conditions. WinLink's problem could easily be corrected by equipping its PMBOs with a busy frequency detector, as has been previously suggested. Were that accomplished, my objections to WinLink would evaporate, as would those of most other amateurs. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > what about all the ARES/RACES guys that are using winlink2000 ? It like all the other modes have the right to be heard on the bands > > John > VE5MU > > > - Original Message - > From: Danny Douglas > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:04 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info > > > > I can certainly understand the want and need for people such as full time RVers ( I am part time and DONT want to see email when on the road). and sailors to have ham radio aboard for fun and emergencies but definitely not just so they can come up and troll the internet. It would be nice to, for instance, have spot collecting capability when I want to DX, or a way to find the path of a QSL card I might want to mail on the road (heavens knows why - I can wait a couple of weeks). RVers, in particular, dont really need full time internet capability (unless they live in the RV), and can always stop by a public library to check their mail, or they can pull up in Walmarts parking lot and hit half a dozen open wireless systems around them. > > Anyone who goes boating, full time, should certainly have commercial phone/internet capability and NOT depend on a HOBBY connection to do what it was not designed for, or that inteferes with other peoples hobby use of the bands. I certainly would not want to depend of ham radio for my health and welfare aboard a boat, out in the middle of the ocean - thats what they mad satellite communicatiions for. > > Danny Douglas N7DC > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all > DX 2-6 years each > . > QSL LOTW-buro- direct > As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you > use that - also pls upload to LOTW > or hard card. > > moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] > moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk > - Original Message - > From: Joe Ivey > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:40 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info > > > Rick, > > I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell phones and the like it should not be allowed on the ham bands. > > Joe > W4JSI > > - Original Message - > From: kv9u > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:19 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info > > > Joe, > > I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that when we first > came up with these technologies, the promoters and users lobbied heavily > to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the ARRL was > influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There was a very > great deal of discussion on this at the time. I think it is also fair to > say that most hams were opposed to allowing automatic control on the HF > bands. > > The compromise was that the semi-automatic stations would be able to > place their stations anyplace in the text data areas of the bands > providing that their bandwidth was kept to 500 Hz or less. If they were > fully automatic, they had to stay in the narrow "automatic" portions of > the bands.If they were semi-automatic, but over 500 Hz in width, then > they had to also operate only in "automatic" areas. This was done > primarily to accomodate Pactor 3. > > While there are no more FCC declared emergency portions of the bands, > good amateur practice is to stay away from those areas once you become > aware of their existence. Emergency nets are often formed to handle > potential traffic, but it would not mean that they are formed for > emergency traffic only. Most would not be emergency, but there might be > some priority and heath and welfare traffic. > > E-mail access via HF has been in place for many years and is a "done > deal" here in the U.S. I don't see any practical way to stop it now > without a huge groundswell fr
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
what about all the ARES/RACES guys that are using winlink2000 ? It like all the other modes have the right to be heard on the bands John VE5MU - Original Message - From: Danny Douglas To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info I can certainly understand the want and need for people such as full time RVers ( I am part time and DONT want to see email when on the road). and sailors to have ham radio aboard for fun and emergencies but definitely not just so they can come up and troll the internet. It would be nice to, for instance, have spot collecting capability when I want to DX, or a way to find the path of a QSL card I might want to mail on the road (heavens knows why - I can wait a couple of weeks). RVers, in particular, dont really need full time internet capability (unless they live in the RV), and can always stop by a public library to check their mail, or they can pull up in Walmarts parking lot and hit half a dozen open wireless systems around them. Anyone who goes boating, full time, should certainly have commercial phone/internet capability and NOT depend on a HOBBY connection to do what it was not designed for, or that inteferes with other peoples hobby use of the bands. I certainly would not want to depend of ham radio for my health and welfare aboard a boat, out in the middle of the ocean - thats what they mad satellite communicatiions for. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: Joe Ivey To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Rick, I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell phones and the like it should not be allowed on the ham bands. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: kv9u To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Joe, I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that when we first came up with these technologies, the promoters and users lobbied heavily to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the ARRL was influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There was a very great deal of discussion on this at the time. I think it is also fair to say that most hams were opposed to allowing automatic control on the HF bands. The compromise was that the semi-automatic stations would be able to place their stations anyplace in the text data areas of the bands providing that their bandwidth was kept to 500 Hz or less. If they were fully automatic, they had to stay in the narrow "automatic" portions of the bands.If they were semi-automatic, but over 500 Hz in width, then they had to also operate only in "automatic" areas. This was done primarily to accomodate Pactor 3. While there are no more FCC declared emergency portions of the bands, good amateur practice is to stay away from those areas once you become aware of their existence. Emergency nets are often formed to handle potential traffic, but it would not mean that they are formed for emergency traffic only. Most would not be emergency, but there might be some priority and heath and welfare traffic. E-mail access via HF has been in place for many years and is a "done deal" here in the U.S. I don't see any practical way to stop it now without a huge groundswell from the amateur community and that doesn't seem likely. If you want HF to e-mail to be available for emergency use or for providing messaging from disaster areas, it has to be something that is available and frequently used by the hams who will try to gain access during difficult times. Speaking from experience with Winlink and the earlier Aplink system (not the same as Winlink 2000), it is not always that easy to gain access to these HF systems at the time you might want it. My belief is that there needs to be many, many, HF servers available, preferably on the 160/80/40/30 meter bands so that a server can be accessed from most locations when you need to acce
Re: [digitalradio] Disputed territory:
Don't involve us Canadians in this argument. This problem was created by the USA, is a problem only within the USA , and the solution has to come from the USA. As an outsider, it seems that the FCC was overly zealous in allowing another 200khz for SSB operations, and stuffing everyone else in a 100khz segment. In actual practice , very few SSB signals are heard below 3700 khz so why not campaign for the FCC/ARRL to allocate 3650 up for SSB and 3650 down to 3550 for digi and the rest for CW I don't understand why they messed with this in the first place. John VE5MU Disputed territory: 3580 - 3600 kHz in (North America) in the USA Where the FCC says I can operate digital modes in North America: 1.800 - 2.000 kHz 3.500 - 3.600 kHz 7.000 - 7.100 kHz 10.100 - 10.150 kHz 14.000 - 14.150 kHz ARRL Band Plan and FCC Authorizations: 160 Meters ARRL 1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes ARRL 1.810 CW QRP Part 97 1.800 - 2.000 Digital Modes Part 97 1.800 - 2.000 CW 80 Meters ARRL 3.570 - 3.600 RTTY/Data ARRL 3.590 RTTY/Data DX Part 97 3.500 - 3.600 Digital Modes Part 97 3.500 - 4.000 CW 40 Meters: ARRL 7.040 RTTY/Data DX ARRL 7.080 - 7.125 RTTY/Data Part 97 7.000 - 7.100 Digital Modes Part 97 7.000 - 7.300 CW 30 Meters ARRL 10.130-10.140 RTTY ARRL 10.140-10.150 Packet Part 97 10.100 - 10.150 Digital Modes/CW 20 Meters ARRL 14.0700 -1 4.095 RTTY ARRL 14.0950 - 14.0995 Packet ARRL 14.1005 - 14.112 Packet Part 97 14.000 - 14.150 Digital Modes Part 97 14.000 - 14.350 CW Ok...I can move over (up or down) between CW stations...just tune the band for myFuzzy Mode signal. 73, Walt/K5YFW -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 10:58 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Disputed territory:
Tell ya what guys. Go ahead and operate voice at 14.050 or 7.100. and see if it is the ARRL or the FCC that sends you a letter, or even shows up on your door step. Maybe rather than that, you might want to ask the W5YI group for a copy of the freqs. They certainly dont have anything to do with ARRL. They were the NO Code leaders and earned my everlasting disgust. ARRL is simply the "voice" of amateur radio in the US, whether you want them to be or not, and I certainly dont always agree with their decisions. ARRL conveys the rules and regs, and quite often tries to get them changed, but they do not MAKE them. I happen to have a list of bands/modes here on the wall - printed by ALINCO. Its the same list on the table - printed by ICOM, and esentially the same as the newest list from the ARRL web page ( with that one updated due to the new FCC regulations effective a couple of weeks ago). They all agree, except for those new changes. They, and their predecessors are what I have been following for over 40 years, and I havent gotten any kind of warning from the FCC in all that time. Others have ignored them, and some of those are now off the air - by FCC decree. Just worked TC0DX on the original digital mode, so gonna go look for more. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card.
Re: [digitalradio] 7070 and 14070 - was - 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Don't buy this either having played RTTY - Amtor - Pactor, and packet that was above 100 Roger please don't try that with me - I'm been doing digital (RTTY) and the above mode since 1970. At 08:32 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote: >Very simple. Because the 070 frequencies have always been >keyboard-to-keyboard freqs, with the modes changing over time. Amtor in >the 80s, Pactor (back when it was a qso mode, keyboard-to-keyboard) for >a few years, now PSK and MFSK and the like. The oddball out are the >automated stations, who used to be confined up in the old Packet subband. > >de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Disputed territory:
Ok, but how many are licensed by the ARRL? My license does not have any reference to ARRL. So where am I going to operate? Wherever the FCC says in their rules says I can. If any U S ham is operating with licenses issued by the ARRL then they are operating Illegal. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 2:33 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Disputed territory: Disputed territory: 3580 - 3600 kHz in North America Where the FCC says I can operate digital modes in North America: 1.800 - 2.000 kHz 3.500 - 3.600 kHz 7.000 - 7.100 kHz 10.100 - 10.150 kHz 14.000 - 14.150 kHz ARRL Band Plan and FCC Authorizations: 160 Meters ARRL 1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes ARRL 1.810 CW QRP Part 97 1.800 - 2.000 Digital Modes Part 97 1.800 - 2.000 CW 80 Meters ARRL 3.570 - 3.600 RTTY/Data ARRL 3.590 RTTY/Data DX Part 97 3.500 - 3.600 Digital Modes Part 97 3.500 - 4.000 CW 40 Meters: ARRL 7.040 RTTY/Data DX ARRL 7.080 - 7.125 RTTY/Data Part 97 7.000 - 7.100 Digital Modes Part 97 7.000 - 7.300 CW 30 Meters ARRL 10.130-10.140 RTTY ARRL 10.140-10.150 Packet Part 97 10.100 - 10.150 Digital Modes/CW 20 Meters ARRL 14.0700 -1 4.095 RTTY ARRL 14.0950 - 14.0995 Packet ARRL 14.1005 - 14.112 Packet Part 97 14.000 - 14.150 Digital Modes Part 97 14.000 - 14.350 CW Ok...I can move over (up or down) between CW stations...just tune the band for myFuzzy Mode signal. 73, Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio]
No, just because a guy is a ham does not make his message ham related. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: John Becker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 7:48 PM Subject: [digitalradio] If the guy at sea was a ham why would care what type of a message he was sending? At 07:42 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote: >I'm with you on that. Why the ARRL supports what is essentially long >range Citizen's Band or Marine Band is beyond me. > >de Roger W6VZV so there !
