[digitalradio] Re: New Mode proposal "Jamtor Iv"
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's true, but how do you propose to overcome it? Prohibit outboard > hardware? Set an upper bound on the sales price of outboard hardware? > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ The argument that onboard hardware is what is driving PTIII as a de facto encryption is specious at best. Any FPGA, or in the case of sound card/PC/Windows/Linux can do the trick, it's not that big a deal. PTIII is as far as I know, the only proprietary modulation scheme in use on Amateur Radio frequencies, now or ever. The answer is very simple, it should be baned from use on Amateur Frequencies until details are released to the public domain in sufficient detail to allow the development of decoding software for reception of communications by the general public of stations operating on Amateur frequencies, it is encrypted other wise which is a violation of FCC rules governing the Amateur service. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: New Mode proposal "Jamtor Iv"
That's true, but how do you propose to overcome it? Prohibit outboard hardware? Set an upper bound on the sales price of outboard hardware? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "palmdalesteve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Protocols should be published, and encryption has no place on the > > amateur bands. > > Encryption is not only physical devices, it can also be economic > barriers, which is what we have in use in a proprietary such as PTIII. > > I guess that serious consideration will have to be given to releasing > JAMTOR IV details under the GPL. > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: New Mode proposal "Jamtor Iv"
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Protocols should be published, and encryption has no place on the > amateur bands. Encryption is not only physical devices, it can also be economic barriers, which is what we have in use in a proprietary such as PTIII. I guess that serious consideration will have to be given to releasing JAMTOR IV details under the GPL. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: New Mode proposal "Jamtor Iv"
Protocols should be published, and encryption has no place on the amateur bands. Requiring automatic digital mode stations to periodically ID in CW wouldn't be a bad idea either. We should not, however, be limited to protocols implementable with software running on a Windows PC with a soundcard just because that's what most digital operators happen to use. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "palmdalesteve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Clever, Steve, but demonization is counterproductive. If Winlink > > were to implement effective "listen before transmit", its operators > > should enjoy the same access to amateur spectrum as any other ham. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > So are you saying that JAMTOR IV should release enough information so > that others can build software based decoders for our traffic, thereby > insuring that it open for all to see the traffic and insure it is not > being used for commercial purposes, which rightly belong on commercial > frequencies, also making our operations patently illegal? > > OK...Right after other proprietary modes in use do so. > > Or maybe we can limit our bandwidth to something like 1 KHz or > something like that? > > Or maybe listen before we transmit? > > I'm all for that stuff in JAMTOR IV, right after others implement it. > > Cheers > Steve > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] New Mode proposal "Jamtor Iv"
> > Please feel free to add to the list of "helpful" features which should > be incorporated into Jamtor™ at some point in the future. How about some real world 21st century RF modes using 9 KHz or 12 KHz data channels? None of those 1980's restrictions using mere 3 KHz. from: http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/gs/MDM_Q9604.html?smenu=101 --- "Rockwell Collins' MDM-Q9604 high-speed four-channel HF data modem is capable of transmitting data over a standard 3 kHz SSB (Single Sideband) at 9600 bps or a 6 kHz ISB (Independent Sideband) at 19200 bps. In addition, the MDM-Q9604 features three-channel (9 kHz bandwidth) and four-channel (12 kHz bandwidth) operation providing data rates up to 64000 bps in the four-channel mode." --- Oh wait - you're kidding aren't you... Seriously - there is, and must be, room for everybody and everything. Narrow band, SSB voice grade and a jungle area for real modern experimentation. Our true strength is in our diversity... 73 Bill - WA7NWP Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: New Mode proposal "Jamtor Iv"
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Clever, Steve, but demonization is counterproductive. If Winlink > were to implement effective "listen before transmit", its operators > should enjoy the same access to amateur spectrum as any other ham. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ So are you saying that JAMTOR IV should release enough information so that others can build software based decoders for our traffic, thereby insuring that it open for all to see the traffic and insure it is not being used for commercial purposes, which rightly belong on commercial frequencies, also making our operations patently illegal? OK...Right after other proprietary modes in use do so. Or maybe we can limit our bandwidth to something like 1 KHz or something like that? Or maybe listen before we transmit? I'm all for that stuff in JAMTOR IV, right after others implement it. Cheers Steve Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: New Mode proposal "Jamtor Iv"
