Re: [digitalradio] AX.25 vs Something New

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Several modems on that link claim fx.25 compatibility; TNC-X comes to 
mind, but they all seem to have been developed for VHF/UHF use, so YMMV 
on HF.
Chuck AA5J
Rick W. wrote:
>
> I have not heard of anyone doing this, but it sounds like it could be an
> improvement. Is anyone on the group experimenting with such proposals?
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
> Chuck Mayfield - AA5J wrote:
> > Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
> >
> >>> Phil's paper is from many years ago but the reality is that there 
> was no
> >>> further movement away from the legacy AX.25 equipment toward a new
> >>> layer, much less toward a completely new protocol.
> >>>
> >> There is some movement...
> >>
> >> Check out:
> >>
> >> FX.25 - Forward Error Correction Extension to AX.25 Link Protocol For
> >> Amateur Packet Radio (pdf file 138k)
> >>
> >> The FX.25 extension to AX.25 implements a Forward Error Correction
> >> (FEC) ?wrapper? around a standard AX.25 packet and is designed to
> >> supplement the existing AX.25 infrastructure without displacing it.
> >>
> >> http://www.stensat.org/Docs/FX-25_01_06.pdf 
> <http://www.stensat.org/Docs/FX-25_01_06.pdf>
> >> <http://www.stensat.org/Docs/FX-25_01_06.pdf 
> <http://www.stensat.org/Docs/FX-25_01_06.pdf>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > ... and, perhaps this link
> > http://www.stensat.org/projects/FX-25/FX-25_performance.htm, 
> <http://www.stensat.org/projects/FX-25/FX-25_performance.htm,>
> > <http://www.stensat.org/projects/FX-25/FX-25_performance.htm 
> <http://www.stensat.org/projects/FX-25/FX-25_performance.htm>>
> > but that was in 2006...
> >
> > Chuck AA5J
> >
>
>  

Re: [digitalradio] AX.25 vs Something New

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
>
> > Phil's paper is from many years ago but the reality is that there was no
> > further movement away from the legacy AX.25 equipment toward a new
> > layer, much less toward a completely new protocol.
>
> There is some movement...
>
> Check out:
>
> FX.25 - Forward Error Correction Extension to AX.25 Link Protocol For
> Amateur Packet Radio (pdf file 138k)
>
> The FX.25 extension to AX.25 implements a Forward Error Correction
> (FEC) ?wrapper? around a standard AX.25 packet and is designed to
> supplement the existing AX.25 infrastructure without displacing it.
>
> http://www.stensat.org/Docs/FX-25_01_06.pdf 
> 
>
>  
... and, perhaps this link 
http://www.stensat.org/projects/FX-25/FX-25_performance.htm, 

but that was in 2006...

Chuck AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] AX.25 vs Something New

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Rud Merriam wrote:
>
> You mention protocol layers. Which model do you want to use for 
> discussion,
> OSI or the Internet model? Perhaps not a big question since layers 1 & 
> 2 are
> the same but once we start moving up the stack they differ.
>
>   



I have a problem with the formatting on this reflector.  Please excuse 
me for that.

My question, as an unenlightened retired engineer, is "What difference 
does it make which model is used if the proposed changes are to Level 
1?  Apparently I don't speak the same language ...but can the same 
model(s) not be used with a differing Level 1 protocol?

Chuck AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] AX.25 vs Something New

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Rud Merriam wrote:
>
> I suggest anyone interested in this topic start by reading
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/2504/http:zSzzSzpeople.qualcomm. 
> 
> comzSzkarnzSzpaperszSznewlinkpaper.pdf/karn94toward.pdf by Phil Karn KA9Q.
> If anyone does not recognize his name or call then research him because he
> is an icon in amateur packet and digital communications. One of the
> "experts".
>


>
>
>  




I recognize him, Rud, but that link is gobbledegook to me. Can you 
resend it?

Chuck AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Speaking of page 35,  Is anyone using Outpost with soundcard?

Chuck AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] RFI-Free PCs?

