Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400
If you want to know which COM ports are installed on your computer and/or where they are located just let me know - simple C++ code which supports COM1 to COM255. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: "Steve Hajducek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I squeezed out support for com ports 1 through 16, older version were > com 1 through 9. The limitation is imposed by the Microsoft > supplied comm driver for the C++ compiler. >
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400
Steve Hajducek wrote: Hi Kevin, I squeezed out support for com ports 1 through 16, older version were com 1 through 9. The limitation is imposed by the Microsoft supplied comm driver for the C++ compiler. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 06:25 PM 12/11/2007, you wrote: pcale 1.062H will only allow CAT control via COM1 and COM2. My 062H definitely would not cat on com3. How can that driver limitation be overcome in the ordinary current computers? Kevin VK5OA
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400
Hi Kevin, I squeezed out support for com ports 1 through 16, older version were com 1 through 9. The limitation is imposed by the Microsoft supplied comm driver for the C++ compiler. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 06:25 PM 12/11/2007, you wrote: >pcale 1.062H will only allow CAT control via COM1 and COM2.
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400
Steve Hajducek wrote: > Hi John, > > If you are using PC-ALE 1.062H ( the latest build being #5) I can not > imagine why you are having any issues with your TS-480SAT if the CAT > control of radio works otherwise with any other software. > pcale 1.062H will only allow CAT control via COM1 and COM2. I just about went batty trying to get it to work for me, when every other digital program that I have (and that is plenty), worked fine. I had been using Com1 for PTT and Com3 (a PCI card) for CAT. I reversed those functions and all ok even with PCALE. I had to of course, reset my other digital programs accordingly. After all that, I never use PCALE because for what I am doing, I find Multipsk much better. Kevin VK5OA
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400 ?
> Patrick, > > It is my understanding that 7040 in the US and 7035 in Europe are both QRP > watering spots where many are using crystal control, low power, and cannot > relocate. Is ALE400 at 7037.5 going to straddle both of those frequencies? No, it will not. My mistake! I was thinking about 4000 Hz wide, not 400 Hz wide ALE. Please disregard. Skip
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400 ?
Patrick, It is my understanding that 7040 in the US and 7035 in Europe are both QRP watering spots where many are using crystal control, low power, and cannot relocate. Is ALE400 at 7037.5 going to straddle both of those frequencies? >Hereafter is a non exhaustive list of the ALE400 frequencies (proposed by >Bonnie): >1837.0, 3589.0, 7037.5, 10141.5, 14074.0, 14094.0, 18104.5, 21094.0, >24926.0, 28146.0, 50162.5, 144162.5 (AF at 1625 Hz). >The complete list of frequencies is on "http://hflink.com/ale400";. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400
Good comments and questions, John, Although I was removed by Bonnie from the HFLink group for questioning some of the ethics of the way things are being done, and her overwhelming anger that someone might dare ask the FCC to rule on this, I still feel that ALE modes may have some useful attributes on the ham bands. The wide mode (perhaps 141A might be a better descriptor) is not very sensitive compared to the newer technology such as PSK31 or especially MFSK16, but the narrow ALE mode is much better and competitive with PSK31 at least. PC-ALE is a nice stand alone piece of software. It took a huge effort for me, but I was able to eventually test it with my ICOM 756 Pro 2 once they had properly functioning software. From what I understand there seems to be no interest in adding the 400 mode. The overall purpose of ALE is several fold. The primary purpose was to develop a way for non-technical users to find a path open between two stations. Some may find this useful for propagation, but many of us who have years of experience pretty much know what bands are open at a given time. So that use is limited. But ALE can be used as a annunciation to signal other stations, or groups of stations, that you wish to contact them. You could scan some frequencies of your choosing and the station on the other end can call you with the proper SELCAL, not unlike we did with RTTY decades ago. For stations that are closer in, you might even find it useful to park on a given NVIS frequency and be on standby without having your rig audio. Then when you receive a connection, it will beep your computer and a message could be left. Normally, you would need to maintain control operator status to operate legally and not leave it unattended. I agree that I have not really heard many messages being sent. When I was on the HFLinkNet group (a further subset of Bonnie's), we were not even allowed to discuss anything we saw on that group with other hams or we would be removed from the group. Needless to say, I found this unacceptable and left