Clever, Steve, but demonization is counterproductive. If Winlink were to implement effective "listen before transmit", its operators should enjoy the same access to amateur spectrum as any other ham. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "palmdalesteve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm thinking about creating a new mode, let's call it Jamtor IV and > I need some help with the features of this new mode. By the way, > Jamtor is a product of "Tong in Cheek Industries". > > It's intended used to experimentally provide email over Amateur Radio > HF frequencies to impoverished retired Boomers as they cruise the US > in really big land yachts. The ARRL thinks this will be a growth use > of radio spectrum and bring lots of new blood into the hobby > > The "features" so far for Jamtor IV are the following: > > 1)Modulation scheme is a trade secret which is locked in a mason jar > kept in an underground vault guarded by "Ed". If you want to use > Jamtor you have to buy it from one of the authorized dealers and boy > these things are not going to be cheap, befitting the grand tradition > of land yachts, aging Boomers and the basic tenant of "He with the > most toys wins". > 2)Default bandwidth mode and rate has not been decided on, but the > guys from the Communications Think Tank are working on how to use the > most bandwidth possible, whoops I mean be the most efficient. > 3)We're trying to settle on a method of encryption, just in case > someone who does not have a land yacht happens to buy one of our > Jamtor modems and listens in to our communications. You know > ordering on line with the credit card is not all that safe without > encryption, and as part of the experiment we will be testing this > feature. > 4)We are working on a method of insuring that Jamtor always begins > to transmit on the desired frequency at a moments notice without > verifying that the frequency is not in use. As of now we can check > for other Jamtor signals, and they are the only ones that matter, to > us, so this is not high on our list of things to do. > 5)Our current link analysis has shown that Jamtor will tend to be > inefficient with poor SNR values; we are working with various > manufacturers to develop the necessary 10KW mobile amplifiers, however > there has been some concern expressed by OSHA on this topic and > glowing in the dark of the occupants of land yachts. But hey, no pain > no gain. > > Please feel free to add to the list of "helpful" features which should > be incorporated into Jamtor at some point in the future. > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
>>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 06:42 PM 1/20/06, you wrote: > >I'm not concerned with finding fall guys, John, I'm concerned with > >eliminating the problem. Maybe I just don't understand the size of this problem not being on PSK >>>Why do you assume that the victims are only PSK operators? There were reports here recently of Olivia operators being QRM'd by semi- automatic stations, and there have previously been reports of RTTY operators experiencing this QRM. If the ARRL proposal is adopted, phone operators will also learn to enjoy the experience. > >A fundamental principle of amateur radio is that no one owns a > >frequency. If I find a clear frequency, I should be able to use it > >without subsequent threat of QRM from remotely-controlled > >automatic stations that weren't QRV when I first checked. Like we both have pointed out before, this will not happen till we can copy someone with in 250 miles of are own QTH or their software can listen to every digital known to man >>>Perhaps my earlier example was insufficiently clear, John. Say you're in a RTTY QSO on 14080. An op in Kansas City comes up on 14080, hears nothing, and so activates a remotely-controlled automatic station located in San Francisco. You can hear the San Francisco station just fine; in fact, you can hear it much better than the DX you were working. You are QRM'd, and yet there was no requirement that you be able to copy someone within 250 miles of your QTH. In fact the opposite is true: the QRM occurs because you and the station in Kansas City couldn't hear each other. >snip< At the rate this is going there will be 68 new digital modes in 10 years. >>>There's quite a few already, particularly if you count all the SSTV variants. Why would having lots of new modes be a problem? Is there some upper limit on innovation? 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] New Mode proposal "Jamtor Iv"
I'm thinking about creating a new mode, let's call it Jamtor IV and I need some help with the features of this new mode. By the way, Jamtor is a product of "Tong in Cheek Industries". It's intended used to experimentally provide email over Amateur Radio HF frequencies to impoverished retired Boomers as they cruise the US in really big land yachts. The ARRL thinks this will be a growth use of radio spectrum and bring lots of new blood into the hobby The "features" so far for Jamtor IV are the following: 1) Modulation scheme is a trade secret which is locked in a mason jar kept in an underground vault guarded by "Ed". If you want to use Jamtor you have to buy it from one of the authorized dealers and boy these things are not going to be cheap, befitting the grand tradition of land yachts, aging Boomers and the basic tenant of "He with the most toys wins". 2) Default bandwidth mode and rate has not been decided on, but the guys from the Communications Think Tank are working on how to use the most bandwidth possible, whoops I mean be the most efficient. 