[digitalradio] Re: 7070 and 14070 - was - 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
There's nothing in my post that would prevent a ham at sea from using *any* mode of ham radio to get a message back home. My specific objection is to protocols like WinLink that transmit without listening, and therefore QRM existing QSOs. Other than during emergencies, no ham has the right to to QRM an ongoing QSO -- whether they be at sea, in the air, or climbing Olympus Mons. Any amateur who respects his or her peers should avoid WinLink like the plague -- except during emergencies. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nice try Dave but I'm not buying that. > Again playing Devil's Advocate here. > Why should a ham at sea be forced to not use *any* > mode of ham radio to get a message back home? > > At 08:16 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote: > >Because we forget that WinLink PMBOs have permanent ownership of > >whatever frequencies they choose. Fortunately we now have the world > >wide web where such permanent allocations can be published, leaving > >no excuse for the ignorant keyboard-to-keyboard operator to > >unwittingly wander onto one of those 5-lane interstates owned by > >WinLink. At the rate they're paving over what's left of the 80m data > >band, the rules will be very easy to remember: no keyboard-to- > >keyboard operation on 80m. >
Re: [digitalradio] 7070 and 14070 - was - 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
John Becker wrote: > > Ok playing Devil's Advocate here. why in the world would the PSK pick > 070 any knowing that has was used for years and years for the auto > pactor station It's like play tag in a 5 lane interstate. > > This one I'll never understand. Very simple. Because the 070 frequencies have always been keyboard-to-keyboard freqs, with the modes changing over time. Amtor in the 80s, Pactor (back when it was a qso mode, keyboard-to-keyboard) for a few years, now PSK and MFSK and the like. The oddball out are the automated stations, who used to be confined up in the old Packet subband. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 7070 and 14070 - was - 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Nice try Dave but I'm not buying that. Again playing Devil's Advocate here. Why should a ham at sea be forced to not use *any* mode of ham radio to get a message back home? At 08:16 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote: >Because we forget that WinLink PMBOs have permanent ownership of >whatever frequencies they choose. Fortunately we now have the world >wide web where such permanent allocations can be published, leaving >no excuse for the ignorant keyboard-to-keyboard operator to >unwittingly wander onto one of those 5-lane interstates owned by >WinLink. At the rate they're paving over what's left of the 80m data >band, the rules will be very easy to remember: no keyboard-to- >keyboard operation on 80m.
Re: [digitalradio] The right comms on the right spectrum
1. There are regs and dedicated spectrum for Marine comms which free-up Ham spectrum for Ham-specific comms. 2. There are types of communications not permitted on Ham spectrum, whether at sea, in the air, or on land. > John Becker wrote: > If the guy at sea was a ham why would care what type of a message > he was sending? > > At 07:42 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote: > >> I'm with you on that. Why the ARRL supports what is essentially long >> range Citizen's Band or Marine Band is beyond me. >> >> de Roger W6VZV -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ~~ Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: http://bibleseven.com ~~
[digitalradio] Re: 7070 and 14070 - was - 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Because we forget that WinLink PMBOs have permanent ownership of whatever frequencies they choose. Fortunately we now have the world wide web where such permanent allocations can be published, leaving no excuse for the ignorant keyboard-to-keyboard operator to unwittingly wander onto one of those 5-lane interstates owned by WinLink. At the rate they're paving over what's left of the 80m data band, the rules will be very easy to remember: no keyboard-to- keyboard operation on 80m. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok playing Devil's Advocate here. > why in the world would the PSK pick 070 any knowing that > has was used for years and years for the auto pactor station > It's like play tag in a 5 lane interstate. > > This one I'll never understand. > > > At 07:49 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote: > >The above is the best example of turning the facts on their head, 180 > >degrees around, that I have heard in some time. The fact is, the > >automated Pactor stations are the ones who have consistently refused to > >operate in their own subband, and have instead insisted on sharing all > >of the freqs generally used (first!) by the keyboard-to-keyboard modes. > >If the Pactor stations had been willing to stay up in the old Packet > >segment, no one would go up there and they would probably have it all to > >themselves. But no, they have always insisted on also working down > >around 7070 and 14070 for example, to our infinite harm. > > > >de Roger W6VZV >
[digitalradio] 7070 and 14070 - was - 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Ok playing Devil's Advocate here. why in the world would the PSK pick 070 any knowing that has was used for years and years for the auto pactor station It's like play tag in a 5 lane interstate. This one I'll never understand. At 07:49 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote: >The above is the best example of turning the facts on their head, 180 >degrees around, that I have heard in some time. The fact is, the >automated Pactor stations are the ones who have consistently refused to >operate in their own subband, and have instead insisted on sharing all >of the freqs generally used (first!) by the keyboard-to-keyboard modes. >If the Pactor stations had been willing to stay up in the old Packet >segment, no one would go up there and they would probably have it all to >themselves. But no, they have always insisted on also working down >around 7070 and 14070 for example, to our infinite harm. > >de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio]
If the guy at sea was a ham why would care what type of a message he was sending? At 07:42 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote: >I'm with you on that. Why the ARRL supports what is essentially long >range Citizen's Band or Marine Band is beyond me. > >de Roger W6VZV so there !
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Rich Mulvey wrote: > But hey - let's try something truly radical: How about - wait for it, > this is truly a novel idea - how about manually operated stations > operate somewhere away from the automatic subbands? > > I know, I know, just because there are *wide* swaths of practically > unused frequencies that are legally available for use for digital > modes doesn't mean that they're any fun to use. It's *much* more > entertaining to work *within* the well-known automatic segments and > then wail and complain about getting stepped on, even when there's a > vast wasteland of unused space a kHz or two down the band. But hey, > if we wanted to use logic and reason, we wouldn't all be hams, right? > > > - Rich The above is the best example of turning the facts on their head, 180 degrees around, that I have heard in some time. The fact is, the automated Pactor stations are the ones who have consistently refused to operate in their own subband, and have instead insisted on sharing all of the freqs generally used (first!) by the keyboard-to-keyboard modes. If the Pactor stations had been willing to stay up in the old Packet segment, no one would go up there and they would probably have it all to themselves. But no, they have always insisted on also working down around 7070 and 14070 for example, to our infinite harm. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Joe Ivey wrote: > > Rick, > > I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized > what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that > most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is > needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell > phones and the like it should not be allowed on the ham bands. > > Joe W4JSI I'm with you on that. Why the ARRL supports what is essentially long range Citizen's Band or Marine Band is beyond me. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Sorry, I forgot to delete the messages...
Skip It's ok with me and I'm sure Andy also to quote what you are replying to - just delete what we all have seen more then once. It really ticks me off when I see a line starting with > Also I would rather see the reply above what you are reply to. Really no need to make me see again what I have already seen once. I for one don't think the context will be lost. John At 06:42 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote: >My apologies for forgetting to delete the quoted messages... > >73, Skip >KH6TY > so there !