the group. But I will reveal that they were begging for people to send SMS Messages to at least test their system. I was probably one of the few who actually used it! And it can work. Not in a practical manner yet, but perhaps someday if it could handle e-mail for casual use. I would not recommend building this into your emergency plans except as a back up to other more robust approaches. But considering that it may be able to work with sound cards on Windows OS, I believe that it has value. When you make a connection and are in the text digital area, you can then send some of the short messages back and forth, which I admit is very cumbersome and not a practical activity for most digital hams. There may be a way to connect via ARQ messaging although I never found anyone to do that kind of testing. You can also switch to another mode after using ALE for initiating the connection. In fact, my suggestion is that we could use 141ALE on the voice frequencies. It is matched up well for the wider bandwidth of voice and is completely legal to use for signaling. It is not legal to send text messages back and forth on the voice frequencies however, so caution needs to be applied. Since 141A is not that robust a mode, and either is SSB voice, they tend to complement each other. The FAE 400 mode, is spectacular for keyboarding. Once you are connected, you have no over command. Just type and the computers/rigs take care of the details to get an error free message through. It is almost exactly the way Clover II worked in the past except it is free! And it seems to work better than Clover II. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: > > I agree that we have all had a great time fooling with the mode, and > VE5TLW and myself have been using > > ALE400, together with Outlook express to pass messages, both ALE 400 > and 141A. It is a terrific piece of software and bodes well for the > future. In the next few days we will have this software set up at an > Emergency Operations Center (EOC) , running 24/7 with the added > feature of being able to remotely access the desktop , to maintain the > software and further experiment with it. Call is VE5GPM. > > I am not a fan of PCALE , for a couple of reasons, not the least of > which, given that I am reasonably bright, not being able to get it > running with my TS480SAT. From what I can see so far, it scans really > well , but have no idea of how well it would pass messages. Is there > two different versions of PCALE, one that we find on the ham bands and > one used for MARS operations? And what are the differences? > > Is the intention with PCALE to establish which band/frequency has the > best path and then use another mode for passing traffic? In all my > listening to ALE frequencies I have not heard any PCALE message > traffic, just lots of soundings. > > I’m certainly up for nets and further work with ALE
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400
Hi John, If you are using PC-ALE 1.062H ( the latest build being #5) I can not imagine why you are having any issues with your TS-480SAT if the CAT control of radio works otherwise with any other software. All you need to do is select either KENWOOD or if using CTS/RTS handshaking, KENWOOD_HS to begin with. If your radio is setup to use the long standing 4800 baud for Kenwood radios for backward compatibility with older software tools, then that is all you need to do aside from selecting the com port for Radio CAT and your PTT interface choice. If you are using higher then 4800 baud, then you need to click the "Radio Port" button next to the Radio Type selection and configure for the RS-232 port parameters that you are using. Upon proper setup, shutdown and restart PC-ALE, if should come up and tell what Kenwood model you are using from the radio ID, if for some reason it can't, it will state UNKNOWN and treat the radio as the newest Kenwood model the software knows about, which just happens to be the TS-480. MARS-ALE is a based on PC-ALE to meet the needs of MARS operations and differs from PC-ALE in many ways. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 01:05 PM 12/11/2007, you wrote: > >I am not a fan of PCALE , for a couple of reasons, not the least of >which, given that I am reasonably bright, not being able to get it >running with my TS480SAT. From what I can see so far, it scans >really well , but have no idea of how well it would pass messages. >Is there two different versions of PCALE, one that we find on the >ham bands and one used for MARS operations? And what are the differences?
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400
I agree - if ALE400 is to take off then we need an open source set of C++ classes which can be used by other programs. The most commonly used modes have good source available, this is no coincidence. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I personally think the ALE400 FAE ARQ submode is a very worthwhile > development and an acknowledgment of the genius of the inventor Patrick > Lindecker. I would love to see it in a stand alone "simplex" version - > perhaps an "Easy ALE" mode developed along an open source approach and > incorporated into other software eg FLDigi, DM780 and MixW. >
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400 ?