3) We're trying to settle on a method of encryption, just in case someone who does not have a land yacht happens to buy one of our Jamtor modems and listens in to our communications. You know ordering on line with the credit card is not all that safe without encryption, and as part of the experiment we will be testing this feature. 4) We are working on a method of insuring that Jamtor always begins to transmit on the desired frequency at a moments notice without verifying that the frequency is not in use. As of now we can check for other Jamtor signals, and they are the only ones that matter, to us, so this is not high on our list of things to do. 5) Our current link analysis has shown that Jamtor will tend to be inefficient with poor SNR values; we are working with various manufacturers to develop the necessary 10KW mobile amplifiers, however there has been some concern expressed by OSHA on this topic and glowing in the dark of the occupants of land yachts. But hey, no pain no gain. Please feel free to add to the list of "helpful" features which should be incorporated into Jamtor at some point in the future. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
At 06:42 PM 1/20/06, you wrote: >I'm not concerned with finding fall guys, John, I'm concerned with >eliminating the problem. Maybe I just don't understand the size of this problem not being on PSK >A fundamental principle of amateur radio is that no one owns a >frequency. If I find a clear frequency, I should be able to use it >without subsequent threat of QRM from remotely-controlled automatic >stations that weren't QRV when I first checked. Like we both have pointed out before, this will not happen till we can copy someone with in 250 miles of are own QTH or their software can listen to every digital known to man >PSK31 and its successors are certainly stimulating more digital mode >QSOs. If you're thinking about this from the perspective of >frequency ownership, I can see how you'd view this trend negatively. >If you're thinking about technical innovation and the future of >amateur radio, however, the trend is undoubtedly positive. > >A reminder, John: the only automatic operations I would confine >to "a small part of the band" are those whose software is incapable >of listening before transmitting. > > 73, At the rate this is going there will be 68 new digital modes in 10 years. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
The FCC missive is just that -- a missive; its not a regulation. No
requirement to prevent interference is present in 97.221.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Then I am afraid that the author of the FCC missive re. this
> specific issue must be using a different English language
> dictionary than the rest of us.
>
> This text clearly states in common English language usage
> that the "control operator ... *must prevent* ... causing
> interference".
>
> What am I missing, please?
>
> "We do recognize the concerns of those who oppose the proposal on
> the basis of potential interference, and in response to these
> concerns we are limiting when automatic control can be employed.
> First, the control operator of the station that is connected to the
> automatically controlled station must prevent the automatically
> controlled station from causing interference."
>
>
> > Actually, Doc, those are expressly legal under 97.221. The FCC's
> > rationale (the URL for which I posted earlier) clearly
acknowledges
> > the potential for interference. They challenged us to find ways
to
> > mitigate this interference, but did not make interference
mitigation
> > a prerequisite to operation under 97.221.
> >
> > The demonstratrable failure to mitigate interference from
operation
> > on 97.221 makes a very strong case against the elimination of
> > constraints on semi-automatic operation. The primary constraint
I
> > would impose is "listen before you transmit"; in the absence of
> > that, "stay within these sub-bands".
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dave, AA6YQ
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And those are plainly illegal and always have been.
> >>
> >> As President Bush said to terrorists cynically proposing
> >> a "truce", "We don't negotiate with terrorists, we put
> >> them out of business."
> >>
> >> According to the FCC and Amateur Radio tradition we don't
> >> reward illegal ops with special band segments, we shut
> >> them down and reclaim the abused spectrum.
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >>
> >>> A reminder, John: the only automatic operations I would
confine
> >>> to "a small part of the band" are those whose software is
> > incapable
> >>> of listening before transmitting.
> >> --
> >> ~~
> >> Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
> >>
> >> |_|___|_|
> >> | | & | |
> >>{|
> >>/\ {|
> >> / \ {|
> >> /\{|
> >> / @ \ {|
> >> | |~_||
> >> | -| ||
> >> \ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
> >> KD4E =
> >> West Central Florida
> >>
> >> ~~~
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to
Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
> >
> > Other areas of interest:
> >
> > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan
policy discussion)
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ~~
> Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
>
> |_|___|_|
> | | & | |
>{|
>/\ {|
> / \ {|
> /\{|
> / @ \ {|
> | |~_||
> | -| ||
> \ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
> KD4E =
> West Central Florida
>
> ~~~
>
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Then I am afraid that the author of the FCC missive re. this
specific issue must be using a different English language
dictionary than the rest of us.
