[digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k4cjx k4...@... wrote: Amazing that one thinks that 1 percent can cause any type of difference, anywhere, especially on the Phone bands. Regulation by bandwidth and not by mode seems to be working everywhere that it is allowed. under a bandwidth regulatory environment, there is no phone band. BTW, it wasn't winlink that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future. Steve, k4cjx, aaa9ac So you think 1% transmitting on your frequency without listening systematically would be ok? Actually it was winlink advocates that pressed for the rightfully doomed proposal. And I think I remember a certain person advocating sending boilerplate comments to the FCC in support of this. To the original post, ROS seems overly wide for any perceived advantages it offers; unless you have information to the contrary. 73, Bill N9DSJ
[digitalradio] Re: Question on bandwidth on HF
Which mode within the WSJT8 Suite? Bill N9DSJ
[digitalradio] Re: Question on bandwidth on HF (n9dsj)
Hi Russell, Not sure (I am not the lawyer in my family:) but suspect due to its signal rate it is legal. I asked the question on the HF JT65 board but no definitive response. ISCAT is 23 baud at 1500 Hz and JTMS is 1500 bps and the bandwidth 2250 Hz. You are correct that it may be more of an issue as to where in the band you were transmitting more so than the legality of its usage. I am not sure of the advantage of ISCAT on HF, aside from perhaps on a scatter path to 10/12 meters and it is down 10 dB or so in sensitivity from JT65/JT8/JT2/JT4 modes; albeit uses a 30 second sequence like JT6M. I have only previously seen it used on 6 meters and above. Of course some people simply do not like the wider modes in general, hence the inevitable controversy. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Russell Blair russell_blai...@... wrote: Bill, Tnx for the responce to my question, I was running WSJT8 (ISCAT) on 14076 and I had a station tell me that that mode exceeded the bandwidth on HF, well after looking at the Doctumation its only 1.5K and looking at (Contestia, MT63 and Olivia) all can go up to 2K, So is ISCAT to wide? or was it I was just on the wrong part of 20m. Is it onlt to be used on 6m?. Russell NC5O Â 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 From: n9dsj n9...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 10:54:29 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Question on bandwidth on HF Â Which mode within the WSJT8 Suite? Bill N9DSJ
[digitalradio] Re: Question on bandwidth on HF (n9dsj)
Yes, it is why I included its specification and mentioned signal rate :) I have never heard JTMS on HF, btw.. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Sparks dspa...@... wrote: JTMS is 1500 BPS? Could it exceed the 300 baud limit on a single carrier, like PSK500 does? That wouldn't strictly be a B/W issue, but it would be a rule violation on HF. -- Dave Sparks -- AF6AS - Original Message - From: n9dsj n9...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Question on bandwidth on HF (n9dsj) Hi Russell, Not sure (I am not the lawyer in my family:) but suspect due to its signal rate it is legal. I asked the question on the HF JT65 board but no definitive response. ISCAT is 23 baud at 1500 Hz and JTMS is 1500 bps and the bandwidth 2250 Hz. You are correct that it may be more of an issue as to where in the band you were transmitting more so than the legality of its usage. I am not sure of the advantage of ISCAT on HF, aside from perhaps on a scatter path to 10/12 meters and it is down 10 dB or so in sensitivity from JT65/JT8/JT2/JT4 modes; albeit uses a 30 second sequence like JT6M. I have only previously seen it used on 6 meters and above. Of course some people simply do not like the wider modes in general, hence the inevitable controversy. 73, Bill N9DSJ
[digitalradio] Re: jt65-hf on 6m ?