Hello Andy, Hereafter is a non exhaustive list of the ALE400 frequencies (proposed by Bonnie): 1837.0, 3589.0, 7037.5, 10141.5, 14074.0, 14094.0, 18104.5, 21094.0, 24926.0, 28146.0, 50162.5, 144162.5 (AF at 1625 Hz). The complete list of frequencies is on "http://hflink.com/ale400";. So for 40, 30, and 20M, it would be 7037.5, 10141.5, 14074.0. These frequencies must be entered in the "Options" window, for an automatic scan. Note: the features are the same in ALE and ALE400 (which is strictly an ALE at 50 bauds with 50 Hz between carriers). About open source of ALE or ALE400 and ARQ/FAE: There is no open source but the specifications are public. The only difficult point of ALE/ALE400 was the CRC calculation (DTM/DBM) which is very fuzzy in the specifications. I have supplied my code about this CRC calculation (HFLINK and Multipsk Yahoo group) so that the programmation of these modes is normally no so difficult (and it can be answered to questions in the HFLINK group) . 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: DIGITALRADIO Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 3:27 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400 ? I think many people have had time to experiment with ALE 400 in ARQ mode and the feedback about the throughput has been very good. Most people have connected via arranged contacts and the use of the K3UK sked page . Several people have suggested this mode is so effective that it might be useful in emergency communication situations. So, I think it is time to seriously test ALE400 under something more elaborate than arranged contacts and keyboard chats. I have made not secret of the fact that I think the PC-ALE software has the best capabilities of any other digital software when it comes to locating other stations. The sounding , scan, pause, decode and resume , ability of PC-ALE is amazing. For ALE400 to be useful it must be able to do some of what standard ALE via PC-ALE can do. Since Bonnie has suggested that ALE 400 should not share suggested standard amateur ALE channels, is it not time for ALE 400 users to develop a few suggested sounding and net channels? Perhaps just three, 40, 30, and 20M and begin occasional scans. Should the ALE 400 community also develop a NET CALL protocol and also establish a weekly net? I think the initial experiments have been conducted very well, time to move to the next level and see if ALE400 has any future beyond a geek plaything :>) -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400
My 2 cents/pence/yen worth: I think one of the biggest drawbacks to the ALE modes in Amateur use is the complexity and bewildering number of options, calling methods and messaging types. It's just not going to gain any real traction without it being simple to use. PSK31 is the poster child for digimode communication. It needs to be as easy as that or it won't get a second look by most hams. I personally think the ALE400 FAE ARQ submode is a very worthwhile development and an acknowledgment of the genius of the inventor Patrick Lindecker. I would love to see it in a stand alone "simplex" version - perhaps an "Easy ALE" mode developed along an open source approach and incorporated into other software eg FLDigi, DM780 and MixW. This would give a farily narrow, sensitive and easy to operate ARQ mode which has been lacking on the Amateur bands since the "soundcard revolution". It should be as simple as Pactor or AMTOR to initiate a call. I also agree with Rick that the wide band version would probably be best suited for the voice portions. It just isn't compatible on many bands in the narrow digital areas. 73 Sholto KE7HPV. - Original Message - From: "John Bradley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:05 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400 > > > I agree that we have all had a great time fooling with the mode, and > VE5TLW > and myself have been using > > ALE400, together with Outlook express to pass messages, both ALE 400 and > 141A. It is a terrific piece of software and bodes well for the future. In > the next few days we will have this software set up at an Emergency > Operations Center (EOC) , running 24/7 with the added feature of being > able > to remotely access the desktop , to maintain the software and further > experiment with it. Call is VE5GPM. > > > > I am not a fan of PCALE , for a couple of reasons, not the least of which, > given that I am reasonably bright, not being able to get it running with > my > TS480SAT. From what I can see so far, it scans really well , but have no > idea of how well it would pass messages. Is there two different versions > of > PCALE, one that we find on the ham bands and one used for MARS operations? > And what are the differences? > > > > Is the intention with PCALE to establish which band/frequency has the best > path and then use another mode for passing traffic? In all my listening to > ALE frequencies I have not heard any PCALE message traffic, just lots of > soundings. > > > > I'm certainly up for nets and further work with ALE400, and side by side > comparisons to PCALE if I can ever get it to work. I'm also open to where > we > should part our EOC station on anything between 80 and 20M . As Canadians, > we have a bandwidth restriction on 30M to 1khz , which cuts out the use of > 141A there. > > > > Comments? > > > > John > > VE5MU > > > > > >
[digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400
I agree that we have all had a great time fooling with the mode, and VE5TLW and myself have been using ALE400, together with Outlook express to pass messages, both ALE 400 and 141A. It is a terrific piece of software and bodes well for the future. In the next few days we will have this software set up at an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) , running 24/7 with the added feature of being able to remotely access the desktop , to maintain the software and further experiment with it. Call is VE5GPM. I am not a fan of PCALE , for a couple of reasons, not the least of which, given that I am reasonably bright, not being able to get it running with my TS480SAT. From what I can see so far, it scans really well , but have no idea of how well it would pass messages. Is there two different versions of PCALE, one that we find on the ham bands and one used for MARS operations? And what are the differences? Is the intention with PCALE to establish which band/frequency has the best path and then use another mode for passing traffic? In all my listening to ALE frequencies I have not heard any PCALE message traffic, just lots of soundings. I'm certainly up for nets and further work with ALE400, and side by side comparisons to PCALE if I can ever get it to work. I'm also open to where we should part our EOC station on anything between 80 and 20M . As Canadians, we have a bandwidth restriction on 30M to 1khz , which cuts out the use of 141A there. Comments? John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400 ?
