Rick...
> I got the impression in talking to the WinDRM
> users on 7173 SSTV group,
> that it worked with lower than +10 dB S/N. Maybe
> around 7 dB?
For what it's worth, I did some path simulator
tests with WinDRM and the SNR decode threshold
seemed to be around 8db. It was about 3 to 4db
l
>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was
forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but
it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we
in an a
Does the ARRL post, and seek comment, when they plan on seeking new rules?
I assume that posting their proposals for a 30 day comment period would help
spot heir errors.
Andy K3UK
On 3/23/07, John Champa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave,
1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney w
Dave,
1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was
forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but
it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we
in an adult conversation here, or what?
2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek
bro
Hi Tony,
I got the impression in talking to the WinDRM users on 7173 SSTV group,
that it worked with lower than +10 dB S/N. Maybe around 7 dB?
The older programs used the RDFT protocol which did require around +10,
and that is at least part of the reason for so rapidly abandoning RDFT
based so
1. The folks at Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper are unpaid volunteers?
2. One way to avoid such errors is to openly seeking broad review
beforehand; defects are less expensive (time, $) to correct sooner
than later.
The ARRL does a lot of things well, and deserve the appropriate
accolades. Howev
I was able to listen for a little bit when several stations were running
WinDRM tests in the past week, especially Jason, N1SU, and another
station who I heard fairly well on DV, but K0PFX was only copyable when
on analog SSB since he was too weak to decode.
The sample you have sounds pretty to
Do you ever want to see a vote of all members of the
arrl? or better yet all hams as to if they want this?
You know damn well if wide band gets going all other
modes will be squeezed out ... why do you think the
RTTY/CW guys are livid right now ?
how many ARRL members will be left after this mess
> Tony this is to low in the phone band for a lot
> of us.
Understand John -- just picked that frequency at
radom. It was BCI-free at that time ; ).
Send an e-mail next time and we'll QSY.
Tony KT2Q
Bruce,
Do you ALWAYS over-react, of is that just for this reflector? ;o)
John
Original Message Follows
From: bruce mallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300
symbols/s
I am somewhat relieved, if still confused about the language. Also, I am
certainly glad I never took up the law as a profession - the language used
is designed to confuse everyone else, and probably half the lawyers.
I am dead set against ANY automatic mode use of our bands during normal
operatio
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, bruce mallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This will be the end of ham radio .
Hi Bruce,
I heard that in 1967.
Bonnie KQ6XA
If you went LSB, wouldn't that keep General Class licensees from straying
below
the 40 meter cutoff frequency of 7.175? UH, I think I said that right.
Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN
- Original Message -
From: John Becker
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 10:48 A
This will be the end of ham radio .
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
It seems that one of the effects of ARRL's clarification of new
modifications to FCC proposal is to tear down the famous "300 symbols
per second" wall.
In place of that old wall, a new wall would be built:
A new 3kHz bandwidth limit for RTTY/data signals.
Prior to this, there was no bandwidth li
Tony this is to low in the phone band for a lot of us.
At 10:48 PM 3/22/2007, you wrote:
>All:
>
>I'm QRV digtial voice on 7176.0 USB. Any takers?
>It's 0400z.
>
>Tony KT2Q
> The only other known use for voice-bandwidth data modes is for image
> transfers,
> which can send an SSTV-size picture, with a very
> low error rate, in 30 seconds, using a bandwidth of 2400 Hz.
> the same image, at the
> same low error rate, can be sent in less than 2 minutes, using a
> bandw
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KT2Q <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> All:
>
> I'm QRV digtial voice on 7176.0 USB. Any takers?
> It's 0400z.
>
> Tony KT2Q
>
Sorry I missed you Tony.
Andy K3UK
18 matches
Mail list logo