This text clearly states in common English language usage
that the "control operator ... *must prevent* ... causing
interference".
What am I missing, please?
"We do recognize the concerns of those who oppose the proposal on
the basis of potential interference, and in response to these
concerns we are limiting when automatic control can be employed.
First, the control operator of the station that is connected to the
automatically controlled station must prevent the automatically
controlled station from causing interference."
> Actually, Doc, those are expressly legal under 97.221. The FCC's
> rationale (the URL for which I posted earlier) clearly acknowledges
> the potential for interference. They challenged us to find ways to
> mitigate this interference, but did not make interference mitigation
> a prerequisite to operation under 97.221.
>
> The demonstratrable failure to mitigate interference from operation
> on 97.221 makes a very strong case against the elimination of
> constraints on semi-automatic operation. The primary constraint I
> would impose is "listen before you transmit"; in the absence of
> that, "stay within these sub-bands".
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And those are plainly illegal and always have been.
>>
>> As President Bush said to terrorists cynically proposing
>> a "truce", "We don't negotiate with terrorists, we put
>> them out of business."
>>
>> According to the FCC and Amateur Radio tradition we don't
>> reward illegal ops with special band segments, we shut
>> them down and reclaim the abused spectrum.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>> A reminder, John: the only automatic operations I would confine
>>> to "a small part of the band" are those whose software is
> incapable
>>> of listening before transmitting.
>> --
>> ~~
>> Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
>>
>> |_|___|_|
>> | | & | |
>>{|
>>/\ {|
>> / \ {|
>> /\{|
>> / @ \ {|
>> | |~_||
>> | -| ||
>> \ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
>> KD4E =
>> West Central Florida
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
~~
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
|_|___|_|
| | & | |
{|
/\ {|
/ \ {|
/\{|
/ @ \ {|
| |~_||
| -| ||
\ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
KD4E =
West Central Florida
~~~
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Actually, Doc, those are expressly legal under 97.221. The FCC's
rationale (the URL for which I posted earlier) clearly acknowledges
the potential for interference. They challenged us to find ways to
mitigate this interference, but did not make interference mitigation
a prerequisite to operation under 97.221.
The demonstratrable failure to mitigate interference from operation
on 97.221 makes a very strong case against the elimination of
constraints on semi-automatic operation. The primary constraint I
would impose is "listen before you transmit"; in the absence of
that, "stay within these sub-bands".
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And those are plainly illegal and always have been.
>
> As President Bush said to terrorists cynically proposing
> a "truce", "We don't negotiate with terrorists, we put
> them out of business."
>
> According to the FCC and Amateur Radio tradition we don't
> reward illegal ops with special band segments, we shut
> them down and reclaim the abused spectrum.
>
> ;-)
>
> > A reminder, John: the only automatic operations I would confine
> > to "a small part of the band" are those whose software is
incapable
> > of listening before transmitting.
>
> --
> ~~
> Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
>
> |_|___|_|
> | | & | |
>{|
>/\ {|
> / \ {|
> /\{|
> / @ \ {|
> | |~_||
> | -| ||
> \ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
> KD4E =
> West Central Florida
>
> ~~~
>
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
And those are plainly illegal and always have been.
As President Bush said to terrorists cynically proposing
a "truce", "We don't negotiate with terrorists, we put
them out of business."
According to the FCC and Amateur Radio tradition we don't
reward illegal ops with special band segments, we shut
them down and reclaim the abused spectrum.
;-)
> A reminder, John: the only automatic operations I would confine
> to "a small part of the band" are those whose software is incapable
> of listening before transmitting.