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Is your display LCD or CRT?
In my experience, CRT displays are sometimes a major source.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM 8000

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

dmitry_d2d wrote:
>
> 1. A few words about OFDM and serial tone modem.
> Let's find out how the fight between ISI and Doppler shift
> takes place in these systems. OFDM uses the great number of low
> speed channels so the symbol duration increases. While the
> duration of ISI is much smaller than symbol duration everything
> goes well. Consequently there is an aim to increase the number
> of channels ad infinitum BUT at the same time natural limitation
> takes place. It's just a Doppler shift effect. Hence there is
> always a compromise between ISI and Doppler shift. Moreover we
> should take into consideration a big peak factor which results
> in non-effective usage of power of transceiver. There are
> methods directed at improvement of peak-factor, but the most
> part of them makes the system characteristics worse.
> In case of serial tone modulation the fight ISI with Doppler
> is provided with adaptive algorithms. The more effective and
> faster they are the larger number of Doppler and ISI the modem
> can manage.
> As for RFSM it should be mentioned that now it includes
> rather efficient adaptive algorithms that work properly at a
> speed of 600(500) up to 4800(4000) bps (wide/narrow mode). To
> work at a speed 6400(5333) - 8000() much more compound
> algorithms are needed. In particular using turbo-equalization
> will improve noise proof feature at all rates.
> Therefore OFDM and serial tone modem can be more efficient
> in dependence on channel statement. In my opinion serial tone
> modem with effective adaptive algorithms is the most effective.
> We'd like to mention that under certain circumstances either
> serial tone or OFDM modem can fail to provide connection, for
> example, when the Doppler shift is extremely high (polar
> communications). In that case one should use the methods of
> "spectrum spread" that extending the symbol in time and
> frequency. Unfortunately the speed would not be high in this
> case.
> So the best way out is to measure the channel
> characteristics and choose the speed of transmission and
> modulation method according to them. The full adaptation of the
> all characteristics is required.
>
> 2. About our users.
> The project RFSM-2400/8000 was initially aimed at
> organizations (not for HAMs)! (First version had no 0,3-2,7
> band, which is adapted for HAMs).
> Its prime value is that high-performance algorithm is used
> in it. Consequently only technical specialists of organizations
> where data (files, mail etc.) transmission through HF is needed
> can estimate the program at its true worth. They need the
> following: high speed of connection and data transmission. They
> are the FIRS GROUP OF OUR USERS. For example there are
> organizations (our users at the moment) who even haven't looked
> upon HAM -modems (little speed, instability, absence of files
> transmission in spite of excellent chat-exchange).
> If you are interested in RFSM as in a program for chat-
> exchange (or even for file transmitting but you do not need a
> high speed) and runner is not important for you:. You are the
> SECOND GROUP OF OUR USERS. $60 may be a pretty penny for this
> product for you.
> There is also not numerous GROUP OF USERS - THE THIRD ONE
> The representatives of this group are specialists in HF-
> radiocommunications and radioamateurs at the same time who is
> interested in algorithms of a high efficiency - the runner of
> the program. May be $60 is rather expensive for them but they
> can trial versions for free. They communicate with us suggesting
> interesting and moreover useful ideas. We really appreciate
> their advices and suggestions. Due to the THIRD GROUP the first
> version of RFSM has transformed in the product adopted for HAM.
>
> 3 . There are several remarks on the open source codes.
> a) RFSM-2400 (and all the more RFSM-8000) is not just a
> "dumb" modem though such a rate is also possible (it was used in
> PSKMail). Our product is an accomplished system of communication
> that provides different types of services including
> receiving/transmitting e-mail on Internet.
> b) Speaking about OFDM it should be pointed out that we have
> got experience in such a kind of modulation and can remark that
> to construct this modem is incommensurably easier than Serial
> Tone Modem. But the modem of this kind doesn't compare with RFSM
> characteristics. If we were not be able to realize Mil-STD
> correctly and use OFDM in RFSM, we would not be sorry to
> distribute source codes.
> c) Philosophy. Professional free software is possible
> because qualified developer has been grown up by certain
> company. The buyers have already paid for software and
> progressive developer as well. Then at the same time free
> software appears (like RFSM-2400) - like an ad, to create an
> image or ease consumers' tasks. The fact that software is free
> is a result of successful sales of developer. However free
> software is not possible in fact. The bigger the quantity of it
> the poore

OT Re: [digitalradio] Data Defined

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Harry Wiliford wrote:
>
> [edit] Etymology
> The word data is the plural of Latin datum, neuter past participle of
> dare, "to give", hence "something given". The past participle of "to
> give" has been used for millennia, in the sense of a statement accepted
> at face value; one of the works of Euclid, circa 300 BC, was the
> Dedomena (in Latin, Data). In discussions of problems in geometry,
> mathematics, engineering, and so on, the terms givens and data are used
> interchangeably. Such usage is the origin of data as a concept in
> computer science: data are numbers, words, images, etc., accepted as
> they stand. Pronounced dey-tuh, dat-uh, or dah-tuh.
>
> Experimental data are data generated within the context of a scientific
> investigation.
>
> data are numbers, words, images, etc., accepted as they stand.
> Pronounced dey-tuh, dat-uh, or dah-tuh.
> 73 de wb9iiv - Harry
> _,_._
>




















Wow!  All of a sudden, I feel enlightened.   Thanks, Harry.