[digitalradio] Re: narrow filters/PSK
The problem is with your receiver design, which was designed for SSB and CW using AGC to keep the audio output level more or less constant with RF input and prevent "blasting" by strong signals when listening to weak signals. It is not necessary to "listen" to digital modes, since they are basically visual modes. I removed the AGC in the latest production run of the PSK20 so there is no AGC capture or overload over an input range of about 60 dB. One can argue that a 60 dB dynamic range is not enough, but I have not yet encountered a signal that overloaded the PSK-20 or the soundcard, but I am sure I would during Field Day with transmitters nearby. However, for typical operating, there is no overload problem, and no AGC capture either. The gain of the IF stage was compensated for by using more gain in the audio chain. This would not work with the typical receiver designed for SSB and CW, because the gain needs to be in the IF for AGC action, and not as much in the audio as in the PSK-20. As has been mentioned, disabling the AGC is going to result in overdriving the final IF amplifiers to distortion, so that is not a solution. The only solution for current receivers is narrow filtering (when needed), but if a signal gets within the IF passband of the narrow filter it is going to capture the AGC anyway unless careful tuning, or passband tuning, or IF shift, can move the strong signal and dump it off the filter slope and still copy the weak signal. In any event, there is no substitute for a narrow filter of some kind in such situations, but it is usually possible to operate most of the time with the SSB filter as most of you already know. Perhaps some day the other receiver manufacturers will take digital modes into consideration in their receiver design. I have read that a dual-loop AGC system helps prevent AGC capture, but I have not tried it. The reason that some people have no problem with AGC capture and others do is that the receivers and antenna gains are not the same for everyone, so everyone is "right"! ;-) 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:39 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Digest Number 2284 There are 18 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1a. Re: narrow filters/PSK From: Roger J. Buffington 1b. Re: narrow filters/PSK From: John Bradley 1c. Re: narrow filters/PSK From: Dave Corio 1d. Re: narrow filters/PSK From: Roger J. Buffington 1e. Re: narrow filters/PSK From: Roger J. Buffington 1f. Re: narrow filters/PSK From: Danny Douglas 1g. Re: narrow filters/PSK From: Roger J. Buffington 1h. Re: narrow filters/PSK From: kv9u 1i. Re: narrow filters/PSK From: Rein Couperus 2a. Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info From: Roger J. Buffington 2b. Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info From: kv9u 3a. Re: Narrow? From: expeditionradio 3b. Re: Narrow? From: Danny Douglas 3c. Re: Narrow? From: expeditionradio 3d. Re: Narrow? From: Andrew O'Brien 3e. Re: Narrow? From: Danny Douglas 3f. Re[2]: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow? From: Flavio Padovani 4. Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info From: Box SisteenHundred Messages 1a. Re: narrow filters/PSK Posted by: "Roger J. Buffington" [EMAIL PROTECTED] w6vzv Date: Wed Mar 7, 2007 6:05 pm ((PST)) Rein Couperus wrote: > We generally use 300 Hz filters for PSK125 and they are too wide. > There is no substitute for good narrow Xtal filters. I don't > understand how you can try to work PSK31 (50 Hz bandwidth) with a 2.7 > kHz filter. That is against all logic (and math). > > We recommand using the narrowest filters you can get for pskmail. > That is the only way to fight Pactor QRM. It helps to use the > passband shift and use the sweet spot of the rig at 1500 Hz (we use > an Icom 756). Our PI4TUE server has good performance with that, > provided you get the filter as narrow as possible (this is for > PSK125, which is 4x the bandwidth of PSK31...). A 250 Hz Xtal filter > is wide enough for PSK125. > > 73, > > Rein EA/PA0R/P Rein, you are right as rain! :-) Most Yaesu rigs have a digital passband center freq of 1000hz, but otherwise everything you say above is right on the money. de Roger W6VZV Messages in this topic (22) 1b. Re: narrow filters/PSK Posted by: "John Bradley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] ve5mu_sk Date: Wed Mar 7, 2007 6:16 pm ((PST)) using my TS480SAT with both CW filters, can get really narrow on PSK and still copy. don't know much about the IC746. can you menu select cw filters for ssb(digital) reception on USB? or do they only work in CW? John VE5MU - Original Message - From: Dave To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 12:42 PM Subject: [digitalradio] nar
[digitalradio] Sorry, I forgot to delete the messages...
My apologies for forgetting to delete the quoted messages... 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Proper Grounding for a Laptop
Greetings All i would like to hear what hams using a laptop for thier digital modes and run 4 to 5 hundreds on rtty ground their laptops also what they do with all the cables going to and from laptop to radio and amp Need some valid ideas that have worked my staion is grounded tied in with tower Ian VA7SW
[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snipped...shows I had a bad day at work when I cannot type my call correctly and then fail to proof-read] > 73 > > Bill M9DSJ Actually my ticket reads "n9dsj"
[digitalradio] Re: Busy Channel Detection
The acid test for a busy detector is not an assessment by its developer or deployer, but rather the assessment by those who share frequencies with it. The point is that anyone who develops an automatic protocol for use on the amateur bands is irresponsible if they fail to provide an effective busy frequency detector. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Automatic channel busy detection has been standard in ALE transceivers > for many years. These are transceivers that have ALE embedded in the > microprocessor inside the radio, and they don't need an external > computer. > > As an example, my Icom IC-F7000 HF ALE transceiver has a very good > busy detector in it. > > PCALE software also has a good busy detector. Sometimes it is a little > too good, because it sometimes prevents transmissions in conditions > that the operator considers to be a relatively clear channel. > Lightning static often causes "false busy" errors. > > ALE busy detection in ALE transceivers has various trade names, such > as "Voice Detector" or "Polite Mode" or "Channel Busy". The "Voice > Detectors" also detect constant carriers, on-off carriers, or FSK > carriers. ALE transceivers are designed to work best with the common > methods of HF communication found on normal HF comms over the past 20 > years, such as FSK, Carriers, CW, and Voice. They work very well for > enabling a compatible system on the same channel as SSB voice > transmissions, or in combination with transceivers that have syllabic > voice squelch or ALE selective calling enabled speakers. > > Accurate detection of a busy channel becomes more difficult with more > recent types of signals such as constant OFDM and various other > noise-like signals, or constant pseudo random signals that are wider > than the standard SSB channel. > > Also, the time interval for busy detection can be a big factor on > whether it is possible to use it or not. If the busy checking wait > time is too long, then the ability to scan and enable fast linking or > ARQ communications can be reduced to the point of total uselessness. > > In a perfect world, a busy detector system would be selected for > specific types of channel traffic, and the different flavors of busy > detector could be used with different kinds of signals that would be > most likely found. If the traffic includes all types of signals in the > world, the balance between the ability to distinguish between valid > and non-valid clear channels may result in an impractical solution > that voids the purpose of busy detection entirely, or presents a weak > decision point. > > From my experience over the past several years using various busy > detectors for ALE in the HF ham bands, I find that the vagaries of > common busy channel detection as found in the ALE systems seem to be > perfectly acceptable for use in the auto sub-bands where time- sharing > and ARQ predominates, especially to enable the use of short auto ID > transmissions (soundings). It is also quite acceptable for auto > responses to operator-initiated selective calling in other parts of > the HF bands. In all of these cases, the transmission duration is less > than 30 seconds out of every hour, so even if there is an error in > positive busy detection, due to hidden transmitter effect, the > duration of the error is mitigated by the fact that the interruption > in ongoing communications is a very very short period of time in the > larger scheme of things. > > Bonnie KQ6XA >
Re: [digitalradio] narrow filters/PSK
What I was saying your second paragraph. A string signal darkens the
waterfall and suppresses weak signals. IF filtering eliminates this.
If the signal is a few KHz away and [uficiently strong that IF filtering
doesn't then that is the close-in performance of your rig, but that is a
different issue. DSP at the AF doesn't help this, unless it is your
soundcard that is overloaded, which is less likely as that usually shows
up as distortion ("harmonics" of the signal that go away if you reduce
gain).
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 2:14 pm, Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> I agee with Danny and don't quite "get" what Leigh is saying.
>
> Dave's question is an interesting one because with my 3-week old DSP
> capable rig I, have been experimenting with the issue Dave raised. I
> have the ability to go down to 50 Hz IF-DSP filtering , but to be
> honest I find the digital bands to be so sparsely populated that I have
> not needed to use th filtering tha much. I'm waiting for a big contest
> to test this further.
>
> With regard to what Leigh is saying, I have been anxious to find out if
> my variable AGC and/or DSP filtering offer any significant improvement
> over the infamous "strong PSK signal 'desenses' other signals in
> waterfall" issue. With my admittedly little playing around, I have not
> found the AGC settings to make that much difference. I just noticed a
> strong PSK31 signal way out at the 1700 Hz mark on my waterfall. When
> he transmits my Multipsk waterfall darkens considerably. Turning a
> fitter on , in this case 1000Hz, eliminates the strong signal at 1700
> and the waterfall at the lower end returns to normal. I still have
> not figured out how to best "center" on the remaining waterfall with
> software commands to center on 1000 or 1500 Hz, since these commands
> center you to parts of the band that you may have filtered out. Still
> need to find time to practice more. I guess I need filter o! ut the
> strong signals, shift the remainder of the waterfall so that it is
> centered on 1000 Hz an then use "align" or "center" macros. Sounds
> like work though.
>
> Dave, I think 500 Hz should be all you need for all but the most
> unusual situations.
>
> On 3/7/07, Danny Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I have a hard time visualizing the need for a narrow filter, for such
>> narrow
>>
>> modes. You can sit, in PSK for instance, slap up against another PSK
>> signal
>> and still copy much weaker signals. Thats the whole purpose of the
>> narrow
>> band digital modes to start with. I use WinWarbler (now) to do my
>> digital
>> transmission in both PSK and RTTY, and when I want to do something like
>> Olivia or MFSK etc. I go to MixW. I particularly like WinWarbler
>> because it
>> has the wide band copy ability in PSK. I.E it will automatically copy
>> (and
>> show all the channels) in a 2 or 3 KC bandwidth - at the same time.
>> Using a
>> narrow filter in there would completely negate that fantistic
>> capability.
>>
>> I have never had to use my narrow filters in order to copy a digital
>> signal, and yes I have played with them to see what difference it made.
>> Todays rigs, with their dsp filtering just seem to bypass any need at
>> all
>> for additional filters for digital operation, though I do see the need
>> for
>> CW filters, and have 250 and 270 cy fliters in my two rigs because I
>> use my
>> ears, and not the computer to detect and read that mode.
>>
>> Danny Douglas N7DC
>> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
>> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
>> DX 2-6 years each
>> .
>> QSL LOTW-buro- direct
>> As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
>> use that - also pls upload to LOTW
>> or hard card.
>>
>> moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk and RTTY,
>>
>> Danny Douglas N7DC
>> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
>> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
>> DX 2-6 years each
>> .
>> QSL LOTW-buro- direct
>> As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
>> use that - also pls upload to LOTW
>> or hard card.
>>
>> moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalkK vfor i
>> Danny Douglas N7DC
>> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
>> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
>> DX 2-6 years each
>> .
>> QSL LOTW-buro- direct
>> As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
>> use that - also pls upload to LOTW
>> or hard card.