Usually 50.290 but other freqs are used; pingjockey jt65 page is a good place to sked/coordinate. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Russell Blair russell_blai...@... wrote: What frequency is being used for 6m jt65-hf, got my 6m ground plain up and looking to get on 6m..? what frequency Russell NC5O 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198
[digitalradio] Re: BPQ32/MultiPSK experiment
Listening AF centered at 1400 psk250 ax25 packet; 14.106 dial, can hook to BPQ32 via kiss mode but need to play with it more to make sure it actually works aside from across my desk. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sho...@... wrote: Ian, Sorry it was 14.106 USB so the cursor was +1250Hz. As it happens I couldn't get it to work after all. BPQ would beacon (and MultiPSK would transmit OK) but for some reason an incoming connect wasn't answered. BPQ would try to answer but MultiPSK didn't transmit in that case. With PAX it was even worse, it didn't transmit in that case at all. It might be some config error, after all it was using MultiPSK in KISS mode attached to a virtual serial port which was hooked into AGWPE and finally controlled by BPQ32. Sholto --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Ian Wade G3NRW g3nrw@ wrote: From: sholtofish sholto@ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 Time: 23:09:24 If anyone is around, I'm running a NETROM node (BPQ32) via MultiPSK in PSK-Packet 250. Freq is 14.106MHz with the cursor at 1250Hz. Is that 14.106 + 1250Hz, or - 1250Hz? -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
[digitalradio] Re: ALE 400 coming out of the woodwork
I used ALE400 once :) --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Hey folks, MULTIPLE ALE 400 QSO on 20M at same time this morning, many new operators thanks to Tony's great work. I just maintained easy links with Texas and Chicago over fairly poor conditions, for a LONG time. Also got some mail, first mail I have received via ALE 400 in a couple of years (other than from Tony!). Most of the action is around 14073 USB. Some hopefully those of us that have used the mode before can help the new folks out by being QRV. Patrick, This article could be a real boost to you very creative application. And
[digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Andy, The issue for me has less to do with bandwidth than operating methodology. The same problems exist independent of bandwidth; although wider bandwidth modes certainly exasperate the situation. I agree that Winlink servers scanning multiple frequencies is a poor use of limited frequency allocations. Regardless of the mode and/or bandwidth, the issue appears to be that of transmitting on a frequency already in use. While manual operators certainly do this, at least the they have control over it; unlike bots with mode specific busy detection or that feature disabled. I would certainly support a narrow bandwidth area *within the existing automatic sub-bands* for automatic operations; but not if it were allocated at the expense of non-automatic users. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Let me drill down on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the wide modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted unattended under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj n9...@... wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3ukandy@ wrote: Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ
[digitalradio] Re: evil Bonnie..
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:07 AM, kb2hsh kb2...@... wrote: I 110% agree with you there. Bonnie (yes, I'm not bashful about calling her out) controls ALE as if it were HERS. In my opinion, it's little more than a business for her...not only can you join HF-ALE, but you can also BUY MERCHANDISE. John, Bonnie's group may sell merchandise but she has other successful businesses, so I doubt this is her motive. Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ
[digitalradio] Re: Another plug for JT65A ... the spectrum efficient mode
Thanks Andy, And here I thought it was my superior receive capability :) Actually that was about the limit of resolution as I had the multi decoder spacing at 20 Hz. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: I know many are already aware of this, but take a look N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard N6TE(DM12) on 3576.23 KHz -8dB at 03:32:00Z using JT65A N9DSJ-1 (EN52ti) Heard K3UK(FN02) on 3575.99 KHz -5dB at 03:32:00Z using JT65A Bill N9DSJ decoded two stations within 24 Hz of each other, how is that for spectrum efficiency? I was transmitting 5 watts, Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: Dominoex revisited
Hi Andy, Mo idea, suspect it got lost to many in the mode-maze. I still use it from time to time; efficient, narrow and extremely tolerant of tuning error; works well in FM usage also... 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: It has been a few years since Dominoex was added to our tool box. I still see it on the air from time to time but not on a daily basis. I wonder why it is not used ? http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2005/domino_ex.htm
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Hi Jim, Actually CHIP worked ok, especially on the low bands. The Virginia NTS net used this and still may. I think the issues with CHIP, and perhaps ROS, have more to do with a strict definition of spread spectrum and frequency hopping then the reality of the mode. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jhaynesatalumni jhhay...@... wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh6ty@ wrote: I agree Dave, and Chip64 was abandoned over here on the same basis! I remember trying Chip64 without worrying about whether it was legal. I got the impression it was abandoned just because it didn't work very well compared to some of the other modes that came out about the same time. Jim W6JVE
[digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA
Is it? Look at the published technical specs and explain how it is Spread
Spectrum or frequency hopping other than by label.
73,
Bill, N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen kd6...@... wrote:
ROS is MFSK16 with frequency hopping so it is SS per the FCC definition as
the bandwidth is expanded.
{nipped}
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Is ROS actually a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode or more like CHIP? I have not seen any published modulation scheme/protocol specificaions so guessing. I certainly doubt the -35dB claim without even anecdotal evidence...otherwise for EME I now have a 10dB path margin :) 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum. 73 - Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Re: N9DSJ in ALE400 ARQ mode
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Hi Bill I copy your ID in Norway, but I am not able to connect :( 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Hi Steinar, Was hearing you fine on ALE400 but my receive was degraded by an over-driven Olivia station nearby. Your station did well. 73, Bill N9DSJ