Chuck - AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] KANTRONICS UTU TERMINALS

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Hi Michael,
I used one of those many years ago with first a Commodore Pet and then 
an Osborne One.  My recollection is that the unit operates with any 
RS-232 terminal program and interfaces through the serial port.   Don't 
think it takes any special software.

Hope this helps.
73, Chuck - AA5J

Michael Mihailovic wrote:
>
> Hi i am new to this group and since joining learnt a lot great group.
> I need some help here i was given a kantronics universal terminal unit
> or the utu i am wondering has anyone used one i need some type of
> software to run it anyone got any ideas.
> Any help is appreciated.
> Thankyou
> Mike
> VK2OZ.
>
> _

Re: [Bulk] [digitalradio] Re: Detecting Digital Modes [Was: Newbie to DigitalRadio - Couple of Questions]

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Doc,
Try Google.


*HOKA* Electronic - The Netherlands - HF Data Decoder and Analyzer


*HOKA* Electronic, HF Data Communications Consultant, Data Analyzer and 
Decoder.
www.*hoka*.com/ - 8kCached 

 
- Similar pages 

[digitalradio] Wassup?

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Did I get bounced or something?
I received my last [digitalradio] message at 6:12pm 1/4 .

Chuck AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] Re: LOTW Olivia, not a lot !

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

mulveyraa2 wrote: -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, Chuck Mayfield - AA5J

>
>
> You're not reading the error message it gave you. It says that
> "Call sign, DXCC Entity and QSO date range don't match up". Note the
> "and". Your submission indicates that you've held AA5J continuously
> from 1945-11-01 to the present day. Your QRZ info indicates that you
> were born in 1941, and previously held the call WD5FBQ. So unless you
> were licenced as WD5FBQ before you were 4 years old, of course it's
> going to reject your submission.
>
> You can't just pick random dates. Callsigns get re-used over time,
> and if you're just picking dates out of a hat, you'll interfere with
> someone who legitimately held that call at some other time. If you
> enter your data as asked, LOTW is trivial to sign up for and use.
>
> - Rich
>






















You may be right, Rich, but my callsign is good at QRZ. The address 
their matches the one at FCC,
I have been an ARRL member continuously since I was first licensed.  Are 
you licensed?  Why don't you use your call sign in your signature?  
Since you seem to know all about LOTW, perhaps you can tell me why there 
is a default start date of 1945 11 01 on that form?  Also, why are there 
not instructions on that form?

Chuck AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] LOTW Olivia, not a lot !

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

You are probably right, Danny.  However, I neither know nor care what 
"DXCC Entity" I am in and I got the following  back from the request:

Processing file 'AA5J.tq5'

2007-01-03 03:15:49 Started processing your New Certificate Request.
2007-01-03 03:15:49 For call sign: AA5J
2007-01-03 03:15:49   For DXCC Entity: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (291)
2007-01-03 03:15:49   For QSOs not before: 1945-11-01 00:00:00
2007-01-03 03:15:49For QSOs not after: 
2007-01-03 03:15:50 Call sign, DXCC Entity and QSO date range don't match up
2007-01-03 03:15:50 **Your certificate request contains error(s); please 
correct and resubmit.
2007-01-03 03:15:50 See http://www.arrl.org/lotw/faq.html for more information.

I suppose next I will be bounced for the 1945 start date ...

73, AA5J



Danny Douglas wrote:

> You must consider the other ops who DO use LOTW. It is so much easier than
> buying/making, filling out, mailing QSL cards. Chuck it isnt rocket
> science, and once a member, very easy to update to insure you still 
> live in
> the same place, and have the same call, every couple of years. Doesnt
> matter if its DX or not. WAS is also using LOTW and VUCC is just 
> around the
> corner. One of these days, Worked ALL Counties will probably be there too,
> and Collin county would be important in that one also. You do NOT even 
> have
> to be an ARRL member to upload (just to use valuations for your own use).
>
> 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] 
> <mailto:digital_modes%40yahoogroups.com>
> moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Chuck Mayfield - AA5J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:clmayfield%40verizon.net>>
> To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] LOTW Olivia, not a lot !
>
> > Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> >
> > > I'm surprised that of all the Olivia QSOs I have logged there are only
> > > 5 verified via LOTW
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I think I can understand why. Why does it have to be so complicated to
> > get a cert with lotw?
> >
> > Chuck, aa5j
> >
> > PS I am debating whether or not it is more trouble than it is worth,
> > since I do not chase dx.
> >
> >
> > Suggested Calling/Beaconing Frequencies:
> > 17M: 18103.4
> > 20M: Primary:14.078.4 Secondary: 14.076.4 Digital Voice: 14236
> > 30M Primary:10.142 Secondary 10.144
> > 40M Region 2: 7073 Region 1/3: 7039
> > 80M Primary : 3583 Secondary: 3584.5
> > Announce your presence via our DX Cluster 
> telnet://cluster.dynalias.org 
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007
> 2:50 PM
> >
> >
>
> 
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 1/2/2007 2:58 
>PM
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] LOTW Olivia, not a lot !

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Doc,
I don't agree with your last.

CW DATA AND RTTY are allowed by Extra Class licensees 7000-7125 and by 
General
and Advanced Class licensees 7025-7125. 

Chuck, AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] LOTW Olivia, not a lot !

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Andrew O'Brien wrote:

> I'm surprised that of all the Olivia QSOs I have logged there are only
> 5 verified via LOTW
>
>
>

I think I can understand why.  Why does it have to be so complicated to 
get a cert with lotw?

Chuck, aa5j

PS  I am debating whether or not it is more trouble than it is worth, 
since I do not chase dx.

Re: [digitalradio] New to PSK31 - advice please ??

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

> Adrian,
>  


I googled "optoisolators Ireland" and Radionics Ireland has them in stock.

73, Chuck, AA5J

[digitalradio] Re: SSB mixed with Mixw output?

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

UH-OH! There I go again, barking up the wrong tree.  The culprit was the 
"Trial" VAC 4.03 software used to interface Mixw to the SDR-1000. I am 
still dissapointed that an apparently unadvertised  software trap caused 
me to transmit SSB on a non-SSB frequency, even if it was for a very 
short transmission.  When I saw the SSB-wide signal in the PowerSDR 
display along with the BPSK31 signal, it didn't take me but a couple 
seconds to realize that "sumpin's wrong" and shut down.  You should have 
seen me scrambling for the ESC key!

Sorry for the wasted bandwidth.

73, Chuck AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] Digital havoc with devices in car

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Brett Owen Rees VK2TMG wrote:

> Hi Chuck,
>
> The attachment worked ok here for me. The sound seems to be saying 
> 'trial' in a female voice. It sounds like a piece of applications 
> software or your driver is doing this. Have you tried killing off 
> processes using task manager to see if you can isolate what is causing 
> it?
>
> 73,
> Brett
>
>
> -- 
> ===
> Brett Rees VK2TMG
> http://lisp.homeunix.net 
>
> 
>
>
>
Brett,
I think it must be encoded in the "Trial" software somewhere.  I hope it 
will not say "Full" every four seconds if I buy the "Full" version. Hmm?
What software does everyone use for digital?

73, Chuck AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] SSB mixed with Mixw output?

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Robert Chudek - KØRC wrote:

> Chuck,
>  
> Well even with the new email header, the voice is still saying 
> "Trial"... "Trial"...  ;-)
>  
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
>  
>  
>
>     - Original Message -
> *From:* Chuck Mayfield - AA5J <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:09 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] SSB mixed with Mixw output?
>
> Sorry all. I should have changed the subject line on my last.
>
> I recently downloaded and installed MixW2.17. The problem I am having
> is an USB audio burst that appears periodically in (apparently)
> both the
> received and transmitted audio approximately once each four seconds. I
> disconnected from the sound card and from the radio and recorded a
> sample into a wav file. Can anyone help me with this problem? I
> attached the sample, but am not sure it will accompany this message.
>
> 73, Chuck AA5J
>
> 
>
>
>HEE hee I thought it was say ing trash trash trash...
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] Digital havoc with devices in car

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Robert Chudek - KØRC wrote:


Chuck,
 
I will venture a guess you are using a trial version of the software 
because that is what I am hearing the voice say in the file you posted.
 