>>
>> moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "kv9u" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 2:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] narrow filters/PSK
>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> Yes, the narrower filters will help a great deal. I have an ICOM rig
>>> that needs to be centered on 1500 Hz when operating in SSB modes so I
>>> try and move them to that point if I can. Then I have DSP filters that
>>> enable me to close the "window" as tight as I need to. I also have
>>> Twin
>>> PBT
[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
The assertion has been made multiple times by Hams who own the required proprietary hardware and software that maritime and other ops are using the functional- encryption of a proprietary mode to misuse Ham bands for non-Ham purposes. Illegal and/or improper uses cited include: Business, maritime communications, and Internet access. 99.9% of Hams are unable to self-police this activity, even though the FCC mandates that we do so, because to do so would require us to spend tons of money involuntarily for proprietary hardware and software we do not want and would not otherwise use. Therefore ... > Unless responsible Hams join together and aggressively > petition the FCC to stop the illegal activity it will > continue. > > Unless responsible Hams join together and aggressively > petition the FCC to demand open mode ID's and a free > cross-platform monitoring app -- so that Hams may self- > police -- the abuses will expand until Ham bands are a > messy anarchy like 11 Meters. > > Nothing happens as a result of debates here or anywhere > else unless the ONLY folks who can fix the problem are > persuaded by angry voters and taxpayers to act. > > Meanwhile those who save money by abusing our Ham > spectrum rather than buying the proper equipment and > paying the appropriate satellite access fees are > successfully lobbying the FCC for the status-quo > and they are allied with the business interests > who profit from the expansion of their illegal > activities. > > We stand together and we take the fight to the FCC > or we lose, simple as that. > >> After looking at the winlink position report page there must >> be 50 or so hams at sea. Now why in the world would anyone not want >> them to be able to send a message back to home. >> >> We have been down this road many many time in the last 2 years >> on this list. We ain't going to take that bumpy ride again. The horse >> has been beat to death many time already. Get you best >> shot in and put a lid on it. >> >> John, W0JAB > > -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ~~ Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: http://bibleseven.com ~~
[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Hi, Not sure I see that anyone is trying to keep the "50 or so hams" from "getting a message back to home". I really thought the number to be much, much larger given it is the argument used for alot of Winlink2000. Is this the real crux of the discussion? If so, that is alot of RF bandwidth per ham (BWPH?), with commercial alternatives to serve the same purpose. 73 Bill M9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > After looking at the winlink position report page there must > be 50 or so hams at sea. Now why in the world would anyone not > want them to be able to send a message back to home. > > We have been down this road many many time in the last 2 years > on this list. We ain't going to take that bumpy ride again. The > horse has been beat to death many time already. Get you best > shot in and put a lid on it. > > John, W0JAB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so there ! >
[digitalradio] Busy Channel Detection
Automatic channel busy detection has been standard in ALE transceivers for many years. These are transceivers that have ALE embedded in the microprocessor inside the radio, and they don't need an external computer. As an example, my Icom IC-F7000 HF ALE transceiver has a very good busy detector in it. PCALE software also has a good busy detector. Sometimes it is a little too good, because it sometimes prevents transmissions in conditions that the operator considers to be a relatively clear channel. Lightning static often causes "false busy" errors. ALE busy detection in ALE transceivers has various trade names, such as "Voice Detector" or "Polite Mode" or "Channel Busy". The "Voice Detectors" also detect constant carriers, on-off carriers, or FSK carriers. ALE transceivers are designed to work best with the common methods of HF communication found on normal HF comms over the past 20 years, such as FSK, Carriers, CW, and Voice. They work very well for enabling a compatible system on the same channel as SSB voice transmissions, or in combination with transceivers that have syllabic voice squelch or ALE selective calling enabled speakers. Accurate detection of a busy channel becomes more difficult with more recent types of signals such as constant OFDM and various other noise-like signals, or constant pseudo random signals that are wider than the standard SSB channel. Also, the time interval for busy detection can be a big factor on whether it is possible to use it or not. If the busy checking wait time is too long, then the ability to scan and enable fast linking or ARQ communications can be reduced to the point of total uselessness. In a perfect world, a busy detector system would be selected for specific types of channel traffic, and the different flavors of busy detector could be used with different kinds of signals that would be most likely found. If the traffic includes all types of signals in the world, the balance between the ability to distinguish between valid and non-valid clear channels may result in an impractical solution that voids the purpose of busy detection entirely, or presents a weak decision point. >From my experience over the past several years using various busy detectors for ALE in the HF ham bands, I find that the vagaries of common busy channel detection as found in the ALE systems seem to be perfectly acceptable for use in the auto sub-bands where time-sharing and ARQ predominates, especially to enable the use of short auto ID transmissions (soundings). It is also quite acceptable for auto responses to operator-initiated selective calling in other parts of the HF bands. In all of these cases, the transmission duration is less than 30 seconds out of every hour, so even if there is an error in positive busy detection, due to hidden transmitter effect, the duration of the error is mitigated by the fact that the interruption in ongoing communications is a very very short period of time in the larger scheme of things. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
>>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After looking at the winlink position report page there must be 50 or so hams at sea. Now why in the world would anyone not want them to be able to send a message back to home. >>>As long as they do so without QRMing others, there should be no objection whatsoever. Unfortunately, WinLink doesn't respect this basic principle of amateur radio. >>>Does being at sea (in a non-emergency situation) entitle a ham to QRM others in his or her quest to send a message back home? 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
That is interesting. I would have thought we were talking larger numbers. That much bandwidth for that few hams? Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: "John Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info > After looking at the winlink position report page there must > be 50 or so hams at sea. Now why in the world would anyone not > want them to be able to send a message back to home. > > We have been down this road many many time in the last 2 years > on this list. We ain't going to take that bumpy ride again. The > horse has been beat to death many time already. Get you best > shot in and put a lid on it. > > John, W0JAB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so there ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Our other groups: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 10:58 AM > >
[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
>>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "mulveyraa2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >snip< Sounds like a good idea. Where does one download the SCAMP software so it can be put to use? >>>SCAMP is no longer available And yes, I know that the answer to the question is "You can't, because it isn't available to anyone other than the author." >>>SCAMP's author is a member of the Winlink Development team, and so has full access to everything he needs. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Chuck ET all It's been over a year since I have tried to copy the winlink system with my SYS TNC (been fighting lung cancer) but as I recall I never did have a problem coping any of the it. I may be wrong on this and I hope not after sending Chuck a direct note that you can copy it if you are P3 equipped .. Hunting P3 traffic to make sure. John, W0JAB At 05:42 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote: >A list moderator graciously corrected me. Therefore, I retract the >following erroneous statement: >It appears that SCS modems can copy WL2k ARQ transmissions even >though the listener is not an addressee.. >I stand corrected. > >73, >Chuck AA5J so there !
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
A list moderator graciously corrected me. Therefore, I retract the following erroneous statement: It appears that SCS modems can copy WL2k ARQ transmissions even though the listener is not an addressee.. I stand corrected. 73, Chuck AA5J At 04:49 PM 3/8/2007, Chuck Mayfield wrote: >Amateur radio has always been self >policing. How can we self police the Pactor operators, automatic or >manually controlled, when even if we spend the big bucks to acquire a >pactor modem, we can not monitor their transmissions? We can not >even know whether the operator is even a ham.
[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The WinLink folks could easily use the SCAMP busy detector to augment > their PMBOs, eliminating their current propensity to transmit on > already-busy frequencies. This would require > > 1. adding a soundcard to each PMBO PC, and connecting its audio input > to the PMBO transceiver's audio output > > 2. modifying the WinLink server software to keep their PTC modem in > the reset state when the SCAMP busy detector reports a buys frequency > > Accomplishing step 2 might take a couple of hours, including unit > testing. There would be no impact on WinLink users or their stations. > > Given how easy this would be to accomplish and how much good will it > would generate, one has to wonder why the WinLink folks have failed > to act. The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years. > Sounds like a good idea. Where does one download the SCAMP software so it can be put to use? And yes, I know that the answer to the question is "You can't, because it isn't available to anyone other than the author." - Rich
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
After looking at the winlink position report page there must be 50 or so hams at sea. Now why in the world would anyone not want them to be able to send a message back to home. We have been down this road many many time in the last 2 years on this list. We ain't going to take that bumpy ride again. The horse has been beat to death many time already. Get you best shot in and put a lid on it. John, W0JAB so there !
