[digitalradio] Re: DominoEX On VHF FM
How will RMS Express running WINMOR in either SSB mode or FM mode fit in between this comparisons? Can even be adjusted to run through repeaters. Can run Peer to Peer or to a WInlink RMS WINMOR. I am looking forward to learning about pros an cons. 73 de la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY wrote: > > Dave, > > I forgot to point out that we use Contestia 64/1000 on SSB, not FM, for > that 200 mile path. When using FM, DominoEx works just as well, but of > course, the overall range is less on FM. Essentially, if you can work a > VHF or UHF station on SSB phone, you can work the same station on FM > using DominoEx 4 (the most sensitive DominoEx variation). This was the > subject of my presentation to the Southeastern VHF Society in April of > last year, and we have since proven that over and over again. The > difference is that the "data" rate of DominoEx 4 compared to SSB phone > is much slower (assuming an average speaking speed of 200 wpm). However, > on tropospheric scatter UHF paths, DominoEx does not survive at all and > only Contestia or Olivia (half the speed of Contestia) get through, when > even moderately strong SSB phone signals are so distorted by Doppler > spreading that they are not understandable. This is true on probably 80% > of our morning schedules on 432 MHz over 200 mile paths when there is no > propagation enhancement. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > On 7/19/2010 8:35 PM, KB3FXI wrote: > > > > Interesting suggestions, Skip. > > > > We're hoping to be installing UHF and VHF vertical yagi's at the > > Skyview Radio Society before winter sets in. I'll be sure to do some > > weak signal work with the DominoEx 8 as you suggest. > > > > -Dave, KB3FXI > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, KH6TY wrote: > > > > > > The reason to use DominoEx is only for FM DX communications. It is > > > slower than MT63, but much more sensitive, so you still get good copy > > > way below limiting and quieting. For that reason, on our local FM > > > digital net, we use DominoEx 8 and with horizontally polarized > > antennas, > > > include everyone in a range of 35 miles. > > > > > > I suggest trying MT63-2000, and if some stations cannot copy, drop down > > > in speed to MT63-1000, and if necessary, drop down to MT63-500. Then if > > > you still have problems with some stations not copying, go to > > DominoEx 8. > > > > > > If any station is below limiting, which is quite possible at 25 miles > > > using low verticals, MT63 may not work. > > > > > > On UHF, where Doppler shift and Doppler spreading is a major problem > > > with SSB voice, we use Contestia 64-1000, which works very well on 200 > > > miles paths. > > > > > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > > > On 7/19/2010 7:58 PM, KB3FXI wrote: > > > > > > > > Jon, > > > > > > > > Here in WPA we've adopted MT63 2k long (64 bit) interleave as our > > > > standard. The mode is very wide (2000hz) but fits very nicely inside > > > > the typical FM transceiver and repeater audio passbands. > > > > > > > > Here's some of the big advantages of MT63 2k long on FM: > > > > > > > > -Massive amount of FEC (forward error correction) and interleaving > > > > provides perfect copy, even under horrendous simplex conditions and > > > > weak signals into repeaters (it even barrels through short drop-outs > > > > and heavy noise with weak stations into our local UHF repeater) > > > > > > > > -There's no need to have to tune on the waterfall as all MT63 > > submodes > > > > in FLDIGI are fixed at a bottom waterfall frequency of 500hz (2k long > > > > goes from 500 - 2500 on the waterfall) > > > > > > > > -WPM rate is about 200wpm > > > > > > > > -Works fine using only a hand mic on the computer speaker and the > > > > computer mic somewhere in the vicinity of the received audio from the > > > > transceiver > > > > > > > > We run over UHF/VHF traditional voice repeaters and simplex > > > > frequencies with great success on our net every week... even with > > > > first time users. > > > > > > > > Please give it a shot and let us know how you make out. Also, make > > > > sure your ops do a proper sound card calibration. You only have to do > > > > this once
[digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
Wow Steinar. This really tells the true story about your (and mine) love for RTTY (stoneage/museum,power wasting,polluting KW) KAANTEST MODE. TTY was created for cables, not radio, I believe. Hi. la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland wrote: > > > Despite the massive criticism, this fascinating ROS guy has now released > a new version of his software. > > http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ > > Sorry Buddy, but I have to admit, I find ROS more interesting than > anachronistic contest mode like RTTY. > > la5vna Steinar > > > > > > > > > > > On 14.07.2010 22:59, F.R. Ashley wrote: > > Whats so dang fantastic about ROS anyway, that it deserves pages and > pages > > of emails about it? Remember that other new digital mode a few months > ago, > > and how great it was, or have you forgotten abouit it already? > > > > 73 Buddy WB4M > > RTTY forever > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Steinar