--
~~
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
|_|___|_|
| | & | |
{|
/\ {|
/ \ {|
/\{|
/ @ \ {|
| |~_||
| -| ||
\ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
KD4E =
West Central Florida
~~~
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
I'm not concerned with finding fall guys, John, I'm concerned with eliminating the problem. A fundamental principle of amateur radio is that no one owns a frequency. If I find a clear frequency, I should be able to use it without subsequent threat of QRM from remotely-controlled automatic stations that weren't QRV when I first checked. PSK31 and its successors are certainly stimulating more digital mode QSOs. If you're thinking about this from the perspective of frequency ownership, I can see how you'd view this trend negatively. If you're thinking about technical innovation and the future of amateur radio, however, the trend is undoubtedly positive. A reminder, John: the only automatic operations I would confine to "a small part of the band" are those whose software is incapable of listening before transmitting. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All that says is that the SYSOP can not be the > fall guy because a *remote* operator started that > system with a on-going QSO on the frequency. > > And that is the way it should be. > > There was not a problem till PSK31 hit the air waves. > What about taking it out on the guy that picked a > frequency right in the mist of all those pactor stations. > > No way! be better to put them in a very small part of the > band (so you think) > > > At 05:21 PM 1/20/06, you wrote: > >Its been that way since 1995, when 97.221 was introduced. If > >adopted, the ARRL's proposal will make it much worse. I am dealing > >with it by doing everything I can to convince the FCC to reject the > >ARRL proposal. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
All that says is that the SYSOP can not be the fall guy because a *remote* operator started that system with a on-going QSO on the frequency. And that is the way it should be. There was not a problem till PSK31 hit the air waves. What about taking it out on the guy that picked a frequency right in the mist of all those pactor stations. No way! be better to put them in a very small part of the band (so you think) At 05:21 PM 1/20/06, you wrote: >Its been that way since 1995, when 97.221 was introduced. If >adopted, the ARRL's proposal will make it much worse. I am dealing >with it by doing everything I can to convince the FCC to reject the >ARRL proposal. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Its been that way since 1995, when 97.221 was introduced. If adopted, the ARRL's proposal will make it much worse. I am dealing with it by doing everything I can to convince the FCC to reject the ARRL proposal. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah I agree with you 1000% Dave. > that the way it works and has for a very long long > time. Put on your big boy shorts and deal with it. > > > > At 10:31 PM 1/19/06, you wrote: > >If you can't hear them, likely they can't hear you either, John. The > >simple case you cite is rarely a problem. > > > >With remotely-controlled automatic operation, the situation is more > >problematic. Say you're remotely controlling a station in Boston on > >a frequency already in use by a station in Kansas City. You can't > >hear the station in Kansas City, so you direct the automaticly- > >controlled Boston station to proceed. When the Boston-based station > >transmits, it QRMs the station in Kansas City, who (unfortunately) > >hears the automatic station just as well as you do. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > At 10:09 PM 1/19/06, you wrote: > > > >Has the FCC waived the responsibility to avoid QRMing > > > >a station already on frequency? > > > > > > > > > Yes if they can hear them. Key word being " can " > > > > > > But as you know it is very hard to copy someone close > > > to you on some bands. Here at his QTH I have a ring > > > going out to about 250 miles that I can not copy. > > > > > > Me near St Louis can not copy someone on the same frequency > > > in Kansas City. > > > > > > And it seem that some seem to forget this fact. > > > > > > John, W0JAB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > >Other areas of interest: > > > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
If the amateur service is really interested in becoming telecom providers we should investigate the use of out-of-band signaling as a method for maximizing the use of the spectrum for data transmission. There are two ways of doing this. One would be to have a protocol which would use a 500hz channel (e.g. 300-800hz audio) for data and an upper channel (e.g. 2000-2500hz) for control purposes. Each time the rig is in receive mode it would listen on the control channel for stations wishing to converse, for error messages from the station in QSO, for adaptive bandwidth control messages, etc. The actual data transfer would occur in the lower 500hz band. This could be used by a trunk switch station to build a station connection queue, to transmit the current queue while also transmitting data on the lower channels (waiting stations would know they were heard), to transmit control messages, etc. Another method would be to designate a control channel that a second receiver would be tied to that would accept only control messages. Again, these