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I can certainly understand the want and need for people such as full time RVers ( I am part time and DONT want to see email when on the road). and sailors to have ham radio aboard for fun and emergencies but definitely not just so they can come up and troll the internet. It would be nice to, for instance, have spot collecting capability when I want to DX, or a way to find the path of a QSL card I might want to mail on the road (heavens knows why - I can wait a couple of weeks). RVers, in particular, dont really need full time internet capability (unless they live in the RV), and can always stop by a public library to check their mail, or they can pull up in Walmarts parking lot and hit half a dozen open wireless systems around them. Anyone who goes boating, full time, should certainly have commercial phone/internet capability and NOT depend on a HOBBY connection to do what it was not designed for, or that inteferes with other peoples hobby use of the bands. I certainly would not want to depend of ham radio for my health and welfare aboard a boat, out in the middle of the ocean - thats what they mad satellite communicatiions for. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: Joe Ivey To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Rick, I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell phones and the like it should not be allowed on the ham bands. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: kv9u To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Joe, I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that when we first came up with these technologies, the promoters and users lobbied heavily to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the ARRL was influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There was a very great deal of discussion on this at the time. I think it is also fair to say that most hams were opposed to allowing automatic control on the HF bands. The compromise was that the semi-automatic stations would be able to place their stations anyplace in the text data areas of the bands providing that their bandwidth was kept to 500 Hz or less. If they were fully automatic, they had to stay in the narrow "automatic" portions of the bands.If they were semi-automatic, but over 500 Hz in width, then they had to also operate only in "automatic" areas. This was done primarily to accomodate Pactor 3. While there are no more FCC declared emergency portions of the bands, good amateur practice is to stay away from those areas once you become aware of their existence. Emergency nets are often formed to handle potential traffic, but it would not mean that they are formed for emergency traffic only. Most would not be emergency, but there might be some priority and heath and welfare traffic. E-mail access via HF has been in place for many years and is a "done deal" here in the U.S. I don't see any practical way to stop it now without a huge groundswell from the amateur community and that doesn't seem likely. If you want HF to e-mail to be available for emergency use or for providing messaging from disaster areas, it has to be something that is available and frequently used by the hams who will try to gain access during difficult times. Speaking from experience with Winlink and the earlier Aplink system (not the same as Winlink 2000), it is not always that easy to gain access to these HF systems at the time you might want it. My belief is that there needs to be many, many, HF servers available, preferably on the 160/80/40/30 meter bands so that a server can be accessed from most locations when you need to access them. While I have been told by the owner that this is not possible for the Winlink 2000 system, it certainly could be for a narrow mode system, such as PSKmail, which does not have the weakness of the underlying infrastructure of Winlink 2000. And does not use such wide bandwidths. 73, Rick, KV9U Joe Ivey wrote: > I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the > ham bands in the first place. I hate to
[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
The WinLink folks could easily use the SCAMP busy detector to augment their PMBOs, eliminating their current propensity to transmit on already-busy frequencies. This would require 1. adding a soundcard to each PMBO PC, and connecting its audio input to the PMBO transceiver's audio output 2. modifying the WinLink server software to keep their PTC modem in the reset state when the SCAMP busy detector reports a buys frequency Accomplishing step 2 might take a couple of hours, including unit testing. There would be no impact on WinLink users or their stations. Given how easy this would be to accomplish and how much good will it would generate, one has to wonder why the WinLink folks have failed to act. The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Winlink 2000 programmer developed the SCAMP mode over two years ago. > This mode did not have the weak signal operation that was hoped for, but > it did have busy frequency detection. Maybe you missed the discussion on > this or are new to the forum? > > Busy frequency detection is a reality, it is already invented and I > believe that it should be MANDATORY for all automatic stations, whether > semi or fully automatic. It was interesting that before Rick, KN6KB, > invented this detection software, the common belief was that it could > not be done. > > I included this in my extensive comments to Paul Rinaldo at ARRL who is > gathering information on a possible new HF digital protocol. I hope you, > and many others, did the same when comments were sent to Paul. > > In terms of ARRL NTS nets, they know, and any knowledgeable ham knows, > that they do not have exclusive use of any frequency, however, they > would very much appreciate it if you would allow their net to operate on > their QRG, just like any other thousands of nets of all kinds. Most of > us can move a little bit to help them out. Remember, that at least > theoretically, these nets may be useful for traffic handling during > emergencies. Without the daily practice, of these operators, the net may > not perform as well when we really need it. Last year, I was able to > route a Health & Welfare message to Alaska, from a tornado victim in a > nearby community. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > Kurt wrote: > > > > Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to > > make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other > > communications, if we hear them. > > > > Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts > > transmitting. So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain > > freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in > > progress. Simple logic would say that the automatic station is > > wrong, but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care if > > the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. > > > > Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a > > programmer will get a program going that will listen before it > > transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between > > my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Hey it's an old computer > > but still works great. > > > > 73 > > Kurt > > K8YZK > > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I agree with Joe on this point. Amateur radio has always been self policing. How can we self police the Pactor operators, automatic or manually controlled, when even if we spend the big bucks to acquire a pactor modem, we can not monitor their transmissions? We can not even know whether the operator is even a ham. Regards, Chuck AA5J At 03:41 PM 3/8/2007, Joe Ivey wrote: >I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on >the ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used >as an internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not >related to ham radio. > >I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and >would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a >purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the >term "emergency traffic". Simply put it means the threat to life, >injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a >general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from >the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves >a great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out >when we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to >check is email should not be allowed on the ham bands. > >My 2 cents worth. > >Joe >W4JSI
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Rick, I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell phones and the like it should not be allowed on the ham bands. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: kv9u To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Joe, I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that when we first came up with these technologies, the promoters and users lobbied heavily to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the ARRL was influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There was a very great deal of discussion on this at the time. I think it is also fair to say that most hams were opposed to allowing automatic control on the HF bands. The compromise was that the semi-automatic stations would be able to place their stations anyplace in the text data areas of the bands providing that their bandwidth was kept to 500 Hz or less. If they were fully automatic, they had to stay in the narrow "automatic" portions of the bands.If they were semi-automatic, but over 500 Hz in width, then they had to also operate only in "automatic" areas. This was done primarily to accomodate Pactor 3. While there are no more FCC declared emergency portions of the bands, good amateur practice is to stay away from those areas once you become aware of their existence. Emergency nets are often formed to handle potential traffic, but it would not mean that they are formed for emergency traffic only. Most would not be emergency, but there might be some priority and heath and welfare traffic. E-mail access via HF has been in place for many years and is a "done deal" here in the U.S. I don't see any practical way to stop it now without a huge groundswell from the amateur community and that doesn't seem likely. If you want HF to e-mail to be available for emergency use or for providing messaging from disaster areas, it has to be something that is available and frequently used by the hams who will try to gain access during difficult times. Speaking from experience with Winlink and the earlier Aplink system (not the same as Winlink 2000), it is not always that easy to gain access to these HF systems at the time you might want it. My belief is that there needs to be many, many, HF servers available, preferably on the 160/80/40/30 meter bands so that a server can be accessed from most locations when you need to access them. While I have been told by the owner that this is not possible for the Winlink 2000 system, it certainly could be for a narrow mode system, such as PSKmail, which does not have the weakness of the underlying infrastructure of Winlink 2000. And does not use such wide bandwidths. 73, Rick, KV9U Joe Ivey wrote: > I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the > ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an > internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not related > to ham radio. > > I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and > would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a > purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the > term "emergency traffic". Simply put it means the threat to life, > injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a > general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from > the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves a > great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out when > we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to check > is email should not be allowed on the ham bands. > > My 2 cents worth. > > Joe > W4JSI >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Joe, I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that when we first came up with these technologies, the promoters and users lobbied heavily to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the ARRL was influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There was a very great deal of discussion on this at the time. I think it is also fair to say that most hams were opposed to allowing automatic control on the HF bands. The compromise was that the semi-automatic stations would be able to place their stations anyplace in the text data areas of the bands providing that their bandwidth was kept to 500 Hz or less. If they were fully automatic, they had to stay in the narrow "automatic" portions of the bands.If they were semi-automatic, but over 500 Hz in width, then they had to also operate only in "automatic" areas. This was done primarily to accomodate Pactor 3. While there are no more FCC declared emergency portions of the bands, good amateur practice is to stay away from those areas once you become aware of their existence. Emergency nets are often formed to handle potential traffic, but it would not mean that they are formed for emergency traffic only. Most would not be emergency, but there might be some priority and heath and welfare traffic. E-mail access via HF has been in place for many years and is a "done deal" here in the U.S. I don't see any practical way to stop it now without a huge groundswell from the amateur community and that doesn't seem likely. If you want HF to e-mail to be available for emergency use or for providing messaging from disaster areas, it has to be something that is available and frequently used by the hams who will try to gain access during difficult times. Speaking from experience with Winlink and the earlier Aplink system (not the same as Winlink 2000), it is not always that easy to gain access to these HF systems at the time you might want it. My belief is that there needs to be many, many, HF servers available, preferably on the 160/80/40/30 meter bands so that a server can be accessed from most locations when you need to access them. While I have been told by the owner that this is not possible for the Winlink 2000 system, it certainly could be for a narrow mode system, such as PSKmail, which does not have the weakness of the underlying infrastructure of Winlink 2000. And does not use such wide bandwidths. 73, Rick, KV9U Joe Ivey wrote: > I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the > ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an > internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not related > to ham radio. > > I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and > would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a > purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the > term "emergency traffic". Simply put it means the threat to life, > injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a > general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from > the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves a > great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out when > we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to check > is email should not be allowed on the ham bands. > > My 2 cents worth. > > Joe > W4JSI >