Aanesland" > > To: "* Digitalradio" ; "* > ROSDIGITALMODEMGROU" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:45 PM > > Subject: [digitalradio] ROS Returns > > > > > >> ROS v4.7.0 Beta is out.. > >> > >> http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ > >> > >> S > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html > >> Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit) > >> > >> Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 > >> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Excactly!. But this also is an inherent possiblility/advantage running PACTOR 1, in FSK mode both ARQ and PACTOR FEC mode. And the Fec mode, defaulted with 2 repeats, can at the cost of speed be increased to 5 to increase robustnes. An extra advantage is fully 8bit information both in ARQ and Fec modes. The special IC 706 350hz narrow filter proved to be ideal for the porpose, even running 300baud GTOR FSK. I was surprised, testing both 500hz and 350hz. But of course you needed to be "right on target". WHY HASNT THIS BEEN USED MORE ALL THESE YEARS before you could "move filters" around in LSB and USB modes? Just a question. 73 de la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" wrote: > > The advantage of using FSK is that one can take advantage of the excellent > RTTY filters built into some transceivers. These filters are generally not > available when operating in USB/LSB. This is particularly important to > contesters operating in a crowded environment and DXers dealing with weak > signals. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, 8P9RY > > > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On > Behalf Of g4ilo > Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:54 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part > 97 > > > > > > It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a > shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY. > > Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the > reason why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist > on actually FSK-ing their radios instead of using AFSK, even though it means > they have to accurately tune in every signal instead of just clicking on a > waterfall, which would surely be quicker. > > Julian, G4ILO > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> > , KH6TY wrote: > > > > The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more > > efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters > > to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, > > because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall > > time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as > > PSK31), which is considered too slow for "RTTY" contesting, but I don't > > understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 > > for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little > > interest and few comments. > > > > 73 - Skip KH6TY > > >
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Based on a lot of testing abt 90s with som fellow hams using KAM (e+) we found Gtor making good speed when good conds. But pactor1 proved more robust. 80m during night. The most easy mode to make a link with again and again was AMTOR, because of its very short call. But plenty of errors during an ongoing link. Pactor1 was a bit more difficult to achieve a link with. But off course 100% correct, and fully 8 bit comm, as long as it worked. Working 100 and 200b. Gtor was much more difficult to start a link during bad conds. The call burst was very long. Pactor1 always won the race creating a link. Gtor didnt work so well during bad conds "twisting multipath" as advertized. But was very effective indeed during daytime. Often running 300b. One could set parameters for how long the link should hang on during deep and long QSBs. We often did test towards a counter station in "TOR" mode with its internal PBBS activated. Worked like the receiving station accepted call in either amtor, pactor1 or gtor. Distances Oslo Stavanger, (Southeast to southwest, and to Valdres (abt middle of south Norway). (Later also pure pactor1 link from Oslo to Svalbard (Hopen) on 20m for 1/2year. Pactor1 80 night Oslo to Lofoten (North Norway). Pactor2 40 night Oslo to North Cape most north of Norway.) But this was irrelevant to GTOR, no comparison between modes. One could very well achieve a GTOR 300b link with narrow 500hz filter and FSK 170hz shift. (Even 350hz Icom filter obvious not very sharp edged). Recommended shift was 200. Gtor was good for file transfers under good conds, "unneccessary quick for keyboard qsos", but pactor1 better for qsos, under worse conds. One couldnt type quicker than pactor1 worked. It was a pity that this mode became so quickly outperformed by Pactor2. Both modes held proprietary. Maybe a combination of GTOR and PACTOR2 could have been interesting all these years. Starting the negotiaton with the short PACTOR1 bursts. All narrow band. Today I wonder how comparison between WINMOR 500hz and GTOR would show up. I am glad that Gtor obviously has been given free. Maybe something for BPQ32? 73 de la7um Finn. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "graham787" wrote: > > Stiner .. will try again wed night , for soem reason I have to select 3 as > the audio in to the prog . could see a signal +/- 1700 on speclab , 15 > db over noise .. also one signal was quite wide ? > > 73 - Graham . > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland wrote: > > > > > > 3586 > > > > > > >
[digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
The greatest danger for Ham Radio is turning it into a Museum. From 100years ago it was an important part of tecnology development, and starters of Broadcasters. Since the age of PC most youngsters dived into PC - Internet- Cellphones- so called Social forums etc. We need to go on developing and experimenting or the hobby will die. Digital modes is maybe the most important part of this. Look to TV and Radio. They are going digital and are now ahead of us. History looks like driving a car with breaks on. CW-AM-RTTY-SSB-AMTOR-PACTOR1, 2, 3 Packet, FS forward kompression B0 B1, Winlink B2F All the newer sound card modes. D-Star. etc Always a discussion, is the "new stuff" legal or not. Difficult to "listen" with only the old gear. Off course no encryptions. Protocolls open, or easy to get listening equipment. No one is arguing against that. The Dansish ham radio organization has a good name: (translated) Experimenting Danish Radioamateurs. EDR. This should be what the rest of us aim for as well. Keep on the good work for development and experimentation. 73 de la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jose alberto nieto ros wrote: > > This is very simple. Chip64 is SS, however there is not problems with > anybody, because people dont  go propagating by all forums "hey, is > illegal, is illegal" > > I think some people must thing in improve the Ham Radio, instead of want to > be noticed from the beginning saying is illegal. > From now on, anyone who thinks that ROS is illegal, say to me, because I am > going to create a filter that people without autorithation tu use the > software. > > > De: W2XJ > Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 02:48 > Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response > >  > Agreed, the more letters to the FCC the more problems for amateur radio. > > > If someone sent a letter to the FCC about Chip64 they would get the same > response that the FCC gave for ROS. The FCC only gets involved when someone > complains. I think that they would love to have simpler and less restrictive > rules to enforce. It's the public that opposes the removal of restrictions > that they beleive favor their group. > > 73, > > John > KD6OZH > > > > >- Original Message - > > > >From:  jose alberto  nieto ros <mailto:nietorosdj@ yahoo.es>  > > > >To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com  > > > >Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:02  UTC > > > >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC  request and response > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > >That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?. > > Then what are we discuss? > > > > > > > > > > > De:silversmj > >Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com > >Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010  01:46 > >Asunto: [digitalradio]  Re: ROS . FCC request and response > > > >   > > > > > >Greetings All, > > > >Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations  should cease Chip64 > >emissions as it is described using SS, see > >http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation  s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf > ><http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf> > >(Note: ARRL) > > > >Someone should mention this  to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently > >run a Net using Chip64,  see > >http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option=  com_content& view=article& > >id=88&Itemid= 95 <http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= > >com_content&view=article&id=88&Itemid=95> > >(Also note:  ARRL) > > > >I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun  and > >interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a > > little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. > > > >As was mentioned before by an  individual, it is easy for the for > >bureaucrats/ authorities to just say "no",  especially if they already have > >a busy day and don't want to say they need  more information. > > > >73 & GL de Mike  KB6WFC > > > > > > > > > > >    > > > > > From: "John B. Stephensen" > Reply-To: > Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:16:22 - > To: > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response > >  >  >  >    > >  >
[digitalradio] weather cathastrophe and Burma/winlink?
Hi group. I am a totally newbie here in this group. Just approved. Now I wonder if WL2K is in action in the BURMA region, as I have read that the system was during the Tsunami in Thailand region and Kathrina. I guess that any type of pactor would work.better than nothingeven if pactor 2 are told to have better througput under bad conds, in addition to higher speed under good conds. Anybody knowing? Or maybe foolish to ask that early. I feel it is a matter of great interest with the increasing amount of huge weather catastrophes around the world these coming times. 73 de la7um Finn