could be things like connection requests, error messages, control messages, etc. The control channel would be a narrow, pre-published frequency for each trunk switch station. Significantly higher spectrum usage levels could be maintained with such operation. Coupled with good busy detection we would be able to move the amateur bands much closer to being adequate competitors to telecom providers. tim ab0wr On Friday 20 January 2006 15:59, Dave Bernstein wrote: > Busy frequency detection is at the proof-of-concept stage; it has > not been deployed. The proposal to restrict automatic operation to > sub-bands until "listen-before-transmit" technology is deployed both > recognizes and encourages the desired transition, and eliminates the > need for further regulatory change. Any service using automatic > operation could escape from the sub-bands by implementing "listen- > before-transmit". > > Last summer, I proposed this approach to Tom K1KI, my ARRL Director; > he promised to discuss it with his peers. Taking Tom at his word, > ARRL officers are aware of the opportunity. > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > Sadly, the ARRL is usually behind in their suggestions to rules. > > They seem > > > to want something in concrete, and already in use, before they > > will fully > > > support it. I too think the auto detection should be required, > > but since > > > its not in general use, I dont know how many of the ARRL officers > > are even > > > aware of its availability. I know I wouldnt be, if I were not a > > member of > > > this group and had never read about it anywhere else. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:22 AM > > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies > > > > > With the current state of the art, as exemplified by the beta > > testing of > > > > SCAMP, it is completely proven that monitoring of the channel > > can be > > > > done by machine, in order to prevent transmission on a busy > > channel. It > > > > doesn't even scan anything as it is able to detect any > > modulation in the > > > > pass band. Even a continuous carrier, even if very weak will > > block > > > > transmission unless the human operator intervenes. Same with > > other > > > > modulation types, including voice. > > > > > > In some cases the detected "signal" can be an internal birdie, > > some odd > > > > spurs, etc. that are not a legitimate signal. The software can be > > > adjusted for different settings to trigger only if the signals > > are below > > > > a certain point. > > > > > > There has to be the ability of the operator to make some > > adjustments or > > > > you might never be able to transmit. That was my experience > > during the > > > > beta testing. You have to take into consideration those signals > > that may > > > > trigger the detector if you have a wider passband and a nearby > > signal is > > > > affecting the software even though it is outside your signal > > width. > > > > Better filters will help of course but not everyone has them. > > > > > > I am disappointed that the ARRL did not recommend automatic > > detection to > > > > the requirements for both automatic and semi-automatic stations. > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > kd4e wrote: > > > > So, I am correct that the requirement to not QRM has > > > > not been waived, that all stations that QRM are in > > > > violation of FCC regs, and that busy freq. detection > > > > is an obvious solution with tons of history to prove > > > > itself reliable. > > > > > > > > I do understand that apps would have to scan for a > > > > variety of modes but that should not be difficult > > > > given their proprietary hardware and software and > > > > the commercial motivation to remain legal. > > > > > > > > Sounds lik
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Yeah I agree with you 1000% Dave. that the way it works and has for a very long long time. Put on your big boy shorts and deal with it. At 10:31 PM 1/19/06, you wrote: >If you can't hear them, likely they can't hear you either, John. The >simple case you cite is rarely a problem. > >With remotely-controlled automatic operation, the situation is more >problematic. Say you're remotely controlling a station in Boston on >a frequency already in use by a station in Kansas City. You can't >hear the station in Kansas City, so you direct the automaticly- >controlled Boston station to proceed. When the Boston-based station >transmits, it QRMs the station in Kansas City, who (unfortunately) >hears the automatic station just as well as you do. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > At 10:09 PM 1/19/06, you wrote: > > >Has the FCC waived the responsibility to avoid QRMing > > >a station already on frequency? > > > > > > Yes if they can hear them. Key word being " can " > > > > But as you know it is very hard to copy someone close > > to you on some bands. Here at his QTH I have a ring > > going out to about 250 miles that I can not copy. > > > > Me near St Louis can not copy someone on the same frequency > > in Kansas City. > > > > And it seem that some seem to forget this fact. > > > > John, W0JAB > > > > > > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >Other areas of interest: > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re WSJT
How about UI-View and Rig expert. I can't get that to work ether. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Sound Cards ?