Re: [digitalradio] FlPuppy
Hi! I'm having the same problem here! Tried to load it via Microsoft Virtual PC and with a burned CD and it doesn't boot. Regards On 3/8/07, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm having a bit of a time loading FlPuppy on a computer that has had all the data wiped. I am following all the instructions of the Puppy Universal loader but when I finish and try to reboot it won't boot to Puppy. Anyone have any ideas? Walt/K5YFW Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links -- Cumprimentos Salomão Fresco CT2IRJ If it works... dont fix it! Esta mensagem foi escrita com electrões 100% reciclados.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not related to ham radio. I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the term "emergency traffic". Simply put it means the threat to life, injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves a great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out when we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to check is email should not be allowed on the ham bands. My 2 cents worth. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: Jose A. Amador To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Rich Mulvey wrote: > Kurt wrote: > > I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who > > is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to > > try as best possible not to QRM another signal on the portion of > > the band that they are "working." If others are not "hidden" to him by distance or propagation. > > Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to > > make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other > > communications, if we hear them. Big IF > > Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts > > transmitting. This has been said here more than enough times. Winlink response is triggered by a user who calls the station and most likely does not hear the others. > > So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain > > freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in > > progress. The automatic station is triggered to answer. Or should it remain silent, as if it were deaf to the calls because others are hidden to the station calling the Winlink station ? I wonder why someone would choose the frequency of such an automatic station to park on... ignorance (of published lists, I mean) would be the most likely excuse. Both attitudes should be questionable. Because ignorance does not excuse you of obeying laws, even those you don't know. Tell that to the policemanif he is a nice guy, he will let you go...he, he... didn't you know? C'mon... It has not the same weight, but it bears resemblance, at least to me. > > Simple logic would say that the automatic station is wrong, I would say simplistic logic, the "victims" logic. > > but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care > > if the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. Triggered by someone hidden to those in QSOhow would he know? > > Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a > > programmer will get a program going that will listen before it > > transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between > > my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Even when you do that, there will be always some possible hidden station around you. How an arbitrary, even mistuned signal, could be positively identified from "noise"? What is a signal? What is noise? How would YOU program that? Or it should be some "anti vox" triggering the brakes even by the hint of a cat's meow ? > > Hey it's an old computer but still works great. Imagine if we were to be trashed as PC's are when we get two years oldughh !!! > It's quite clear that automatic stations in the automatic sub-bands > are not going away. > > But hey - let's try something truly radical: How about - wait for > it, this is truly a novel idea - how about manually operated stations > operate somewhere away from the automatic subbands? Guess this is a really novel idea, a big discovery for quite a few. > I know, I know, just because there are *wide* swaths of practically > unused frequencies that are legally available for use for digital > modes doesn't mean that they're any fun to use. It's *much* more > entertaining to work *within* the well-known automatic segments and > then wail and complain about getting stepped on, even when there's a > vast wasteland of unused space a kHz or two down the band. But hey, > if we wanted to use logic and reason, we wouldn't all be hams, right? Looks to me as logical as sitting to read a newspaper in the middle of the empty expressway in Australia because there are no ants to bite meif by any chance a car should come my way, no problem, cars have brakes and should use'emI should not be run over Sort of re
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Thanks Rick. You answered my own question. I agree with you that considering we are dealing with a multi-access media - it should be mandatory that an automatic station run some type of agreed upon media access control. It would be to everyone's benefit. Phil Williams, KA1GMN kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Winlink 2000 programmer developed the SCAMP mode over two years ago. This mode did not have the weak signal operation that was hoped for, but it did have busy frequency detection. Maybe you missed the discussion on this or are new to the forum? Busy frequency detection is a reality, it is already invented and I believe that it should be MANDATORY for all automatic stations, whether semi or fully automatic. It was interesting that before Rick, KN6KB, invented this detection software, the common belief was that it could not be done. I included this in my extensive comments to Paul Rinaldo at ARRL who is gathering information on a possible new HF digital protocol. I hope you, and many others, did the same when comments were sent to Paul. In terms of ARRL NTS nets, they know, and any knowledgeable ham knows, that they do not have exclusive use of any frequency, however, they would very much appreciate it if you would allow their net to operate on their QRG, just like any other thousands of nets of all kinds. Most of us can move a little bit to help them out. Remember, that at least theoretically, these nets may be useful for traffic handling during emergencies. Without the daily practice, of these operators, the net may not perform as well when we really need it. Last year, I was able to route a Health & Welfare message to Alaska, from a tornado victim in a nearby community. 73, Rick, KV9U Kurt wrote: > > Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to > make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other > communications, if we hear them. > > Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts > transmitting. So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain > freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in > progress. Simple logic would say that the automatic station is > wrong, but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care if > the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. > > Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a > programmer will get a program going that will listen before it > transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between > my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Hey it's an old computer > but still works great. > > 73 > Kurt > K8YZK > > > Phil Williams Cell: 469.682.5396
[digitalradio] FlPuppy
I'm having a bit of a time loading FlPuppy on a computer that has had all the data wiped. I am following all the instructions of the Puppy Universal loader but when I finish and try to reboot it won't boot to Puppy. Anyone have any ideas? Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Jose it might sound absurd, but then again man flying to the moon, satellite communications and cellphones, they all at one time were called absurded, but they are real now. Don't know in Cuba but here, almost everyone has a cellphone. Also just because a section of freq's are set aside for automatic operation doesn't mean that they can't be used, by stations other then automatic ones. Yes it might not be possible now, but then again if someone does not complain or try, we will never know if it is possible. 73 Kurt Recent Activity a.. 18New Members b.. 1New Files Visit Your Group SPONSORED LINKS a.. Ham radio b.. Ham radio antenna c.. Ham radio store d.. Craft hobby e.. Hobby and craft supply Live in Style Want to be Martha? Tell us why and be a winner! Y! GeoCities Create a Blog And tell the world what you think. Biz Resources Y! Small Business Articles, tools, forms, and more. .
[digitalradio] Disputed territory:
Disputed territory: 3580 - 3600 kHz in North America Where the FCC says I can operate digital modes in North America: 1.800 - 2.000 kHz 3.500 - 3.600 kHz 7.000 - 7.100 kHz 10.100 - 10.150 kHz 14.000 - 14.150 kHz ARRL Band Plan and FCC Authorizations: 160 Meters ARRL1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes ARRL1.810 CW QRP Part 97 1.800 - 2.000 Digital Modes Part 97 1.800 - 2.000 CW 80 Meters ARRL3.570 - 3.600 RTTY/Data ARRL3.590 RTTY/Data DX Part 97 3.500 - 3.600 Digital Modes Part 97 3.500 - 4.000 CW 40 Meters: ARRL7.040 RTTY/Data DX ARRL7.080 - 7.125 RTTY/Data Part 97 7.000 - 7.100 Digital Modes Part 97 7.000 - 7.300 CW 30 Meters ARRL10.130-10.140 RTTY ARRL10.140-10.150 Packet Part 97 10.100 - 10.150 Digital Modes/CW 20 Meters ARRL14.0700 -1 4.095 RTTY ARRL14.0950 - 14.0995 Packet ARRL14.1005 - 14.112 Packet Part 97 14.000 - 14.150 Digital Modes Part 97 14.000 - 14.350 CW Ok...I can move over (up or down) between CW stations...just tune the band for myFuzzy Mode signal. 73, Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Rich Mulvey wrote: > Kurt wrote: > > I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who > > is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to > > try as best possible not to QRM another signal on the portion of > > the band that they are "working." If others are not "hidden" to him by distance or propagation. > > Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to > > make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other > > communications, if we hear them. Big IF > > Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts > > transmitting. This has been said here more than enough times. Winlink response is triggered by a user who calls the station and most likely does not hear the others. > > So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain > > freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in > > progress. The automatic station is triggered to answer. Or should it remain silent, as if it were deaf to the calls because others are hidden to the station calling the Winlink station ? I wonder why someone would choose the frequency of such an automatic station to park on... ignorance (of published lists, I mean) would be the most likely excuse. Both attitudes should be questionable. Because ignorance does not excuse you of obeying laws, even those you don't know. Tell that to the policemanif he is a nice guy, he will let you go...he, he... didn't you know? C'mon... It has not the same weight, but it bears resemblance, at least to me. > > Simple logic would say that the automatic station is wrong, I would say simplistic logic, the "victims" logic. > > but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care > > if the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. Triggered by someone hidden to those in QSOhow would he know? > > Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a > > programmer will get a program going that will listen before it > > transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between > > my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Even when you do that, there will be always some possible hidden station around you. How an arbitrary, even mistuned signal, could be positively identified from "noise"? What is a signal? What is noise? How would YOU program that? Or it should be some "anti vox" triggering the brakes even by the hint of a cat's meow ? > > Hey it's an old computer but still works great. Imagine if we were to be trashed as PC's are when we get two years oldughh !!! > It's quite clear that automatic stations in the automatic sub-bands > are not going away. > > But hey - let's try something truly radical: How about - wait for > it, this is truly a novel idea - how about manually operated stations > operate somewhere away from the automatic subbands? Guess this is a really novel idea, a big discovery for quite a few. > I know, I know, just because there are *wide* swaths of practically > unused frequencies that are legally available for use for digital > modes doesn't mean that they're any fun to use. It's *much* more > entertaining to work *within* the well-known automatic segments and > then wail and complain about getting stepped on, even when there's a > vast wasteland of unused space a kHz or two down the band. But hey, > if we wanted to use logic and reason, we wouldn't all be hams, right? Looks to me as logical as sitting to read a newspaper in the middle of the empty expressway in Australia because there are no ants to bite meif by any chance a car should come my way, no problem, cars have brakes and should use'emI should not be run over Sort of reduction to the absurdbut how could we be sure absurd is always positively identified? Jose, CO2JA --- El respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz. Benito Juarez __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