ALE 400 is a subset of wideband ALE, so wouldn't we expect even fewer participants? Even regular ALE has very little activity from what I and others have been able to measure on actual on the air use. Hams that use hardware embedded wideband ALE are not going to be using ALE 400 without a separate computer. While I do not recommend anyone buy such rigs due to the rapidly changing technology that can make such modes obsolete, there are probably only a handful of hams who have these kinds of rigs. But if hams stay on wideband ALE, then that reduces the practical use of ALE 400. Ironically, ALE 400 is very much better in performance than wideband ALE since it can work deeper into the noise. It has a much more appropriate footprint for use in the narrow text digital parts of the bands. The slower speed may be mitigated by the fact that it can work when wideband ALE does not get through at all. I would propose that wide band ALE should only be used in the wide bandwidth voice portions of the bands and ALE 400 be used in the narrower text digital portions. The last thing we want to see happening is someone operating on a 400 Hz wide mode and then switching suddenly to a 2000 + Hz mode and causing severe interference to other stations. My experience has been that 2000 Hz modes are difficult to place without causing problems in the shared service of amateur radio. I am not sure that there will be many of us operating ALE 400 (or wide band ALE) anyway. I know that I would have no interest in tying up my rig with scanning the bands since I can not be doing that and also operating my normal HF activities. When I have used the narrow 8FSK50 mode, it has almost only been on FAE 400, the ARQ version of ALE 400. Perhaps some of us envision using the FAE 400 mode to send error free data to other stations on HF and do it with a relatively narrow footprint available on a MS Windows computer using a soundcard. While there is an ARQ mode available on PSK with Linux OS, it does not seem to work very well when you compare it to the 8FSK50 waveform of FAE 400. What might be practical though, is to have some spot frequencies that we could use for ALE 400/FAE 400 calling and chatting? Since it is relatively narrow, perhaps up 5 kHz from the normal PSK31 frequencies? Since there seems to be a standard 1625 Hz center frequency, the "frequency" is the same as the dial frequency. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > I think many people have had time to experiment with ALE 400 in ARQ > mode and the feedback about the throughput has been very good. Most > people have connected via arranged contacts and the use of the K3UK > sked page . Several people have suggested this mode is so effective > that it might be useful in emergency communication situations. So, I > think it is time to seriously test ALE400 under something more > elaborate than arranged contacts and keyboard chats. > > I have made not secret of the fact that I think the PC-ALE software > has the best capabilities of any other digital software when it comes > to locating other stations. The sounding , scan, pause, decode and > resume , ability of PC-ALE is amazing. For ALE400 to be useful it > must be able to do some of what standard ALE via PC-ALE can do. > Since Bonnie has suggested that ALE 400 should not share suggested > standard amateur ALE channels, is it not time for ALE 400 users to > develop a few suggested sounding and net channels? Perhaps just > three, 40, 30, and 20M and begin occasional scans. Should the ALE > 400 community also develop a NET CALL protocol and also establish a > weekly net? > > I think the initial experiments have been conducted very well, time to > move to the next level and see if ALE400 has any future beyond a geek > plaything :>) > >
Re: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400 ?
I concur. KF4IN - Original Message From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: DIGITALRADIO Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 9:27:27 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400 ? I think many people have had time to experiment with ALE 400 in ARQ mode and the feedback about the throughput has been very good. Most peop
[digitalradio] Time to do something real with ALE400 ?
I think many people have had time to experiment with ALE 400 in ARQ mode and the feedback about the throughput has been very good. Most people have connected via arranged contacts and the use of the K3UK sked page . Several people have suggested this mode is so effective that it might be useful in emergency communication situations. So, I think it is time to seriously test ALE400 under something more elaborate than arranged contacts and keyboard chats. I have made not secret of the fact that I think the PC-ALE software has the best capabilities of any other digital software when it comes to locating other stations. The sounding , scan, pause, decode and resume , ability of PC-ALE is amazing. For ALE400 to be useful it must be able to do some of what standard ALE via PC-ALE can do. Since Bonnie has suggested that ALE 400 should not share suggested standard amateur ALE channels, is it not time for ALE 400 users to develop a few suggested sounding and net channels? Perhaps just three, 40, 30, and 20M and begin occasional scans. Should the ALE 400 community also develop a NET CALL protocol and also establish a weekly net? I think the initial experiments have been conducted very well, time to move to the next level and see if ALE400 has any future beyond a geek plaything :>) -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