I'm new here, trying to get some knowledge before I try some digital modes. My PC has an onboard soundcard, but I would like to install a sound card. Any reccomendations, or cards I should avoid? Was considering a Creative Labs card ... anyone here using either a Audigy 2 Value SB0400, or the Soundblaster Live 24 bit? Thanks for the info.. 73, Clint WS1V __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] WSJT
To answer your question Murray Rig expert doesn't support wsjt or domino ex unfortunately. I have mine running as a virtual sound card, it works fine on multipsk and stream, if you look into config on these two programs you get the choice of rig expert or your computer sound card and of course runs along with mixw. Hope that has been of some help. 73 Graeme Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Busy frequency detection is at the proof-of-concept stage; it has not been deployed. The proposal to restrict automatic operation to sub-bands until "listen-before-transmit" technology is deployed both recognizes and encourages the desired transition, and eliminates the need for further regulatory change. Any service using automatic operation could escape from the sub-bands by implementing "listen- before-transmit". Last summer, I proposed this approach to Tom K1KI, my ARRL Director; he promised to discuss it with his peers. Taking Tom at his word, ARRL officers are aware of the opportunity. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sadly, the ARRL is usually behind in their suggestions to rules. They seem > to want something in concrete, and already in use, before they will fully > support it. I too think the auto detection should be required, but since > its not in general use, I dont know how many of the ARRL officers are even > aware of its availability. I know I wouldnt be, if I were not a member of > this group and had never read about it anywhere else. > > - Original Message - > From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:22 AM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies > > > > With the current state of the art, as exemplified by the beta testing of > > SCAMP, it is completely proven that monitoring of the channel can be > > done by machine, in order to prevent transmission on a busy channel. It > > doesn't even scan anything as it is able to detect any modulation in the > > pass band. Even a continuous carrier, even if very weak will block > > transmission unless the human operator intervenes. Same with other > > modulation types, including voice. > > > > In some cases the detected "signal" can be an internal birdie, some odd > > spurs, etc. that are not a legitimate signal. The software can be > > adjusted for different settings to trigger only if the signals are below > > a certain point. > > > > There has to be the ability of the operator to make some adjustments or > > you might never be able to transmit. That was my experience during the > > beta testing. You have to take into consideration those signals that may > > trigger the detector if you have a wider passband and a nearby signal is > > affecting the software even though it is outside your signal width. > > Better filters will help of course but not everyone has them. > > > > I am disappointed that the ARRL did not recommend automatic detection to > > the requirements for both automatic and semi-automatic stations. > > > > 73, > > > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > > > > > > > kd4e wrote: > > > > > So, I am correct that the requirement to not QRM has > > > not been waived, that all stations that QRM are in > > > violation of FCC regs, and that busy freq. detection > > > is an obvious solution with tons of history to prove > > > itself reliable. > > > > > > I do understand that apps would have to scan for a > > > variety of modes but that should not be difficult > > > given their proprietary hardware and software and > > > the commercial motivation to remain legal. > > > > > > Sounds like all that needs to happen is a one line > > > instruction from the FCC: > > > > > > "All Ham ops are reminded that all new QSO's using > > > any mode must not QRM existing QSO's regardless of > > > the mode of that QSO and the failure to do so remains > > > a violation risking fines and license and equipment > > > forfeiture." > > > > > > And perhaps a second line notifying that commercial > > > hardware and/or software marketed to the Ham market as > > > "automatic" or "unattended" must demonstrate a non- > > > removable capacity to meet the non-QRM requirement > > > via busy-frequency checking or fail in Type Approval > > > and that existing hardware/software must be retrofitted > > > or removed from the market. > > > > > > Anyone owning older equipment unable to be retrofitted > > > should be reminded by the FCC that they must manually > > > check for existing activity or be subject to QRM > > > action. > > > > > > Does that about cover it? ;-) > > > > > > Thanks & 73, kd4e > > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > > Other areas of interest: > > > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy > discussion) > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release Date: 1/19/2006 > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band pla
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Sadly, the ARRL is usually behind in their suggestions to rules. They seem to want something in concrete, and already in use, before they will fully support it. I too think the auto detection should be required, but since its not in general use, I dont know how many of the ARRL officers are even aware of its availability. I know I wouldnt be, if I were not a member of this group and had never read about it anywhere else. - Original Message - From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies > With the current state of the art, as exemplified by the beta testing of > SCAMP, it is completely proven that monitoring of the channel can be > done by machine, in order to prevent transmission on a busy channel. It > doesn't even scan anything as it is able to detect any modulation in the > pass band. Even a continuous carrier, even if very weak will block > transmission unless the human operator intervenes. Same with other > modulation types, including voice. > > In some cases the detected "signal" can be an internal birdie, some odd > spurs, etc. that are not a legitimate signal. The software can be > adjusted for different settings to trigger only if the signals are below > a certain point. > > There has to be the ability of the operator to make some adjustments or > you might never be able to transmit. That was my experience during the > beta testing. You have to take into consideration those signals that may > trigger the detector if you have a wider passband and a nearby signal is > affecting the software even though it is outside your signal width. > Better filters will help of course but not everyone has them. > > I am disappointed that the ARRL did not recommend automatic detection to > the requirements for both automatic and semi-automatic stations. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > kd4e wrote: > > > So, I am correct that the requirement to not QRM has > > not been waived, that all stations that QRM are in > > violation of FCC regs, and that busy freq. detection > > is an obvious solution with tons of history to prove > > itself reliable. > > > > I do understand that apps would have to scan for a > > variety of modes but that should not be difficult > > given their proprietary hardware and software and > > the commercial motivation to remain legal. > > > > Sounds like all that needs to happen is a one line > > instruction from the FCC: > > > > "All Ham ops are reminded that all new QSO's using > > any mode must not QRM existing QSO's regardless of > > the mode of that QSO and the failure to do so remains > > a violation risking fines and license and equipment > > forfeiture." > > > > And perhaps a second line notifying that commercial > > hardware and/or software marketed to the Ham market as > > "automatic" or "unattended" must demonstrate a non- > > removable capacity to meet the non-QRM requirement > > via busy-frequency checking or fail in Type Approval > > and that existing hardware/software must be retrofitted > > or removed from the market. > > > > Anyone owning older equipment unable to be retrofitted > > should be reminded by the FCC that they must manually > > check for existing activity or be subject to QRM > > action. > > > > Does that about cover it? ;-) > > > > Thanks & 73, kd4e > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Other areas of interest: > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release Date: 1/19/2006 > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
With the current state of the art, as exemplified by the beta testing of SCAMP, it is completely proven that monitoring of the channel can be done by machine, in order to prevent transmission on a busy channel. It doesn't even scan anything as it is able to detect any modulation in the pass band. Even a continuous carrier, even if very weak will block transmission unless the human operator intervenes. Same with other modulation types, including voice. In some cases the detected "signal" can be an internal birdie, some odd spurs, etc. that are not a legitimate signal. The software can be adjusted for different settings to trigger only if the signals are below a certain point. There has to be the ability of the operator to make some adjustments or you might never be able to transmit. That was my experience during the beta testing. You have to take into consideration those signals that may trigger the detector if you have a wider passband and a nearby signal is affecting the software even though it is outside your signal width. Better filters will help of course but not everyone has them. I am disappointed that the ARRL did not recommend automatic detection to the requirements for both automatic and semi-automatic stations. 73, Rick, KV9U kd4e wrote: > So, I am correct that the requirement to not QRM has > not been waived, that all stations that QRM are in > violation of FCC regs, and that busy freq. detection > is an obvious solution with tons of history to prove > itself reliable. > > I do understand that apps would have to scan for a > variety of modes but that should not be difficult > given their proprietary hardware and software and > the commercial motivation to remain legal. > > Sounds like all that needs to happen is a one line > instruction from the FCC: > > "All Ham ops are reminded that all new QSO's using > any mode must not QRM existing QSO's regardless of > the mode of that QSO and the failure to do so remains > a violation risking fines and license and equipment > forfeiture." > > And perhaps a second line notifying that commercial > hardware and/or software marketed to the Ham market as > "automatic" or "unattended" must demonstrate a non- > removable capacity to meet the non-QRM requirement > via busy-frequency checking or fail in Type Approval > and that existing hardware/software must be retrofitted > or removed from the market. > > Anyone owning older equipment unable to be retrofitted > should be reminded by the FCC that they must manually > check for existing activity or be subject to QRM > action. > > Does that about cover it? ;-) > > Thanks & 73, kd4e > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re WSJT
Hi Graeme, Well the RigExpert premise is a good one in that everything is isolated outside the PC case to eliminate the ground loops, high frequency noise, jitter etc., but that sample clock and inability to handle CAT control with wave out always open are issues. As they designed it for direct use with DigiPan and MixW with their lower sample clocks the unit is great, but trying to use it with third party software and the REAUDIO driver its not so great. I recently created a new version of MARS-ALE that works back down at an 8Khz sample clock so the MARS members that have the units can use them as it was just a no go at 48Khz. I have yet to make any changes to the code to address the CAT control issue when its selected as the audio output device as that application is in the class of always having wave out open. /s/ Steve, N2CKH www.n2ckh.com At 06:12 PM 1/19/2006, you wrote: >Thankyou for the info Steve as to why wsjt and rig expert aren't >compatible, I guess this is the reason I can't run Domino EX as well. >Out comes the H/brew interface and the old computer. >You know prior to computers we never had problems like we experience >now. >73 >Graeme > > > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >Other areas of interest: > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