The Winlink 2000 programmer developed the SCAMP mode over two years ago. This mode did not have the weak signal operation that was hoped for, but it did have busy frequency detection. Maybe you missed the discussion on this or are new to the forum? Busy frequency detection is a reality, it is already invented and I believe that it should be MANDATORY for all automatic stations, whether semi or fully automatic. It was interesting that before Rick, KN6KB, invented this detection software, the common belief was that it could not be done. I included this in my extensive comments to Paul Rinaldo at ARRL who is gathering information on a possible new HF digital protocol. I hope you, and many others, did the same when comments were sent to Paul. In terms of ARRL NTS nets, they know, and any knowledgeable ham knows, that they do not have exclusive use of any frequency, however, they would very much appreciate it if you would allow their net to operate on their QRG, just like any other thousands of nets of all kinds. Most of us can move a little bit to help them out. Remember, that at least theoretically, these nets may be useful for traffic handling during emergencies. Without the daily practice, of these operators, the net may not perform as well when we really need it. Last year, I was able to route a Health & Welfare message to Alaska, from a tornado victim in a nearby community. 73, Rick, KV9U Kurt wrote: > > Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to > make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other > communications, if we hear them. > > Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts > transmitting. So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain > freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in > progress. Simple logic would say that the automatic station is > wrong, but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care if > the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. > > Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a > programmer will get a program going that will listen before it > transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between > my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Hey it's an old computer > but still works great. > > 73 > Kurt > K8YZK > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Kurt wrote: > > - > > I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who > is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to > try as best possoble not to QRM another signal on the portion of the > band that they are "working." > > Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to > make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other > communications, if we hear them. > > Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts > transmitting. So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain > freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in > progress. Simple logic would say that the automatic station is > wrong, but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care if > the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. > > Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a > programmer will get a program going that will listen before it > transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between > my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Hey it's an old computer > but still works great. > It's quite clear that automatic stations in the automatic sub-bands are not going away. But hey - let's try something truly radical: How about - wait for it, this is truly a novel idea - how about manually operated stations operate somewhere away from the automatic subbands? I know, I know, just because there are *wide* swaths of practically unused frequencies that are legally available for use for digital modes doesn't mean that they're any fun to use. It's *much* more entertaining to work *within* the well-known automatic segments and then wail and complain about getting stepped on, even when there's a vast wasteland of unused space a kHz or two down the band. But hey, if we wanted to use logic and reason, we wouldn't all be hams, right? - Rich
[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
- > I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to try as best possoble not to QRM another signal on the portion of the band that they are "working." Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other communications, if we hear them. Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts transmitting. So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in progress. Simple logic would say that the automatic station is wrong, but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care if the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a programmer will get a program going that will listen before it transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Hey it's an old computer but still works great. 73 Kurt K8YZK
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Who would "coordinate" the use? What if the ARRL coordinated with other countries amateur radio organizations in Region II and had a region bandplan that said where each mode should operate? Would the next thing be "channelization" such as we have on 60M? Perhaps we should "give" coordination for 5 KHz for each mode of operation? At last count I found 23 different digital modes. That's 115 KHz and includes CW and RTTY. How "official" are the ALE and WinLink groups? Do they have a charter and official members? What constitutes an "official" amateur radio group to be recognized by the IARU? Part of the solution is to have software be able to identify the various modes as you tune across them. Perhaps using a method such as Fldigi does with many of the modes. Or perhaps have the software scan each signal to determine the mode. I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to try as best possoble not to QRM another signal on the portion of the band that they are "working." 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of w7psk Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:42 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick Scott wrote: > > > > The only Coodination I see is WINLINK trying to grab > > all the available Frequencies > > Hi Scott, > > There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this > small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new, the only > coordination entities listed so far have been well-organized ones like > ARRL NTS, Winlink2000, ARRL's W1AW station, and International ALE. > > If you are part of an organized entity that is seeking coordination in > this part of the band, you can freely correspond with all of the other > entities to help enable coordination. > > 73 Bonnie KQ6XA I see two groups taking the frequencies. ARRL and Winlink. Have you thought about all the PSK31 PSK63, Olivia and all the other Modes on there. I see winlink gave the ARRL 2 frequencies while your trying a Power grab for the rest. No I dont see Coordination or Cooperation, Ive seen no announcement for a conference. I see Winlink and ARRL Grabbing whats available without coordination at all and telling the rest of us to STFU. Well I for one will operate in the band area I can and if a winlink station autos on top of me the FCC will be notified. Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
> 3591.9 P3 (3590.9-3592.9kHz) WLINK2000 GERMANY > 3593.5 P3 (3592.5-3594.5kHz) WLINK2000 NEDERLAND > 3596.0 P3 (3595.0-3597.0kHz) WLINK2000 BELGIUM This illustrates the problem. These 3 Pactor 3 stations are within 100 km of each other. And it means they render 6 kHz of spectrum useless for other users (they can not hear you, even when you hear them with 20dB over 9...). So where is the coordination here? Rein -- http://pa0r.blogspirit.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/0It09A/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I think you have to start at 3587.7 since one of the many ARRL "SW" Broadcasts seizes control of 3587.3 - 3587.7 at-will and without consideration of existing activity. Is *your* Broadcast planned for 24/7 or at-will or might you consider time-sharing your frequency fiefdom with others? ;-) Perhaps the FCC could begin selling Ham spectrum to time-sharing collaboratives, Hams and Ham-related organizations, and perhaps non-Ham investors and one could buy their way into a specific frequency collaborative? We could even have time-share frequency swapping! Ahh, the brave new world of Ham radio that frequency- squatting could open up. Sigh. > John Bradley wrote: See below. I just nailed down a frequency, so > don't mess with it !!! *3587.5 141A(3587.3-3590.0kHz) VE5MU ALE > Canada -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ~~ Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: http://bibleseven.com ~~
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
See below. I just nailed down a frequency, so don't mess with it !!! - Original Message - From: Kurt To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:50 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info > > 3580-3600kHz N.America Freq Coordination Info > > CENTERCHANNEL===COORDINATED ENTITY > FREQ=MODEBANDWIDTH===LOCATION=NOTES > > 3581.5 CW (3581.4-3581.6kHz) ARRL MORSE USA (CT) > 3583.5 P2 (3582.7-3584.3kHz) WLINK2000 NEDERLAND > 3587.0 RY (3586.8-3587.2kHz) ARRL NTS USA > 3587.5 RY (3587.3-3587.7kHz) ARRL NTS USA 3587.5 141A(3587.3-3590.0kHz) VE5MU ALE Canada > 3589.0 P3 (3588.0-3590.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (VA) > 3589.0 P3 (3588.0-3590.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (TX) > 3590.0 P2 (3589.2-3590.8kHz) WLINK2000 USA (WA) > 3590.0 P3 (3589.0-3591.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (WA) > 3590.0 P3 (3589.0-3591.0kHz) WLINK2000 S.AFRICA > 3590.0 P3 (3589.0-3591.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (TN) > 3590.0 P3 (3589.0-3591.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (FL) > 3591.0 P3 (3590.0-3592.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (TN) > 3591.0 P3 (3590.0-3592.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (HI) > 3591.0 P3 (3590.0-3592.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (WA) > 3591.9 P3 (3590.9-3592.9kHz) WLINK2000 GERMANY > 3592.0 P2 (3591.2-3592.8kHz) WLINK2000 USA (WA) > 3593.0 P3 (3592.0-3594.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (MA) > 3593.0 P3 (3592.0-3594.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (FL) > 3593.0 P3 (3592.0-3594.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (MT) > 3593.5 P3 (3592.5-3594.5kHz) WLINK2000 NEDERLAND > 3595.0 P3 (3594.0-3596.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (AK) > 3595.0 P3 (3594.0-3596.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (LA) > 3595.0 P3 (3594.0-3596.0kHz) WLINK2000 USVI > 3596.0 P3 (3595.0-3597.0kHz) WLINK2000 BELGIUM > 3597.5 RY (3597.2-3597.7kHz) ARRL USA(CT)6pm9pmET > 3597.6 AL (3596.5-3599.0kHz) ALE IARU R2 (24/7) > = > NOTES: > DATE: FEB-2007 > MODE ABBREVIATIONS: > P2=PACTOR2 > P3=PACTOR3 > AL=AUTOMATIC LINK ESTABLISHMENT > RY=RTTY OR OTHER FSK MODES > CW=MORSE PRACTICE QST > Having WLINK2000 shoved down our throats is enough, but to even work it the equipment is expensive. I don't mind that the freq's listed above are the main ones used or even that the ARRL uses theirs for code pratice, but and this is a BIG BUT, they should not be automatic stations, that someone, somewhere should listen before they transmit to see if there are other stations using the freq. There will be someone who says that they might not hear the stations in QSO's and, that is possible, then again they might, and from what I have seen/heard from being in QSO's when these stations come on, they have interfered with my contacts. Remember if you can hear them, you can work them saying. Well if I can hear the wlink, they can hear me. Seem now that everybody is trying to stake out their special freq's. NTS system think they own their special freq's, work all whatever nets have their, and the frequency police will let you know if you get on their's even if they are not being used. A lot of egos involved in this. Kurt K8YZK -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.7/713 - Release Date: 3/7/2007 9:24 AM
[digitalradio] PropNet stations on 30 Meters
There are some PSK-31 PropNet station on 10,139.5 dial frequency 1500 offset at this time. so there !
[digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
> > 3580-3600kHz N.America Freq Coordination Info > > CENTERCHANNEL===COORDINATED ENTITY > FREQ=MODEBANDWIDTH===LOCATION=NOTES > > 3581.5 CW (3581.4-3581.6kHz) ARRL MORSE USA (CT) > 3583.5 P2 (3582.7-3584.3kHz) WLINK2000 NEDERLAND > 3587.0 RY (3586.8-3587.2kHz) ARRL NTS USA > 3587.5 RY (3587.3-3587.7kHz) ARRL NTS USA > 3589.0 P3 (3588.0-3590.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (VA) > 3589.0 P3 (3588.0-3590.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (TX) > 3590.0 P2 (3589.2-3590.8kHz) WLINK2000 USA (WA) > 3590.0 P3 (3589.0-3591.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (WA) > 3590.0 P3 (3589.0-3591.0kHz) WLINK2000 S.AFRICA > 3590.0 P3 (3589.0-3591.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (TN) > 3590.0 P3 (3589.0-3591.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (FL) > 3591.0 P3 (3590.0-3592.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (TN) > 3591.0 P3 (3590.0-3592.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (HI) > 3591.0 P3 (3590.0-3592.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (WA) > 3591.9 P3 (3590.9-3592.9kHz) WLINK2000 GERMANY > 3592.0 P2 (3591.2-3592.8kHz) WLINK2000 USA (WA) > 3593.0 P3 (3592.0-3594.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (MA) > 3593.0 P3 (3592.0-3594.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (FL) > 3593.0 P3 (3592.0-3594.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (MT) > 3593.5 P3 (3592.5-3594.5kHz) WLINK2000 NEDERLAND > 3595.0 P3 (3594.0-3596.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (AK) > 3595.0 P3 (3594.0-3596.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (LA) > 3595.0 P3 (3594.0-3596.0kHz) WLINK2000 USVI > 3596.0 P3 (3595.0-3597.0kHz) WLINK2000 BELGIUM > 3597.5 RY (3597.2-3597.7kHz) ARRL USA(CT)6pm9pmET > 3597.6 AL (3596.5-3599.0kHz) ALE IARU R2 (24/7) > = > NOTES: > DATE: FEB-2007 > MODE ABBREVIATIONS: > P2=PACTOR2 > P3=PACTOR3 > AL=AUTOMATIC LINK ESTABLISHMENT > RY=RTTY OR OTHER FSK MODES > CW=MORSE PRACTICE QST > Having WLINK2000 shoved down our throats is enough, but to even work it the equipment is expensive. I don't mind that the freq's listed above are the main ones used or even that the ARRL uses theirs for code pratice, but and this is a BIG BUT, they should not be automatic stations, that someone, somewhere should listen before they transmit to see if there are other stations using the freq. There will be someone who says that they might not hear the stations in QSO's and, that is possible, then again they might, and from what I have seen/heard from being in QSO's when these stations come on, they have interfered with my contacts. Remember if you can hear them, you can work them saying. Well if I can hear the wlink, they can hear me. Seem now that everybody is trying to stake out their special freq's. NTS system think they own their special freq's, work all whatever nets have their, and the frequency police will let you know if you get on their's even if they are not being used. A lot of egos involved in this. Kurt K8YZK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow?