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
 
 


- Original Message -
*From:* Chuck Mayfield - AA5J <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:48 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Digital havoc with devices in car

I recently downloaded and installed MixW2.17. The problem I am having
is an USB audio burst that appears periodically in (apparently)
both the
received and transmitted audio approximately once each four
seconds. I
disconnected from the sound card and from the radio and recorded a
sample into a wav file. Can anyone help me with this problem? I
attached the sample, but am not sure it will accompany this message.

73, Chuck AA5J





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/604 - Release Date: 12/26/2006 
12:23 PM
 

Thanks, Bob.  You are exactly correct!  I thought I could at least *try* 
the "trial version" legally, but I guess I sprung a booby trap!  Drats! 
The web page said I should try the trial version before I buy the full 
version.

Do I really want to buy Mixw

73, Chuck

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

It seems to me that the IARU Region 2 bandplan should at least be 
consulted as part of the subject process..
See http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_HF_Band_Plan.html.

73 de AA5J

Danny Douglas wrote:

> As to the 160 meter band, I was taken aback by your comment about 
> operating
> digital outside of 1800- 1810 bandplan. Bandplans are arbitary and 
> there is
> NO force of law in them as far as I know- and are voluntary. Now - 
> subbands
> ARE of course the mandantory rules and are the subject of last weeks 
> changes
> in separating modes. The chart, put out just last week, of US Amateur 
> Bands
> shows the 160 band with NO partition at all, and indeed over in the Key,
> says of 160:
> "CW,RTTY,DATA, PHONE, IMAGE" The only note of distinction in this whole
> band comments that "amateurs operating from 1900-2000 khz must not cause
> harmful inteference to the radiolocation service and are afforded no
> protection from radiolocation operators"
>
> Where did you get the information that digital MUST stay within the 
> first 10
> kc. I would say there must be something wrong with that, or the chart the
> ARRL has supplied is incorrect, but I have other charts showing the same
> thing. That would be interesting, as I have been using PSK in several
> places on the band, but never below about 1.840, for a couple of years
> without any squwak from the FCC, or anyone else.
>
> As to 20 meters, you are correct that the majority of RTTY appears to be
> above 14080, but I have heard it as low as 14.074 on non-contest QSOs. 
> Give
> a contest and people go wild and you hear RTTY as low as 14.010, which is
> really irritating to a CW op. Most all of the PSK I have worked (128
> countries to date) have been on 20 meters, and all of it within the
> 14.069-14.073 bandwidth. The other digital modes have all been around
> 14.065 - 14.070. This is the reason I was recommending the lower side of
> PSK rather than just above it. I havent called CQ on the other modes, 
> above
> the PSK area, but typically when I have answered others they are below it.
> Right now, with such poor conditions I am hearing no digital signals 
> at all
> on 20. I have worked few digital stations (other than RTTY) on 15-10 so
> dont know how those separate out. Also have not been digitally active 
> on 80
> or 40 all that much either. Mostly, I look for DX and those dont afford me
> "new ones" very often. The 160 meter band is an exception there, as I
> figure that "new ones" should be easier on PSK than SSB or even CW- but so
> far that has not been the case, for really long distance ops. I just dont
> think enough people are using the band with PSK or other new digital 
> modes.
>
> Your last comment: " Perhaps it would not incur the wrath of the FCC if we
> operated
> > voice and then also transmitted data and fax and image in between voice
> > transmissions, but do it in the voice/image part of the band?"
> would appear to be exactly what we should be doing. It would keep the 
> voice
> part out of the lower piece of the band and
> place both it and the images together - and as per my above - is totally
> legal according to the charts. I was hoping that would be what we 
> would see
> on the other bands as well, but guess that is still not to be.
>
> Danny Douglas N7DC
> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
> DX 2-6 years each
> .
> QSL LOTW-buro- direct
> As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
> use that - also pls upload to LOTW
> or hard card.
>
> moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
>
> 
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: 12/20/2006 
>3:54 PM
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] 10 Khz signal

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

Robert McGwier wrote:

> Is it heard at night? Then I am going to guess that it is digital
> radio mondial broadcast.
>
> Bob
> N4HY
>
> Chuck Mayfield - AA5J wrote:
> > What is the signal that occupies 3990 to 4000?
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
> TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
> "If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the
> corridor in the other direction. " - Dietrich Bonhoffer
>
> 
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: 12/20/2006 
>3:54 PM
>  
>
Yes. it is ther now as we speak...

[digitalradio] 10 Khz signal

[Chuck Mayfield - AA5J]

What is the signal that occupies 3990 to 4000?