Roger J. Buffington wrote: > > John Becker wrote: > > > > At 09:03 PM 3/7/2007, you wrote in part: > > > > > The cw,rtty, data subbands are considered narrow mode, > > > > This is really good to know. It should put a stop to all the > > complaining that has been going on about the RTTY AMTOR and PACTOR > > signals on the bands. I just love it when we all can just get > > along > I have never heard anyone complain about Amtor or RTTY, because these > stations are manned by human beings. The Pactor stations for the most > part are simply unattended mailboxes used by boaters and RVers for cheap > remote internet access. Not really even ham radio. > > . Does that mean that, back when there were packet BBS's up and running, they weren't ham radio either? Since really, the functions provided are exactly the same; People sending text messages to each other from widely dispersed geographic locations. There certainly isn't any "internet access" as people commonly use the term. - Rich
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow?
John Becker wrote: > > At 09:03 PM 3/7/2007, you wrote in part: > > > The cw,rtty, data subbands are considered narrow mode, > > This is really good to know. It should put a stop to all the > complaining that has been going on about the RTTY AMTOR and PACTOR > signals on the bands. I just love it when we all can just get > along I have never heard anyone complain about Amtor or RTTY, because these stations are manned by human beings. The Pactor stations for the most part are simply unattended mailboxes used by boaters and RVers for cheap remote internet access. Not really even ham radio. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
There is no "coordination" of HF frequencies that are associated with the Part 97 rules. There are bandplans that the FCC recognizes as good amateur practice. While anyone can come up with a bandplan, it would necessarily have to be from a major organization or organizations to have any weight with either the FCC or the general amateur population. For example, in the U.S. the ARRL is the only general organization that represents radio amateurs at the national level. There are specialty groups that have agendas that may conflict with other groups or individuals and they may have "bandplans," but they would not be something that most amateurs would abide by. This is partly due to the rather large numbers of groups and agendas and frequencies they would like as their frequencies. This would include NTS nets, county hunters, certain emergency callup groups, etc. The ARRL has a delegate that meets with the IARU to work on mutual issues and form "cooperative agreements" and the IARU (at least in Region 2), has as one of its main principles in its Constitution, "to promote and coordinate radio communication amongst the amateurs of the various countries and territories in Region II." But it has no direct force of law. It could maybe, possibly, depending upon bureaucratic interpretation, have indirect force of law. But if the FCC ran into many challenges, they would likely want to disengage from enforcement of the many different competing interests for the same small area of spectrum. Most of us could not possibly remember more than a few frequencies or areas for specific types of operation. I have to refer frequently to the ARRL bandplans, as imperfect as they are, to try and operate appropriately. 73, Rick, KV9U Box SisteenHundred wrote: > What coordination...? the ARRL just stuck a flag into > a frequency and called it theirs ! > > 73 > > Bill KA8VIT > > > >> From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this >> small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new, the only >> coordination entities listed so far have been well-organized ones like >> ARRL NTS, Winlink2000, ARRL's W1AW station, and International ALE. >> >> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA >>
Re: Re[2]: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow?
I am speaking strictly of US rules and regulations, not those of any other country. Our requirements must fit within ITU regulations, but are much more restrictive. We have to stay within the band as the ITU gives it, but we must also stay within FCC mode/frequency requirements. Thus, you don't hear any US station operators working voice in 7.0-7.125, 3.5-3.6, 14.0-14.150, 18.068-18.110,21.0-21.2. 24.890-24.930, or 28.0-289.300 - or at least they better not be, or they will be subject to fines and possible loss of their license. Those are not "volunteer" band plans, but requirements laid on us by the FCC. They may be used ONLY for CW or other narrow modes. There are then "suggested" sub-bands within those areas where it is SUGGESTED that one work PSK or RTTY , etc. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: "Flavio Padovani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:32 AM Subject: Re[2]: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow? > Saludos Danny, > If the "rules" are not written, then they do not exist. That is > the way our legal system works. > > Thursday, March 8, 2007, 8:55:43 AM, you wrote: > > DD> > DD> > DD> > DD> > DD> > DD> No - I'm talking about rules. If you tune up and start working voice in the > DD> low part of those bands, you are likely to get a quick letter from the FCC > DD> asking to explain why you are there. It is a restriction that many > DD> countries don't have - but it is part of our licensing structure. > DD> Danny Douglas N7DC > DD> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > DD> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all > DD> DX 2-6 years each > DD> . > DD> QSL LOTW-buro- direct > DD> As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you > DD> use that - also pls upload to LOTW > DD> or hard card. > DD> > DD> moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DD> moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk > DD> - Original Message - > DD> From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > DD> To: > DD> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:57 AM > DD> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow? > DD> > >> > > >> > Please tell me where to find that FCC Rule. > >> > > >> > I've read all of the FCC rules covering the Amateur Radio Service, but > >> > I don't ever remember seeing the one you are talking about. > >> > > >> > Bonnie KQ6XA > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> Danny is probably talking about suggested band plans rather than > >> actual law... such as > >> > >> 1.800 - 2.000 CW > >> 1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes > >> 1.810 CW QRP > >> 1.843-2.000 SSB, SSTV and other wideband modes > >> 1.910 SSB QRP > >> 1.995 - 2.000 Experimental > >> 1.999 - 2.000 Beacons > >> > >> > >> Andy K3UK > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster > DD> telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >> > >> Our other groups: > >> > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 > >> > >> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 > DD> 10:58 AM > >> > DD> > DD> > DD> > DD> > DD> > > > -- > 73, > Flavio Padovani > KP4AWX > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Our other groups: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 10:58 AM >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow?
At 09:03 PM 3/7/2007, you wrote in part: >The cw,rtty, data subbands are considered narrow mode, This is really good to know. It should put a stop to all the complaining that has been going on about the RTTY AMTOR and PACTOR signals on the bands. I just love it when we all can just get along so there !
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow?
At 08:35 PM 3/7/2007, you wrote: >I have never heard of narrowmode only portions before, Danny. >Where were they? > >Bonnie KQ6XA Same here... I think the use of more then use of more then one frequency is from the old days of the packet BBS's so there !
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
What coordination...? the ARRL just stuck a flag into a frequency and called it theirs ! 73 Bill KA8VIT >From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this >small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new, the only >coordination entities listed so far have been well-organized ones like >ARRL NTS, Winlink2000, ARRL's W1AW station, and International ALE. > >73 Bonnie KQ6XA _ Play Flexicon: the crossword game that feeds your brain. PLAY now for FREE. http://zone.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmtagline Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/hOt0.A/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
Re[2]: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow?
Saludos Danny, If the "rules" are not written, then they do not exist. That is the way our legal system works. Thursday, March 8, 2007, 8:55:43 AM, you wrote: DD> DD> DD> DD> DD> DD> No - I'm talking about rules. If you tune up and start working voice in the DD> low part of those bands, you are likely to get a quick letter from the FCC DD> asking to explain why you are there. It is a restriction that many DD> countries don't have - but it is part of our licensing structure. DD> Danny Douglas N7DC DD> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA DD> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DD> DX 2-6 years each DD> . DD> QSL LOTW-buro- direct DD> As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you DD> use that - also pls upload to LOTW DD> or hard card. DD> DD> moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] DD> moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk DD> - Original Message - DD> From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DD> To: DD> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:57 AM DD> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow? DD> >> > >> > Please tell me where to find that FCC Rule. >> > >> > I've read all of the FCC rules covering the Amateur Radio Service, but >> > I don't ever remember seeing the one you are talking about. >> > >> > Bonnie KQ6XA >> > >> > >> >> >> Danny is probably talking about suggested band plans rather than >> actual law... such as >> >> 1.800 - 2.000 CW >> 1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes >> 1.810 CW QRP >> 1.843-2.000 SSB, SSTV and other wideband modes >> 1.910 SSB QRP >> 1.995 - 2.000 Experimental >> 1.999 - 2.000 Beacons >> >> >> Andy K3UK >> >> >> >> >> Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster DD> telnet://cluster.dynalias.org >> >> Our other groups: >> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 DD> 10:58 AM >> DD> DD> DD> DD> DD> -- 73, Flavio Padovani KP4AWX
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow?
No - I'm talking about rules. If you tune up and start working voice in the low part of those bands, you are likely to get a quick letter from the FCC asking to explain why you are there. It is a restriction that many countries don't have - but it is part of our licensing structure. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:57 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow? > > > > Please tell me where to find that FCC Rule. > > > > I've read all of the FCC rules covering the Amateur Radio Service, but > > I don't ever remember seeing the one you are talking about. > > > > Bonnie KQ6XA > > > > > > > Danny is probably talking about suggested band plans rather than > actual law... such as > > 1.800 - 2.000 CW > 1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes > 1.810 CW QRP > 1.843-2.000 SSB, SSTV and other wideband modes > 1.910 SSB QRP > 1.995 - 2.000 Experimental > 1.999 - 2.000 Beacons > > > Andy K3UK > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Our other groups: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 10:58 AM >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Narrow?
> > Please tell me where to find that FCC Rule. > > I've read all of the FCC rules covering the Amateur Radio Service, but > I don't ever remember seeing the one you are talking about. > > Bonnie KQ6XA > > Danny is probably talking about suggested band plans rather than actual law... such as 1.800 - 2.000 CW 1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes 1.810 CW QRP 1.843-2.000 SSB, SSTV and other wideband modes 1.910 SSB QRP 1.995 - 2.000 Experimental 1.999 - 2.000 Beacons Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] narrow filters/PSK
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Gesendet: 07.03.07 22:30:55 > An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] narrow filters/PSK Thanks, Rein, for confirming what I suspected. For a fixed > frequency/mode such as pskmail, I'd have to agree completely, but for > general use, such as me running PSK31 for one QSO, maybe RTTY for > another, and Olivia for yet another, I think the 500 Hz would probably > be my best option. That's why I have both 300 and 500 Hz in th FT857D :) Rein > > Tnx es 73 > Dave > KB3MOW -- http://pa0r.blogspirit.com Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
